Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
PACKET Public Works, Utilities and Public Safety 2012-04-12
Preparation date: April 2, 2012 * Revision date: 04/05/12 NOTE: The Public Safety, Utilities and Public Works Committee reserves the right to consider other appropriate items not available at the time the agenda was prepared. AGENDA TOWN OF ESTES PARK PUBLIC SAFETY, UTILITIES & PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE April 12, 2012 8:00 a.m. Board Room, Town Hall 1. PUBLIC COMMENT 2. PUBLIC SAFETY a) RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE TOWN BOARD i) None. b) REPORTS i) Verbal updates and Committee questions. 3. UTILITIES a) RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE TOWN BOARD i) Light & Power Service Center Roof Replacement. Superintendent Steichen. ii) Allenspark Circuit Upgrade. Superintendent Steichen. iii) Water Conservation Plan. Director Bergsten & Sarah Clark/HDR. iv) Land Purchase Agreement for Kiowa Water Tank and Water Fixture Agreement. Director Bergsten & Superintendent Boles. v) GIS Consulting Contract. Director Bergsten. b) REPORTS i) Replace HPS Highway Lighting with LED. Superintendent Steichen. ii) 2012 Revised IT Capital Expenditures. Superintendent Fraundorf. 4. PUBLIC WORKS a) RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE TOWN BOARD i) None. b) REPORTS. i) Verbal updates and Committee questions. 5. ADJOURN * * Light & Power Department Memo To: Public Safety, Utilities & Public Works Committee Interim Town Administrator Richardson From: Todd J. Steichen, Light & Power Line Superintendent Date: April 12, 2012 RE: Light & Power Service Center Roof Replacement Background: In September 2003, staff became aware the painted metal roof on the L&P service center, located at 615 Elm Road, was in need of repair. Staff checked on the warranty, which was almost expired, and was able to collect a small amount of warranty funds to help offset the repainting cost. The type of painted metal roof originally installed was not designed to be bare metal. This problem, in addition to the improper original installation, has lead to the roof deterioration and leak issues. In 2003, due to the low level of available funds, it was determined to proceed with the short-term fix of repainting the roof verses replacement. Estes Park Painting won the bid to repaint the roof and reiterated that repainting the roof was only a temporary fix to the problem. In 2011, due to peeling and leaking of the repainted roof, staff had five contractors examine the roof, three of which submitted bids for replacement. 1. Anomaly Roofing $72,103.04 2. Apex Roofing Co $44,200.00 3. Majestic Roofing LLC $50,185.00 Budget: Account # 502-7001-580.32-22 for building remodeling contains $60,000.00 for the roof replacement. Recommendation: Staff recommends awarding the low bid of $44,200.00 for the Light & Power Service Center Roof Replacement to Apex Roofing Company, to be included on the Consent Agenda at the April 24th, 2012 Town Board meeting. NEW ROOF ON L&P BUILDINGCAMP APPLICATIONDepartment:Light & PowerTitle_Project:NEW ROOF ON L&P BUILDINGOther Departments Or Entities:Useful Life:20Capital Program: YesJustification:Replace roof which passed its useful lifeCommunity Participation:NoProject Manager:T. SteichenEst. Const. Start:1/3/2012Est. Completion Date:12/14/2012Project Description: Replace roof which passed its useful life with a number of small leaks and loss of surface treatment.PROJECT INFORMATIONCURRENT PROJECT COSTSPlanning, Design, Engineering: $0Land Purchase: $0Labor and Materials: $60,000Project Management: $0Legal: $0PLANNED FUNDINGOther: $0Fund SourceLight & PowerFuture OM Expense: $0Total Funding: $60,000TotalCost: $60,000Contingency Percentage:0$60,000FirstYrCosts:2ndYrCosts:3rdYrCosts:4thYrCosts:5thYrCosts:6thYrCosts:7thYrCosts:8thYrCosts:9thYrCosts:10thYrCosts:This table shows expenditures that will reoccur annually OR multiyear projects. If there are varying annual costs, funding and/or OM expenes additional applications will exist for each year Memo Light & Power Department To: Public Safety, Utilities & Public Works Committee Interim Town Administrator Richardson From: Todd J. Steichen, Light & Power Line Superintendent Date: April 12, 2012 RE: Allenspark Circuit Upgrade Background: This project continues the rebuilding of the radial three phase main line feeder circuit to Allenspark and was included in the last long-range plan done by ESC. In 1991, the line was rebuilt from the Marys Lake Substation to Baldpate Inn. In 1998, the line was rebuilt from Baldpate Inn to Longs Peak Road. In 2002, the line was rebuilt from Longs Peak Road to St. Malo. The rest of the Allenspark feeder circuit is past its useful life and is in need of rebuilding. We are continuing the use of "tree" cable which is more reliable, more wildlife-friendly and more fire-safe in case of a downed line. We received five responses to our request for bids: 1. Hamlin Electric $486,249.23 2. Par Electric $720,069.69 3. Selcon Utility $418,002.50 4. Sturgeon Electric $433,115.92 5. Ward Electric Declined to bid due to current workload Budget: Account # 502-7001-580.35-57 Overhead Lines contains $688,000.00 for the Allenspark Circuit Upgrade 2012. This is a 2012 budgeted capital project. Recommendation: Staff recommends to the Town Board awarding the contract to Selcon Utility for the Allenspark Circuit Upgrade 2012, to be included on the Consent Agenda at the April 24th, 2012 Town Board meeting. Allenspark Circuit O.H. Line Rebuild/Upgrade phase 1CAMP APPLICATIONDepartment:Light & PowerTitle_Project:Allenspark Circuit O.H. Line Rebuild/Upgrade phase 1Other Departments Or Entities: N/AUseful Life:50Capital Program: YesJustification:Master Plan upgrade to increase reliabilityCommunity Participation:NoProject Manager:Todd SteichenEst. Const. Start:1/3/2012Est. Completion Date:9/24/2012Project Description: This is to continue the rebuilding of the radial feed three phase main line to Allenspark. This was in the last long range plan done by ESC which went from 1996 to 2006. In 1991 the line was rebuilt from the Substation to Baldpate. In 1998 the line was rebuilt from Baldpate to Longs Peak Rd. in 2002 the line was rebuilt from Longs Peak Rd. to St. Malo. The rest of the line to Allenspark is past its useful life and is in desperate need of rebuilding. This section of line is experiencing more outages than we like to see due to line failures. This project will be rebuilt with tree/wildlife cable which will result in more reliable service, improve wildlife protection and reduce fire danger. We are proposing to rebuild the section from St. Malo to Wild Basin in 2012.PROJECT INFORMATIONCURRENT PROJECT COSTSPlanning, Design, Engineering: $25,000Land Purchase: $0Labor and Materials: $600,000Project Management: $0Legal: $3,000PLANNED FUNDINGOther: $0Fund SourceLight & PowerFuture OM Expense: $0Total Funding: $628,000TotalCost: $628,000Contingency Percentage:0$628,000FirstYrCosts:2ndYrCosts:3rdYrCosts:4thYrCosts:5thYrCosts:6thYrCosts:7thYrCosts:8thYrCosts:9thYrCosts:10thYrCosts:This table shows expenditures that will reoccur annually OR multiyear projects. If there are varying annual costs, funding and/or OM expenes additional applications will exist for each year Light & Power Department Memo To: Public Safety, Utilities & Public Works (PUP) Committee Lowell Richardson, Interim Town Administrator From: R. Bergsten, Utilities Director Sarah Clark, Senior Project Manager, HDR, Inc. Jeff Boles, Water Superintendent Diana Beehler, Water Quality Manager Date: April 12, 2012 RE: Water Conservation Plan Background: The Town received a Colorado Water Conservation Board (CWCB) grant of $34,075 for the development of an approved water conservation plan (February 2011 PUP Committee). In order to be "approved" our plan must comply with the Colorado Water Conservation Act of 2004 and adhere to the "Water Conservation Plan Development Guidance Document" from the CWCB. The Town and HDR, Inc. have completed the plan and it is being presented for adoption by the Town Board. Adoption of this plan does not bind the Town to implementation expenditures. Grant funding for implementation is available from CWCB and if we do pursue implementation of the larger capital projects the water department will apply for those grant funds. Applications for funding from the State are contingent upon having an approved Conservation Plan. For most cities in Colorado the easiest way to conserve is by reducing lawn irrigation; however, Estes Park does not fit that model because there are very few landscaped yards. Using the process outlined in the CWCB guidance document we documented a number of conservation measures but not all of them were recommended. Our final recommended conservation measures are categorized into four areas (Table 6-1): 1. Demand-Side Measures (DM) a. Water-Saving Fixtures b. Town Irrigation System Improvements ($9,600) 2. Supply-Side Measures (SM) a. Third Stage Treatment at MLWTP ($606,800) b. Bleeder Automation ($41,100) 3. Demand Side Programs (DP) a. Town Website 4. Supply-Side Programs (SP), a. Customer Meter Testing and Replacement b. Leak Detection and Repair c. Tracking of Breaks and Repairs Implementation of this Water Conservation Plan will directly benefit the Water Department customers through cost savings from increased utilization of Marys Lake Water Treatment Plant and lower energy expenses from reduced heating, pumping, and treating water. Additionally, promoting good stewardship by educating customers about the value of water has the benefit of protecting and preserving environmental resources. Budget: N/A, funding for this work was completed in 2011 Recommendation: Staff recommends acceptance of the Water Conservation Plan, to be included on the consent agenda at the April 24, 2012, Town Board meeting Potable Water Demand Projection i Table of Contents 1.0 Introduction ........................................................................................................................ 1 2.0 Existing Water System Profile ........................................................................................... 1 2.1 Physical Characteristics of Existing Water System ............................................................................ 2 2.2 Sources of Water ................................................................................................................................ 6 2.3 System Limitations .............................................................................................................................. 7 2.4 Water Costs and Pricing ..................................................................................................................... 7 2.5 Current Policies and Planning Initiatives .......................................................................................... 10 2.6 Current Water Conservation Activities.............................................................................................. 11 3.0 Historic Water Use and Demand Forecast ......................................................................12 3.1 Service Area Population ................................................................................................................... 12 3.1.1 Permanent Population ............................................................................................................... 12 3.1.2 Transient Population ................................................................................................................. 14 3.1.3 Non-Transient Population .......................................................................................................... 16 3.1.4 Wholesale Population ................................................................................................................ 16 3.1.5 Other Populations Not Included in Projections .......................................................................... 16 3.1.6 Population Growth Rate Projections ......................................................................................... 17 3.2 Potable Water Demand .................................................................................................................... 18 3.2.1 Historic Treatment Plant Production ......................................................................................... 18 3.2.2 Per Capita Usage ...................................................................................................................... 19 3.3 Buildout Conditions ........................................................................................................................... 21 3.4 Potable Water Demand Projections ................................................................................................. 22 3.5 Conclusion ........................................................................................................................................ 25 4.0 Profile Proposed Facilities ...............................................................................................25 4.1 Identify and Cost Potential Facility Needs ........................................................................................ 25 4.1.1 MWTP Improvements ................................................................................................................ 25 4.1.2 GWTP Replacement ................................................................................................................. 26 4.1.3 System Water Storage Improvements ...................................................................................... 26 4.1.4 Distribution System Improvements ........................................................................................... 26 4.1.5 Improvements Schedule ............................................................................................................ 27 4.2 Prepare an Incremental Cost Analysis ............................................................................................. 29 5.0 Identify Conservation Goals .............................................................................................29 6.0 Identify Conservation Measures and Programs ..............................................................30 6.1 Identify Conservation Measures and Programs ............................................................................... 30 6.1.1 Water-Saving Fixtures (DM) ...................................................................................................... 30 6.1.2 Town Irrigation System Improvements (DM) ............................................................................. 31 6.1.3 Third Stage Treatment at MWTP (SM) ..................................................................................... 31 6.1.4 Bleeder Automation (SM) .......................................................................................................... 32 6.1.5 Pressure Zone Management (SM) ............................................................................................ 32 6.1.6 Water Audits for Top Customers (DP) ...................................................................................... 33 6.1.7 Elementary Education Program (DP) ........................................................................................ 33 6.1.8 Drought Plans and Rates (DP) .................................................................................................. 33 6.1.9 Modify Rate Structure by Meter Size (DP) ................................................................................ 34 6.1.10 Time of Upgrade and Time of Sale (DP) ................................................................................. 34 6.1.11 Multi-family Residential Unit Metering (DP) ............................................................................ 34 6.1.12 Town Website (DP) ................................................................................................................. 34 6.1.13 Customer Meter Testing and Replacement (SP) .................................................................... 34 6.1.14 Leak Detection and Repair (SP).............................................................................................. 35 6.1.15 Tracking of Breaks and Repairs (SP) ...................................................................................... 35 Potable Water Demand Projection ii 6.2 Develop and Define Screening Criteria ............................................................................................ 35 6.3 Screen Conservation Measures and Programs ............................................................................... 36 7.0 Evaluate and Select Conservation Measures and Programs .........................................37 7.1 Capital and O&M Costs .................................................................................................................... 37 7.2 Potential Water Savings ................................................................................................................... 38 7.3 Cost Effectiveness ............................................................................................................................ 39 7.4 Summary of Benefits and Costs ....................................................................................................... 42 8.0 Integrate Resources and Modify Forecasts ....................................................................42 8.1 Revise Demand Forecast(s) ............................................................................................................. 42 8.2 Identify Project Specific Savings ...................................................................................................... 44 8.3 Revise Supply-Capacity Forecast(s) ................................................................................................ 44 8.4 Consider Revenue Effects ................................................................................................................ 44 9.0 Develop Implementation Plan ..........................................................................................45 9.1 Develop Implementation Schedule ................................................................................................... 45 9.2 Develop Plan for Public Participation in Implementation .................................................................. 45 9.3 Develop Plan for Monitoring and Evaluation Processes .................................................................. 46 9.4 Develop Plan for Updating and Revising the Conservation Plan ..................................................... 46 9.5 Define Plan Adoption Date/Plan Completed Date/Plan Approved Date .......................................... 46 10.0 Abbreviations ..................................................................................................................46 11.0 Appendix..........................................................................................................................47 Figures Figure 2-1 Existing Water System ................................................................................................................ 3 Figure 2-2 2006 Potable Water Usage ......................................................................................................... 5 Figure 3-1 Population Growth Trends ......................................................................................................... 13 Figure 3-2 Historic Annual Number of Visitors to Rocky Mountain National Park ...................................... 15 Figure 3-3 Seasonal Water Treatment Plant Production ............................................................................ 18 Figure 3-4 Historic Treatment Plant Production .......................................................................................... 19 Figure 3-5 2006 Potable Water Usage ....................................................................................................... 20 Figure 3-6 Peak Day Demand Projections .................................................................................................. 24 Figure 4-1 Plant Improvements Schedule Coordinated with Demand Projections ..................................... 28 Tables Table 2-1 Storage Facilities Inventory .......................................................................................................... 4 Table 2-2 Summary of the 2010 and 2011 Water Utility Rates .................................................................... 9 Table 2-3 3-Stage Conservation Plan Summary ........................................................................................ 10 Table 2-4 Summary of Water Restrictions by Conservation Stage ............................................................ 11 Table 3-1 Census Population Summary ..................................................................................................... 13 Table 3-2 Summary of Projected Population Growth Rates ....................................................................... 17 Table 3-3 Historic Potable Water Production (1993-2006) ......................................................................... 19 Table 3-4 Per Capita Demands ................................................................................................................... 21 Table 3-5 Summary of Peak Day Demand at Buildout ............................................................................... 22 Table 3-6 Summary of Parameters Used in Monte Carlo Simulation ......................................................... 23 Table 4-1 Estimated Capital and O&M Costs for System Expansion ......................................................... 29 Table 6-1 Screening Summary of Conservation Measures and Programs ................................................ 36 Potable Water Demand Projection iii Table 7-1 Estimated Capital and O&M Costs for Town’s Conservation Program ...................................... 37 Table 7-2 Estimated Water Savings from Town’s Conservation Program ................................................. 38 Table 7-3 Estimated Cost to Supply Treated Water to Town ..................................................................... 39 Table 7-4 Cost Effectiveness of Town’s Conservation Program ................................................................ 40 Table 7-5 Cost Effectiveness of Third Stage Treatment ............................................................................. 41 Table 8-1 Estimated Percent Reduction in Annual Treated Water Volume ................................................ 44 Table 9-1 Summary of Implementation Schedule ....................................................................................... 45 Water Conservation Plan 1 1.0 Introduction The Town of Estes Park, hereinafter referred to as the Town, initiated this water conservation planning effort to comply with pending state requirements. The approach used to develop this Conservation Plan follows the guidance provided by the State of Colorado Water Conservation Board. Similar to other resort communities in Colorado, the Town of Estes Park has a permanent year-around population that typically doubles and sometimes triples in the summer due to the large influx of visitors. As a result, the water system must be capable of serving a wide range of potable water demands that result from direct consumption by the increased population. In contrast to other cities in Colorado, very little water demand in Estes Park is attributable to irrigation. Landscape plantings are at high risk of survival due to the grazing of natural wildlife (elk and deer) so typical landscaping throughout the Estes Valley is natural vegetation. The small amount of landscaping in the Town is generally limited to municipal parks and property. This situation makes the Town unique with respect to conservation measures that are available to provide any significant water savings. This plan is limited to the use of multiple conservation measures having relatively small amounts of water savings. Sections two through four contain background information taken from previous planning and evaluation work. The following list includes the reports from which information is drawn. • Potable Water Demand Project, Town of Estes Park, July 12, 2007 • Water Treatment Facilities Evaluation, Town of Estes Park, January 2007 • Estes Park Water Treatment Facilities, Phase 2 Study, Town of Estes Park, July 2010 • Water Cost of Service Study, Town of Estes Park, December 2010 The plan was developed by the Conservation Plan Committee, whose members include the following: • Reuben Bergsten, Utilities Director for the Town • Jeff Boles, Water Superintendent for the Town • Diana Beehler, Laboratory Technician for the Town • Sarah Clark, Project Manager at HDR • Jennifer Stillman, Project Engineer at HDR The plan was presented to the public at the Utilities Committee monthly meeting and again at a public Town Board meeting where it was approved.. 2.0 Existing Water System Profile The following sections discuss the water system physical characteristics, sources of water, limitations, water costs, current policies and planning initiatives, and current conservation efforts. Water Conservation Plan 2 2.1 Physical Characteristics of Existing Water System The Town of Estes Park water system serves water to customers in the Estes Valley with an estimated service area of 17.58 square miles. The boundary of the Estes Park water system service area coincides roughly with the boundary of the Estes Valley. The majority of the water system is located below the “blue line”, which is the maximum customer service elevation allowed for gravity fed services, i.e. 100 feet below the storage tanks' Hydraulic Grade Line (HGL) The existing water system is composed of two (2) water treatment plants, nine (9) storage tanks, two (2) clearwells, and more than 100 miles of pipeline. The water system currently serves approximately 4,000 residential connections and 850 commercial connections. A map of the distribution system is shown in Figure 2-1, which depicts the service area, distribution system facilities and pressure zones within the system. Two water treatment plants serve the Town of Estes Park: Marys Lake Water Treatment Plant (MWTP) and Glacier Creek Water Treatment Plant (GWTP). The MWTP is located at the south end of the water distribution system, adjacent to Marys Lake. The MWTP was originally constructed in 1992 and was renovated in 2010 with membrane technology. The plant normally obtains its raw water supply by gravity from the BOR tunnel that feeds Marys Lake. The plant can also pump raw water from Marys Lake through the Marys Lake pump station which was installed in 2003 . The design capacity of MWTP is 4 million gallons per day (mgd), but the plant cannot be operated at that rate year round due to water rights constraints on the BOR supply and due to wastewater discharge limitations. Originally constructed in 1972, the GWTP is a conventional treatment plant located along Glacier Creek with access through the YMCA campground. Minor improvements have been made to the treatment process since the original construction and the filter media was replaced in 2003. The design capacity of the plant is 4 mgd, with the exception of the filters which are rated for 6 mgd. However, plant staff report that the current maximum treated flow is about 3.6 mgd. Runoff events in the watershed are particularly challenging for GWTP due to extremely low water alkalinity, low water temperature, undesirable color and lack of robustness in the treatment process. Similar to the MWTP, the Town’s available water rights on Glacier Creek limit the length of time that the Town can operate GWTP at maximum flow. The Town’s distribution system has 9 water storage tanks and 2 treatment plant clearwells. The Marys Lake storage tank is divided into two sections. One section serves as the clearwell while the other serves as storage. Table 2-1 is an inventory of those facilities, including pressure zones served, capacities, elevations, dimensions and general construction information. Locations of these storage facilities are shown in Figure 2-1 +C +C ?? ?? ?? ? ? ?? ?? ? ? ? kj kj kj kj kj kj kj kj kj Spruce PRV Park River PRV Meadow Lane PRV Crystal Tank FCV Carriage Lane PRV Strong's PRV (2") Strong's PRV (8") Riverside PRV (2") Riverside PRV (8") Fall River PRV (8") Fall River PRV (2") Whispering Pines PRV Prospect Estates PRV Glacier Tank 1.0 MG Crystal Tank 0.5 MG Mary's Lake Tank 1.0 MG Big Thompson Tank 0.2 MG Thunder Mountain Tank 0.1MG Kiowa Estates Tank 0.065 MG Castle Mountain Tank 0.4 MG MacGregor Mountain Tank 0.3MG Fall River Estates Tank 0.1MG Kiowa PS Strongs PS Thunder Mountain PS Fall River Estates PS Glacier Water Treatment Plant Mary's Lake Water Treatment Plant 1 inch = 3,500 feetLegend kj Storage Tank +C Water Treatment Plant ?Valve Pump Station Service Area Pipe Dia. (Inches) 0.75 - 2 3 - 6 8 10 - 12 18 - 36 Service Area 1 (8,110 FT) Service Area 2 (7,950 FT) Service Area 3 (8,050 FT) Service Area 4 (8,220 FT) Service Area 5 (8,430 FT) Service Area 6 (8,350 FT) Service Area 7 (8,050 FT) o Existing System Figure 2-1 Estes Park - Water Conservation Plan Water Conservation Plan 4 Table 2-1 Storage Facilities Inventory Tank Fall River Estates MacGregor Mountain Big Thompson Castle Mountain Glacier Creek WTP (Clearwell) Glacier Creek WTP (Storage) Marys Lake WTP (Clearwell & Storage) Thunder Mountain Kiowa Ridge Crystal Service Area (Pressure Zone) “Fall River Estates Zone” “Fall River Estates Zone” “Red Zone” “Red Zone” “Green Zone” “Green Zone” “Yellow Zone” “Thunder Mountain Zone” “Kiowa Estates Zone” “Crystal Zone” Service Area Served 1 1 2 2 3 2, 3 2, 3, 4, 7 5 6 2, 7 Static HGL, ft 8,110 8,110 7,972 7,957 N/A 8,052 8,220 8,435 8,350 8,017 Design Service Elevation1, ft 8,010 8,010 7,850 7,850 N/A 7,950 8,120 8,330 8,250 7,950 Highest Meter2, ft 8,040 (HIGH) 8,040 (HIGH) 7,873 (HIGH) 7,873 (HIGH) N/A 7,880 (OK) 8,120 (OK) 8,370 (HIGH) 8,260 (HIGH) 7,987 (HIGH) Customer Elevation Range3, ft 7,823-8,040 7,823-8,040 7,434-7,873 7,434-7,873 N/A 7,570-7,880 7,719–8,120 7,940-8,370 8,122-8,260 7,829-7,987 Capacity (MG) Total Rated Capacity 0.125 0.30 0.20 0.40 0.10 1.00 1.00 0.125 0.065 0.50 Elevations (ft) Tank Overflow 8,118 8,121 7,984 7,982 8,100 8,077 8,232 8,449.25 8,352.8 8,049 Tank Floor 8,104 8,096 7,972 7,957 8,090 8,052 8,214 8,435.25 8,338.8 8,017 Dimensions Design Round Round Round Round Rectangle Round Rectangle Round Rectangle Round Diameter, ft 40 48 52 54 - 86 - 40 - 52 Length, ft - - - - 59.5 - 86 - 62 - Width, ft - - - - 23 - 86 - 12 - Equivalent Dia, ft - - - - 41.3 - 97.0 - 27.0 - Water Depth, ft 14 25 12 25 10 25 18 14 14 32 Construction Year Constructed 1974 2004 1940 1965 1971 1995 1992 1985 2000 1963 Type Buried Buried Buried Above Ground Buried Buried Buried Buried Buried Above Ground Material Concrete Concrete Concrete Steel Concrete Concrete Concrete Concrete Concrete Steel 1 Customers should be at or below this "Blue Line' elevation for service in the zone to receive adequate pressure. 