HomeMy WebLinkAbout1997-07-08 Support Documentation Town Council Work Session
VAIL TOWN COUNCIL
WORK SESSION
TUESDAY, JULY 8, 1997
2:00 P.M. AT TOV COUNCIL CHAMBERS
AMENDED AGENDA
NOTE: Times of items are approximate, subject to change, and cannot be relied upon to
determine at what time Council will consider an item.
1. DRB Review. (15 mins.)
2. Parking Program. (1 hr., 30 mins.)
Larry Grafel
Pam Brandmeyer ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL: Listen, ask questions. No
Steve Thompson decisions will be made.
Bob McLaurin
BACKGROUND RATIONALE: Parking and parking rates continue to be a
contentious and emotional issue within the TOV. Staff will begin by
discussing over a period of work sessions to educate and to ultimately
develop a recommendation for the Town Council on strategy, policy, and
a rate program for the 97/98 ski season.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Begin discussions to develop an
understanding of the relationships of parking, transportation, and
economic factors for the development of a strategy, policy, and a
program for the use of parking structures within the Town of Vail.
3. Update by TCI on System Rebuild. (1 hr.)
Tom Moorhead
Ron Braden ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL: Provide direction to TCI and Town
Bob McLaurin staff as to Council's wishes regarding the rebuild of the cable system in
Fred Lutz,TCl the Town of Vail.
Manager
BACKGROUND RATIONALE: The TCI cable television franchise
agreement which was entered into on January 5, 1995, provides that TCI
shall rebuild the existing cable system within 36 months of the effective
date of this agreement. The rebuild is, pursuant to the Franchise
Agreement, required to utilize a"fiber optics to the service area" design in
which optical fiber delivers signals from a central hub to nodes serving
approximately 50 to 1000 residences. The nodes interface the optical
fiber with coaxial cables which distribute signals to cable subscribers and
also serve as input-output points for connection to public buildings and
businesses. The Franchise Agreement requires that the system rebuild
shall be completed within 36 months of the effective date of this
agreement. That completion date is January 5, 1998. There has been a
suggestion by TCI that the system rebuild could be accomplished by
means of digital compression rather than a replacement of the existing
coaxial cables with fiber optics.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Require system rebuild as agreed to in the
Cable Television Franchise Agreement.
4. Information Update. (10 mins.)
5• Council Reports. (10 mins.)
6• Other. (10 mins.) 7. Adjournment - 5:15 p.m.
NOTE UPCOMING MEETING START TIMES BELOW:
(ALL TIMES ARE APPROXIMATE AND SUBJECT TO CHANGE)
I I I I I I I
THE NEXT VAIL TOWN COUNCIL SPECIAL WORK SESSION
WILL BE ON TUESDAY, 7/15197, BEGINNING AT 2:00 P.M. IN TOV COUNCIL CHAMBERS.
THE FOLLOWING VAIL TOWN COUNCIL REGULAR WORK SESSION
WILL BE ON TUESDAY, 7122/97, BEGINNING AT 2:00 P.M. IN TOV COUNCIL CHAMBERS.
, THE NEXT VAIL TOWN COUNCIL REGULAR EVENING MEETING
WILL BE ON TUESDAY, 7/15/97, BEGINNING AT 7:30 P.M. IN TOV COUNCIL CHAMBERS.
I I I I I I I
Sign language interpretation available upon request with 24 hour notification. Please call 479-2332 voice
or 479-2356 TDD for information.
C:WGENDA.WS
2
,
r
f
Agenda finaled 7t3/97 9 am
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD AGENDA
Wednesday, July 2, 1997
3:00 P.M.
PROJECT ORIENTATiON / LUNCH - Community Development Department 12:30
PRESENT: Ted Hingst, Galen Aasland, Clark Brittain, and Bill Pierce
ABSENT: Brent Alm
SITE VISITS 1:30
1. Singh - 1229 Spraddle Creek
2. Dauphinais - 1864 Glacier Court
3. Southwest Builders - 2673 Cortina Lane
4. Golden Peak - 458 Vail Valley Drive
5. Mako's Susbi Bar - 100 East Meadow Drive
6. Heard - 45 Forest Road
7. McKeeta - 1808 Alpine Drive
Driver: Lauren Waterton
PUBLIC HEARING - TOWN COUNCIL CHAMBERS 3:00
l. Lionshead Inn - Changes to pool and restaurant terrace. Lauren
705 West Lionshead Circle/Lot Block 2, Vail Lionshead 3rd.
Applicant: Eustaquio Cortina `
MOTION: Galen Aasland -SECOND:. Clark Brittain VOTE: 3-0-1 (Bill Pierce absta.ined)
APPROVED 2. Mako's Sushi Bar - Exterior changes to retail unit # 14 in the Vail Village Inn. Lauren
100 East Meadow DrivelL.ot O, Block SD, Vail Village l st Filing.
Applicant: Luc Meyer
MOT10N: Bill Piercc SECOND: Galen Aasland VOTE: 4-0
APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS: 1) new wood siding will be vextacal ta match; and
2) if new bay window is enclosed underneath, then entire area should be stucco.
1
Mr~~'~MoR11
Y
3. Dauphinais - New Primary/Secondary residence. George
1864 Glacier CourtlLot 26, Block 2, Lions Ridge Filing 3.
Applicant: Pat Dauphinais
MOTION: Bill Pierce SECOND: Galen Aasland VOTE: 4-0
API'ROVED WITH CONDITION: That the applicant, as the owner of Lot 22, submit a letter
granting the permission for the driveway retaining wall for Lot 26 to encroach upon Lot 22,
prior to the issuance of a building permit. If the retaining wall is NOT incorporated into the
- design of Lot 22, the applicant shall execute an easement permitting the walls on Lot 22.
