The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutPACKET Public Works, Utilities and Public Safety 2012-06-14Preparation date: June 4, 2012 * Revision date: June 7, 2012 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 June 14, 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) Water Main Line Extension Contract for Rippling River. Director Bergsten. b) REPORTS i) Water Department Short & Long Term Planning. Director Bergsten and Superintendent Boles. ii) Utilities Financial Update. Director Bergsten & Finance Officer McFarland. iii) ERP Software Project Manager (verbal update). Superintendent Fraundorf iv) Water Main Line Extension Contract. Director Bergsten. v) Verbal Updates and Committee Questions. 4. PUBLIC WORKS a) RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE TOWN BOARD i) None. b) REPORTS. i) Verbal Updates and Committee Questions. 5. ADJOURN * * UTILITIES DEPARTMENT Report To: PUP Committee Town Administrator Lancaster From: Director Bergsten Superintendent Boles Date: June 14, 2012 RE: Water Department Short & Long Term Planning Background: In July of 2010 the results of the Water Department's Phase 2 Study was presented to the Town Board at the Museum. The recommendation was to replace Glacier Water Treatment Plant at the cost of $23M by 2017 which was not well received. Since that time a number of discussions have taken place but little has been presented to the PUP Committee. Water demand projections are fundamental to our planning. When projections generated in 2007 showed exponential growth the department reacted accordingly. Project planning and capital spending was directed at increasing the system's capacity. The highest priority was to replace Glacier Water Treatment Plant with membrane technology to ensure compliance with cryptosporidium regulations (LT2 Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule). The department's efforts in 2010 and most of 2011 were focused on final commissioning of Marys Lake Water Treatment Plant. At the same time we've seen water demand remain constant. Since demand failed to meet projections, the urgency to increase capacity has subsided. At this time the department must refocus our attention on reprioritizing projects and revisiting our long-term planning to meet the strategic goal of redundancy. The 2012 budget included monies for acquiring additional water rights from Glacier Creek. The department will not pursue those water rights at this time. Instead we will develop a scope of work which will include a revision to our 1985 Master Plan. We must also consider a large number of system configurations along with their merits, costs and required timing. These various system configurations must be listed and a decision analysis method employed in order to make successful decisions. For example, we must consider acquiring additional water rights with a diversion in the Big Thompson at Beaver Point; however, we must prioritize that capital expenditure with the possibility of constructing a raw water main line from the CBT East Portal to the Glacier Water Treatment Plant. Influencing this decision will be our early cryptosporidium test results, pumping costs between Beaver Point to Marys Lake, Marys Lake sewer discharge costs and available funding. It should be noted that drastic change in water demand projections is not unique to the Town of Estes Park. Industry papers have been published1 identifying traditional water demand models failing to accurately represent future demand. Market penetrations of low flow water fixtures and low consumption appliances have combined with the economic downturn have made it difficult for new models to be developed. Many water utilities have found themselves with excess capacity and shrinking revenues. We plan to present RFP results later this year for approval. 1 "Residential water use trends in North America", AWWA Journal 103:2, February 2011, ROCKAWAY, COOMES, RIVARD, AND KORNSTEIN UTILITIES DEPARTMENT Report To: PUP Committee Town Administrator Lancaster From: Director Bergsten Finance Officer McFarland Date: June 14, 2012 RE: Utilities Financial Update Background: Every three years the Utilities Department commissions a financial plan and rate study. The results are used to establish recommended rates. These recommendations are brought to the Town Board for approval. On a quarterly basis Finance Officer McFarland presents the Town's financial information. The 2012 first-quarter utility information is being presented at the committee level by request. As stated in the quarterly report presented by Assistant Finance Officer McDougall at the June 12, 2008 Board meeting: Enterprise (Utility) Funds: In aggregate, utility revenues are on target with budget. Staff is closely monitoring L&P revenues, as they are currently lagging expectations. Perhaps this is the flip side of strong sales tax revenues. With the warm weather, sales tax collections are on record pace – however, warm weather is not so friendly to electric revenues, as demand was below expectations for the first quarter. Expenditures (27.2%) are well within budgeted parameters. As is the case with the General Fund, part of the reason expenditures are so low is because capital projects usually are not undertaken until spring/summer. At this time we are estimating Light & Power revenues will fall short by approximately 3 to 4%. Budget revisions are made midyear. At that time we will review revenues, expenditures and bond requirements to determine what countermeasures are required. At this time we are estimating Water revenues to exceed budget by 3 to 4%. UTILITIES DEPARTMENT REPORT To: PUP Committee Town Administrator Lancaster From: Utilities Director Bergsten Date: June 14, 2012 RE: Water Main Line Extension Contract Background: The Town of Estes Park Utilities commonly refers to our development approach/ ideology as "everybody pays their own way" – a simplistic idea but complex in implementation. One complication arises when a land owner extends a water main past vacant lands to reach their personal property. In its simplest form, those vacant land owners might believe it's their lucky day. However, to establish some equity, the Town of Estes Park allows cost recovery through Waterline Extension Across Vacant Lands as outlined in Section 2E of the Water System Engineering Standards. This allows the original land owner to recover a portion of their investment when any of those vacant land owners tie into the contracted water main. A “WATERLINE EXTENSION ACROSS VACANT LAND AGREEMENT" is executed between the Town of Estes Park and the original land owner. The final agreement is reviewed by the Water Department Superintendent, the Utilities Director and the Town Attorney; it is approved by the Town Board, signed by the Mayor and administered jointly by the Town of Estes Park Utility Billing and Water Department. The practice has been to divide the total cost of water main installation equally between all adjacent vacant lots. The agreement is effective for ten (10) years. The exceptions to this practice have varied the length of agreement periods. Harmony Foundation waterline extension agreement was approved for 15-year period (expiring in 2014), the Spring Street Homeowners waterline extension agreement was approved for a 20-year period (expiring in 2017), the Griffith Court waterline extension agreement was approved for a 20-year period (expiring in 2021). American Honda/Eagle Rock School installed a substantial length of water main down Dry Gulch. The Town allowed that agreement to go for twenty (20) years (expiring in 2013) and altered the method of calculating the reimbursement. American Honda and Good Samaritan entered into a separate agreement (2002) further altering the reimbursement. The Town of Estes Park was not a party to that agreement other than changing the amount of reimbursement collected. Each construction project is unique. The existing language in Section 2E of the Water System Engineering Standards does not restrict the method in which cost recovery is calculated. This allows staff and developers an opportunity to come to the best agreement based on varying geographical and economic circumstances. The most common practice has been to divide the costs equally between vacant lots. For your reference, attached are: 1. The applicable section from the Water Department's Engineering Standards; 2. The agreement applicable to Rippling River which the Town entered into with Estes Resort Group; 3. Another recent waterline extension agreement. Budget: N/A Staff Recommendation: N/A