2 Elevation of ground at highest meter to calculate required and available storage at 20 and 30 psi. 3 Elevation of model nodes representing customers served by the tank within the zone. Water Conservation Plan 5 The Estes Valley is largely surrounded by public land (Rocky Mountain National Park and Roosevelt National Forest) and therefore future growth is limited to the boundaries of the water system service area. Current population in the Estes Valley varies significantly from winter to summer, with an estimated peak population of 22,350 occurring during the summer tourist season. The estimated build- out population is 32,624 by 2030, a 46% increase. The Town’s most recent water demand study was completed in 2007 (Potable Water Demand Projection, HDR, July 12, 2007) as part of a broad water plant evaluation and planning effort. Metered water usage by month as well as total water treatment plant production in 2006 is shown in Figure 2-2. The data show that residential water usage and commercial water usage are roughly the same at the present, and the usage follows the same seasonal demand trend. The difference between the water treatment plant production in Figure 2-2 and the total metered water is largely due to system losses and also partly due to wholesale customers (bulk and dispenser) whose meter records were not included. System losses include water used or lost in the treatment plant and distribution system. Losses in the Town’s water system have stabilized and are not expected to increase as long as the distribution system continues to be maintained. The distribution system does have a number of “bleeders”, which are set to bleed water from the system during the winter to keep the distribution pipes from freezing. Their usage is also metered and shown in Figure 2-2. Figure 2-2 2006 Potable Water Usage 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 MonthPotable Water Usage (Millions of Gal Per Month)WTP Production Total Metered Residential Metered Commercial Metered Bleeder Metered Water Conservation Plan 6 2.2 Sources of Water The Town owns two types of water, transmountain water and native water rights. The transmountain water comes from agreements with the Bureau of Reclamation (BOR), Colorado Big Thompson Project (CBT), and Windy Gap. The native water rights are all located on tributaries of the Big Thompson River. The two sets of rights, transmountain and native, are associated with the raw water supply to the MWTP and the GWTP, respectively. The transmountain water is delivered to the Town by means of the BOR facilities which include the Rams Horn Tunnel (hereafter referred to as the “tunnel”) and Alva B. Adams Tunnel from Lake Granby to Mary’s Lake. The raw water source for the Town’s newest plant, MWTP, is piped directly from the tunnel to the plant. The BOR typically shuts the tunnel down for 2-4 weeks during October for maintenance. During the tunnel shut down, the Town can rely on a pump station with an intake in Mary’s Lake to pump raw water to MWTP. The BOR agreement dictates that the Town use their 500 ac-ft allotment of water at the MWTP prior to using their other transmountain water. Due to this agreement, the Town does not have an annual surplus of BOR water. In addition, a portion of the Windy Gap water is used as part of the Town’s Augmentation Plan. The Town does have an annual surplus of CBT and Windy Gap water after the MWTP and augmentation demands are fulfilled. A portion of this surplus is sold to smaller water users who have agreements with the Town. In the past, the Town’s native water rights served as direct raw water diversions to three separate water treatment plants. Since then, the Fall River Water Treatment Plant and the Black Canyon Water Treatment Plant have been decommissioned. The GWTP is a 3 mgd operational facility with dedicated water rights for 1.3 mgd on average. Since only the GWTP is still operational, a portion of the remaining native water rights have been transferred to Glacier Creek. (Not all of the Fall River agricultural water rights have been transferred to date.) All of the Town’s native water rights have junior priority. Consequently, the Town’s rights are out-of-priority most of the time. In order to overcome this obstacle, the Town has adopted an Augmentation Plan. The Plan was implemented in 2001 and allows the Town to divert their junior native water rights year-round in exchange for augmentation with Windy Gap water. The average exchange ratio is 10:1, i.e. 100 ac-ft of treated junior native water rights is replaced by 10 ac-ft of Windy Gap water. It is important to note that BOR and CBT water cannot be used for augmentation at this time. The native water rights associated with GWTP currently have an instantaneous withdrawal limitation of 4 cubic feet per second (cfs), which is equivalent to 2.58 mgd. The Town is planning to appropriate additional water rights for the GWTP to allow the plant to produce 4 mgd. Unlike GWTP, the MWTP does not have an instantaneous withdrawal limitation on its transmountain water rights. Therefore, MWTP could produce 4 mgd on a peak day/s if necessary. Following the purchase of additional water rights for GWTP, the Town’s combined water supply capacity will be 8 mgd, which satisfies the projected buildout peak day demand of 7.9 mgd. (Section 3.0 will address the demand projection used to arrive at this value.) Consequently, there are no additional water supply purchases identified within the planning window of this Conservation Plan and water supply and water rights will not be further addressed. Water Conservation Plan 7 2.3 System Limitations The greatest issue of concern to the Town’s water system is a major renovation project that is needed at GWTP in order to replace aging infrastructure and address upcoming EPA water regulations. Two recent engineering studies that evaluate existing water treatment facilities have been completed by the Town. The first of the two studies, the Water Treatment Facilities Evaluation, included condition assessments of the two water plants and developed a plan to meet the long-term projected water demand. Options for improvement or replacement of the two plants were evaluated in this study, with the final recommendation to improve and expand capacity at the MWTP utilizing submerged membranes, reserving the decision whether to improve or replace the GWTP until more information could be obtained regarding the cost of that effort. Since this study was completed in 2007, the MWTP has been upgraded with submerged membranes and now has a treatment capacity of 4 mgd but operates at 2 mgd peak flow. The current restrictions on operating at design flow are tied to the availability of waste discharge capacity (and the cost to discharge). The second of the two studies, the Water Treatment Facilities Phase 2 Study, was completed in 2010. This study is an in-depth evaluation of the facilities at the GWTP, with the objective of making a determination whether to improve the plant or replace it entirely, and if it were to be replaced, at what location. GWTP is at significant risk for meting the drinking water quality regulations under certain water quality conditions which generally occur during runoff. In addition, the plant has the potential for being reclassified, after the 2016 round of sampling, in a treatment bin for the LT2ESWTR that requires additional treatment beyond conventional treatment. The plant is composed of aging equipment, buildings and concrete tanks, so that repair or upgrade without complete replacement is not cost effective. A significant amount of work is required to demolish and replace the GWTP on the existing site. The current plan is to move towards complete replacement for the plant, probably by 2021, with a treatment capacity of 2.65 mgd, which is equivalent to the water rights limit for instantaneous withdrawal at Glacier Creek of 4.1 cfs. (Note, the instantaneous withdrawal rate for GWTP has since been clarified as 4.0 cfs, which is equivalent to 2.58 mgd.) 2.4 Water Costs and Pricing The water utility provides only potable water to its customers. Between 2000 and 2009, the peak billing years occurred in 2000 and 2007. The water utility has seen a steady decline in volume of sales in recent years. The following illustrates the decline of the most recent year’s water use reduction: 2007 to 2008 0.5% reduction 2008 to 2009 1% reduction 2009 to 2010 almost 2% reduction There have been no major reductions in customers to account for this decline. The decline in water use translates to a decline in revenue, which drives the need for greater rate adjustments to fully fund the operating and capital needs of the system. This trend holds true nationwide for residential customers and is due to a number of factors, but in particular to water efficient plumbing fixtures (toilets, washing machines and dishwashers). The national plumbing code has new low water use requirements in place for washing machines since 2010 and dishwashers beginning in 2011. This trend (decline in residential Water Conservation Plan 8 water use per household) is expected to continue as appliances are replaced over the next decade 1 . A trend in less people per household and the economic downturn are two other elements playing into these household usage and billing reductions. The Town has also been actively reducing unaccounted for water over the past several years. In 2010, the Town completed a comprehensive water rate study and review of water system development charges. As part of the comprehensive rate study, existing rates were reviewed and analyzed for each customer class of service. The existing rate structure is comprised of a monthly base charge that is dependent on the size of water meter for all classes of service. In addition to the base charge, there is a usage charge for each 1,000 gallons of water consumption. Outside the Town limits, rural customers pay an additional 60% for service. The Town has four customer classes: residential, commercial, pumped flow, and bulk water. The bulk water customers are essentially subdivisions that are served by private water companies who have requested water service from the Town. The bulk water customers pay their system development charge over a period of twenty years once they are connected to the Town’s system and receiving water service. One important revenue shift for the Town in 2011 is that this “surcharge” revenue from bulk water customers will discontinue by $22,000 as two of the bulk water customers have completed their 20-year payment period. This equates to slightly more than half a percent reduction of overall rate revenue. During the rate design phase of the 2010 study, discussions of goals and objectives for the utility were undertaken. The primary objective established by the study was to maintain revenue stability, and provide adequate revenue for operations and capital needs. At the same time, the utility has seen a decline in water consumption in recent years. While conservation billing rate options were discussed and explored, the utility management felt that with the existing reduction in consumption currently taking place, a conservation designed rate would de-stabilize the revenue stream. Since revenue stability was the key objective of the study, an adjustment to the meter charge was developed. This involved applying the American Water Works Association (AWWA) meter capacity weighting factors for a ¾- inch meter to the meter charges. These weighting factors reflect the capacity of the meter with respect to the potential demand on the system. Thus, a customer with a larger meter pays a larger meter charge, or base rate, to account for the greater demand they place on the system. Since this adjustment would create a greater rate increase to customers with larger meters, the proposed rates were developed to be implemented over a three-year period. Overall, the 2010 rate study showed that the level of adjustment needed to meet the revenue requirement was 6.8% per year for the next several years. The Town Trustees felt that this increase was too high and that the meter charge increases would further penalize customers with larger meters at an economically sensitive time. Therefore, the Town decided to maintain the existing rate structure and apply a 5.6% revenue adjustment to each rate component (the meter charge and the consumption charge) for 2011 through 2013. If the Town considers implementing a conservation-based rate structure in the future, a seasonal rate appears to be the most appropriate from a rate design perspective. This type of rate would have the volumetric, or consumption-based, rate component increase in the peak season (summer), when the Town’s population swells with tourism. This form of rate structure provides increased cash flow closer 1 Trends in Residential Water Usage and its Impact on Water Utility Financial Planning, American Water, Gary Naumick, P.E., AWWA Utility Management Conference, Denver CO, February 2011. Water Conservation Plan 9 to the time when system operating costs are higher, due to increased pumping and chemical usage to meet peak demands. Table 2-2 provides a summary of the water utility rates for all customer classes of service, including the previous 2010 rates and the newly adopted 2011 rates. Table 2-2 Summary of the 2010 and 2011 Water Utility Rates 2010 Urban 2010 Rural 2011 Urban Monthly Water Base Rate 5/8" $17.90 $28.67 $18.90 3/4" 17.90 28.67 18.90 1" 19.67 31.50 20.77 1- 1/2" 23.90 38.27 25.24 2" 26.85 42.98 28.35 3" 61.59 98.56 65.04 4" 86.32 138.13 91.15 Consumption - $/1,000 gallons Residential All Consumption $3.77 $6.03 $3.98 Commercial All Consumption $3.67 $5.88 $3.88 Pumped Flow All Consumption $5.28 $8.44 $5.58 Bulk Water All Consumption $4.22 $6.75 $4.46 Water customers are billed on a monthly basis. On average, an urban residential customer with a ¾-inch meter uses approximately 5,000 gallons of water in a month. Under the present rates, this customer would pay $36.75 per month. Under the Board adopted rates that cost will increase to approximately $38.80. The Town’s utility bills include both water and electric service charges, on a monthly basis. The billing department cannot distinguish between the water and electric utilities for numbers of delinquent billings. While water bills are highest in summer, the electric utility bills are highest in winter, due to heating requirements. Delinquent bills have increased somewhat since the economic downturn. The total number of delinquent bills issued from 2009 to 2010 increased 13%. However, for the first five months of 2011 compared to the first five months of 2010, the number of delinquencies issued has dropped 16%. Overall, levels of delinquencies appear to be remaining relatively stable. The Town has incurred the same increase in foreclosures and bankruptcies in recent years that are seen nationally, and along with that, some billings to write-off, but nothing unusual has transpired in the recent past. This completes the discussion of the Town’s water utility billing and revenue trends. A more detailed discussion of the development of the comprehensive rate study can be found in the Town’s Comprehensive Water Rate Study Final Report, January 2011, HDR. Water Conservation Plan 10 2.5 Current Policies and Planning Initiatives The Town currently has a 3-stage water conservation plan that was developed after the drought in 2002. Table 2-3 summarizes the 3-stages and Table 2-4 summarizes the specific water usage restrictions during each of the stages. Table 2-3 3-Stage Conservation Plan Summary Stage Description Conservation Measures 1 This is the normal mode of operation. Voluntary water conservation measures are suggested to encourage prudent water use, but none are mandated. Voluntary conservation measures are included in this stage to embed water efficiency programs into the fabric of the community and achieve permanent reductions in per capita water use. Long-term water demand management programs include both structural and non -structural measures. 2 This stage is triggered by the loss of one of the water supply sources and a likely reduction in the other supply source. Mandatory water restrictions are in effect to reduce water demands. Water rates are increased to recover the same amount of revenue as existing rates recovered under Stage I conditions. Immediate action is necessary in Stage II to reduce water demands. The Town’s primary tool for achieving short-term reductions in water use is to declare that Stage II conditions exist and to enact restrictions to reduce water consumption until adequate supplies are available. The goal of the restrictions is to assure that water is continuously available to all customers for minimal irrigation and essential uses that protect the health, safety and welfare of the public. 3 This stage is triggered by the loss of both water supply sources. Severe water restrictions are in effect and water rates are drastically increased to recover the same amount of revenue as existing rates recovered under Stage I conditions and to penalize unnecessary water usage. Water Conservation Plan 11 Table 2-4 Summary of Water Restrictions by Conservation Stage Conservation Measures Stage I (Normal) Stage II (Moderate) Stage III (Emergency) Impose water rate surcharge No No Yes Allow turf Irrigation Yes Yes No Voluntary watering days are designated Yes N/A N/A Mandatory watering days are designated and should be observed N/A Yes N/A Voluntary landscape/lawn non- watering between 10 am and 6 pm. Yes N/A N/A Mandatory landscape/lawn non- watering between 10 am and 6 pm. N/A Yes N/A Limit lawn watering to 2 hours per day on designated watering days N/A Yes N/A Prohibit new lawn seeding or sod No Yes Yes Allow hand watering Yes Yes Yes Allow spray or bucket car washing Yes Yes No Allow use of automated car washes that recycle wash water Yes Yes No Allow use of automated car washes that do not recycle wash water Yes No No Watering days – Voluntary in Stage I, Mandatory in Stages II and III Street addresses ending in 0 to 4: Monday, Thursday, Saturday Street addresses ending in 5 to 9: Tuesday, Friday, Sunday In the future, the Colorado Water Conservation Board (CWCB) may require all water utilities to develop a Drought Mitigation Plan. If this requirement is implemented, the Town may revisit and further refine the 3-stage plan outlined above to address additional issues such as modified drought rates. It should be noted that CWCB does offer grants to assist water providers in development of these mitigation plans. The Town has completed a number of planning documents over the past decade which have been referenced throughout this Conservation Plan. With the exception of a potential Drought Mitigation Plan for CWCB, the Town does not intend to develop any additional planning studies in the near future that would impact conservation efforts. 2.6 Current Water Conservation Activities Historically the Town has promoted water conservation in the community using two means: posting of conservation information on the Town’s website and distribution of free water saving plumbing fixtures. Conservation information on the Town’s website includes a summary of the Town’s 3-Stage Conservation Plan (see Section 2.5), a list of conservation tips, and an advertisement for a “free water- saver kit”. The Town intends to maintain the conservation information on the website, but there are no plans to update the website at this time. Water Conservation Plan 12 The “free water-saver kits” referenced on the Town website currently consists of a variety of water saving plumbing fixtures as sold by Niagara Conservation and distributed by the Town to its customers for free. The Town currently maintains an inventory of the following Niagara fixtures/accessories: 1.5 gpm showerheads, toilet tank bladders, 1.5 gpm faucet aerators, 0.5 gpm faucet aerators, and dye tablets (for toilet leak detection). The Town distributes these items for free to any customers who request them and some special interest groups such as the Recreation District. This program has been in place now for 5 years and the Town will continue to utilize this program in the future as part of its conservation efforts. 3.0 Historic Water Use and Demand Forecast The Town completed a demand forecast as part of their “Potable Water Demand Projection” report in 2007 (hereinafter referred to as the “2007 Demand Projection”). The majority of Section 3.0 was extracted and streamlined from the 2007 Demand Projection to serve as the basis of water use characterization and demand forecasting for this Conservation Plan. The figures and tables presented in this section are based on data collected through 2006. The Town has not experienced any significant changes in the parameters that were used in the 2007 Demand Projection (population growth rates, water usage, land use, etc.) and therefore the demand forecast that was produced as a result of that study is considered to still be valid. 3.1 Service Area Population The Town of Estes Park is somewhat unique in that the population doubles and sometimes triples in the summer due to the large influx of visitors. In general, the population of the water service area can be divided into four categories: permanent, transient, non-transient, and wholesale. The Town has prepared a statistical population analysis that is provided to the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment (CDPHE). The analysis estimates the population of the Estes Valley in both the peak season (May-September) and the off-season (October-April) for each of the four categories listed above. (A copy of the statistical population analysis, titled 2006 Population Fact Sheet and Projections, is provided in the 2007 Demand Projection.) Some of the population data from the Town’s population analysis was incorporated into the 2007 Demand Projection to serve as the current population basis. This data was projected into the future as part of the study. 3.1.1 Permanent Population The historic permanent population of the Town is best-reflected in the population numbers from the U.S. Census Bureau. Table 3-1 summarizes the Census population numbers and estimates for the Town, Estes Valley, Larimer County, and the State. Figure 3-1 shows the annual percent growth for these entities as well as other Colorado communities and counties as estimated by various agencies. A copy of the population data used to compile Figure 3-1 is provided in the 2007 Demand Projection. Water Conservation Plan 13 Table 3-1 Census Population Summary Year Town of Estes Park Percent Annual Change Estes Valley Percent Annual Change Larimer County Percent Annual Change State of Colorado Percent Annual Change 1950 1,617 - - - 43,554 - 1,325 - 1960 1,175 -3.1 - - 53,343 2.0 1,754 2.8 1970 1,616 3.2 3,554 - 89,900 5.4 2,225 2.4 1980 2,703 5.3 4,070 1.4 149,184 5.2 2,908 2.7 1990 3,672(1) 3.1 6,044 4.0 186,136 2.2 3,303 1.3 2000 5,413 4.0 8,889 3.9 251,494 3.1 4,301 2.7 2010 8,013(2) 4.0 11,500(2) 2.6 - - - - Notes: (1) The U.S. Census Bureau reported a population of 3,184 for the Town in 1990. The Town did not feel this was an accurate count due to changes in Census Tract 28 and the means by which the Census surveys were distributed. The Town estimate of the 1990 population is 3,672. (2) Town of Estes Park estimate taken from the May 2006 Town of Estes Park Community Profile. (3) Percent Annual Change example calculation for the Town of Estes Park in 1960 = [(1175/1617)^(1/(1960-1950))]-1 = (-0.031) Figure 3-1 Population Growth Trends As shown in Figure 3-1, the Town, Valley, and the county all experienced 2-4% growth between 1990 and 2000. The Town estimated the 2010 population to be 8,013 in the Town itself and 11,500 in the -4% -2% 0% 2% 4% 6% 8% 10% 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020 2030 YearPercent Annual Population ChangeTown of Estes Park Estes Valley Berthoud Loveland Larimer County Clear Creek County Gilpin County Steamboat Dillon State of Colorado Water Conservation Plan 14 Valley, representing 4.0% and 2.6% average annual growth, respectively from 2000. Another means to analyze growth in the Valley is the number of water accounts added each year. The total number of water accounts increased from 4,146 accounts in December of 2000 to 4,838 accounts in December of 2006. This increase represents a 2.6% average annual growth rate between 2000 and 2006, which is in agreement with the Town’s estimated growth rate for the Valley. It is important to note the extreme variability in the population growth rates for the region during the past 50 years, as well as the potential for a deceleration in growth in the future. 3.1.2 Transient Population Tourists make up the transient population in the Town. This group is comprised of both day visitors and overnight visitors. During the summer of 2006, the Town completed a survey to examine the visitor profile (Estes Park Summer Visitor Survey 2006, November 2006, RRC Associates). The survey found that the primary attraction for visitors is still Rocky Mountain National Park (RMNP), although activities such as wildlife viewing and other outdoor recreation activities also have a high importance. Roughly 30 percent of visitors to the Town were from Colorado, with the remainder coming from all over the country. The total number of out-of-state visitors increased from 64 to 70 percent since the previous survey ten years earlier. The survey results support the assumption that the transient population in the Town correlates closely with the total number of visitors to RMNP. Furthermore, the number of visitors to the Town is more influenced by national growth trends and trends in visitation to National Parks then it is by growth trends within Colorado. To obtain reasonable projections for the number of RMNP visitors, historic data for visitor numbers were obtained. RMNP staff has estimates for visitor numbers dating back to 1915. However, in 1984, RMNP changed their estimate methodology to adjust for the number of persons per vehicle. For this reason, only data collected after 1984 is shown in Figure 3-2. Visitation to RMNP has leveled off in the past 10 years and been on the decline since roughly 1999. A copy of the RMNP visitation records is provided in the 2007 Demand Projection. HDR spoke with the Director of Planning for RMNP regarding future visitation trends during the preparation of the 2007 Demand Projection. It was the Director’s opinion that growth would continue to be slow for the next 10 years, reaching approximately 3.5 million annual visitors by the year 2017. The reason for this decline, in the Director’s opinion, is due to generational differences and a general decline of interest in the National Parks. However, the trend may also be related to the rising cost of gasoline and increased fees to RMNP. For the 2007 Demand Projection, the future visitation trends of RMNP were estimated based on the Director’s understanding of future visitation as well as historic visitation data. If the growth rate between 1984 and 1999 were to continue from 2006 forward, the projected annual visitors to RMNP would reach 4.5 million by approximately 2030, as shown in Figure 3-2. Additional data to support this opinion could be collected by examining visitation trends in all of the National Parks with a possible focus on the National Parks in the west. Water Conservation Plan 15 Figure 3-2 Historic Annual Number of Visitors to Rocky Mountain National Park Another source of information used for validating the transient population in the Town is the Estes Park Convention and Visitor’s Bureau (CVB). Currently the Town has lodging accommodations for 3,000 people. The CVB refers to this as “3,000 pillows” since various lodging units can accommodate different numbers of guests. (This estimate includes rental condos.) The Town currently has a surplus of lodging inventory and the CVB is unaware of any significant future development plans for lodging. This information supports the concept of estimating the transient population based on the number of visitors to RMNP and placing an upper bound on the transient population projection. The CVB estimates that only 25 percent of visitors to the Town do not visit RMNP. This indicates that the RMNP visitor numbers remain the best parameter available to estimate the transient population in the Town. The Town used to be completely booked every summer day roughly 10 years ago, but it is rarely booked full anymore with the exception of major holiday weekends. The CVB’s current primary goal is to attract more tourists to the Town in the off-season. The Town is not trying to expand its accommodations infrastructure, but instead is trying to fill what they already have. Increasing occupancy in the off-season does not impact the development of the demand estimate as future water treatment capacity is calculated using the peak day demand. The Town’s population analysis estimated the transient population using percentage estimates of RMNP traffic, accommodation bed counts, and estimates of unaccounted for visitors (those who do not visit the Park and do not stay overnight in the Town). Using this information, the Town estimated that the 2006 transient population was 10,789 visitors per day in the peak season and 2,756 visitors per day in the off- season. 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0 5.5 6.0 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 YearAnnual Number of Visitors (In Millions)Growth trend from 1984 to 1999 4.5 million visitors in 2030 if growth trend recovers to historic rate Water Conservation Plan 16 For the 2007 Demand Projection, the most likely estimate of the current transient population was based on the estimate by the Town. Since this group of the population is the most difficult to estimate accurately, both low and high estimates of this value were also developed. The high estimate of the transient population was based directly on the RMNP visitors during the period from May through September, 2006. Monthly visitor numbers for 2006 were taken from the visitor summary on the RMNP web site. The daily average number of visitors during the peak season was 15,377 in 2006. As a low end estimate of the transient population, half the number projected by the Town’s population analysis was used (5,394), reflecting the high variability potential in the Town’s parameters. This falls roughly between the Town’s estimates for the transient population in the off-season and peak season. 3.1.3 Non-Transient Population The non-transient population is comprised largely of workers who commute into Town. The major employers in the water service area who were interviewed by the Town for the population analysis included the Park School District, Estes Park Medical Center, Town of Estes Park, Eagle Rock School, Harmony Foundation, and the Estes Valley Recreation District. The number of non-residents within these organizations ranged from 10% to 50%, with an average of 27%. The Town also estimated the unrecorded fraction of the non-transient population who do not work for the employers listed above. In contrast to the typical peak season population increase, the population of non-transients is higher in the off-season due to the schools being in session. The Town estimated the 2006 non-transient population to be 398 persons per day during the peak season and 666 persons per day in the off-season. To simplify the analysis, it was assumed that the estimate developed by the Town was reasonable as it was based on interviews with major employers. Consequently, the peak season estimate of 398 people was used for the analysis. 3.1.4 Wholesale Population The Town provides wholesale water to four bulk wholesale customers and to rural customers via a dispenser located in Town. There are currently four bulk wholesale customers including Windcliff Property Owners Association, Hondius Water Users Association, Park Entrance Mutual Pipeline Water Company, and John Timothy Stone Association. The Town’s population estimates for the wholesale bulk customers are based on metered sales and an assumption of per capita water usage. Using this data, the Town estimated the wholesale bulk water customers to be 796 persons per day in the peak-season and 482 persons per day in the off-season. In addition, the Town estimated that the existing wholesale bulk water customers were at 80% of buildout with no future plans for expansion. The wholesale population is not a significant component of the total water service area population. To simplify the analysis, it was assumed that the estimate developed by the Town is reasonable and the peak season estimate of 796 people per day was used. 3.1.5 Other Populations Not Included in Projections Several other populations exist inside and around the water service area, including the YMCA of the Rockies, Camp Cheley, and Prospect Mountain Water Company. The YMCA of the Rockies recently constructed a new water treatment plant and is not expected to require permanent Town water service in the future. Camp Cheley has their own water system, but is currently hauling water from the Town dispenser. The Town has discussed serving Prospect Mountain (approximately 350 homes and 0.03 mgd usage) in the past. It is possible that when the Prospect Mountain contract with the Bureau of Reclamation is up for renewal this year, discussions will resume, but this population was not included in the population projections. Water Conservation Plan 17 The Town has existing emergency agreements with the YMCA of the Rockies (up to 0.43 mgd) and with Prospect Mountain Water Company to provide water on an emergency request. Although these customers are not included in the population projections, they are included in the buildout demand to ensure that the water treatment plant has capacity for both the Town’s peak day demand as well as emergency service to both the YMCA and Prospect Mountain Water Company. (Since the 2007 Demand Projection, the Town has entered into discussions with Prospect Mountain regarding becoming their permanent water supplier.) The Town is currently in discussion with the National Park Service regarding future connection of the RMNP headquarters facilities to the Town’s water system as a wholesale customer. Based on the average peak season usage by RMNP since 2000, adding the Park as a wholesale customer is the equivalent of 375 people per day to the population projection. Town staff indicated that RMNP could become a wholesale customer in the near future. This demand does not have a significant impact on water treatment plant capacity. Therefore, the population was not included in the projections, but the demand was included in the buildout demand calculation. 3.1.6 Population Growth Rate Projections Table 3-2 below summarizes the probability of projected growth rates for the various populations served by the water system as well as the basis for the projected growth. The 2006 peak season population for wholesale bulk and non-transient populations was based on the population analysis by the Town. The 2006 peak season population for transient visitors was assigned a level of variability as part of the analysis. Table 3-2 Summary of Projected Population Growth Rates Population Type 2006 Peak Season Population Percent Annual Growth Probability Basis of Growth Projection Permanent 10,369(1) 1.4 Low Lowest annual growth rate for Town, Valley, and County since 1970 based on Census data. 2.6 Most Likely Average annual increase in number of water accounts between 2000 and 2006. 4.0 High Average annual growth rate for Town and Valley between 1990 and 2000 from Census data Transient 10,789(2) 1.1 Low Average annual growth rate for number of visitors to RMNP between 1990 and 2006. 3.5 Most Likely Average annual growth rate for number of visitors to RMNP between 1984 and 2006. Assumes balance of visitors who do not visit RMNP and visitors to RMNP that do not stop In Estes Park. 6.6 High Average annual growth rate for number of visitors to RMNP between 1984 and 1999, which is the period of maximum growth of RMNP visitors. Wholesale Bulk 796(3) 0.7 Low Primarily rural communities; assume growth rates will be half of the permanent population growth rate based on growth rates in the region. 1.3 Most Likely 2.0 High Non- Transient 398(3) 1.4 Low Primarily supports the permanent population; use same growth rates as permanent population growth rates. 2.6 Most Likely 4.0 High Notes: (1) Based on 2000 population of Estes Valley (8,889) and an average annual growth rate of 2.6 percent. (2) For this study, the 2006 transient population will be varied as follows: low = 5,394, most likely = 10,789, and high = 15,377. (3) Based on 2006 Population Fact Sheet and Projections, which is a statistical population analysis prepared by the Town for the State. (See Appendix of 2007 Demand Projection.) Water Conservation Plan 18 3.2 Potable Water Demand 3.2.1 Historic Treatment Plant Production Figure 3-3 is a plot of historic peak day water treatment plant production by month for 2001-2006. Data from 1993 were also plotted for comparison. This figure shows the seasonality of potable water demand which has two components: increased population in the water service area in the summer time and increased water demand by the population in the summer as compared to the winter. The figure also shows that the pattern of seasonal usage has remained relatively consistent for the past twenty years. Note that the maximum peak day production occurred in 2002 (4.3 mgd), which is considered by the water industry to be a representative year for drought conditions in Colorado. Figure 3-3 Seasonal Water Treatment Plant Production Potable water demand is typically analyzed by determining the average annual day demand and applying a peaking factor to estimate peak day demand. For the 2007 Demand Projection, the average day demand in the peak season (May-September) was used along with a peaking factor representing the ratio of the peak day demand to the average demand in the peak season. This adjustment was made because the growth rate of the peak season population is more easily estimated for this community than the growth rate of the average annual population. Figure 3-4 shows the historic peak day demand, average demand in the peak season, and the peaking factor from the Town’s treatment plant production records. Note that demand decreased significantly following the drought in 2002. Since this time, the demand appears to be rebounding back to the pre-drought conditions. Like many communities in the region, this may reflect voluntary conservation practices. However, there is not enough data currently available to solidify this conclusion. Table 3-3 shows the historic minimum, average, and maximum values for each 993 006 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 MonthPeak Monthly Flow (MGD)1993 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 Water Conservation Plan 19 of these parameters. The values listed for the peaking factor (ratio of peak demand to average demand in peak season) were used as the low, most-likely, and high values in the 2007 Demand Projection. Figure 3-4 Historic Treatment Plant Production Table 3-3 Historic Potable Water Production (1993-2006) Historic Occurrence Peak Day Demand Avg. Day Demand Peak Season (May- Sept) Peak/Avg Ratio Peak Season Minimum 2.5 1.7 1.3 (Low) Average 3.2 2.0 1.6 (Most Likely) Maximum 4.3 2.2 2.0 (High) 3.2.2 Per Capita Usage Metered water usage by month as well as total water treatment plant production in 2006 is shown in Figure 3-5. The data show that residential water usage and commercial water usage are roughly the same at the present, and the usage follows the same seasonal demand trend. The difference between the water treatment plant production in Figure 3-5 and the total metered water is in small part due to wholesale customers (bulk and dispenser) because their meter records are not included here, and is largely due to system losses. System losses include water used or lost in the treatment plant, 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0 1993 1995 1997 1999 2001 2003 2005 2007 YearPotable Water Demand (MGD)0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0 Peak/Avg Demand RatioPeak Day Demand Avg Day Demand in Peak Season Peak/Avg Ratio (Peak Season)Drought YearPotential conservation effects Water Conservation Plan 20 conveyance, and distribution. Losses in the Town’s water system have stabilized and are not expected to increase as long as the distribution system continues to be maintained. Bleeders are set to bleed water from the system during the winter to keep the distribution pipes from freezing. Their usage is also metered and shown in Figure 3-5 (repeated here from Section 2.1 for the reader’s reference). Figure 3-5 2006 Potable Water Usage Per capita water demand can be calculated by distributing the water treatment production over the population to arrive at a usage per customer. Using this method, each customer is allocated a portion of residential and commercial demand as well as system losses. For the 2007 Demand Projection, the 2006 average water treatment plant production in the peak season (2,078,000 gal/day) was distributed over the peak season population (22,352) to arrive at a per capita usage rate of 93 gallon per capita per day (gpcd). To establish a low value for per capita usage, the average water plant production in the off- season (1,047,000 gal/day) was distributed over the off-season population (14,273) to arrive at a per capita usage rate of 73 gpcd. The high value for per capita usage was established by examining the ratio of peak day demand in a drought condition (2002) with the 2006 peak day demand (year that population data is available). The peak day demands were 4.31 mgd and 3.53 mgd, respectively, representing a 22% increase. This is considered a conservative estimate of the effects of a drought on average peak day usage. There is some impact from population growth between 2002 and 2006 that may have also caused the peak day usage to increase during this time period. However, the effect is considered minimal and counter-acted by potential voluntary conservation efforts following the drought of 2002. The 22% increase was applied to the most likely per capita usage rate of 93 gpcd to establish the upper limit of per capita usage at 113 gpcd. For comparison, the per capita usage of the Northern Colorado NISP communities is 177 gpcd and the average per capita usage for Denver Water is 180 gpcd. The Town’s per capita usage is not as high as these other communities due to the transient population (who use less water than the permanent population), the low occupancy rate of the permanent population 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 MonthPotable Water Usage (Millions of Gal Per Month)WTP Production Total Metered Residential Metered Commercial Metered Bleeder Metered Water Conservation Plan 21 (many households are second homes), and the absence of large irrigation demands. Table 3-4 provides a summary of per capita usage rates used in the 2007 Demand Projection. Table 3-4 Per Capita Demands Probability Per Capita Demand (gpcd) Low 73 Most Likely 93 High 113 The per capita demands listed in the table above include all four categories of population (permanent, transient, wholesale, and non-transient). A more detailed analysis could be performed if per capita demands could be developed for each of these population categories, specifically permanent and transient since they represent the majority of the population. However, the permanent and transient populations can not be specifically associated with the residential and commercial usage (billing records) for several reasons including: • A portion of the transient population stays in rental condos, which have residential meters • The permanent population has an impact on commercial usage, which cannot be separated from the impact of the transient population on commercial usage In general, the transient population will use less water than the permanent population primarily because a significant portion of the transient population is day visitors to Town and do not stay overnight. By applying the same per capita demand to both populations, we assumed that the ratio of permanent and transient populations will remain the same in the future. In reality, it is more likely that the growth rate of the transient population will outpace the growth rate of the permanent population. However, the demand projection will still be conservative (on the high side) since it is based on the ratio of the permanent population to the transient population in 2006 and this ratio is expected to increase in the future. 3.3 Buildout Conditions The buildout population of Estes Park was identified for each of the population categories discussed above. The buildout number for the permanent population was estimated using an extensive land use analysis. The buildout number for the transient population for the transient population was estimated using an analysis of growth trends in visitation to Rocky Mountain National Park. The buildout population of the wholesale population and the non-transient population could be reasonably estimated from the available data. These populations do not have much impact on the total water demand and therefore single point estimates were used with very little variability. The peak day demand at buildout was estimated by multiplying the total buildout population by the high per capita usage rate (113 gpcd) and the high peaking factor (2.0). Using the high values for both of these parameters helps to ensure that the Town will have capacity to handle unexpected demand, mainly due to drought, but also due to changes in people's water usage patterns. A 2.0 peaking factor occurred in the past (2002 and 2003). Three additional demands were included in the buildout peak day demand including the RMNP headquarters facilities, the emergency interconnect with the YMCA of the Rockies Water Conservation Plan 22 (up to 0.43 mgd) and the emergency interconnect with the Prospect Mountain Water Company. The resulting peak day demand estimate at buildout is 7.9 mgd using the buildout condition assumptions established in the 2007 Demand Projection. Table 3-5 provides a summary of the calculation used for peak day demand at buildout. Table 3-5 Summary of Peak Day Demand at Buildout Peak Season Population 2006 Additional at Buildout/% Total at Buildout Permanent 10,369 2,369 / 23% 12,738 Transient 10,789 7,592 / 70% 18,381 Wholesale Bulk 796 200 / 25% 996 Non-Transient 398 111 / 28% 509 Total Population 22,352 10,272 / 46% 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 (mdg) 7.37 RMNP Headquarters Demand (mgd) 0.08 YMCA of the Rockies Emergency Interconnect (mgd) 0.43 Prospect Mountain Emergency Interconnect (mgd) 0.03 Water Treatment Plant Capacity Required at Buildout (mgd) 7.9 3.4 Potable Water Demand Projections The low, most likely, and high estimates developed in the previous sections of this report were incorporated into a Monte Carlo simulation. Monte Carlo simulation is a widely accepted risk assessment tool, which randomly samples from within the underlying distributions associated with demand parameters to generate a very large number of alternative combinations of these variables. The result is a joint frequency distribution for peak day demand consisting of 5,000 or more possible outcomes, with a probability associated with each. The following four steps were used to perform the analysis in the 2007 Demand Projection: 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. Water Conservation Plan 23 Table 3-6 Summary of Parameters Used in Monte Carlo Simulation Parameter Low Most Likely High 2006 Permanent Population 10,369 10,369 10,369 2006 Transient Population 5,395 10,789 15,377 2006 Whole Sale Population 796 796 796 2006 Non-Transient Population 398 398 398 Permanent Population Growth Rate 1.4 2.6 4.0 Transient Population Growth Rate 1.1 3.5 6.6 Whole Sale Population Growth Rate 0.7 1.3 2.0 Non-Transient Population Growth Rate 1.4 2.6 4.0 Per Capita Demand (gal/day) 73 93 113 Peak Day Demand / Avg Day Demand in Peak Season Ratio (Peaking Factor) 1.3 1.6 2.0 Figure 3-6 illustrates the peak day demand projection curves resulting from the 2007 Demand Projection. Each curve represents a peak day demand condition with a percent probability that the demand in a given year will exceed that demand condition. For example, in 2015, there is 25 percent probability that the 4.9 mgd demand will be exceeded based on the assumptions of this analysis. Water Conservation Plan 24 Figure 3-6 Peak Day Demand Projections Water Conservation Plan 25 The Most Likely Peak Day Demand curve represents an estimate of future demands with a 50 percent probability that the demands will be larger or smaller than the represented demand condition. In planning for plant expansion, decision makers typically do not use the most likely peak day demand because the risk of the demand being larger than planned is higher than is typically prudent. A more prudent planning curve is the 10 percent exceedance curve. Using the 10 percent curve for the Town, the current plant production capacity will not be exceeded until roughly 2020. However, the GWTP will require replacement prior to this date as previously discussed in this Conservation Plan. 3.5 Conclusion Based on this analysis, the projected peak day demand at buildout of the permanent population will be 7.9 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. Consequently, this buildout projection which was established by the 2007 Demand Projection will serve as the basis of planning for this Conservation Plan. 4.0 Profile Proposed Facilities 4.1 Identify and Cost Potential Facility Needs Through the Town’s planning efforts over the past 10 years, a number of facility improvements and additions have been identified to replace aging infrastructure. The schedule for these improvements has been developed in a manner that allows for completion of plant improvements projects while still having potable water capacity to operate. The four major project areas included in the planning are detailed in this section. 4.1.1 MWTP Improvements MWTP improvements, which were completed in early 2011, brought the total plant capacity to 4 mgd by retrofitting the existing facility with 2-stage membrane treatment. The plant typically operates at or near 99% recovery, with waste flows of one percent of production being discharged to the wastewater system. Currently, the Town has a discharge limit of 20,000 gal/day, averaged over a month, to the sanitary sewer. This limitation effectively limits plant production to 2.2 mgd. The Upper Thompson Sanitation District (UTSD) fee structure is comprised of tap fees, discharge fees, and surcharge fees. UTSD does not have a commercial or industrial tap rate, so MWTP discharges are Water Conservation Plan 26 subject to the single family equivalent (SFE) tap fee of $8,700/SFE. Each SFE is equivalent to 200 gpd discharge. The current UTSD discharge fee is $6.25 per 1000 gallons of water discharged, with a surcharge for wastewater with TDS above 230 mg/L of $0.36/lb. Based on these fees, the cost for the Town to purchase additional discharge capacity to increase the discharge limit to 40,000 gal/day would be $870,000 for the tap fees. If the taps were purchased by the town, the Marys Lake WTP production limit would be 4 mgd. Daily discharge fees for wastewater at 4 mgd plant flow rate would be $250/day. 4.1.2 GWTP Replacement The Town plan calls for replacing the existing GWTP conventional treatment plant with a two-stage membrane plant on the same site. The current plant can produce up to 3.6 mgd for very short periods of time, but typically operates at peak flows of 2.65 mgd during the summer season. Replacement plant infrastructure would be sized for eventual expansion to 4 mgd, with the initial investment in membrane equipment for 2.65 mgd. The plan for providing a 4 mgd plant at the Glacier Creek site is tied back to utilization of water rights at that location and to the desire on the part of the Town to be able to run either one of the two treatment plants during low flow production periods (typically winter), allowing for routine annual scheduled maintenance to take place with the plant off line. The proposed replacement for the GWTP is a two-stage submerged membrane plant similar to MWTP. The project will include pretreatment ahead of the membranes, along with waste tankage, chemical feed systems and storage, and a clearwell. Access road improvements will be required, along with electric service, fiber optic connection, and natural gas service upgrades. The site of the current plant creates some challenges, including piping of waste flows to the nearest sanitary sewer and the associated cost for sewer taps. Disposal of wastewater from the GWTP site to the sanitary sewer will require compliance with the same rate structure from UTSD as is in place at MWTP. Discharge capacity for the GWTP to meet 40,000 gal/day production levels will be $1.74M for tap fees and $250/day for discharge fees. The total 2010 order of magnitude cost estimate for replacing GWTP is $22,772,000 at a capacity of 2.65 mgd. The estimated cost to install additional membrane equipment to increase capacity from 2.65 mgd to 4 mgd is $3,000,000. 4.1.3 System Water Storage Improvements The Town operates 11 water storage tanks, including two treatment plant clearwells, which are distributed within seven different pressure zones. Analysis and evaluation of storage capacity in each pressure zone identified four zones that require additional storage to provide optimum flow equalization, fire flow, and standby volumes of water. These extra storage requirements are not related to increased demand, rather they are necessary to provide adequate storage and fire flow under current demand conditions. Order of magnitude costs for the proposed new tanks can be found in Appendix A. 4.1.4 Distribution System Improvements The Town has identified distribution system improvements that will upgrade several pipelines that have high velocities and headloss under current demand scenarios, including some upstream of PRV stations. The overall objective of these projects is to reduce the risk of failure in distribution system piping. Upgrades to or parallel PRV installations to existing Stations have been identified to increase flow Water Conservation Plan 27 through them. These improvements are being scheduled into the capital improvement program for the utility over the coming years and are not tied solely to expanded water demand. Order of magnitude costs for the proposed system improvements can be found in Appendix A. 4.1.5 Improvements Schedule The Town has already completed the first major project that is part of the improvements plan, the renovation of MWTP to produce 4 mgd. As the Town moves forward to replace the GWTP, timing must be tied to both the demand projections and to the potential for required treatment improvements that may arise as a result of raw water quality testing under the Long-Term 2 Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule. Plant improvements are proposed to take place in accordance with Figure 4-1, where GWTP is taken off line for replacement in 2019, with completion at 2.65 mgd capacity by 2021. Prior to taking GWTP off line, the wastewater discharge capacity at MWTP must be adequate to allow the plant to produce 4 mgd as the Town must have capacity to survive on only one plant for a two-year period. (This could be accomplished either through third stage treatment or purchase of additional discharge capacity from UTSD.) Even with MWTP at 4 mgd capacity, additional temporary treatment may be necessary during the GWTP reconstruction period (or at least during peak summer demands). The Town cannot further delay the reconstruction of GWTP because the deficit in available treated water would be so large as to require extensive temporary treatment units, which would significantly increase the cost of construction. The timing for addition of capacity (from 2.65 mgd to 4 mgd) to the reconstructed GWTP may be delayed, depending on a revision of the demand projection in the future. Water Conservation Plan 28 Figure 4-1 Plant Improvements Schedule Coordinated with Demand Projections Water Conservation Plan 29 4.2 Prepare an Incremental Cost Analysis The annual incremental cost of expanding water production at the Town of Estes Park is based on the cost of increasing wastewater discharge capacity and on the incremental cost of installed equipment to expand the future GWTP from 2.65 mgd to 4 mgd. The annual capital cost estimate shown in Table 4.1 is based on a facility lifetime of 50 years. Table 4-1 Estimated Capital and O&M Costs for System Expansion Improvement Associated with System Capacity Expansion Estimated Capital Cost Estimated Annual Capital Cost (over 50 year life) Estimated Annual O&M Cost Wastewater Discharge at MWTP $870,000 $17,400 $125 Wastewater Discharge at GWTP for Increased Capacity $587,250 $11,745 $84 Increase in Future GWTP Capacity from 2.65 mgd to 4 mgd $3,000,000 $60,000 $1,040 TOTAL COST $4,457,250 $89,145 $1,249 5.0 Identify Conservation Goals The unique situation at the Town of Estes Park prohibits the use of traditional goals that would normally be established in a water conservation planning effort. The Town’s situation can be defined as follows: • Peak day demand for the Town is driven by the influx of tourists arriving in the summer, not the permanent population. • Per capita water usage is relatively low given that there is negligible irrigation water usage and the number of tourists, who use significantly less water than a representative of the permanent population. • The projects identified in the Town’s capital improvements plan (CIP) are not driven by the need for additional potable water capacity. • The Town has limited staff resources and funding for new conservation efforts. As a result of the issues defined above, the Conservation Plan Committee has established the following goals for the development of this Conservation Plan: 1. Reduce annual treated water volume production by 3% 2. Reduce the volume of waste discharged to sewer at MWTP 3. Review existing conservation measures/programs and decide whether to continue them 4. Provide definition for current utility practices that do not have formal plans or budgets, but that contribute to overall water conservation Water Conservation Plan 30 5. Provide a documented report of potential conservation measures/programs that could be implemented in the future, even if they are not selected for immediate implementation as part of this plan 6. Develop a Conservation Program that will be implemented by the Town following the completion of this plan 6.0 Identify Conservation Measures and Programs 6.1 Identify Conservation Measures and Programs The Conservation Plan Committee met on June 8, 2011 and September 28, 2011 to review potential conservation measures and programs. The list of conservation measures and programs that were considered for this Conservation Plan are listed below and a description of each follows. • Water-Saving Fixtures Demand-Side Measures (DM) • Town Irrigation System Improvements • Third Stage Treatment Supply-Side Measures (SM) • Bleeder Automation • Pressure Zone Management • Water Audits for Top Customers Demand Side Programs (DP) • Elementary Education Program • Drought Plans and Rates • Rate Structure by Meter Size • Time of Upgrade and Time of Sale • Multi-Family Residential Unit Metering • Town Website • Customer Meter Testing and Replacement Supply-Side Programs (SP) • Leak Detection and Repair • Tracking of Breaks and Repairs 6.1.1 Water-Saving Fixtures (DM) As previously mentioned in Section 2.6, the Town currently advertises and distributes “free water-saver kits” to its customers for free. The kits consist of a variety of water saving plumbing fixtures as sold by Niagara Conservation including: 1.5 gpm showerheads, toilet tank bladders, 1.5 gpm faucet aerators, 0.5 gpm faucet aerators, dye tablets (for toilet leak detection), and kits containing all of the items listed. This program has been in place now for 5 years and the Town will continue to utilize this program in the future as part of its conservation efforts. This includes distribution of the water saving fixtures at events like “Sustainable Estes Park”.. However, the Town does not intend to expand the program beyond its Water Conservation Plan 31 current scope at this time. Given this fact, no further evaluation was done on this program with regards to water savings and cost evaluation. 6.1.2 Town Irrigation System Improvements (DM) Being a major tourist destination, the Town has a number of beautifully landscaped areas that are irrigated with treated water. The existing irrigation system controls are linked to the Town’s SCADA, which allows Town staff to turn the system on/off from selected computers (i.e. staff do not have to manually turn the irrigation systems on/off at the individual landscaped locations). The existing system does not currently include the necessary software or hardware to automatically adjust watering amounts based on rainfall, temperature, etc. In order to provide this capability and improve the overall efficiency of the irrigation system, Town staff has proposed the following improvements to the irrigation system for evaluation as part of this conservation planning study: • Purchase and install wireless rainfall sensors • Perform water audits on all of the Town’s irrigated water zones • Work with the Parks Department to upgrade the irrigation control system with IRRInet With the exception of the Town’s irrigation system, there are limited opportunities for landscape efficiency measures within the Town. The vast majority of residents do not have turf lawns and/or landscaped areas due to the climate and the large population of elk that would destroy such vegetation. 6.1.3 Third Stage Treatment at MWTP (SM) Although the MWTP is rated for 4 mgd treatment capacity, the plant is somewhat handicapped by its sewer discharge limitations. Sewer discharge from MWTP is sent to the Upper Thompson Sanitation District (UTSD) wastewater plant and generally consists of waste from the second stage membranes, backwash waste from the raw water screens, waste from water quality analyzers, and sanitary waste. The Town has purchased sewer capacity and has an agreement in place with UTSD which allows for a sewer discharge of 20,000 gallons per day (calculated as an average daily discharge over a month). In addition to the base capacity that has already been purchased, the Town must also pay a discharge cost, which is currently set at $6.25 per 1,000 gallons of sewer discharge. On a continual basis, the MWTP can produce roughly 2.2 mgd and stay within the 20,000 gallon per day discharge limitation. In order to produce more than 2.2 mgd, additional sewer capacity must be purchased from UTSD at a cost of $8,700 per tap (1 tap = 200 gallons per day of capacity). In addition, UTSD may implement a surcharge fee in the future if the waste exceeds UTSD’s criteria for total suspended solids (TSS) and/or biological oxygen demand (BOD). Based on the water quality of the discharge at MWTP, the membrane waste flows can be expected to exceed UTS’s TSS limit of 230 mg/L, but not the BOD limit of 230 mg/L. UTSD has notified the Town that the estimated surcharge fee for TSS is $0.36 per pound. UTSD tap fees and discharge fees are published on their website. By far, the major source of sewer discharge is backwash waste from the second stage membranes at MWTP. The most efficient means to decrease this waste volume is to install a third stage treatment process, which would result in a dry residual waste that could be hauled to a landfill. Using this Water Conservation Plan 32 approach, only sanitary waste would be discharged to the sewer. The Town evaluated technology alternatives for third stage treatment as part of their “Phase 2 Study, 2010, HDR”. The results of that study indicated that membrane technology was the most viable choice for third stage treatment. At that time, the Siemens Memtek crossflow tubular membrane appeared to be the most promising product. Since that time, another membrane supplier, Inge, has entered the United States marketplace and indicated to HDR that they are also interested in a third stage treatment application. The current two- stage membrane system at MWTP has an overall system recovery of about 98%. Using third stage treatment, the system should be able to achieve about 99.9% recovery. 6.1.4 Bleeder Automation (SM) The Town currently has eleven (11) “bleeder” locations located throughout the distribution system where water is allowed to continuously run, primarily during the winter months. These bleeders are operated for freeze protection and are located on 2” distribution lines with shallow bury depths (< 3 feet). The Town has investigated an automatic flushing hydrant product that would allow some of the bleeders to be operated on a timed schedule in lieu of continuous operation. The Town has budgeted to purchase, install, and test several automatic flushing hydrants in 2012 to evaluate the potential water savings from this conservation measure. 6.1.5 Pressure Zone Management (SM) The Town has a significant vertical elevation profile across its service area. A number of pressure zones are required throughout the distribution system in order to maintain the appropriate pressures in each zone of the system. The pressures and zones are controlled by pressure reducing valves (PRV), which reduce the upstream pressure to a pre-set downstream pressure that is acceptable for that particular area of the system. One of the PRV suppliers, Cla-Val, now manufactures a PRV product that can automatically adjust pressure settings depending on system demand. During periods of low demand, the valve automatically adjusts to a lower pressure setting. This results in less water loss since customers will use less water (as a result of lower pressures) and existing leaks will experience less loss (also due to lower pressures). As part of this Conservation Plan, HDR performed a pressure zone management evaluation to assess the potential water savings from implementation of the automatic PRV’s described above. Service Area 2 was selected for evaluation since it comprises about 73% of the total system demand and 63% of the total distribution pipe. Within Service Area 2, a total of 8 PRV’s would be replaced with new automatic PRV’s ranging in size from 2-inch through 8-inch. Using a water savings calculator program available from Cla-Val, the estimated annual water savings value for this system upgrade is $43,000. Additional information on the Cla-Val automatic PRV and the details of the analysis are included in Appendix C. Implementation of the automatic PRV’s described above will change the distribution system dynamics such that various portions of Service Area 2 would experience fluctuating pressures on a daily basis (daytime demand versus nighttime demand and the associated pressure settings). Due to the age of the distribution piping in the Town, there is some concern that these pressure fluctuations could increase the frequency of pipe leaks and breaks, thereby decreasing the service life of the affected distribution piping. HDR did not explore this concept with Cla-Val, but agrees that it is a valid concern. Consequently, pressure zone management was not included in the list of final conservation measures/programs to be implemented by the Town as part of this Conservation Plan. However, due to the potential water and cost savings estimated using the analysis presented above, it is strongly recommended that the Town further investigate this conservation measure in the future. Water Conservation Plan 33 6.1.6 Water Audits for Top Customers (DP) As part of this study, the Town’s water billing records from 2008-2010 were reviewed to identify the top water users in the system. This information is included in Appendix B. Being a tourist destination, a number of the Town’s top water users are hotels. It may be advantageous to form a partnership between the Town and specific hotels to perform a water audit. There are companies that specialize in water audits of this nature including the Brendle Group located in Fort Collins. The audit process involves a site visit by a specialist who will take an inventory of the existing water using fixtures/equipment (both quantity and rates), estimate the water savings from upgrading to more efficient fixtures/equipment, estimate the costs of the upgrades, and provide a summary report. For a hotel, the audit would focus on the following fixtures/equipment: • Guest room domestic use (shower, toilets, faucet) • Restrooms in common areas • Laundry facilities (if located on site) • Food service equipment (ice machines, dishwashers, sinks, food steamers) • Pool and hot tub Based on the results of the water audit, it may be advantageous for the Town to offer a rebate program to the hotel as part of a fixture/equipment upgrade. HDR estimates the cost of a typical water audit to be roughly $1,000. However, actual estimates are available from the companies that perform this type of work including the Brendle Group. The implementation of either voluntary or mandatory audits for hotels and the other large water customers in Town is a sensitive subject and must be well planned and executed in order to be successful for both the Town and the customers. Consequently, the implementation of a large customer audit program is beyond the scope of this plan and will not be further evaluated. 6.1.7 Elementary Education Program (DP) One means to increase the distribution and implementation of the Town’s Niagara water-saving fixtures is to implement an elementary education program for water conservation. However, given the Town’s limited staff resources and the already challenged school curriculum, this program was not further evaluated. 6.1.8 Drought Plans and Rates (DP) Town staff is anticipating that the Colorado Water Conservation Board will require all water supply utilities within the State to develop and submit a “drought mitigation plan”. Assuming that this requirement will be formalized in the future, the Town is giving consideration to developing a drought rate structure as part of their mitigation plan. The rate structure would establish various water cost rates for customers depending on pre-determined drought triggers with a goal of reducing water consumption through higher rates during times of drought. This measure was not further addressed as part of this Conservation Plan. Water Conservation Plan 34 6.1.9 Modify Rate Structure by Meter Size (DP) The Town’s most recent rate study was performed in 2010 (Water Cost of Service, HDR, December 2010). One of the recommendations from this study was to adjust the monthly water base rate per water meter size using the standard AWWA meter capacity weightings. In essence, this adjustment would result in larger monthly base rates for all customers based on meter size. Due to the poor economic conditions at the time, it was recommended that the monthly base rate increase be implemented over a 3 year period. This modification to the Town’s rate structure was not approved by the Town Board and thus was not further evaluated for this Conservation Plan. However, it is recommended that rate modification by meter size be revisited in the future as part of the Town’s next rate study. Modifying the rate structure by meter size will lead to conservation by putting pressure on commercial structures to incorporate water-saving fixtures in new construction and by the financial pressure of higher monthly water bills. 6.1.10 Time of Upgrade and Time of Sale (DP) This conservation measure requires customers to meet specific water usage criteria for various fixtures in their home/business in order to receive Building Department approval for upgrades or at the time of sale. If the existing fixtures in the home/business do not meet the water usage criteria, then the customer would be required to install new fixtures prior to proceeding with upgrades or sale. The Conservation Committee believed that the legal issues associated with this conservation measure would make it too difficult to implement and therefore this measure was not further evaluated. 6.1.11 Multi-family Residential Unit Metering (DP) Town ordinance currently requires all new multi-family residential developments to provide individual water meters for each unit of the development. However, many of the existing multi-family residential customers utilize a common “association” meter in lieu of individual meters. A potential conservation measure that was considered would be to enact a new ordinance requiring these existing customers to install individual meters. However, the legal issues required to implement this ordinance would be too complicated and therefore this measure was not further evaluated. 6.1.12 Town Website (DP) As previously mentioned, the Town’s website currently contains a summary of the Town’s 3-Stage Conservation Plan (see Section 2.5), a list of conservation tips, and an advertisement for a “free water- saver kit”. The Town intends to maintain the conservation information on the website, but there are no plans to update the website at this time due to limited staff resources. 6.1.13 Customer Meter Testing and Replacement (SP) All of the Town’s water customers are metered and the Town maintains a database of individual meters in the system. The database includes meter size, serial number, and model. The database also includes “installation dates”, however, it is unclear whether these dates have been updated as meters are replaced in the system. The Town is in the process of converting to a new accounting software and the issue of meter tracking will be revisited at that time. The Town has tested a number of ¾” -2” meters in the recent past and found that the accuracy is generally within 2-5%. Having identified the top water consumers in the system (Appendix B), the Water Conservation Plan 35 Town is interested in testing the larger water meters (3” and 4”) for overall accuracy sometime in the future. Town staff estimate that there are fewer than 5 of these larger meters in the system. The testing is performed by an outside agency and can be either performed in place or off-site. Either situation requires considerable coordination with the customer since most of these larger meters are on hotels, which cannot be out of service for a significant amount of time. At this time, the Town does not have a formal meter testing and replacement program in place. Furthermore, there is no dedicated budget within the utility for this task. Members of the Town’s metering department have proposed the following program for implementation as part of this Conservation Plan: • Test all 3” and 4” meters in the system within the next 3 years • Replace 2” and larger meters every 5 years • Replace meters smaller than 2” every 10 years Correction and calibration of inaccurate meters will not likely impact the actual amount of water used by the customer unless the meter is found to be grossly under-measuring the water usage (which is not likely based on the Town’s previous experience checking water meter accuracy). 6.1.14 Leak Detection and Repair (SP) The Town does not currently have a written policy regarding distribution system leak detection and repair. However, they have conducted leak detection surveys in the past using contract services. The Town would like to have a formalized leak detection program and dedicated budget with the goal of checking the entire distribution system in the next five years. Town staff has proposed the following leak detection and repair program for implementation as part of this conservation planning study: • Allocate funds annually for one week of leak detection survey work. • Repair any leaks identified through the survey work 6.1.15 Tracking of Breaks and Repairs (SP) Town staff has attempted to track major breaks and repairs on a system map located in their Maintenance Shop. Ideally, the Town would like to track breaks and repairs using the existing GIS system database in the future. Customer leaks are tracked by Town staff on an existing spreadsheet. The Town has a “leak” policy stating that leaks occurring on the customer’s side of the water meter will be reimbursed 100% if the leak is defendable based on the customer’s historic water usage. At this time, the Town does not have budget to dedicate existing or new staff to upgrading the GIS database for tracing breaks and repairs. However, this effort will be considered in future conservation efforts. 6.2 Develop and Define Screening Criteria The Conservation Plan Committee developed the following list of criteria to screen the conservation measures and programs described in the previous section: Water Conservation Plan 36 • Staff resources not available • Legal issues too complex • Other 6.3 Screen Conservation Measures and Programs Table 6-1 summarizes which conservation measures and programs were selected for implementation and which were ruled out based on the screening criteria defined above. Table 6-1 Screening Summary of Conservation Measures and Programs Conservation Measure/Program Will be Implemented / Continued (Yes/No) Comment Water-Saving Fixtures (DM) Yes Town will continue current program and does not plan to expand program Town Irrigation System Improvements (DM) Yes Third Stage Treatment (SM) Yes Bleeder Automation (SM) Yes Pressure Zone Management (SM) No Potential increase in number of pipe breaks and decrease in service life; needs to be further investigated Water Audits for Top Customers (DP) No Requires further evaluation beyond the scope of this study Elementary Education Program (DP) No Staff resources not available Drought Plans and Rates (DP) No On-hold until CWCB enacts a drought mitigation plan requirement Rate Structure by Meter Size (DP) No Not approved by Board; will be revisited as part of next rate study Time of Upgrade and Time of Sale (DP) No Legal issues too complex Multi-Family Residential Metering (DP) No Legal issues too complex Town Website Yes Current conservation information will be maintained, but staff resources are not available to expand the website content Customer Meter Testing and Replacement Yes Leak Detection and Repair Yes Tracking of Breaks and Repairs Yes Water Conservation Plan 37 7.0 Evaluate and Select Conservation Measures and Programs A total of eight conservation measures and programs were selected for further evaluation in the previous section. For the purposes of this report, these eight measures and programs were combined into a single program, which will hereinafter be referred to as the “Town’s Conservation Program”. The following sections will summarize the potential cost and water savings for each of the eight program components. 7.1 Capital and O&M Costs Table 7-1 summarizes the capital and O&M costs estimated for each of the Town’s Conservation Program components. Administration costs for each program component were not included in the estimate since it is assumed that the program will be administered by the Town’s existing staff without significant impact to their existing workload. Similarly, labor costs were only included in the capital costs if the program component requires outside contractors to perform the labor. Table 7-1 Estimated Capital and O&M Costs for Town’s Conservation Program Water Conservation CAPITAL COSTS O&M Measure/Program Materials Labor Engineering Total COSTS Water Saving Fixtures(1) $1,500 Town Irrigation System Improvements and Audit(2) $1,000 $7,000 $8,000 $200 Third Stage Treatment(3) $358,000 $150,000 $76,000 $584,000 $1,460 Bleeder Automation(4) $33,000 $33,000 $1,000 Town Website(5) Customer Meter Testing and Replacement(6) $1,000 Leak Detection and Repair(7) $16,000 Tracking of Breaks and Repairs(8) Notes: (1) The Town will continue the existing program. Estimated O&M cost is $1,500 every 5 years based on historic invoices for Niagara water-saving fixtures. (2) The estimated cost of new equipment for the irrigation system is $1,000 and the estimated cost of the audit is $7,000. Estimated O&M cost is $200 every year for replacement parts. (3) Estimated cost of treatment unit in 2010 was $268,000. Addition to treatment plant for housing equipment estimated at $90,000 for 30’x30’ space. Labor for equipment installation estimated at $150,000. Engineering costs estimated at 15% of total project cost or $76,000. Assumed $0.10/1000 gallons treated through third stage membrane (power and cleaning chemicals) and a maximum total of 14.6 MG/year treated. (4) Material cost based on price quote from Ten Point Sales for a total of (11) Kupferle Foundry Company, Model #9800 Eclipse Automatic Flushing Devices. O&M costs estimated for purchase of replacement parts each year. (5) The existing conservation information on the Town's website will be maintained and it will not be expanded at this time. Therefore, this is a "no cost" item. (6) Estimated O&M cost is $1,000 per year based on hiring an outside contractor to test two (2) of the 3"-4" meters in the system every year. Water Conservation Plan 38 (7) Estimated O&M cost includes $6,000 per year for an outside contractor to perform leak detection services on a portion of the distribution system and $10,000 to repair any leaks identified in the process. (8) The Town will continue to track breaks and repairs using the existing distribution system maps located in the Water Shop. Therefore, this is a "no cost" item. 7.2 Potential Water Savings The total water savings potential of each program component was estimated based on an assumed life span of the program component and the estimated annual water savings. In general, the life span of the program component was linked to the expected life of the equipment installed. This was the case for the following program components: Town Irrigation System Improvements, Third Stage Treatment, and Bleeder Automation. For the Leak Detection and Repair Component, the estimated life span is the estimated number of years to check the entire distribution system for leaks. Table 7-2 summarizes the estimated annual water savings and total life span water savings for the program components. Note that these water savings estimates could only be made on four of the eight program components given the available information. Table 7-2 Estimated Water Savings from Town’s Conservation Program Water Conservation Measure/Program Expected Life Span Annual Water Savings Total Life Span Water Savings (Years) (Millions of Gal) (Millions of Gal) Water Saving Fixtures(1) Town Irrigation System Improvements(2) 10 0.55 5.5 Third Stage Treatment(3) 25 5.27 131.8 Bleeder Automation(4) 10 10.5 105 Town Website(5) Customer Meter Testing and Replacement(6) Leak Detection and Repair(7) 6 4.2 25.2 Tracking of Breaks and Repairs(8) Total 20.5 267 Notes: (1) Water savings was not estimated for this program given the limited distribution and inability to confirm if/when the fixtures were installed and if they were installed in the Estes Park water distribution system. (2) The Town's irrigation system used approximately 5.5 million gallons of water in 2011. The estimated water savings from the irrigation system improvements is 10%, which yields an estimated annual water savings of 0.55 million gallons. (3) Total treated water production at MWTP in 2011 was 309.7 million gallons. The current 2-stage treatment process is 98% efficient, for a total waste volume of 6.2 million gallons. A third stage treatment process is assumed to be at least 85% efficient, which results in a net annual water savings of 5.27 MG. Water Conservation Plan 39 (4) The Town's eleven (11) bleeder locations used approximately 10.6 million gallons during the 2010-2011 season. The estimated usage for the same (11) bleeders with the new automatic flushing devices installed is 0.1 million gallons (3 minutes per hour at 7 gpm flow rate for 6 months), which yields an estimated annual water savings of 10.5 million gallons. (5) The potential water savings generated by posting conservation information on the Town's website cannot be estimated. (6) The verification of water meter accuracy is not expected to significantly impact overall water usage and therefore the potential water savings from this program was not estimated. (7) Based on past experience, the leak detection process will identify an average of 4 leaks per year. Each leak is assumed to be flowing at 2 gpm continuously, which yields an estimated annual water savings of 4.2 million gallons. (8) The potential water savings generated by tracking breaks and repairs can be estimated after a few years of data is collected. 7.3 Cost Effectiveness In order to evaluate the cost effectiveness of each of the Town’s Conservation Program components, it is necessary to estimate the cost to supply treated water to the Town. This type of estimate would generally include costs for all of the treated water system components including supply, treatment, and distribution. However, for the purposes of this study, only the cost of water supply and the cost of treatment were evaluated. Changes to the distribution system that may arise in the future when expansion of the GWTP is necessary are currently undefined because the location of potential growth inside the Town limits is unknown, so those future costs are not included. The cost of water supply only applies to the MWTP and covers a “carriage cost” and “power interruption cost” associated with the Town’s water rights through the Bureau of Reclamation. The cost of treatment is comprised of the operation and maintenance costs at the Town’s two water plants, which includes chemicals, power, and sewer discharge. The O&M costs do not include staff time because regardless of the number of gallons of water treated, the same equipment must be operated and maintained. No savings in staff time will be realized by conservation measures. Table 7-3 summarizes the cost components described above. Table 7-3 Estimated Cost to Supply Treated Water to Town Treated Water O&M Cost Item Cost per 1,000 Gallons of Treated Water Chemicals $0.33 Power $0.11 Sewer Discharge $0.048 Water Supply $0.28 Total $0.77 Notes: (1) Total treated water produced at GWTP and MWTP in 2011 was 537.43 million gallons. For the purposes of this evaluation, it is assumed that the Town will continue to operate the plants the same time periods during any given year. (2) Total chemical cost at GWTP and MWTP in 2011 was $178,000. (3) Total power cost for GWTP and MWTP in 2011 was $60,000. (4) Total sewer discharge cost at MWTP in 2011 was $26,000. GWTP does not have any costs associated with sewer discharge. The MWTP sewer discharge cost was divided by the total treated water production at both plants. (5) The cost of water supply at MWTP includes a "carriage cost" and "power interruption cost". The total water supply cost for MWTP in 2011 was $150,000. Water Conservation Plan 40 As shown in Table 7-3, the estimated cost to supply treated water to the Town is $0.77 per 1,000 gallons. To evaluate the cost effectiveness of the Town’s Conservation Program components, this cost was compared to the cost to “save the water” using the various conservation efforts identified. The cost to save the water was estimated by dividing the net present value (NPV) of each program component by the total water savings generated over the life span of the program component. The NPV calculation includes both the initial capital cost as well as the operation and maintenance costs over the life span of the program (see Table 7-1), discounted at a 4% interest rate. A copy of the NPV calculations is provided in Appendix D. A “cost effectiveness” number was generated by subtracting the cost to save the water from the cost to treat the water, with a positive result indicating that the conservation effort is cost effective and a negative result indicating that the conservation effort is not cost effective. Table 7-4 summarizes the cost effectiveness calculations described above. These calculations were only performed on the program components where an estimate of the potential water savings was available. Note, the cost of Third Stage Treatment will be addressed using a different calculation since this conservation effort is related to the cost to discharge water to the sewer in addition to the cost to retreat the water at the plant after the third stage process. Table 7-4 Cost Effectiveness of Town’s Conservation Program Water Conservation Measure/Program Total Project Cost NPV(1) Total Life Span Savings(2) Cost to Save Water(3) Cost to Treat Water(4) Cost Effectiveness(5) ($/1,000 Gal) (Millions of Gal) ($/1,000 Gal) ($/1,000 Gal) Water Saving Fixtures(7) $2,250 Town Irrigation System Improvements $9,600 5.5 $1.75 $0.77 ($0.98) Third Stage Treatment(6) Bleeder Automation $41,100 105 $0.39 $0.77 $0.38 Town Website Customer Meter Testing and Replacement $2,800 Leak Detection and Repair $83,900 25.2 $3.33 $0.77 ($2.56) Tracking of Breaks and Repairs Total NPV $139,650 Notes: (1) NPV of capital and O&M costs generated in Table 7-4 at a 4% annual interest rate for the expected life span of the program identified in Table 7-2. (2) "Total Life Span Water Savings" from Table 7-2. (3) Cost to Save Water = "Total Project Cost NPV" / ("Total Life Span Savings" x 1,000) Water Conservation Plan 41 (4) "Cost to Treat Water" from Table 7-3. (5) "Cost Effectiveness" = "Cost to Treat Water" - "Cost to Save Water". (6) The cost effectiveness of Third Stage Treatment is addressed in Table 7-5 since the primary cost factor is not the "cost to treat the water", but the "cost to discharge the water to sewer". (7) Water savings was not estimated for this program given the limited distribution and inability to confirm if/when the fixtures were installed and if they were installed in the Estes Park water distribution system. As shown in Table7-4, the total NPV of the Town’s Conservation Program (with the exception of Third Stage Treatment) is approximately $140,000. Only one of the three program components evaluated appears to be cost effective, which is the Bleeder Automation. The Town Irrigation System Improvements and the Leak Detection and Repair components do not appear to be cost effective when compared to the cost of treating additional water required to replace the water losses that could potentially be saved by these two conservation efforts. As previously mentioned, the cost effectiveness of Third Stage Treatment must compare the cost to save the water through this conservation effort to the cost to discharge the same water to the sewer. Table 7-5 summarizes this calculation using the Town’s contracted rate with the UTSD of $6.25 per 1,000 gallons discharged to the sewer. Table 7-5 Cost Effectiveness of Third Stage Treatment Water Conservation Measure/Program Total Project Cost NPV(1) Total Life Span Savings(2) Cost to Save Water(3) Cost to Discharge Waste Water to Sewer Cost Effectiveness() ($/1,000 Gal) (Millions of Gal) ($/1,000 Gal) ($/1,000 Gal) Third Stage Treatment $606,800 131.75 $5.38 $6.25 $0.87 Notes: (1) NPV of capital and O&M costs generated in Table 7-4 at a 4% annual interest rate for the expected life span of the program identified in Table 7-2. (2) "Total Life Span Water Savings" from Table 7-2. (3) Cost to Save Water = ["Total Project Cost NPV" / ("Total Life Span Savings" x 1,000)] + ($0.77 to re-treat water at plant) (4) "Cost Effectiveness" = "Cost to Discharge Waste Water" - "Cost to Save Water". The results of the Third Stage Treatment evaluation presented above reveal that this conservation effort is cost effective for the Town relative to the other program components with a potential savings of $0.87 per 1,000 gallons. The financial plan proposed in 2010 included a pilot-scale test of third stage treatment at the MWTP in 2013. Data collected from that pilot would be used to refine the costs and benefits of implementing full-scale third stage treatment in the future. In light of the reduced revenues from lower implemented rates, the timing of this project is being re-evaluated. Water Conservation Plan 42 7.4 Summary of Benefits and Costs The previous sections generated a “cost effectiveness” value to help the Town evaluate the components of their selected Conservation Program. Only four of the eight components could be evaluated in this analysis since potential water savings estimates could not be generated for the remaining four components. Of the four components evaluated, two appear to be relatively cost effective, Third Stage Treatment and Bleeder Automation. The remaining two components, Town Irrigation System Improvements and Leak Detection and Repair, do not appear to be cost effective based on the assumptions used in this report. However, the cost effectiveness analysis presented herein does not address all the potential benefits that could be recognized from implementation of the program components. For example, the Town’s distribution system contains a large percentage of “aged” pipe that is susceptible to catastrophic failure. Implementation of the Leak Detection and Repair program could identify a leak that would otherwise become a break in the future, resulting in costs to the Town that are much greater than the cost to implement the program as a safety-precaution. Although four of the program components could not be evaluated for cost effectiveness, the Town will still include these in their overall Conservation Program as they are believed to offer benefits that justify the cost (if any) of implementing the program component. In conclusion, the Town will move forward with the Conservation Program identified in this Section, which consists of the following eight components: • Water Saving Fixtures • Town Irrigation System Improvements • Third Stage Treatment • Bleeder Automation • Town Website • Customer Meter Testing and Replacement • Leak Detection and Repair • Tracking of Breaks and Repairs Where the Town could see financial benefit from implementation of the Conservation Program is the reduction of operation and maintenance costs. This cost was previously evaluated in Section 7.3 with the results producing an estimated treated water cost of $0.77 per 1,000 gallons. Using this cost and the estimated annual water savings from the Conservation Program (20.5 million gallons from Table 7-2), the estimated annual operations and maintenance cost savings is roughly $16,000. Interestingly enough, this cost savings roughly covers the estimated operations and maintenance costs associated with the Conservation Program itself, with the largest expenditure going towards the Leak Detection and Repair program (estimated O&M at $16,000 per year from Table 7-1). 8.0 Integrate Resources and Modify Forecasts 8.1 Revise Demand Forecast(s) Section 3.0 presented a demand forecast for the Town that is based on being able to reliably meet peak day demand. The Conservation Program that has been selected for implementation is not expected to change this demand forecast as the program components will have little to no impact on peak day Water Conservation Plan 43 demand. The Town’s peak day demand is largely driven by the influx of tourists during the summer months and the program components identified will have little impact on the amount of water used by those tourists. For this reason, the demand forecast presented in Section 3.0 will not be revised as part of this current Conservation Program effort. The demand forecast will be re-visited in the future to refine the potable water demand projection. Since the last demand projection was develop, the housing market and economic downturn may have impacted future growth and the number of transient water users. In specific, the next demand projection effort should consider including the following: • 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. • 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 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. • 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. • 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. • 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. • Consider the impacts to the Town land use categories of converting lodging properties to condos for tax purposes. • Work towards developing per capita demands for each category of population, primarily the permanent population and the transient population. There is some potential that implementation of the Town’s Conservation Program could impact average day water demand over the course of the year. Table 8-1 summarizes the potential annual percent reduction in treated water volumes that could be recognized as a result of implementing the Conservation Program based on 2011 treated water production. Water Conservation Plan 44 Table 8-1 Estimated Percent Reduction in Annual Treated Water Volume Estimated Annual Water Savings from Town's Conservation Program (Millions of Gal)(1) 20.5 Total Treated Water Volume in 2011 (Millions of Gal)(2) 537.43 Potential Percent Reduction in Annual Treated Water Volume following Implementation of Town's Conservation Program(3) 3.8% Notes: (1) Estimated Annual Water Savings from Table 7-2. (2) Treated water production at both MWTP and GWTP in 2011. (3) "Potential Percent Reduction" = ("Estimated Annual Water Savings...") / ("Total Treated Water Volume…") x 100 8.2 Identify Project Specific Savings Similar to the demand projection discussion above, the capital improvement projects that are currently included in the Town’s capital improvement plan (CIP) are not driven by the need to provide additional treated water to the Town, but are instead driven by such things as the need to replace aging infrastructure (GWTP replacement project), correct existing system deficiencies (such as treated water storage volume and distribution piping), optimize the Town’s water rights portfolio (water supply purchases), etc. Consequently, the implementation of the Town’s Conservation Program will not delay the need to execute the CIP in the manner which has been previously identified in the numerous planning studies and reports that have been prepared for the Town in the recent past (see Section 1.0 for a list of these reports and studies). 8.3 Revise Supply-Capacity Forecast(s) The only water supply related project currently included in the Town’s CIP is the purchase of additional water rights for the GWTP, which will be executed in the next year or two. The purchase of these additional water rights is required to ensure that GWTP can meet existing peak day water demands should the MWTP be out of service. However, the purchase of these rights will also allow the Town to meet the projected peak day demand at buildout that was forecast as part of the demand projection in Section 3.0. Consequently, the implementation of the Town’s Conservation Program will not impact the Town’s current plans for water supply. 8.4 Consider Revenue Effects Implementation of the Town’s Conservation Program is not expected to significantly impact revenue from treated water sales. The Town will be revisiting their overall rates and rate structure with an updated Financial Plan in 2013. The largest funding concern for the future is the GWTP replacement project, which as previously mentioned, will not be impacted by the implementation of the Town’s Conservation Plan. Water Conservation Plan 45 9.0 Develop Implementation Plan 9.1 Develop Implementation Schedule The Town plans to initiate public review and participation of this Conservation Plan through the processes set up for the Town Board of Trustees and the Utility Committee, which is a subset of the Town Board. Review and approval of this Conservation Plan as well as the Town’s Conservation Program identified herein will be initiated at the April 2012 Utility Committee meeting and depending on the recommendation of that committee, will be forwarded to the Town Board for review and approval. Assuming approval by the Town Board of Trustees by April 2012, the Water Utility staff has already integrated some of the plan elements into capital and O&M planning. Leak detection and repair costs are included in both the 2012 and 2013 budgets. Water saving fixtures, the Town web site, and leak tracking are ongoing programs that will be continued through the upcoming years. Table 9-1 Summary of Implementation Schedule Water Conservation Measure/Program Required Action Timing of Activity Water Saving Fixtures Distribute fixtures at appropriate events Ongoing activity Town Irrigation System Improvements Upgrade irrigation control system and automatic rainfall sensors Dependent on Town budget for Parks Department Third Stage Treatment Pilot test technologies and install if successful 2013 or later, depending on funding availability Bleeder Automation Install “test” bleeders for evaluation 2012 Town Website Describe conservation programs Ongoing activity to update as staff time is available Customer Meter Testing and Replacement Test 3” and 4” meters 2013-2016 Leak Detection and Repair Find existing leaks in water mains and make repairs 2012 and 2013 as budgeted Tracking of Breaks and Repairs Record appropriate information regarding water main breaks Ongoing activity 9.2 Develop Plan for Public Participation in Implementation The conservation plan will be submitted for review to the Town Utility Committee and ultimately to the Town Board of Trustees. The first review will be at the Utility Committee meeting in March 2012. Subsequent Town discussions and final approval will be subject to the processes of the Town Board. The public is welcome to attend and comment on issues at each Town Board meeting, including the adoption of the conservation plan. Water Conservation Plan 46 The public will be notified of the adoption and implementation of the new conservation plan by the Town Water Department through a press release. Access to a copy of the plan will be provided through the Town Water Department web site (or ???). Members of the public interested in participating in the water conservation effort will be given water saving fixtures. 9.3 Develop Plan for Monitoring and Evaluation Processes The Water Utility normally keeps track of lost water and of costs associated with all the elements of the proposed conservation program, so the monitoring and evaluation process are on-going elements within the utility’s current management program. Each year the utility reviews this information to gain an understanding of progress towards conservation and other goals. 9.4 Develop Plan for Updating and Revising the Conservation Plan The Water Utility plans to officially review and update the Conservation Plan every 10 years. 9.5 Define Plan Adoption Date/Plan Completed Date/Plan Approved Date The Conservation Plan was adopted by the Town Board of Trustees on ________________. 10.0 Abbreviations Ac Acre CDPHE Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment CVB Convention and Visitors Bureau Gal Gal/day Gallons Gallons per day GIS Geographic Information System gpcd Gallons per capita per day GWTP Glacier Creek Water Treatment Plant MGD Million gallons per day MWTP Mary’s Lake Water Treatment Plant O&M RMNP Operations and maintenance Rocky Mountain National Park Water Conservation Plan 47 11.0 Appendix Appendix A Order of Magnitude CIP Cost Estimates Appendix B Top Water Customers for Town of Estes Park Appendix C Pressure Zone Management Analysis for Service Area No. 2 Appendix D NPV Calculations Appendix A Order of Magnitude CIP Cost Estimates Order of magnitude costs for the proposed new storage tanks are shown in Table 12.1. The total estimated cost for new storage in the system is $7,920,000. Table 12.1 2010 Construction Costs for Proposed New System Storage Project Description Quantity (Gallons) Unit Price Estimated Cost in 2010 Dollars 1.4 MG "Yellow Zone" Storage Tank - Buried Concrete 900,000 $4 $3,600,000 0.05 MG "Crystal Zone" Storage Tank - Buried Concrete 50,000 $4 $200,000 0.4 MG "Fall River Estates Zone" Storage Tank - Buried Concrete 400,000 $4 $1,600,000 0.13 MG "Kiowa Estates Zone" Storage Tank - Buried Concrete 130,000 $4 $520,000 Projects identified to correct distribution system problems are shown in Table 12.2. The total estimated 2010 construction cost of these improvements is $867,900. Table 12.2 2010 Construction Cost for Proposed Distribution System Improvements Project Description Quantity (LF) Unit Price(1) Estimated Cost in 2010 Dollars 8" Pipe 325 $160 $52,000 8" Pipe 365 $160 $58,400 12" Pipe 1,850 $190 $351,500 8" Pipe 350 $160 $56,000 Upgrade Prospects Estates PRV 1 $100,000 $100,000 Upgrade Strongs Ave PRV 1 $75,000 $75,000 New Grey Fox PRV 1 $175,000 $175,000 Appendix B Top Water Customers for Town of Estes Park Estes Park Water Conservation Plan ! "##$%! &%’#%(#%)*+$%! ",#% -.#%)%+##%# /!+(##0*!"%*,% /1%2## ! "##$%! &%’#%(#%)*+$%! ",#% -.#%)%+##%# /!+(##0*!"%*,% /1%2##3 4 3 3 -, ! " ##$%! &% ’#%(#% )* + $%! ",#% - .#% 3 4 3 3 -, )%+##%# / ! " ##$%! &% ’#%(#% + !+(## .%56 $%! ",#% *!"%* 3 4 3 3 -, ##$%! &% + ! " ’#%(#% $%! ",#% *!"%* ,% / 1 %2 ## What happened here? /7 /7 /7 /7 /7 /7 /7 /7 /7 /7 /7 /7 !"#" $%##" ! " )* ##$%! &% + ’#%(#% - .#% $%! ",#% -"%&5#’%# /7 /7 /7 /7 /7 /7 /7 /7 /7 /7 /7 /7 #"& $%##" ! " ##$%! &% ’#%(#% )* + $%! ",#% - .#% -"%&5#’%# /7 /7 /7 /7 /7 /7 /7 /7 /7 /7 /7 /7 #"& $%##" )%+##%# / ! " ##$%! &% ’#%(#% + !+(## .%56 $%! ",#% *!"%* -"%&5#’%# /7 /7 /7 /7 /7 /7 /7 /7 /7 /7 /7 /7 #"& $%##" ##$%! &% + ! " ’#%(#% $%! ",#% *!"%* ,% / 1 %2 ## -"%&5#’%# /7 /7 /7 /7 /7 /7 /7 /7 /7 /7 /7 /7 /7 /7 /7 /7 /7 #"& $%##" ! "##$%! &% ’#%(#%+ $%! ",#% )%+##%# / *!"%*)* !+(##.%56 - .#%,% / 1 %2 ##-"%&5#’%# Appendix C Pressure Zone Management Analysis for Service Area No. 2 Water Savings Calculator Input Average Pipe Size (in)6.4 Daily Water Usage (gpd)1,473,120 Estimated System Leakage 10% Water Cost Per 1,000 Gallons $4.11 Standard System Pressure (psi)142.0 Minimum Outlet Pressure (psi)102.00 Time at Max Pressure (hrs)12 Time at Min Pressure (hrs)12 Leakage Coefficient, N1 1.50 Water Savings Calculator Results Average Flow Rate (gpm)1,023 Average Flow Velocity (ft/s)10.2 Average Weekly Water Usage (gal)10,311,840 Average Annual Water Usage (acre-ft)1,650 Average Annual Water Usage (mg)537.7 Estimated Daily Water Loss Based on Standard System Pressure & Estimated System Leakage (gal)147,312 Estimated Annual Water Loss (acre-ft)165 Annual Financial Loss Due to Estimated System Leakage 220,990$ Estimated System Leakage at Standard System Pressure & Before Pressure Management Input Data 10.0% Calculated % of System Leakage Recovered with Pressure Management Input data 19.6% Average Daily Pressure with Pressure Management Input Data (psi)122 Calculated Daily Water Savings with Pressure Management Input Data (gal)28,815 Calculated Annual Water Savings with Pressure Management Input Data (acre-ft)32.3 Calculated Annual Water Savings with Pressure Management Input Data (mg)10.5 Calculated Annual Financial Savings with Pressure Management Input Data 43,227$ Years to pay back cost of PRVs 0.0 Service Area 2 - Pressure Management Output Data Service Area 2 - Input Values Service Area 2 - Output for System Leaks Enter Model or Series number then click Search: Search Home » About Us » Products » Electronic Products » Application Quick Links » Technical Assistance » Field Service »Contacts PMV Water Savings Calculator PREPARED BY: CLA-VAL Application Example www.cla-val.com DATE: PRESSURE MANAGEMENT ANALYSIS FOR 98-01* PRESSURE MANAGEMENT CONTROL VALVE July 14, 2011 Update Print SYSTEM INPUT DATA OUTPUT DATA FOR SYSTEM LEAKS Pipe Size 6.4 in Average Flow Rate 1,023 gpm Estimated Daily Water Usage 1,473,120 gal Average Flow Velocity (approx.) 10.2 ft/sec Standard System Pressure 142 psi Average Weekly Water Usage 10,311,840 gal Estimated System Leakage 10.0 % Average Annual Water Usage 1,650 acre-ft Water Cost per 1000 Gallons 4.11 $ Average Annual Water Usage 537.7 mg Estimated Daily Water Loss Based on Standard System Pressure & Estimated System Leakage 147,312 gal Estimated Annual Water Loss 165.0 acre-ft System Leakage Orifice Dia in Annual Financial Loss Due to Estimated System Leakage $220,990 $ PRESSURE MANAGEMENT INPUT DATA PRESSURE MANAGEMENT OUTPUT DATA NaN NaN Outlet Pressure (min) 102 psi Estimated System Leakage at Standard System Pressure & Before Pressure Management Input Data 10.0 % NaN NaN Time at Max Pressure (daily) 12.0 hrs NaN NaN Time at Min Pressure (daily) 12.0 hrs Calculated % of System Leakage Recovered with Pressure Management Input data 19.6 % NaN NaN Leakage Coefficient, N1 1.5 - NaN NaN Average Daily Pressure with Pressure Management Input Data 122.0 psi NaN NaN Leakage Coefficient Guideline NaN NaN Leakage coefficient, N1, can vary depending on factors such as pipe material, level and type of leakage as well as the type of distribution system (residential, commercial, agricultural, etc.). For analysis purposes the following guideline can be used to select a number for N1. These N1 values are referenced from a system leakage analysis study. The user may want to enter different values for N1 if they are familiar with the leakage analysis method used and the proper coefficient value for their particular system. N1 = 1.5 is an average leakage coefficient value used for typical systems with undetectable background leakage with any pipe material. N1 = 1.0 is recommended if there is an abscence of knowledge of pipe materials and leakage level. N1 = 1.15 is a japanese standard used for their systems for the past 20 years. N1 = 1.52 was an average value determined from lab tests by Ashcroft & Taylor (Surveyor, July 1983) on artificially created leaks in plastic pipe. N1 = 2.50 maximum recognized coefficient value for systems with excessive leakage. Calculated Daily Water Savings with Pressure Management Input Data 28,815 gal NaN NaN NaN NaN Calculated Annual Water Savings with Pressure Management Input Data 32.3 acre-ft Calculated Annual Water Savings with Pressure Management Input Data 10.5 mg Calculated Annual Financial Savings with Page 1 of 2PMV Water Savings Calculator Jan 2008 Version 2REVB.xls 7/14/2011http://www.cla-val.com/watersavingscalculator.cfm Although some general theories reference upper coefficient values of 2.50, case studies associated with this value were not found. Pressure Management Input Data $43,227 $ Page 2 of 2PMV Water Savings Calculator Jan 2008 Version 2REVB.xls 7/14/2011http://www.cla-val.com/watersavingscalculator.cfm Pressure Management Control Valve Typical Performance A desired pressure profile with reduced system pressure during low demand periods is illustrated by the solid line in chart. At low flows a minimum pressure is maintained and as flow increases delivery pressure gradually increases up to maximum pressure set point for maximum flow. The ramping is adjustable to fine tune valve to system requirements.The “water saving zone” below maximum pressure line represents valve effectiveness in reducing water losses and pipeline breakage in system. Schematic Diagram Item Description 1 Hytrol (Main Valve) 2 X43 "Y" Strainer 3 X58C Restriction Assembly 4 X58A Restriction Fitting 5 X78 Stem Assembly 6 X101 Valve Position Indicator Assembly 7 CRD2SF Pressure Management Control 8 CK2 (Isolation Valve) 9 X141 Gage 10 CV Flow Control (Closing) 11 CRD Pressure Reducing Control 12 Plug, Gage Connection 13 Socket, Gage Connection 14 CV Flow Control (Opening) Optional Features Item Description B CK2 (Isolation Valve) Water Saving Zone for reduced leakage and fewer pipe breaks FlowPressureWater Saving Zone •Water Conservation •Pipe Break Prevention •Leakage Reduction •System Efficiency •Energy Savings •Retrofits to Existing Valves •100% Hydraulic Control •Supplies Optimal Pressure Based on Flow Demand •No Inline Orifice Plate Required The Cla-Val Model 98 Series / 698 Series Pressure Management Control Valve automatically adjusts downstream pressure based on demand changes in the system. This fully adjustable control valve automatically changes outlet pressure from a high setting during high flow conditions to a low setting during low flow conditions. The patent pending all-hydraulic operation design assures smooth ramping between pressure settings as flow demand conditions change. Model 98 Series easily manages the system pressure based on demand changes to reduce costly system leakage losses and line breaks. 98 Series (Full Internal Port) 698 Series (Reduced Internal Port) MODEL Patent Pending Patent Pending Model 98 Series (Uses Basic Valve Model 100-01) Note: The top two flange holes on valve size 36 are threaded to 1 1/2"-6 UNC. Dimensions (In inches) Component Standard Material Combinations Body & Cover Ductile Iron Cast Steel Bronze Available Sizes 2" - 24"2" - 16"2" - 16" Disc Retainer & Diaphragm Washer Cast Iron Cast Steel Bronze Trim: Disc Guide, Seat & Cover Bearing Bronze is Standard Stainless Steel is Optional Disc Buna-N®Rubber Diaphragm Nylon Reinforced Buna-N®Rubber Stem, Nut & Spring Stainless Steel For material options not listed, consult factory. Cla-Val manufactures valves in more than 50 different alloys. Materials GGGG DDDDInlet AAAA X 100-01 Grooved EE CC (MAX) K J H Inlet Outlet B (Diameter) Y Z G GG GGG DInlet DD DDD F FF X 100-01 Threaded & Flanged A E C (MAX) K J H Inlet Outlet AA AAA B (Diameter) Valve Body & Cover Pressure Class Flanged Grooved Threaded Grade Material ANSI Standards* 150 Class 300 Class 300 Class End‡ Details ASTM A536 Ductile Iron B16.42 250 400 400 400 ASTM A216-WCB Cast Steel B16.5 285 400 400 400 ASTM B62 Bronze B16.24 225 400 400 400 Note: * ANSI standards are for flange dimensions only. Flanged valves are available faced but not drilled. ‡ End Details machined to ANSI B2.1 specifications. Valves for higher pressure are available; consult factory for details Pressure Ratings (Recommended Maximum Pressure - psi) Valve Size (Inches)2346810121416182024 A Threaded 9.3812.50—————————— AA 150 ANSI 9.38 12.00 15.00 20.00 25.38 29.75 34.00 39.00 41.38 46.00 52.00 61.50 AAA 300 ANSI 10.00 13.25 15.62 21.00 26.38 31.12 35.50 40.50 43.50 47.64 53.62 63.24 AAAA Grooved End 9.0012.5015.0020.0025.38——————— B Dia.6.62 9.12 11.50 15.75 20.00 23.62 28.00 32.75 35.50 41.50 45.00 53.16 C Max.6.50 8.19 10.62 13.38 16.00 17.12 20.88 24.19 25.00 39.06 41.90 43.93 CC Max. Grooved End 5.757.259.3112.1214.62——————— D Threaded 4.756.25—————————— DD 150 ANSI 4.75 6.00 7.50 10.00 12.69 14.88 17.00 19.50 20.81 — — 30.75 DDD 300 ANSI 5.00 6.38 7.88 10.50 13.25 15.56 17.75 20.25 21.62 — — 31.62 DDDD Grooved End 4.756.007.50————————— E 1.50 2.06 3.19 4.31 5.31 9.25 10.75 12.62 15.50 12.95 15.00 17.75 EE Grooved End 2.503.124.256.007.56——————— F 150 ANSI 3.00 3.75 4.50 5.50 6.75 8.00 9.50 10.50 11.75 15.00 16.50 19.25 FF 300 ANSI 3.25 4.13 5.00 6.25 7.50 8.75 10.25 11.50 12.75 15.00 16.50 19.25 G Threaded 3.254.50—————————— GG 150 ANSI 3.25 4.00 5.00 6.00 8.00 8.62 13.75 14.88 15.69 — — 22.06 GGG 300 ANSI 3.50 4.38 5.31 6.50 8.50 9.31 14.50 15.62 16.50 — — 22.90 GGGG Grooved End 3.254.255.00————————— H NPT Body Tapping .375.50.75.7511111111 J NPT Cover Center Plug .50 .50 .75 .75 1 1 1.25 1.5 2 1.5 1.5 1.5 K NPT Cover Tapping .375.50.75.7511111111 Stem Travel 0.6 0.8 1.1 1.7 2.3 2.8 3.4 4.0 4.5 5.1 5.63 6.75 Approx. Ship Wt. Lbs.35 70 140 285 500 780 1165 1600 2265 2982 3900 6200 X Pilot System 13 15 17 29 31 33 36 40 40 43 47 68 Y Pilot System 9 11 12 20 22 24 26 29 30 32 34 39 Z Pilot System 9 11 12 20 22 24 26 29 30 32 34 39 100-01 Grooved 100-01 Threaded & Flanged Model 698 Series (Uses Basic Valve Model 100-20) Note: The top two flange holes on valve sizes 36 thru 48 are threaded to 1 1/2"-6 UNC. EE D E Inlet DD AA X 100-20 Flanged F A C (MAX) K J H Inlet Outlet FF B (Diameter) Dimensions (In inches) Component Standard Material Combinations Body & Cover Ductile Iron Cast Steel Bronze Available Sizes 3" - 24"3" - 16"3" - 16" Disc Retainer & Diaphragm Washer Cast Iron Cast Steel Bronze Trim: Disc Guide, Seat & Cover Bearing Bronze is Standard Stainless Steel is Optional Disc Buna-N®Rubber Diaphragm Nylon Reinforced Buna-N®Rubber Stem, Nut & Spring Stainless Steel For material options not listed, consult factory. Cla-Val manufactures valves in more than 50 different alloys. Materials Y Z Pressure Ratings (Recommended Maximum Pressure - psi) Valve Body & Cover Pressure Class Flanged Grade Material ANSI Standards* 150 Class 300 Class ASTM A536 Ductile Iron B16.42 250 400 ASTM A216-WCB Cast Steel B16.5 285 400 ASTM B62 Bronze B16.24 225 400 Note: * ANSI standards are for flange dimensions only. Flanged valves are available faced but not drilled. Valves for higher pressure are available; consult factory for details 100-20 Flanged Note: The top two flange holes on valve sizes 36 thru 48 are threaded to 1 1/2"-6 UNC. Valve Size (Inches)346810121416182024 A 150 ANSI 10.25 13.88 17.75 21.38 26.00 30.00 34.25 35.00 42.12 48.00 48.00 AA 300 ANSI 11.00 14.50 18.62 22.38 27.38 31.50 35.75 36.62 43.63 49.62 49.75 B Dia.6.62 9.12 11.50 15.75 20.00 23.62 27.47 28.00 35.44 35.44 35.44 C Max.7.00 8.62 11.62 15.00 17.88 21.00 20.88 25.75 25.00 31.00 31.00 D 150 ANSI — 6.94 8.88 10.69 CF* CF* CF* CF* CF* CF* CF* DD 300 ANSI — 7.25 9.38 11.19 CF* CF* CF* CF* CF* CF* CF* E 150 ANSI — 5.50 6.75 7.25 CF* CF* CF* CF* CF* CF* CF* EE 300 ANSI — 5.81 7.25 7.75 CF* CF* CF* CF* CF* CF* CF* F 150 ANSI 3.75 4.50 5.50 6.75 8.00 9.50 11.00 11.75 15.88 14.56 17.00 FF 300 ANSI 4.12 5.00 6.25 7.50 8.75 10.25 11.50 12.75 15.88 16.06 19.00 H NPT Body Tapping .375.50.75.751111111 J NPT Cover Center Plug .50 .50 .75 .75 1 1 1.25 1.25 2 2 2 K NPT Cover Tapping .375.50.75.751111111 Stem Travel 0.6 0.8 1.1 1.7 2.3 2.8 3.4 3.4 3.4 4.5 4.5 Approx. Ship Wt. Lbs.45 85 195 330 625 900 1250 1380 1500 2551 2733 X Pilot System 13 15 27 30 33 36 36 41 40 46 55 Y Pilot System 10 11 18 20 22 24 26 26 30 30 30 Z Pilot System 10 11 18 20 22 24 26 26 30 30 30 *Consult Factory CLA-VAL Copyright Cla-Val 2011 Printed in USA Specifications subject to change without notice. P.O. Box 1325 • Newport Beach, CA 92659-0325 • Phone: 949-722-4800 • Fax: 949-548-5441 • E-mail: claval@cla-val.com • Website cla-val.com © Outlet Pressure Adjustment Range: High Flow Pressure Setting: 200 psi (13.8 bar) Maximum Low Flow Pressure Setting: Up to 35 psi (2.4 bar) below high setting Temperature Range Water: to 180°F Materials Standard Pilot System Materials Pilot Control: Bronze ASTM B62 Trim: Stainless Steel Type 303 Rubber: Buna-N ®Synthetic Rubber Optional Pilot System Materials Pilot Systems are available with optional Aluminum, Stainless Steel or Monel materials. When Ordering, Please Specify 1. Catalog No. 98 Series or 698 Series 2. Valve Size 3. Pattern - Globe or Angle 4. Pressure Class 5. Threaded or Flanged 6. Trim Material 7. Desired Options 8. When Vertically Installed Pilot System Specifications Many factors should be considered in sizing pressure reducing valves including inlet pressure, outlet pressure and flow rates. For sizing questions or cavitation analysis, consult Cla-Val with system details. E-98 Series (R-7/2011) Not Recommended for Dead-end Service 98 Series Valve Selection 100-01 Pattern:Globe (G), Angle (A), End Connections:Threaded (T), Grooved (GR), Flanged (F) Indicate Available Sizes Inches 1 11⁄4 11⁄2 2 21⁄2 3 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 24 30 36 mm 25 32 40 50 65 80 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 600 750 900 Basic Valve 100-01 Pattern G, A G, A G, A G, A G, A G, A G, A G, A G, A G, A End Detail T, F, Gr T, F, Gr* T, F, Gr F, Gr F, Gr* F, Gr*FFFF Suggested Flow (gpm) Maximum 210 300 460 800 1800 3100 4900 7000 8400 11000 Maximum Intermittent 260 370 580 990 2250 3900 6150 8720 10540 13700 Minimum 1224101535507095 Suggested Flow (Liters/Sec) Maximum 13 19 29 50 113 195 309 442 530 694 Maximum Intermittent 16 23 37 62 142 246 387 549 664 863 Minimum .06 .09 0.13 0.25 0.63 0.95 2.2 3.2 4.4 6.0 100-01 Series is the full internal port Hytrol. For Lower Flows Consult Factory *Globe Grooved Only 698 Series Valve Selection 100-20 Pattern:Globe (G), Angle (A), End Connections:Flanged (F) Indicate Available Sizes Inches 3 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 24 30 36 42 48 mm 80 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 600 750 900 1000 1200 Basic Valve 100-20 Pattern GG, AG, AG, AGGGGG G G End DetailFFFFFFFFF F F Suggested Flow (gpm) Maximum 260 580 1025 2300 4100 6400 9230 9230 16500 16500 16500 Minimum 1 2 4 101535505095 95 95 Suggested Flow (Liters/Sec) Maximum 16 37 65 145 258 403 581 581 1040 1040 1040 Minimum .06 .13 .25 .63 .95 2.2 3.2 3.2 6.0 6.0 6.0 100-20 Series is the reduced internal port size version of the 100-01 Series. For Lower Flows Consult Factory Pressure Management Solutions Water Conservation Pipe Break Prevention Leakage Reduction System Efficiency Energy Savings patent pending Water shortages are looming worldwide while scientists and utilities work around the clock to find a viable solution. Many industry experts believe that one of the simplest and most cost effective water conservation measures is man- aging distribution system pressures to reduce avoidable losses, help prevent pipe breaks and minimize leakage. When Cla-Val Advanced Pressure Management Valves are integrated into a distribution system, these water conser- vation goals can be quickly achieved. Available in standard hydraulic, advanced hydraulic or electronic configurations, pressure management control systems can also be retrofitted to existing, installed Cla-Val control valves. Additional benefits can be derived from using me- tering in conjunction with pressure management to identify areas where immediate improvements can be made. Water savings begins when normal operating pressure is reduced in periods of low demand. The solid line in the chart illustrates a desired pressure profile to reduce pressure during low demand periods. At low flows, a minimum pressure is maintained. As flow demand increases, the set point pressure auto- matically begins to increase. The pressure ramps up to a maximum pressure set point at a maximum flow. The zone below the maximum pressure is where benefits are realized in reduced water loss and pipeline breakage. Pilot system adjustments allow changes to where the ramping pressure begins and ends to customize performance based on system demand. The Cla-Val 98 Series Advanced Hydraulic Pressure Management Valve employs cutting edge design with top quality workmanship to provide two-stage hydraulic pressure man- agement for water distribution systems. The unique design of the hydraulic pilot system automatically senses flow demand changes through the X78 Adjustable Stem Valve rather than restrictive devices such as orifice plates in the pipeline. The CRD2S pilot control works in conjunction with the X78 to automatically ramp the outlet pressure, taking hydraulic pressure control to the next level. The valve’s hydraulic control system adjusts pressure based on demand, lowering downstream pressure when demand falls and increasing it as demand climbs. This is done automatically without the need for outside intervention, electronic communication, or battery power of any sort throughout the system. The 98 Series is designed to be simple to adjust and yet flexible enough to tailor valve performance to system pres- sure requirements. If system flow demands change in the future, the 98 Series valve may easily be adjusted to meet the new zone pressures, while still saving water. Available on Cla-Val Hytrol sizes 2 through 16 inch and 600 Series sizes 3 through 24 inch, pressure management controls can also be retrofitted to existing Cla-Val Pressure Reducing Valves without removal of the valve or adding orifice plates. Advanced Hydraulic Pressure Management Water Saving Zone for reduced leakage and fewer pipe breaks FlowPressureWater Saving Zone Defining Pressure Management 98 Series The pressure management premise • Reducing pressure reduces consumption across the board • Off-peak periods, such as late night, are the ideal times to lower pressure because reduced demand leaves the pipeline over-pressurized and subject to increased background leakage and pipe breaks • Even a small reduction in pressure can significantly minimize pipe breaks and leakage • Reducing pressure lowers pumping costs and saves energy • Managing pressure with standard hydraulic, advanced hydraulic or electronic control valves can help achieve operational objectives without impacting the ability to deliver adequate pressure, even in periods of extreme demand such as fire flow patent pending The 300 Series valve is ideal for pressure management. It can be easily integrated into SCADA systems and can be programmed to deliver minimum night time and optimum daytime pressures, helping to reduce pipe breaks and minimize background leakage. The Cla-Val 300 Series Electronic Actuated Pressure Reducing Control Valve combines the precise control of field proven hydraulic pilots and remote control functionality of the 33 Series Electronic Actuator. Designed and manufactured by Cla-Val, the submersible 33 Series actuator maintains constant system pressure or flow rates with a set point that can be changed remotely. The 33 Series actuator, which operates off 12VDC or 24VDC, is well suited for solar power. It is available with any new Cla-Val control valve and can be field retrofitted to ex- isting, installed Cla-Val automatic control valves. Because pressure can be changed from a remote location, it is also an effective solution for lowering costs and eliminating safety hazards associated with "confined space" entry. Standard Hydraulic Pressure Management Electronic Pressure Management 390 Series 33 Series Electronic Actuator The Cla-Val 90 Series Pressure Reducing Valve is an excellent option for water distribution systems where active, hydraulic pressure management is desired. For example, pipelines in hilly areas are often over-pressurized in order to deliver adequate pressure at higher elevations. At lower elevations in the same system, however, delivery pressure can exceed what is actually necessary. This condition leaves the pipeline vulner- able to pipe breaks, background leakage, surges and cavitation. Regardless of the terrain, the 90 Series Pressure Reducing Valve can control pressure at certain points within a system to a fixed outlet pressure while maintaining the pipeline’s flow requirements. It provides sensitive and accurate pressure control and is easily ad- justed to respond to changing system requirements. To further enhance performance, 90 Series valves can be provided with Cla-Val’s patented KO anti-cavitation trim to eliminate the potential for damage caused by extreme pressure differentials. An electronic metering kit can also be added for applications where flow meas- urement is desired. KO Anti-Cavitation Trim 90 Series CLA-VAL CLA-VAL CLA-VAL CLA-VAL visit www.cla-val.com/savewater to calculate your savings using Advanced Pressure Management Valves CLA-VAL EUROPE Chemin des Mésanges 1 CH-1032 Romanel/ Lausanne, Switzerland Phone: 41-21-643-15-55 Fax: 41-21-643-15-50 E-mail: cla-val@cla-val.ch CLA-VAL FRANCE Porte du Grand Lyon 1 ZAC du Champ du Périer France - 01700 Neyron Phone: 33-4-72-25-92-93 Fax: 33-4-72-25-04-17 E-mail: cla-val@cla-val.fr CLA-VAL PO Box 1325 Newport Beach CA 92659-0325 800-942-6326 • Fax: 949-548-5441 • www.cla-val.com • E-mail: claval@cla-val.com ©COPYRIGHT CLA-VAL 2008 Printed in USA Specifications subject to change without notice. CLA-VAL CANADA 4687 Christie Drive Beamsville, Ontario Canada LOR 1B4 Phone: 905-563-4963 Fax: 905-563-4040 E-mail sales@cla-val.ca CLA-VAL UK Dainton House, Goods Station Road Tunbridge Wells Kent TN1 2 DH England Phone: 44-1892-514-400 Fax: 44-1892-543-423 E-mail: info@cla-val.co.uk Global Capabilities. Local Expertise. Cla-Val manufactures superior quality automatic control valves in production facilities lo- cated around the world. These facilities, coupled with sales offices and distribution cen- ters in the US, Canada, Switzerland, United Kingdom and France, enable Cla-Val to provide world-class product support to our customers wherever they are, whenever they need it. In addition to our state-of-the-art manufacturing and foundry facilities in the US, Cla-Val Canada also supports North American customers in a diverse array of industries with su- perior quality products and services and is one of the continent’s leading high volume OEM suppliers. Our manufacturing operation in Lausanne, Switzerland, backed by an expert team of engineers and customer service pro- fessionals, provides outstanding product and technical support to customers throughout Europe and the Middle East. Cla-Val UK Ltd. serves the United Kingdom with an unparalleled level of customer service and technical expertise. Primary markets include waterworks, fire protection, aviation fueling and industrial processing facilities. Cla-Val products can be found in nearly every waterworks distribution system throughout the UK. Cla-Val France, with headquarters in Lyon, is one of the leading suppliers of automatic control valves in France. Serving diverse markets ranging from aviation fuel truck manufacturing to water utility companies, Cla-Val France brings a unique combination of industry experience, technical expertise and product know-how to customers in the French marketplace. A World of Applications In addition to serving the waterworks industry for more than seventy years, Cla-Val has sig- nificant experience in the following industries. Industrial/Wastewater:Our extremely versatile automatic control valve, so prevalent in the waterworks industry, can also be customized to meet the demands of virtually any industrial fluid handling or wastewater application. Fire Protection:Cla-Val fire protection products are specified by engineers and architects around the world and perform with reliability and precision in fire suppression systems on off- shore oil platforms, and in high-rise structures and industrial facilities. Aviation Ground Fueling: Cla-Val ground fueling products are installed in commercial airports and military facilities around the world. Our products, originally introduced to meet the demands of military aircraft in World War II, have become the standard in present-day aviation. Marine:Cla-Val’s marine products are designed to meet the exacting requirements of military and commercial shipboard applications including fire protection systems, aircraft fueling and seawater service. Their rugged construction and top qual- ity materials help to ensure long life, minimal maintenance and precision performance. B-Pressure Management Solutions (R-10-08) Appendix D NPV Calculations Town Irrigation System $8,000 + $200 (P/A, 4%, 10) = $9,622 8.1109 Bleeder Automation $33,000 + $1,000 (P/A, 4%, 10) = $41,111 8.1109 Leak Detection and Repair $16,000 (P/A, 4%, 6) = $83,874 5.2421 Water Savings Fixtures $1,500 (P/F, 4%, 5) + $1500 (P/F, 4%, 10) = $2,246 0.8219 0.6756 Customer Meter Testing & Replacement $1,000 (P/A, 4%, 3) = $2,775 2.7751 Third Stage $584,000 + $1,460 (P/A, 4%, 25) = $606,800 15.6221 Page 1 Memo Light & Power Department To: Public Safety, Utilities & Public Works Committee Interim Town Administrator Richardson From: Reuben Bergsten, Utilities Director Date: April 12, 2012 RE: Land Purchase Agreement for Kiowa Water Tank and Water Fixtures Background: The Kiowa Ridge water tank was constructed in 2000 as a requirement for the development of the Kiowa Ridge subdivision. The ownership of the tank was transferred to the Water Department; however, the land was not transferred. The owner of the land has approach the Town with an offer to sell the land under this tank. During our process of due diligence and negotiations the land owner has moved forward with construction of a triplex on the Stanley Avenue Condominiums land which cost an additional $22,497. This amount was going to be avoided under the original agreement but is now reflected in the revised amount of $62,497 in the attached agreement. Improving the physical security of water systems has become a priority since the events of September 11, 2001. Owning this land will allow us to improve physical security through the installation of perimeter fencing. This will also allow us to post warning signs to protect us from basic liabilities. Future expansion of this tank is desirable. Development potential is high and the elevation of this tank is advantageous in supplying fire flows to areas including Marys Lake Lodge and Taharaa Mountain Lodge. Budget: Account # 503-7000-580.35-54 "Water System infrastructure" This is an unbudgeted item. The Water Department's fund balance is adequate to take on this expenditure without impacting our bond covenant requirements. Approving this contract will require appropriating additional funds which will occur through in the annual Supplemental Budget Appropriation Resolution brought forward in December. Recommendation: I recommend the acceptance/denial of the CONTRACT FOR SALE AND PURCHASE OF REAL PROPERTY, to be included as an action item at the April 24, 2012, Town Board meeting. Purchase of Kiowa Water Tank landCAMP APPLICATIONDepartment:WaterTitle_Project:Purchase of Kiowa Water Tank landOther Departments Or Entities: Open SpaceUseful Life:Capital Program: YesJustification:Purchase Land Under Water Tank and Open Space LandCommunity Participation:NoProject Manager:L. RichardsonEst. Const. Start:2/6/2012Est. Completion Date:11/16/2012Project Description: Improving the physical security of water systems has become a priority since the events of September 11, 2001. Owning this land will allow us to improve physical security through the installation of perimeter fencing. This will also allow us to post warning signs to protect us from basic liabilities. Future expansion of this tank is desirable. Development potential is high and the elevation of this tank is advantageous in supplying fire flows to areas including Marys Lake Lodge and Taharaa Mountain Lodge.PROJECT INFORMATIONCURRENT PROJECT COSTSPlanning, Design, Engineering: $0Land Purchase: $62,497Labor and Materials: $0Project Management: $0Legal: $500PLANNED FUNDINGOther: $0Fund SourceWaterFuture OM Expense: $0Total Funding: $62,997TotalCost: $62,997Contingency Percentage:0$62,997FirstYrCosts:2ndYrCosts:3rdYrCosts:4thYrCosts:5thYrCosts:6thYrCosts:7thYrCosts:8thYrCosts:9thYrCosts:10thYrCosts:This table shows expenditures that will reoccur annually OR multiyear projects. If there are varying annual costs, funding and/or OM expenes additional applications will exist for each year CONTRACT FOR SALE AND PURCHASE OF REAL PROPERTY The Town of Estes Park, a municipal corporation, (referred to as “Buyer”) and Robert F. Koehler (referred to as “Seller”), agree and covenant as follows: For good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, the Buyer agrees to purchase the subject property and Seller agrees to accept and complete the sale of the subject property on the following terms and conditions: 1. Subject Property: The real property subject to this Contract (the “Property”) is legally described as: Outlot A, Kiowa Ridge Subdivision, Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado Together with the interests, easements, rights, improvements thereto, and all interests of Seller, including all rights and interest in any spring and mineral rights regarding said subject property. 2. Sale/Purchase Price for Subject Property: The purchase price shall be: Sixty- two thousand four hundred ninety- seven ($62,497.00) Dollars; which shall be paid at closing. 3. Earnest Deposit/Damages Upon Breach: Upon mutual execution of this Contract, Buyer shall pay to Seller $1,000.00 as an earnest money deposit in the form of good funds which shall be held in escrow by Rocky Mountain Title Company, Estes Park, Colorado until closing when such funds shall be tendered at closing to the closing agent to be applied to the sale price. There shall be no interest accrued on the earnest deposit. 4. Contingencies: Physical Inspection: Buyer has inspected the Property. The Property is sold “as is”. The Seller makes no warranties or representations other than as set forth in this Contract. Title Documents, Reports, Restrictive Covenants, Homeowners’ Association Documents: Within seven (7) days of the Contract’s effective date, Seller shall supply to Buyer the following items. Buyer shall have seven (7) days after the Contract’s effective date to review and approve same. If for any reason, in Buyer’s sole discretion, Buyer determines that any title, document, covenant, easement, or other condition exists on or regarding the Property, the Buyer shall so notify Seller in writing within the time set forth herein of such objection and the Contract shall be terminated and the Buyer shall receive a full return of any earnest deposit. If, on the other hand, Buyer has no such objection, the Contract shall continue and the earnest money deposit shall become non- refundable by reason of any breach thereafter on the part of the Buyer. The items to be provided include: a. A title commitment for the full purchase price, insuring over any standard exceptions, relating to the Property, including legible copies of all recorded documents referenced within said commitment. b. Seller shall provide to Buyer true copies of all easements, liens or other restrictions to title not otherwise shown of public record. c. A copy of any restrictive covenants concerning the Property. d. A copy of any documents of the Homeowners’ Association concerning the Property. 5. Alternative Notice of Objection/ Right to Cure: Notwithstanding the termination of the formal contingency period set forth in paragraph 4, including paragraphs 4a through 4d, instead of terminating the Contract, Buyer may elect to notify Seller in writing prior to the expiration of the formal contingency period of Buyer’s specific objection(s) or unsatisfactory condition. Buyer and Seller shall have five (5) days thereafter to agree on a written resolution and/or cure concerning any such objection or unsatisfactory condition, and if so, the Contract shall remain in full force and effect. If no such agreed resolution is reached within such time period, this Contract shall then terminate and the Buyer shall receive a return of its earnest deposit. 6. Transfer of Title: Subject to payment at closing as required herein and compliance with Buyer of the terms of this Contract, Seller shall execute a good and sufficient general warranty deed to Buyer at closing conveying the Property to Buyer, free and clear of all liens and encumbrances, except for the general real estate taxes for the current year and subject to all liens, easements, covenants and restrictions of record. 7. Cash at Closing: All amounts paid by Buyer at closing shall be in funds which comply with all applicable Colorado laws concerning Good Funds. 8. Closing and Possession: Closing shall occur on or before April 20, 2012 at such time and date as the parties mutually agree. The place of closing shall be at the offices of Rocky Mountain Title Company, Estes Park, Colorado, or such other place as the parties hereto mutually agree. Possession shall be delivered at closing. If Seller fails to deliver possession as required, Seller shall pay to Buyer the sum of $50.00 per day until possession is delivered. 9. Encumbrances: All encumbrances and liens against the Property shall be paid at or before closing from the proceeds of sale or other good sources. 10. Closing Costs: Seller shall pay for the Buyer’s owner’s title policy expenses at the time of closing. Buyer and Seller shall split equally the costs related to escrow fees, as well as all document preparation and closing fees. Buyer and Seller shall each pay their own legal expenses and fees. Seller shall pay, at closing, all outstanding property taxes and Homeowners’ Association dues. 11. Time is of the Essence, Default, and Remedies: Time is of the essence in performing this contact. If Buyer is in default under the terms hereof, then all payments, earnest deposits, or other things of value shall be forfeited and retained by Seller as liquidated damages and both parties shall be released from further obligations hereunder. Seller specifically waives the right to specific performance. If the Seller is in default under the terms hereof, then Buyer may recover from Seller such other damages as may be proper and allowed by law, or Buyer may elect to treat this Contract as being in full force and have the right to specific performance or damages, or both. 12. Termination: In the event that this Contract is terminated, unless otherwise specified herein, all things of value shall be returned to the appropriate party and each party relieved of any further obligations hereunder. 13. Attorney Fees and Costs: In the event of a default or dispute under this Contract, the prevailing party shall be entitled to its attorney fees and costs of suit. 14. Applicable Laws: This Contract shall be governed, construed and enforced in accordance with the laws of the State of Colorado. 15. Non-Assignable: This Contract shall not be assignable by Buyer without the express written approval of Seller. 16. Specific Additional Provisions Relating To This Agreement: Seller is the owner of property located at 455 South St. Vrain, Estes Park, Colorado. This property, pursuant to policies of the Buyer’s Water Enterprise, has 110 fixture value units, one single family dwelling unit, and sixteen accommodation units available for future development on this property. Pursuant to the policies of the Buyer’s Water Enterprise, these water system development rights may only be used on this property. As partial consideration for the purchase of the Property, Seller has agreed to transfer to the Buyer 62 of the fixture value units, one single family dwelling unit, and sixteen accommodation units at the time of closing, free and clear of all liens, claims and encumbrances. Forty eight (48) fixture value units shall remain on this property for future development pursuant to the rules and regulations of the Buyer’s Water Enterprise. Buyer’s Water Enterprise shall assign two multi-family dwelling units to another property owned by Seller known as the Stanley Avenue Condominiums for future development on that property. The transfer of the 62 fixture value units, one single family dwelling unit, and sixteen accommodation units to Buyer and the assignment of the two multi-family dwelling units shall be by the execution of an appropriate document by Seller at closing. This transfer document shall be prepared by Buyer. A water utility account shall be opened and maintained for the two multi-family dwelling units. The account will be billed at one-half of the monthly base fee until a physical tap is made and put in service. 17. Entire Agreement, Modification, and Survival: This Contract constitutes the entire agreement between the parties. Any prior oral or written agreements have been merged and integrated herein. No subsequent modification of this agreement shall be binding unless in writing signed by all parties. Any obligation in this Contract that, by its terms, is intended to be performed after closing, shall survive the closing hereof. 18. Notice: Any notice required to be given hereunder must be in writing and shall be effective when received by Buyer or Seller addressed as follows: Town of Estes Park Robert F. Koehler Attn: Town Administrator 2225 Rock Castle Lane P O Box 1200 Fort Collins, CO 80528 Estes Park, CO 80517 19. Effective Date of Contract: The effective date of this Contract shall be the date upon which it is fully executed by both parties. BUYER: SELLER: TOWN OF ESTES PARK ROBERT F. KOEHLER By:______________________ _______ ____________________ ______ Mayor Date Date ATTEST: _________________________ _______ Town Clerk Date Light & Power Department Memo To: PUP Committee Interim Town Administrator Richardson From: Mark Pallissard, IT\LAN Manager Steve Barlow, PC\GIS Support Specialist Date: April 12, 2012 RE: GIS Consulting Contract Background: Historically the Water and L&P divisions shared one full time Geographic Information Services (GIS). This position was blended with IT to increase the support to our IT Department. Over the past 3 years, the increase in requests for GIS services has increased for both utilities and all town departments. Current project needs are no longer achievable by a half of a full time employee (FTE). The 2012 budget includes funding for our GIS project. Through this project we will enhance and extend our GIS Services to the Town. The request for proposals (RFP) was issued in March. We received six proposals for GIS consulting Services. Our process required costing to be sealed in a separate envelope. The selection team ( four staff members) reviewed all proposals first based on qualifications with InVision GIS, LLC coming out at as the top choice. The blended hourly rate for InVision GIS was $85 and through negations and clarifications of the required insurance, that rate was reduced to $80/hour. 1. ARCADIS $126.00 average hourly rate 2. El Technologies, LLC $118.00 average hourly rate 3. Ferguson-Jenkins & Associates, Inc. $ 85.00 average hourly rate 4. InfoMaption, Inc. $80.00 average hourly rate 5. InVision GIS, LLC $80.00 hour flat rate 6. Matrix Design Group $90.00 average hourly rate Budget: 503-7000-580.35-54, CAPITAL/INFRASTRUCTURE, WATER SYSTEM, $22,500 502-7001-580.33-33, CAPITAL EQUIPMENT, DATA PROCESSING, $22,500 Recommendation: Staff recommends awarding the GIS Consulting Agreement to InVision GIS, LLC be included on the Consent Agenda at the April 24th, 2012 Town Board meeting. Geographical Information System GISCAMP APPLICATIONDepartment:Light & PowerTitle_Project:Geographical Information System GISOther Departments Or Entities: WaterUseful Life:5Capital Program: YesJustification:Re‐Tool aging GISCommunity Participation:NoProject Manager:Est. Const. Start:1/3/2012Est. Completion Date:12/14/2012Project Description: The Town's Geographical Information System (GIS) is critical to the operations and planning of the Light & Power and Water utilities. The purpose of this project is to lay a foundation for easy access to accurate geospatial data which will in turn support our mission to provide high‐quality, reliable services. This project will include a needs assessment and optimization of our GIS data structure. The results of the needs assessment will be reviewed with Larimer County's GIS staff to identify opportunities in consolidating GIS services. A number of other deliverables have been identified.PROJECT INFORMATIONCURRENT PROJECT COSTSPlanning, Design, Engineering: $0Land Purchase: $0Labor and Materials: $40,000Project Management: $0Legal: $0PLANNED FUNDINGOther: $0Fund SourceLight & PowerFuture OM Expense: $0Total Funding: $40,000TotalCost: $40,000Contingency Percentage:0$40,000FirstYrCosts:2ndYrCosts:3rdYrCosts:4thYrCosts:5thYrCosts:6thYrCosts:7thYrCosts:8thYrCosts:9thYrCosts:10thYrCosts:This table shows expenditures that will reoccur annually OR multiyear projects. If there are varying annual costs, funding and/or OM expenes additional applications will exist for each year Geographical Information System GISCAMP APPLICATIONDepartment:WaterTitle_Project:Geographical Information System GISOther Departments Or Entities: Ligth & PowerUseful Life:5Capital Program: YesJustification:Re‐Tool aging GISCommunity Participation:NoProject Manager:Est. Const. Start:4/2/2012Est. Completion Date:8/1/2012Project Description: The Town's Geographical Information System (GIS) is critical to the operations and planning of the Light & Power and Water utilities. The purpose of this project is to lay a foundation for easy access to accurate geospatial data which will in turn support our mission to provide high‐quality, reliable services. This project will include a needs assessment and optimization of our GIS data structure. The results of the needs assessment will be reviewed with Larimer County's GIS staff to identify opportunities in consolidating GIS services. A number of other deliverables have been identified.PROJECT INFORMATIONCURRENT PROJECT COSTSPlanning, Design, Engineering: $0Land Purchase: $0Labor and Materials: $40,000Project Management: $0Legal: $0PLANNED FUNDINGOther: $0Fund SourceWaterFuture OM Expense: $0Total Funding: $40,000TotalCost: $40,000Contingency Percentage:0$40,000FirstYrCosts:2ndYrCosts:3rdYrCosts:4thYrCosts:5thYrCosts:6thYrCosts:7thYrCosts:8thYrCosts:9thYrCosts:10thYrCosts:This table shows expenditures that will reoccur annually OR multiyear projects. If there are varying annual costs, funding and/or OM expenes additional applications will exist for each year agreement GIS consulting services rev2.doc page 1 of 7 Town of Estes Park AGREEMENT FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES THIS AGREEMENT FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES (this “Agreement”) is made and entered into this ____ day of April 2012, by and between the Town of Estes Park, County of Larimer, State of Colorado (the “Town”) and InVision GIS, LLC an independent contractor (“Consultant”). WHEREAS, the Town requires professional services related to: Geographic Information Systems; WHEREAS, Consultant has held itself out to the Town as having the requisite expertise and experience to perform the required services; NOW, THEREFORE, for the consideration hereinafter set forth, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, the parties hereto agree as follows: I. SCOPE OF SERVICES A. Consultant shall furnish all labor and materials required for the complete and prompt execution and performance of its duties, obligations, and responsibilities (the “Work”) which are described or reasonably implied in the Consultant’s proposal dated March 19, 2012, which is provided as Exhibit A (and the original “Request for Proposal, March 7, 2012”), both attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference. B. No material change to the Scope of Services, including any additional compensation, shall be effective or paid unless authorized by written amendment executed by the Town. If Consultant proceeds without such written authorization, then Consultant shall be deemed to have waived any claim for additional compensation, including a claim based on the theory of unjust enrichment, quantum merit or implied contract. Except as expressly provided herein, no agent, employee, or representative of the Town is authorized to modify any term of this Agreement, either directly or implied by a course of action. II. REPORTS, DATA, AND WORK PRODUCT A. The Town shall provide Consultant with reports and such other data as may be available to the Town and reasonably required by Consultant to perform the Scope of Services. All documents provided by the Town to Consultant shall be returned to the Town. Consultant is authorized by the Town to retain copies of such data and materials at Consultant's expense. B. Other than sharing information with designated third parties as previously directed by the Town, no project information shall be disclosed by Consultant to third parties without prior written consent of the Town or pursuant to a lawful court order directing such disclosure. C. The Town acknowledges that the documents created by Consultant for the Project, including but not limited to drawings, designs, specifications, reports, and incidental work or materials (the “Work Product”), are instruments of professional service. Nevertheless, copies of the Work Product shall be provided to the Town and other contractors and subcontractors shall be authorized to use and reproduce applicable portions of the Work Product that are appropriate to use in the execution of their work related to the Project. The W ork Product shall become the property of the Town upon completion of the Work. Consultant, however, shall retain its rights in its standard drawing details, designs, specifications, databases, computer software and any other proprietary property and all rights to any intellectual property developed, utilized, or modified in the performance of the Work. D. Consultant shall provide to the Town electronic versions of the Work Product or document the progress of the RFP's Scope of Services in the format directed by the Town’s RFP. agreement GIS consulting services rev2.doc page 2 of 7 III. COMPENSATION AND FINAL SETTLEMENT A. In consideration for the completion of the Work by Consultant, the Town shall pay Consultant an amount equal not to exceed 45 thousand, 0 hundred and 00/100 ($45,000) based on hourly work performed at $80 per hour. The amount specified herein shall include the fees and expenses anticipated to be incurred by Consultant in performing all services hereunder, as described in Exhibit A. The amount specified herein shall exclude the fees and expenses anticipated to be incurred by others in performing the work described in Exhibit A. B. If, on the basis of the Town’s observation of the Work and the Town's review of the final invoice and accompanying documentation as required by this Agreement, the Town is satisfied that the Work has been completed and Consultant’s other obligations under this Agreement have been fulfilled, the Town will, within forty-five (45) days after receipt of the final invoice pay the amount due. Otherwise, the Town will return the invoice to Consultant, indicating in writing the reasons for refusing to schedule final settlement, in which case Consultant shall make the necessary corrections and resubmit the invoice. IV. COMMENCEMENT AND COMPLETION OF WORK Within seven days of receipt of a Notice to Proceed, Consultant shall commence work as set forth in the Scope of Services or that portion of such work as is specified in said Notice. Except as may be changed in writing by the Town, the Scope of Services shall be complete as provided in Exhibit A. V. PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY A. Consultant hereby warrants that it is qualified to perform the Work, and has all requisite corporate authority to enter into this Agreement. B. The W ork shall be performed by Consultant in accordance with generally accepted professional practices and the level of competency presently maintained by other practicing professional firms performing the same or similar type of work in the Denver metro area. The W ork shall be done in compliance with applicable federal, state, and local laws, ordinances, rules and regulations. C. Consultant shall be responsible for the professional quality, technical accuracy, timely completion, and the coordination of all designs, drawings, specifications, reports, and other services furnished by Consultant under this Agreement. Consultant shall, without additional compensation, correct or resolve any errors or deficiencies in its designs, drawings, specifications, reports, and other services, which fall below the standard of professional practice. D. Approval by the Town of drawings, designs, specifications, reports, and incidental work or materials furnished hereunder shall not in any way relieve Consultant of responsibility for technical adequacy of the work. Neither the Town's review, approval, or acceptance of, nor payment for, any of the Work shall be construed to operate as a waiver of any rights under this Agreement or of any cause of action arising out of the performance of this Agreement. E. Consultant hereby agrees that Consultant, including but not limited to, any employee, principal, shareholder, or affiliate of Consultant shall not have a financial relationship with or an ownership interest in any person and/or entity which entity and/or person shall be the recipient of any contract or work for the project designed by Consultant pursuant to the terms and conditio ns of this Agreement. Consultant understands and agrees that the purpose of this provision is to prevent any information created as a result of Consultant’s services herein being used by any person and/or entity in the preparation of any bid or performance of any work for the project. Consultant understands and agrees that the Town is relying upon the independent judgment of Consultant with regard to the services provided herein. agreement GIS consulting services rev2.doc page 3 of 7 F. Because the Town has hired Consultant for its professional expertise, Consultant agrees not to employ subcontractors to perform more than twenty percent (20 %) of the work required under the Scope of Services. Upon execution of this Agreement, Consultant shall furnish to the Town a list of proposed subcontractors, and Consultant shall not employ a subcontractor to whose employment the Town reasonably objects. All contracts between Consultant and subcontractors shall conform to this Agreement including, but not limited to, Section XI, L. VI. INSURANCE A. Consultant shall procure and maintain, and shall cause any subcontractor of Consultant to procure and maintain, the minimum insurance coverages listed below. Such coverages shall be procured and maintained with forms and insurers acceptable to the Town. In the case of any claims- made policy, the necessary retroactive dates and extended reporting periods shall be procured to maintain such continuous coverage. 1. As a self employed individual worker's compensation does not apply. If this status changes, worker's compensation insurance to cover obligations imposed by applicable law for any employee engaged in the performance of work under this Agreement, and Employer's Liability insurance with minimum limits of five hundred thousand dollars ($500,000) each accident, five hundred thousand dollars ($500,000) disease – policy limit, and five hundred thousand dollars ($500,000) disease – each employee. Evidence of qualified self-insured status may be substituted for the worker's compensation requirements of this paragraph. B. As a self employed individual and the content of the scope of services does not require professional licensed work the Consultant is not required to provide any insurance other than listed in A above. C. Failure on the part of Consultant to procure or maintain insurance required herein shall constitute a material breach of this Agreement upon which the Town may immediately terminate this Agreement, or at its discretion, the Town may procure or renew any such policy or any extended reporting period thereto and may pay any and all premiums in connection therewith, and all monies so paid by the Town shall be repaid by Consultant to the Town upon demand, or the Town may offset the cost of the premiums against any monies due to Consultant from the Town. VII. INDEMNIFICATION Consultant agrees to indemnify and hold harmless the Town and its officers, insurers, volunteers, representatives, agents, employees and assigns from and against all claims, liability, damages, losses, expenses and demands, including attorney's fees, on account of injury, loss, or damage, including, without limitation, claims arising from bodily injury, personal injury, sickness, disease, death, property loss or damage, which arise out of the negligent act, omission, error, professional error, mistake, negligence, or other negligent fault of Consultant, any subcontractor of Consultant, or any officer, employee, representative, or agent of Consultant or of any subcontractor of Consultant, or which arise out of any workmen's compensation claim of any employee of Consultant or of any employee of any subcontractor of Consultant. In any and all claims against Town or any of its officers, insurers, volunteers, representatives, agents, employees or assigns, by any employee of Consultant, any subcontractor of Consultant, anyone directly or indirectly employed by any of them or anyone for whose act any of them may be liable, the indemnification obligation under this Section VII shall not be limited in any way by any limitation on the amount or type of damages, compensation or benefits payable by or for Consultant or any subcontractor under worker’s compensation actions, disability benefit acts or other employee benefit acts. In the event it becomes necessary for the Town to bring any action to enforce any provision of this Agreement or to recover any damages the Town may incur as a result of the breach of this Agreement and the Town prevails in such litigation, Consultant shall pay the Town its reasonable attorneys’ fees as determined by the court. VIII. TERMINATION agreement GIS consulting services rev2.doc page 4 of 7 This Agreement shall terminate at such time as the Work is completed and the requirements of this Agreement are satisfied, or upon the Town's providing Consultant with seven (7) days advance written notice, whichever occurs first. If the Agreement is terminated by the Town's issuance of written notice of intent to terminate, the Town shall pay Consultant the reasonable value of all work previously authorized and completed prior to the date of termination. If, however, Consultant has substantially or materially breached this Agreement, the Town shall have any remedy or right of set-off available at law and equity. If the Agreement is terminated for any reason other than cause prior to completion of the Work, any use of documents by the Town thereafter shall be at the Town's sole risk, unless otherwise consented to by Consultant. Nothing herein shall constitute a multiple fiscal year obligation pursuant to Colorado Constitution, Article X, Section 20. Notwithstanding any other provision of this Agreement, the Town’s obligations under this Agreement are subject to annual appropriation by the Town Board of the Town. Any failure of the Town Board annually to appropriate adequate monies to finance the Town’s obligations under this Agreement shall terminate this Agreement at such time as such then-existing appropriations are to be depleted. Notice shall be given promptly to Consultant of any failure to appropriate such adequate monies. IX. CONFLICT OF INTEREST The Consultant shall disclose any personal or private interest related to property or business within the Town. Upon disclosure of any such interest, the Town shall determine if the interest constitutes a conflict of interest, including Section V-E. If the Town determines that a conflict of interest exists, the Town may treat such conflict of interest as a default and terminate this Agreement. X. INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR Consultant is an independent contractor. Notwithstanding any other provision of this Agreement, all personnel assigned by Consultant to perform work under the terms of this Agreement shall be, and remain at all times, employees or agents of Consultant for all purposes. Consultant shall make no representation that it is a Town employee for any purposes. XI. MISCELLANEOUS A. Governing Law and Venue. This Agreement shall be governed by the laws of the State of Colorado, and any legal action concerning the provisions hereof shall be brought in Larimer County, Colorado. B. No Waiver. Delays in enforcement or the waiver of any one or more defaults or breaches of this Agreement by the Town shall not constitute a waiver of any of the other terms or obligation of this Agreement. C. Integration. This Agreement and any attached exhibits constitute the entire Agreement between Consultant and the Town, superseding all prior oral or written communications. D. Third Parties. There are no intended third-party beneficiaries to this Agreement. E. Notice. Any notice under this Agreement shall be in writing, and shall be deemed sufficient when directly presented or sent pre-paid, first class United States Mail, addressed as follows: The Town: Town of Estes Park Steve Barlow, GIS Support Specialist PO Box 1200 Estes Park, CO 80517 970-577-3607 agreement GIS consulting services rev2.doc page 5 of 7 Consultant: InVision GIS, LLC Jill Fischer 3039 Sanford Cir Loveland, CO 80538 (970) 776-6321 F. Severability. If any provision of this Agreement is found by a court of competent jurisdiction to be unlawful or unenforceable for any reason, the remaining provisions hereof shall remain in full force and effect. G. Modification. This Agreement may only be modified upon written agreement of the parties. H. Assignment. Neither this Agreement nor any of the rights or obligations of the parties hereto, shall be assigned by either party without the written consent of the other. I. Governmental Immunity. The Town, its officers, and its employees, are relying on, and do not waive or intend to waive by any provision of this Agreement, the monetary limitations (presently one hundred fifty thousand dollars ($150,000) per person and six hundred thousand dollars ($600,000) per occurrence) or any other rights, immunities, and protections provided by the Colorado Governmental Immunity Act, C.R.S. § 24-10-101, et seq., as amended, or otherwise available to the Town and its officers or employees. J. Rights and Remedies. The rights and remedies of the Town under this Agreement are in addition to any other rights and remedies provided by law. The expiration of this Agreement shall in no way limit the Town's legal or equitable remedies, or the period in which such remedies may be asserted, for work negligently or defectively performed. K. Binding Effect. The Town and Consultant each bind itself, its successors and assigns to the other party to this Agreement with respect to all rights and obligations under this Agreement. Neither the Town nor Consultant shall assign or transfer its interest in this Agreement without the written consent of the other. L. Work By Illegal Aliens Prohibited. a. Consultant certifies that it does not knowingly employ or contract with an illegal alien and that Consultant has participated or attempted to participate in the basic pilot employment verification program as defined in C.R.S. § 8-17.5-101(1) (“Program”) in order to verify that it does not employ illegal aliens. b. Consultant shall not knowingly employ or contract with an illegal alien to perform work under this Agreement or enter into a contract with a subcontractor that fails to certify to Consultant that the subcontractor shall not knowingly employ or contract with an illegal alien to perform work under this Agreement. c. Consultant hereby certifies that it has verified or attempted to verify through participation in the Program that Consultant does not employ any illegal aliens; and, if Consultant is not accepted into the Program prior to entering into this Agreement, that Consultant shall apply to participate in the Program every three (3) months until Consultant is accepted or this Agreement has been completed, whichever is earlier. d. Consultant is prohibited from using Program procedures to undertake pre- employment screening of job applicants while this Agreement is being performed. agreement GIS consulting services rev2.doc page 6 of 7 e. If Consultant obtains actual knowledge that a subcontractor performing work under this Agreement knowingly employs or contracts with an illegal alien, Consultant shall be required to: (i) notify the subcontractor and The Town within three (3) days that Consultant has actual knowledge that the subcontractor is employing or contracting with an illegal alien; and (ii) terminate the subcontract with the subcontractor if, within three (3) days of receiving the notice required pursuant to the subparagraph above, the subcontractor does not stop employing or contracting with the illegal alien; except that Consultant shall not terminate the contract with the subcontractor if during such three (3) days the subcontractor provides information to establish that the subcontractor has not knowingly employed or contracted with an illegal alien. f. Consultant shall comply with any reasonable request by the Colorado Department of Labor and Employment (“Department”) made in the course of an investigation that the Department is undertaking pursuant to the authority established in C.R.S. § 8-17.5-101(1). g. If Consultant violates this paragraph, The Town may terminate this Agreement for breach of contract. If this Agreement is so terminated, Consultant shall be liable for actual and consequential damages to The Town. agreement GIS consulting services rev2.doc page 7 of 7 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Agreement on the date first set forth above. OWNER: CONSULTANT: TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO ____________________________ By: ______________________________ By: _________________________ Mayor Title: Principal Address: _____________________ ____________________________ ATTEST: ATTEST: By: ______________________________ By: _________________________ Town Clerk (SEAL) (SEAL) Other Partners: _________________________________ ____________________________ agreement GIS consulting services rev2.doc Attachment A PROPOSAL FOR THE TOWN OF ESTES PARK, UTILITIES DEPARTMENT GIS CONSULTING SERVICES IN RESPONSE TO RFP GIS CONSULTING SERVICES SUBMITTED BY InVision GIS, LLC 3039 Sanford Cir Loveland, CO 80538 (970) 776-6321 / (888) 824-4322 fax Principal Contact Information: Jill Fischer 3039 Sanford Cir Loveland, CO 80538 Ph: (970) 776-6321 / Fax: (888) 824-4322 jillfischer@invisiongis.com Submittal Due: March 19, 2012 Town of Estes Park – Utilities Department |GIS Consulting Services March 19, 2012 1 | Page InVision GIS, LLC. 2012 Table of Contents 1.0 Cover letter ....................................................................................................................................... 2 2.0 Methods and Strategic Development ............................................................................................... 3 2.1 Understanding of the Project ........................................................................................................ 3 2.2 Methods and Preliminary Project Approach ................................................................................. 3 2.2.1 Task 1: Conduct a kick-off meeting with needs assessment ................................................. 4 2.2.2 Task 2: Determine spatial platform, storage, organization, security and editing needs ...... 4 2.2.3 Task 3: Develop and document standards for importing CAD data into GIS ........................ 4 2.2.4 Task 4: QA/QC of existing datasets ....................................................................................... 4 2.2.5 Task 5: Develop a water geodatabase .................................................................................. 5 2.2.6 Task 6: Update electric geodatabase .................................................................................... 5 2.2.7 Task 7: Create interactive maps on mobile devices .............................................................. 5 2.2.8 Task 8: Create user guides and training manuals ................................................................. 6 2.2.9 Task 9: Train GIS and non-GIS staff ....................................................................................... 6 2.2.10 Task 10: Analyze opportunities to consolidate services with Larimer County ...................... 6 2.2.11 Task 11: Establish and document data sharing with other government agencies ............... 6 2.2.12 Tasks 12-16: Proposed additional tasks ................................................................................ 6 2.3 Anticipated Interaction with The Town’s staff .............................................................................. 7 2.4 Schedule ........................................................................................................................................ 7 3.0 Qualifications and Experience ........................................................................................................... 7 3.1 Prior Experience in Conducting GIS User Needs Analysis .............................................................. 7 3.2 Prior Experience Customizing Geospatial Databases .................................................................... 8 3.3 Prior Experience Facilitating GIS Services for Utilities in Local Governments ............................... 8 3.4 Experience in Past 5 Years Related to Scope of Services ............................................................... 9 4.0 List of Personnel .............................................................................................................................. 10 4.1 Contact Person ............................................................................................................................ 10 4.2 Resume ........................................................................................................................................ 11 5.0 Schedule of Rates ............................................................................................................................ 12 Town of Estes Park – Utilities Department |GIS Consulting Services March 19, 2012 2 | Page InVision GIS, LLC. 2012 1.0 COVER LETTER March 19, 2012 Town of Estes Park – Utilities Department 170 MacGregor Ave, Suite 100 P.O. Box 1200 Estes Park, CO 80517 Attention: Reuben Bergsten, Director of Utilities Subject: Proposal for the Town of Estes Park Utilities Department, GIS Consulting Services Reference: RFP: GIS Consulting Services, Addendum, Dated March 7, 2012 Dear Mr. Bergsten: In response to the above referenced RFP, InVision GIS, LLC (InVision) is enclosing our proposal for the Town of Estes Park’s (The Town) GIS Consulting Services. Our proposal reflects extensive experience using GIS for local government and utilities. With more than 11 years of experience in local government and utilities directly related to GIS, we are accomplished at addressing both the technical and organizational aspects of the project. We understand the process and needs of local government. We also understand the intricate and diverse requirements of a utilities-based GIS system. Finally, we have the unique knowledge of being directly involved with the GIS effort at The Town for the past 5 years. Our office is proximate to the Town, only 30 miles away. InVision plans to be onsite for necessary tasks in the scope of services. Our plan is to understand the goals before onsite visits so The Town and InVision can be prepared and time is productive. InVision will meet with Town staff for needs analysis, discovery, training, delivery of data and any other GIS services The Town or InVision feel necessary. InVision will also be available through the use of GoTo Meetings, and if available, VPN. In most cases, response time will be within 24 hours of an email or phone call. Requests for onsite visits will typically be within a week of such request. For ease of evaluation and review, the structure of our proposal follows the outline described in the RFP. If you require further information or clarification of any elements of the proposal, please don’t hesitate to contact me. As the primary contact person, I can be reached by phone at (970)776-6321 or by e-mail at jillfischer@invisiongis.com. We are excited to submit our proposal for this important GIS project, and look forward to working with the Town of Estes Park, Utilities Department. Sincerely, Jill Fischer President Town of Estes Park – Utilities Department |GIS Consulting Services March 19, 2012 3 | Page InVision GIS, LLC. 2012 2.0 METHODS AND STRATEGIC DEVELOPMENT 2.1 Understanding of the Project The Town understands the critical role of GIS in planning, managing, and maintaining accurate and precise spatial data. Daily requests from the town, along with managing and organizing an enterprise-wide GIS, is a heavy workload. InVision understands the needs of The Town and is well positioned to provide the requested services. Through the information provided in the RFP and InVision’s meetings with The Town, it is the understanding of InVision that the primary goals of The Town include: Organizing spatial data into logical and maintainable geodatabases. Facilitating easy retrieval and management of GIS data. Providing training and manuals on how to access and utilize GIS data. 2.2 Methods and Preliminary Project Approach InVision proposes a work plan that meets the scope of the RFP and assists The Town in meeting the needs and requests of different departments. The following work plan addresses the scope set forth in the RFP with some additions that InVision believes are likely to meet The Town’s comprehensive GIS goals. This proposed work plan outlines tasks needed to accomplish the goals listed by The Town. They are divided into 11 tasks as described in the RFP. Following each task is an estimate of the number of days InVision is anticipating to complete each task. 1. Conduct a kick-off meeting including a needs assessment of current and future GIS needs. (3) 2. Determine spatial platform, storage, organization, security and editing needs. (4) 3. Develop and document standards for importing CAD data into GIS. (2) 4. QA/QC of existing datasets. (6) 5. Develop a water geodatabase schema with domains, normalize and load data into the new geodatabase, and build network connectivity. (20) 6. Update electric geodatabase with GPS data. (7) 7. Create interactive maps on mobile devices for utility crews. (8) 8. Create user guides and training manuals. (4) 9. Train GIS and non-GIS staff. (5) 10. Analyze opportunities to consolidate services with Larimer County. (3) 11. Establish and document procedures for data sharing with other government agencies. (4) Proposed Additional Tasks (not included in this scope of services) 12. Build .lyr files, including scale dependencies and labeling for general use of all GIS users. Town of Estes Park – Utilities Department |GIS Consulting Services March 19, 2012 4 | Page InVision GIS, LLC. 2012 13. Create custom map templates based on the needs of individual users 14. Build hard-copy water system maps 15. Build hard-copy electric system maps 16. Future planning 2.2.1 Task 1: Conduct a kick-off meeting with needs assessment In order to ensure the goals of The Town will be met, InVision proposes to start with a kick-off meeting with all interested parties. The kick-off meeting will serve as the basis for a needs assessent and set the foundation for all future tasks. For any unclear areas in the assessment, InVision will contact employees individually to clarify the analysis. From the group and individual assessment meetings, InVision will document its understanding of current and future GIS needs and return for review to The Town. After review, InVision will clarify with The Town that the scope of services conforms to the analysis of the needs assessment. 2.2.2 Task 2: Determine spatial platform, storage, organization, security and editing needs During task 2, and possibly in conjunction with task 1, InVision will use the results of the needs analysis to recommend a database platform for storing spatial data (i.e., personal, file, SQL Server Express or SQL Server ArcSDE geodatabase). Once the database platform has been selected, the format of the database will be determined. The format is partially dependent on the platform selected. It is also largely driven by the number of editors and users who will need access to the data. The format can include multiple instances, multiple databases, datasets or non-spatial files. Task 2 will include development of security protocols and user access to geodatabases. A process will also be developed for editing to avoid database locks. During this task, InVision will explore The Town’s GIS software licenses to ensure appropriate solutions for subsequent tasks. 2.2.3 Task 3: Develop and document standards for importing CAD data into GIS During Task 3, InVision will further clarify the needs assessment on the process a CAD file currently takes in the Utilities department. We will look at what different sources they come from, where they end up, and what happens to them once they are in the possession of Town staff. We will also look at what information from the CAD files needs to be transferred into the GIS. From this assessment, we will develop a standard procedure for processing a CAD file. We will standardize work flow, storage, and document and train employees how to import and georeference CAD files in ArcMap. We will also determine the most appropriate method of transferring CAD data to GIS. Our two options will be digitizing with the CAD files georeferenced in the background of ArcMap, or by copying CAD data directly into the GIS and building the network connectivity on the imported layers. The method chosen will mostly be driven by the quality of the CAD data. It may be the case that The Town will use both methods since the quality of the CAD data is highly dependent on the submitting engineer. InVision will ensure staff has been trained and manuals are created for future reference. InVision will streamline the process, build documentation and train Town staff on how to bring CAD data into GIS. 2.2.4 Task 4: QA/QC of existing datasets During Task 4, InVision will work with Town staff to understand the functionality of the Water, and Light and Power datasets. Through this process, we will organize the data into functional groups. Any of the data that belongs to the water or electric geodatabase will be incorporated into the schema during the water and electric dataset tasks. All other data will be organized by functionally into a geodatabase structure. Town of Estes Park – Utilities Department |GIS Consulting Services March 19, 2012 5 | Page InVision GIS, LLC. 2012 Using a geodatabase structure and importing data into it, will help normalize data. Through this process, we will build drop-downs for fields that have consistent data entry. We will also clean- up current data to fit into these drop-downs to ensure data is not lost during the transfer. We will determine where there is critical missing data. Missing data will be deemed critical if it is needed by the models, or if The Town has other processes that depend on the data. 2.2.5 Task 5: Develop a water geodatabase Task 5 will use the information discovered in task 4 to begin a detailed discovery phase. In this phase, InVision will meet with Town staff to determine the current state of the water dataset. InVision assumes the current dataset is in shapefile or AutoCAD format and will need to be transferred to a geodatabase. During the discovery phase, InVision will work with Town staff to determine the schema and domains (attribute drop-downs) for the new water geodatabase. InVision will build a water schema that is suitable for most water features and will solicit input from The Town’s water staff to customize it for Estes Park. InVision proposes to build a geometric network and will import all data into the new geodatabase schema. We will normalize existing data to fit within the domain drop-downs of all attributes. InVision will build network connectivity for all existing water features. The water network will also comply with the needs of InfoWater. InVision assumes that there will be no new data entry of either attributes or features. 2.2.6 Task 6: Update electric geodatabase Due to previous work with The Town, InVision has prior knowledge that the electric dataset is already in a personal geodatabase format. InVision proposes to go through a short discovery phase of the current state of the electric system. It is our assumption that the electric dataset needs some updates with data collected through GPS. InVision proposes to use The Town’s ArcFM software to update the electric dataset to a current state. InVision assumes there will be other changes that have been identified by Town staff that will need to be updated in the current electric network (possibly marked on paper copies, or known issues from field personnel). InVision will normalize any attributes to the current data model that were collected through GPS. InVision plans to either work onsite or through VPN (if available) to utilize the Town’s ArcFM license. InVision assumes that all GPS data are currently available on The Town’s computer network. We are not proposing to collect any new GPS data, but to process data already collected and migrate this data into the electric geodatabase. Depending on the current collection procedures of GPS data, InVision may also propose changes to the GPS data dictionary to conform to the electric data model in order to further streamline the exchange of data collected by GPS into the GIS database. 2.2.7 Task 7: Create interactive maps on mobile devices For task 7, InVision assumes the utility crews do not have a wireless connection and proposes the use of an ArcReader application. We will meet with crews to understand exactly what is important to display on the maps, in terms of features and text. With that information, we will build a standard map and publish it for the ArcReader product. In addition, we will build a Python script which exports GIS data nightly and strips the ArcFM objects in order for a free ArcReader application to read the electric data. The script will also load new data nightly onto laptops that are plugged into the network. This process would be transparent to the user and not require any user interaction. Town of Estes Park – Utilities Department |GIS Consulting Services March 19, 2012 6 | Page InVision GIS, LLC. 2012 2.2.8 Task 8: Create user guides and training manuals InVision will create user guides and training manuals for all training performed. InVision anticipates creating manuals on: Introduction to ArcMap, Creating and Storing your own Maps, Printing Maps, Data Organization, Data Editing, Editing with ArcFM, and Using ArcReader. The Town could choose these training subjects or suggest others that may become apparent throughout the implementation. 2.2.9 Task 9: Train GIS and non-GIS staff InVision understands the variety of needs for specific users. We anticipate training throughout the duration of the project, often for individual users. We also plan to conduct training classes that will be applicable to broader user groups. InVision assumes The Town will supply the facility to do training for larger groups. For smaller groups (less than 3), it will be possible to train in an office at a desktop computer. InVision will be flexible to the needs of staff and will develop suitable training for the level of computer knowledge of the trainee(s). InVision plans to do most training onsite. Less formal training through GoTo meetings via the internet is also a possibility. This training may involve specific questions and take the form of a technical support call. 2.2.10 Task 10: Analyze opportunities to consolidate services with Larimer County With the basic knowledge of Larimer County’s extensive GIS system, InVision realizes there may be an opportunity to consolidate some web mapping development with Larimer County. InVision proposes to assist The Town with the decision on how to host its GIS data. InVision will help assess the pros and cons of using Larimer County to host web applications versus using a cloud service such as Esri’s ArcGIS Online for Organizations which is new in 2012. InVision will help analyze such things as cost, security, flexibility, independence, use of resources, ease of use, and staying current with new technology. This task may be on-going throughout the project and could take priority over other tasks previously listed. Two critical factors will affect the timing of this task: 1) the response time of Larimer County, 2) the release of ArcGIS Online for Organizations. At the time of this writing, ArcGIS Online for Organizations is scheduled to be released Q2 of 2012. 2.2.11 Task 11: Establish and document data sharing with other government agencies Task 11 will greatly be driven by the type of data sharing needs The Town has with each government agency. We will need to determine the frequency, the type of data, the size of data and the format of data that needs to be shared between agencies. We will determine if the agency needs raw data or just a visual representation of the data. The security of the dataset is another consideration for data transfers. For other departments in The Town to view Utility information, InVision can set up standard ArcReader or ArcMap templates. This will provide Town employees with ease of use to the data. InVision will document how data can be accessed and printed by other employees of The Town. 2.2.12 Tasks 12-16: Proposed additional tasks Although tasks 12-16 are not included in the RFP Scope of Services, The Town may want to consider them at the kick-off meeting. Should any of these tasks become vital for this contract, InVision will work with The Town to incorporate them into the schedule. Depending on the estimated time versus the actual time these tasks take, The Town may have to consider prioritizing tasks or possibly moving some of the current tasks to future tasks in order to stay under the contracted budget. Town of Estes Park – Utilities Department |GIS Consulting Services March 19, 2012 7 | Page InVision GIS, LLC. 2012 2.3 Anticipated Interaction with The Town’s staff InVision anticipates a high level of interaction with The Town’s staff. It is important to build a relationship with staff in order to fully understand the needs of the Town. InVision anticipates many onsite visits, including the kick-off meeting, discovery, schema development, electric network editing, training, software installations, implementations, and any other time The Town or InVision feels it necessary. InVision will also be available through the use of GoTo Meetings, and if available, VPN. In most cases, response time will be within 1 business day of an email or phone call. Requests for onsite visits will typically be within one week of such request. 2.4 Schedule InVision is ready to start The Town’s GIS Consulting Proposal after acceptance and receipt of a signed contract according to the tasks described in this proposal. InVision will start by scheduling the kick-off meeting for a date that works for both parties. We anticipate completion of the GIS tasks on, or before November 30, 2012. The schedule will generally follow the task list, although some tasks may overlap, and some tasks may become a priority and change the schedule. InVision will be flexible with schedule changes. The number of estimated days does not correspond to consecutive business days, but rather number of hours anticipated to complete each task. Because of our reliance on various Town personnel to perform certain steps in this project, we cannot be held liable for any delays in delivering the final products due to delays attributed to Town personnel. 3.0 QUALIFICATIONS AND EXPERIENCE 3.1 Prior Experience in Conducting GIS User Needs Analysis InVision staff has an extensive background conducting GIS user needs analysis for a variety of local government processes. At InVision, we have the inside understanding of local government so we are prepared to ask the “right” questions. With over 11 years of local government experience, we can be efficient with our needs assessment and will not need basic background that often take up precious time. Not only can we understand your needs, we can also suggest ideas that may not be readily apparent. Current employees of InVision conducted a thorough needs assessment for the City of Northglenn. At the time of assessment, Northglenn only had a base layer of photography and some planemetric layers (building footprints and edge of pavement). Each department was interviewed for their current and future GIS needs. A 1 and 5 year plan was developed with priorities given to each task for the City. This plan was modified yearly as tasks were added and as priorities of Northglenn changed. The resultant plan included both the importance of the project, and the amount of resources it would take for implementation. InVision staff also conducted a needs analysis for the City of Loveland Water and Power department. The analysis was forward-thinking in terms of how the development of the GIS would affect current and future department processes. When conducting a needs analysis, it is important to not only look at what the organization currently needs, but what implications today’s project will have on future projects. This forward-thinking approach will help avoid “redoing” projects and spending more time and effort to get the data into a format that will fit most needs. In addition to the common mapping and presentation functionality of GIS, spatial Town of Estes Park – Utilities Department |GIS Consulting Services March 19, 2012 8 | Page InVision GIS, LLC. 2012 Example of a Visio-based water data model. analysis should look at future modeling scenarios, work order management, and budgeting needs. 3.2 Prior Experience Customizing Geospatial Databases With industry knowledge and an innovative approach to building utility GIS infrastructure, InVision is committed to being proficient at obtaining relevant data, processing it efficiently, and producing meaningful solutions for managers and policy makers who need to make strategic and informative decision. For The City of Loveland Water and Power, an entire Auto CAD environment was transitioned to a fully functional enterprise GIS. A database schema was developed to manage the entire workflow of GIS data processing and cartographic output. The future implementation of a GIS-centric work order management system was also taken into consideration when developing the schema. Finally, the geodatabase schema was built to accommodate the needs of water, wastewater and electric modeling software systems. InVision understands the need for accurate and simple data collection and data entry. When building a customized geodatabase, InVision looks at repetitive types of data entry, columns, and fields that will be used when adding new data to the system. In order to keep data consistent, we develop domains within the database that allow the data entry process to have drop-downs of common feature attributes for every field possible. With consistent drop-down fields, the ability for analysis and reporting is greatly simplified. In addition to planning the structure of the geodatabase, it is crucial to structure any new data collection to match that of the geodatabase. In the case of GPS data collection, InVision staff has developed data dictionaries to match the schema of the geodatabase which greatly increase accuracy and efficiency. Developing drop-down lists consistent with the domains will allow for smoother imports from the GPS data to the geodatabase and will yield data with fewer errors. InVision staff also has extensive experience building GIS systems that incorporate geometric networks. When building a GIS that has flow and directionality, care must be taken to create geometric networks that abide by the rules of the network and have the connectivity needed for further modeling. InVision staff has an extensive background building geometric networks for water, sewer and electric for The City of Loveland, and electric for The Town of Estes Park. 3.3 Prior Experience Facilitating GIS Services for Utilities in Local Governments InVision has the unique perspective of the internal processes of local government. InVision staff has worked directly for local governments for over 11 years. InVision employees also have a unique understanding of The Town of Estes Park having worked in a consulting capacity for the Town of Estes Park – Utilities Department |GIS Consulting Services March 19, 2012 9 | Page InVision GIS, LLC. 2012 past 5 years. InVision employees have worked with The Town and understand many of its GIS needs and people related to this project. The current electric dataset was developed inside a personal geodatabase in order to provide a data source for modeling the electric utility. InVision understands, to some degree, the challenges that The Town is facing to make this project a success. InVision staff has worked directly for the City of Loveland Water and Power developing its enterprise GIS for 8 years. The AutoCAD based system was converted into an ArcSDE enterprise GIS system. In this process, a database schema was developed to incorporate visual representations, statistical analysis, work order management and modeling. A needs analysis was completed in order to understand the needs of the department and the desired outputs for future projects. A GIS- centric work order management system was implemented that mimics the processes of the department. This includes an annual hydrant flushing and inspection program, airvac service program, sewer flushing program and TV inspection program, all linked to GIS features. The system was also developed to help drive the budget process and understand the financial needs of the department. For example, the water leak program tracks all costs associated with a leak including personnel, equipment, materials, barricading and paving. This data is linked annually to the GIS to geographically and tabularly display the costs associated with individual pipes. This information is used as supporting evidence for budget preparation and rate studies. The GIS at Loveland also incorporates the process of development review. It is the basis of all discussion for new development. The GIS is not only the presentation of data, it is also linked to all previous construction and as-built drawings for engineers to reference when reviewing new plans. The GIS stores and displays all reimbursement agreement information so any property can quickly be identified with reimbursement information. Geometric networks are used to store utility information and are imperative for export to modeling software. Features that are part of a geometric network require connectivity as does modeling software. Geometric networks also help maintain data integrity. There are also unique tools for geometric network editing that can be customized to fit any network geometry. As GIS becomes ingrained in a utility, it becomes a focal point of the organization. Employees from the entire department will come to rely on the accuracy and information stored in the GIS. InVision has the experience to understand the vital role GIS can play in an organization and the steps it takes to make that vision a reality. 3.4 Experience in Past 5 Years Related to Scope of Services Example of an enterprise water and wastewater GIS. Town of Estes Park – Utilities Department |GIS Consulting Services March 19, 2012 10 | Page InVision GIS, LLC. 2012 In the past 5 years, InVision staff has developed a professional relationship with The Town and has been involved in developing current GIS efforts. InVision is aware of the possible partnering with Larimer County to serve up some of The Town’s geographic data via the internet. We understand the structure of Larimer County’s GIS and their general requirements for working in a cooperative effort to serve up GIS data. InVision has had many opportunities to QA/QC a variety of existing datasets including water, wastewater and electric. We understand many of the requirements of utility datasets and the technical nature of the data. InVision staff has conducted QA/QC for the City of Loveland, developing both water and wastewater datasets for model development using InfoWater and InfoSWWM, respectively. InVision staff also performed QA/QC of The Town’s electric dataset during the conversion from shapefile to personal geodatabase. InVision staff has created mobile maps for the City of Loveland locators, inspectors and field crews. A completely transparent, automated, nightly procedure was written to update mobile devices when plugged into the network. InVision staff has also created mobile maps using ArcReader for North Front Range Water Quality Planning Association (NFRWQPA) which are distributed via DVD to all members. InVision staff has developed GIS data from CAD by importing CAD layers into ArcMap and georeferencing them to a base layer. From there, it is possible to either copy from the CAD layers into the GIS layers, or to on-screen digitize on top of the CAD layers. The most functional procedure typically depends on the quality of the CAD layers and the complexity of the geodatabase. InVision staff has extensive experience with the City of Loveland in creating, maintaining and developing GIS water data and data structure. We understand how to develop data in a geometric network so that it complies with the needs of modeling software such as InfoWater. The GIS data for Loveland serves as the master database for the modeling software. During major updates of the model, a new export is created from the GIS data and brought into InfoWater. InVision staff assisted The Town in building the original electric personal geodatabase. This experience gives us a strong understanding of The Town’s electric GIS dataset. We understand ArcFM and the built-in tools to update electric infrastructure. InVision staff has created a wide variety of documentation, user guides and training manuals for The City of Loveland and the NFRWQPA. These include manuals on how to install software, query and create statistics; develop large datasets for work order management, basic ArcMap functionality, editing, creating maps, georeferencing image files, and GPS data collection and processing. In addition, we provided customized training that is appropriate for the audience. We have trained users from operations crews with little computer experience to engineers with a vast computer background. Some of the users we have also trained also include front-desk and administrative professionals who begin to use GIS as a tool to answer citizen and employee questions. 4.0 LIST OF PERSONNEL 4.1 Contact Person InVision is proposing Jill Fischer as the person to be in charge of the project. As a senior GIS analyst and project manager at InVision, Ms. Fischer specializes in geospatial development, geodatabase management, cartography, training, and building GIS systems. She manages geospatial projects and assists with GIS solutions and cartography needs. Ms. Fischer has Town of Estes Park – Utilities Department |GIS Consulting Services March 19, 2012 11 | Page InVision GIS, LLC. 2012 experience developing GIS databases for a variety of utilities and local governments using ArcGIS, ArcFM and different platforms of geodatabases. She understands the needs of local governments and utilities and the building block that GIS has become for other areas in the organization. 4.2 Resume Jill Fischer Ms. Fischer is a senior GIS analyst, project manager, and president of InVision GIS, LLC. She specializes in geodatabase management; geospatial data model development; water, wastewater, and electric utilities; local government GIS; cartography; and training. She has a vast experience at building GIS systems that can be leveraged for GIS-centric work order management systems and utility system modeling. She is a dedicated entrepreneur who understands the needs and processes of local government. She has worked in local government for more than 11 years, specializing in the integration of GIS into the daily processes and needs of end users. Ms. Fischer has studied GIS at Mankato State University where she earned a bachelor’s degree in Geography and International Relations. She has also earned a Master’s degree in Geography, with an emphasis in GIS and Remote Sensing from the University of Lincoln, Nebraska. Ms. Fischer has experience developing entire GIS systems for local governments and utilities. She has taken data from CAD and GPS and built them into enterprise ArcSDE geodatabase systems. She has developed numerous customized personal training courses for various GIS needs including; ArcMap, editing, creating GIS-Centric work-orders, georeferencing CAD files, and GPS data collection and processing. Other processes and technologies she specializes in include: Geographic Information Systems – ArcGIS, ArcView 3.x, command line ArcInfo Database Design – Data Model Development (using Visio), ESRI Personal Geodatabase, file Geodatabase, ArcSDE, Access, SQL Server Spatial Analysis – Geometric Networks, Model Builder, Spatial Analyst Work Order Management – GIS-centric based – Cityworks, Cartegraph Asset Management GIS Utility Design for use in models – water, wastewater, electric (ex. InfoWater, InfoSWWM, Windmill) Remote Sensing and Image Processing – ERDAS Imagine Cartography – Map production and map books - Data Driven Pages, DSMapbook Programming – Python GPS Data Collection and Processing – Trimble, TopCon, Terrasync, Pathfinder Office, ArcPad Report Building – Integrate GIS and work order data - Crystal Reports Education M.A. (Geography) University of Lincoln, Nebraska B.S. (Geography and International Relations) Mankato State University Town of Estes Park – Utilities Department |GIS Consulting Services March 19, 2012 12 | Page InVision GIS, LLC. 2012 Relevant Project Experience City of Loveland, Water and Power Department – Enterprise GIS Database Development Senior GIS Specialist responsible for converting water and wastewater system from CAD format into an enterprise ArcSDE, SQL Server geodatabase system. This involved installing Arc SDE, and setting up security, permissions and back-ups in SQL Server. This also involved interviewing City staff to create the data model for the water and sewer system in Microsoft Visio, importing the model into SDE, loading data, and quality-checking all data. On-going to the project was entering as-built information into the system through georeferencing and customizing network editing tools for data entry. She developed and managed a GPS inventory of the water system to more accurately locate already mapped GIS data. She also converted the original AutoCAD version of the electric data into an enterprise ArcSDE geodatabase. She implemented the original GIS software (Origin GIS) used to edit the electric dataset. A variety of maps were created including custom maps, large wall maps, and map books for utility crews. A Cityworks work order management system was installed and customized for all water and wastewater work orders related to field operations, including pump/lift stations and both water and wastewater treatment plants. The water GIS system was developed to serve as the data input for InfoWater, and the wastewater GIS system was developed to serve as the data input for InfoSWMM. Multiple training classes were developed and given for general ArcMap use, work order management, map creation and GPS data collection. Town of Estes Park, Utilities Department – Electric Geodatabase Development Senior GIS Specialist responsible for converting existing shapefile information into an electric geometric network. The network was developed using Telvent’s ArcFM tools and Esri’s ArcMap tools. The network was built to have connectivity and flow. A template was also developed for hard-copy paper map books for field use. She also served as a GIS consultant for Town staff as other GIS needs arose. North Front Range Water Quality Planning Association – District Boundaries and Distribution Senior GIS Specialist responsible for developing a GIS-based process for submitting wastewater district boundary proposals to the Association for approval. Built database and mapping system with interactive links to on-line wastewater treatment plant information. Trained NFRWQPA to build their own mapped proposals for consideration to the Association. Built distributable map- based systems for delivery to all the members to obtain current data of the system. Installed upgrades to GIS software. Served as a consultant for any GIS-related needs. City of Northglenn – Enterprise GIS Database Development GIS Coordinator responsible for creating GIS system for the entire City. This included setting and coordinating the current and future direction of GIS, installing and managing ArcSDE, examining current workflows, developing GIS related workflows, and designing and maintaining databases. Responsibilities of maintaining the GIS system included: GPS data collection and management of an extensive effort to map the utilities; connecting to the police crime database and providing crime analysis map products on a weekly basis; presenting to council live analysis of voting district changes and redistricting during a public meeting; building route maps for snow plows, park plowing, meter reading; and providing support for redevelopment and CIP plans. These projects included extensive interaction with employees to explain processes and train them on new GIS techniques. 5.0 SCHEDULE OF RATES Schedule of personnel rates are separately packaged in a sealed envelope. Page 1 Report Light & Power Department To: PUP Committee Interim Town Administrator Richardson From: Todd J. Steichen, L&P Line Superintendent Date: April 12, 2012 RE: Highway Light Replacement with LED Technology Background: In 2011 light-emitting diode (LED) lighting was installed for the first time by the Town of Estes Park at the Stanley Park Transit Hub Project. Light & Power used this opportunity to research LED lights and computerized control systems. After a number of positive comments and falling prices of LED's, Light & Power looked into the cost benefits of LED as a replacement for existing 250 watt High Pressure Sodium (HPS) lights. In late 2011 we found Philips LED lights for $486 per light. (see attached specification sheet) compared to our HPS lights at $200 per light. Light & Power is estimating a three to four year payback based on energy & maintenance savings. This is higher than most reported payback periods which can be explained by two major items. The reports available are circa 2008 when LED lighting prices were approximately double today's prices and our high and turbulent winds induce vibrations onto the lights resulting in an average HPS glass bulb life of two years. Solid state LEDs are less fragile than conventional glass lamps and we expect their aerodynamic low profile will perform much better in the wind. For these reasons we expect to get more than five years out of LED lights. For the payback analysis a five year life was used. The analysis data is attached. HWY-36, in February 2012 L&P replaced fifteen (15) existing 250 watt HPS lights with 135W LED lights on HWY-36 from Stanley Ave. to Community Dr. including; both islands at the HWY-36/HWY-7 intersection, the two (2) at the HWY -36/Stanley Ave. and six (6) lights from 4th St. to Community Drive. Poles requiring paint will be taken care of as soon as the weather permits. HWY-34, in April/May 2012 L&P will be replacing thirty (30) more existing 250 watt HPS lights with 135W LED lights form Hwy-34/36 intersection to Dry Gulch, twenty (20) of which get new poles and lights the other ten (10) are newer poles that will get repainted and new LED lights. Page 2 The Town of Estes Park highway light payback analysis of LED vs. HPS Initial cost Annual Energy Cost Annual Maintenance Cost Total Annual Cost LED $486 $51 $64 $115 HPS $200 $95 $99 $194 Difference $286 -$44 -$35 -$79 Simple Payback = 286/91 = 3.7 years 4,100 annual operation hours, HPS last on average two years, we expect to get more than five years from the LED lights however, five years was used for this analysis HPS maintenance costs: ($30 HPS bulbs cost + $120 Personnel + $48 Truck)/2yrs = $99/yr LED maintenance costs: ($150 LED replacement + $120 Personnel + $47.50 Truck)/5yrs = $64/yr Based on today's costs the Town can expect to save over $36,000 annually after all HPS highway lights have been replaced with LED highway lights. Environmental stewardship was not considered for this simple payback but must be noted here. LED lights do not contain mercury. This transition supports the Town's Mission to be good stewards of our natural setting and follows our Guiding Principles of considering the impact of our actions on the environment by removing from service HPS bulbs which contain mercury. The Town owns and operates approximately 1,250 street lights. We estimate 400 of these lights are 250W highway street lights. The Light & Power Department will continue replacing the 250W highway street lights in contiguous sections. We expect LED replacement costs to continue shrinking as patents expire and larger market penetration increases the economy of scale reducing the per unit cost. Budget: Account # 502 502-7001-580.35-56, "POLES/TOWERS/FIXTURES" $20,000 is budgeted every year for new and on-going replacement of street lights. Street Light POLES/TOWERS/FIXTURES, non‐local/residential roadsCAMP APPLICATIONDepartment:Light & PowerTitle_Project:Street Light POLES/TOWERS/FIXTURES, non‐local/residential roadsOther Departments Or Entities:Useful Life:20Capital Program: YesJustification:Replace aged or broken power poles, light poles and associated fixturesCommunity Participation:NoProject Manager:Todd SteichenEst. Const. Start:1/3/2012Est. Completion Date:12/14/2012Project Description: Poles/Towers/Fixtures; These funds are applied to street light poles/towers/fixture. Example: The new LED heads, new street light poles. In 2012 we are doing Hwy 34 from 34/36/Elkhorn Ave intersection to Dry Gulch Rd with 30 new LED heads and 20 new poles. Ten existing poles are newer and we are are repainting them.PROJECT INFORMATIONCURRENT PROJECT COSTSPlanning, Design, Engineering: $0Land Purchase: $0Labor and Materials: $20,000Project Management: $0Legal: $0PLANNED FUNDINGOther: $0Fund SourceLight & PowerFuture OM Expense: $0Total Funding: $20,000TotalCost: $20,000Contingency Percentage:0$20,000FirstYrCosts:$20,0002ndYrCosts:$20,0003rdYrCosts:$20,0004thYrCosts:$20,0005thYrCosts:$20,0006thYrCosts:$20,0007thYrCosts:$20,0008thYrCosts:$20,0009thYrCosts:$20,00010thYrCosts:$20,000This table shows expenditures that will reoccur annually OR multiyear projects. If there are varying annual costs, funding and/or OM expenes additional applications will exist for each year Report Utilities Department To: Public Safety, Utilities and Public Works Committee Interim Town Administrator Richardson From: Alan Fraundorf, Utilities Superintendent Date: April 12, 2012 RE: 2012 Revised IT Capital Expenditures Background: In late 2011, the 2012 capital budget plan for the Information Technology (IT) department was approved by the Town Board. The plan was to spend up to $20,000 to improve or replace audio-visual components in the Board Room. Staff Suggested Recommendations: In order to increase services for the benefit of our citizens, visitors and employees, we recommend the following reallocation of the 2012 IT Capital funds. • Spend up to $6000 on improvements to the Board A/V system • Spend approximately $7500 to provide free, public wireless internet service in Town Hall, and if feasible, extend the wireless signal into Bond Park. For Town Hall, this would include: wireless signal into the Board Room lobby, Board Room, and conference rooms 202/203, two public access computers located in the Board Room lobby, furniture if required, and the associated wiring of such. We would enter into an internet provider service with a local provider and assume ongoing internet fees. This service would not be attached to the Town’s network. • Spend approximately $6500 to provide free, public wireless internet service in the Visitors Center. This would include: wireless signal into the lobby, two public access computers, furniture if required, and the associated wiring of such. We would enter into an internet provider service with a local provider and assume ongoing internet fees. This infrastructure would be crafted as to be consistent with future renovation plans at the Visitors Center. We believe these enhancements will benefit thousands of citizens and visitors yearly and is an expectation of a premier mountain resort community. Budget: No Change, 625-2500-425.33-98 OTHER EQUIPMENT $20,000 Recommendation: I recommend the Revised IT spend for 2012 be reported at the April 24th, 2012 Town Board meeting. Town Hall & Bond Park Internet Access & Wireless AccessCAMP APPLICATIONDepartment:Information TechnologyTitle_Project:Town Hall & Bond Park Internet Access & Wireless AccessOther Departments Or Entities: N/AUseful Life:5Capital Program: YesJustification:Increase services fro the benefit of our citizens, visitors & employeesCommunity Participation:NoProject Manager:A. FraundorfEst. Const. Start:5/7/2012Est. Completion Date:11/19/2012Project Description: Provide much needed service to visitors and residentsPROJECT INFORMATIONCURRENT PROJECT COSTSPlanning, Design, Engineering: $0Land Purchase: $0Labor and Materials: $7,500Project Management: $0Legal: $0PLANNED FUNDINGOther: $0Fund SourceInformation TechnologyFuture OM Expense: $1,000Total Funding: $7,500TotalCost: $7,500Contingency Percentage:0$7,500FirstYrCosts:2ndYrCosts:3rdYrCosts:4thYrCosts:5thYrCosts:6thYrCosts:7thYrCosts:8thYrCosts:9thYrCosts:10thYrCosts:This table shows expenditures that will reoccur annually OR multiyear projects. If there are varying annual costs, funding and/or OM expenes additional applications will exist for each year Visitor's Center Internet Access & Wireless AccessCAMP APPLICATIONDepartment:Information TechnologyTitle_Project:Visitor's Center Internet Access & Wireless AccessOther Departments Or Entities: N/AUseful Life:5Capital Program: YesJustification:Increase services fro the benefit of our citizens, visitors & employeesCommunity Participation:NoProject Manager:A. FraundorfEst. Const. Start:5/7/2012Est. Completion Date:11/19/2012Project Description: Provide much needed service to visitors and residentsPROJECT INFORMATIONCURRENT PROJECT COSTSPlanning, Design, Engineering: $0Land Purchase: $0Labor and Materials: $6,500Project Management: $0Legal: $0PLANNED FUNDINGOther: $0Fund SourceInformation TechnologyFuture OM Expense: $1,000Total Funding: $6,500TotalCost: $6,500Contingency Percentage:0$6,500FirstYrCosts:2ndYrCosts:3rdYrCosts:4thYrCosts:5thYrCosts:6thYrCosts:7thYrCosts:8thYrCosts:9thYrCosts:10thYrCosts:This table shows expenditures that will reoccur annually OR multiyear projects. If there are varying annual costs, funding and/or OM expenes additional applications will exist for each year Town Board A/V upgrades (2012 ‐ 14)CAMP APPLICATIONDepartment:Information TechnologyTitle_Project:Town Board A/V upgrades (2012 ‐ 14)Other Departments Or Entities: N/AUseful Life:5Capital Program: YesJustification:Upgrade to existing equipmentCommunity Participation:NoProject Manager:A. FraundorfEst. Const. Start:6/7/2012Est. Completion Date:11/19/2012Project Description: Upgrade to existing equipmentAnnual and ongoing expenditure to upgrade the town board roomPROJECT INFORMATIONCURRENT PROJECT COSTSPlanning, Design, Engineering: $0Land Purchase: $0Labor and Materials: $6,000Project Management: $0Legal: $0PLANNED FUNDINGOther: $0Fund SourceInformation TechnologyFuture OM Expense: $0Total Funding: $6,000TotalCost: $6,000Contingency Percentage:0$6,000FirstYrCosts:$6,0002ndYrCosts:$20,0003rdYrCosts:$20,0004thYrCosts:5thYrCosts:6thYrCosts:7thYrCosts:8thYrCosts:9thYrCosts:10thYrCosts:This table shows expenditures that will reoccur annually OR multiyear projects. If there are varying annual costs, funding and/or OM expenes additional applications will exist for each year April 12, 2012Public Utility CommitteeEstes Park Water Conservation Plan UpdatePlan UpdateSarah Clark, P.E. Water Conservation Program Elements –Cost Effectiveness and Water SavingsCost Effectiveness and Water SavingsWater Conservation Measure/ProgramCost Effectiveness($/1,000 Gal)Annual Water Savings(Millions of Gal)g(, )()Water Saving FixturesTown Irrigation System Improvements and Audit($0.98) 0.55and AuditThird Stage Treatment$0.875.27Bleeder Automation $0.38 10.5Town WebsiteCustomer Meter Testing and ReplacementpLeak Detection and Repair($2.56) 4.2Tracking of Breaks and RepairsgTOTAL20.5 Benefits to Customers and Water DepartmentDepartmentWater savings of 20.5 million gallons/yrEstimated annual O&M cost savings of $16 000Estimated annual O&M cost savings of $16,000-Similar estimated cost to implement conservation plan elementsee e tsTimely replacement of aged piping beforeit leaks through leak detection and repair programgppg-Fixing breaks afterthey occur typically has much higher costGood public stewardship of water resources – the ‘green’ element of water conservation Revenue Reduction from Water ConservationConservationConservation program elements save water that is not meterednot metered-Water department bleeders-Distribution system leaksMeter testing and replacement-Improves accuracy of accounting for water-Could improve/reduce or be revenue neutral, depending on each meter condition Commitment to Town CIPThird stage treatment in current CIPBleeders being tested/evaluated now but not in CIP Bleeders being tested/evaluated now, but not in CIP for final installationOther elements are O&M fundedOther elements are O&M funded Schedule for Implementation of Conservation Plan Conservation Plan Water Conservation Measure/ProgramRequired Action Timing of ActivityDistribute fixtures at Ongoing activityWater Saving FixturesDistribute fixtures at appropriate eventsOngoing activityTown Irrigation System Upgrade irrigation control system and automatic rainfall Dependent on Town budget for Parks DepartmentImprovementssensorsThird Stage TreatmentPilot test technologies and install if successful2013 or later, depending on funding availabilityInstall “test” bleeders for 2012Bleeder AutomationInstall test bleeders for evaluation2012Town WebsiteDescribe conservation programsOngoing activity to update as staff time is availableCt Mt Tti d T t 3” d 4” t20132016Customer Meter Testing and ReplacementTest 3” and 4” meters2013-2016Leak Detection and RepairFind existing leaks in water mains and make repairs2012 and 2013 as budgetedppTracking of Breaks and RepairsRecord appropriate information regarding water main breaksOngoing activity Approval of Conservation PlanCWCB grant requires approval of Conservation Plan by Town authoritiesby Town authoritiesFollow-up by Water Department-Track lost waterTrack lost water-Track cost of conservation program -Check progress yearly on conservationPlan to be updated every 10 years Questions?