4. West Vai] Texaco - A final review of a building addition. George
2313 N. Frontage Road West/Tract B, Vail das Schone #1.
Applicant: Dick Dilling
MOTION: Clark Brittain SECOND: Bill Pierce VOTE: 4-0
APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS: 1) that the applicant submit an outdoor lighting plan for
the West Vail Texaco which shows the location, height above grade, the type of illumination,
the source lurnens, and the luminous area for EACH light source which is proposed. The
applicant shall provide information that the outdoor lights meet the standards set forth in
Section 18.54.050(J)2 [Design Guidelines]; 2) that the applicant shall submit a paving and
grading plan for the 12 parking spaces proposed north of the building. The plan shall show
top and bottom of retaining wall elevations and each parkign space shall measure 9' x 19'; and
3) that the applicant show adequate areas for snow storage on the property.
5. Austria Haus - Conceptual review. George
242 East Meadow Drive/on a part of Tract A, Slock S-B, Vail Village 1 st.
Applicant: Sonnenalp Properties, represented by Gordon Pierce
MOTION: SECOND: VOTE:
CONCEPTUAL - NO VOTE
6. Leach - A final review of a new single-family residence. Tammie
1390 Buffehr Creek Road/Envelope B, Lionsridge Subdivision 2nd Filing.
Applicant: David & Jody Leach, represented by Ron Diehl
MOTION: Bill Pierce SECOND: Clark Brittain VOTE:
TABLED TO JULY 16,1997
7. McKeeta - A conceptual review of a new single-family residence. TamrrLe
1806 Alpine Drive/Lot 14, Vail Village West Filing #1.
Applicant: Gordan McKeeta
M10TION: SECONT): VoTr.:
CONCFPTtiAi., - NC1 ~OTF.
2
;
8. Golden Peak - New pavillion. Lauren
458 Vaii Valley Drive/Tract F, Vail Village Sth, Tract B, Vail Village 7th.
Applicant: Vail Associates, Inc.
MOTION: SECOND: VOTE:
WITHDRA.WN
9. Heard - Separation reyuest. Lauren
45 Forest Road/Lot 33, Block 7, Vail Village 1 st Filing.
Applicant: Daniei Heard, represented by Steve Riden
MOTION: Bill Pierce SECOND: Clark Brittain VOTE:
TABLED TO JULY 16, 1997
10. Singh - A conceptual review of a new single-family residence. Dirk
1229 Spraddle Creek/Lot 9, Spraddle Creek Estates.
Applicant: Dr. and Mrs. Singh, represented by Gordon Pierce
MOTION: SECOND: VOTE:
CONCEPTUAL - NO VOTE
11. Southwest Builders - A conceptual review of a new primary /secondary residence. Dirk
2673 Cortina Lane/Lot 6, Block A, Vail Ridge.
Applicant: Southwest Builders
MOTiON: ' SECOND: VOTE:
CONCEPTUAL - NO VOTE
12. Town of Vail - Discussion regarding the use of cultured stone as a permissible Dirk
building material.
Applicant: Town of Vail Community Development Department
MOTION: Clark Brittain SECOND: Bi11,Pierce VOTE:
TABLED TO AUGUST 6,1997
Staff Approval s
Sortland - Skylight. Dirk
2121 N. Frontage Rd.#A-20/unplatted.
Applicant: Ken Sortland
~
~
i
Koenig Residence - Changes to approved plans. Tammie
392 Beaver Dam Circle/Lot 4, Block 3, Vail Village 3rd Filing. ~
Applicant: Howard Koenig
Bannister - Dormer addition. Tammie
2943 Bellflower Drive/Lot 4, Block 6, Vail lntermountain.
Applicant: Frank Bannister Lionshead Ticket Office - Summer sign. . Dirk
Lot 4, Block l, Vail Lionshead 1 st.
Applicant: Vail Assooiates, Inc.
One Vail Place - Summer sign. Dirk Block 5-C, Vail Lionshead l st.
Applicant: Vail Associates, Inc.
A& D Building - Deck enclosure. Dominic
2$6 Bridge Street/Lots A,B, &C, Block SA, Vail Village #l.
Applicant: 286 Bridge Street, lnc.
Lionshead 1nn (formerly L'Ostello) - New sign. Lauren
Lot l, Block 2, Lionshead 3rd.
Applicant: Lionshead Inn .
Masley/Falkenburg - Repaint house. Tammie
3944 Bighorn Road/Lot 7, Block l, Bighorn Subdivision.
Applicant: Gary & Linda MasleyBruce Falkenburg
Ackerman - Changes to approved plans for new primary/secondary residence. Tammie
967 Vail Valley Drive/Tract C, Vail Village 7th Filing.
Applicant: Don Ackerman
The Golden Bear - Replace windows. Dirk
286 Bridge Street/Lots A&B, Block 5-A, Vail Village l st.
Applicant: C. Lee Kirch
Stoever - Reroof. Dirk
2427 Chamonix Lane/Lot 21, Block A, Vail das Schone #l.
Applicant: A. Stoever
Loedsack - Roof modification. Dirk
4229 Nugget Lane/Lot 6, Bighorn Estates.
Applicant: Dickenson Estate and Loedsack
Beaman - Wheelchair ramp. Dirk
1476 Westhaven Drive, Unit #33/Lot 53, Glen Lyon.
Applicant: Jeffrey and Donna Beaman
4
Y
Vail Golf Course Townhomes - Replacement of retaining wall. Dirk
1710, 1720, 1660, 1670 Sunburst Dr./Golf Course Townhomes.
Applicant - Leonard Busser ,
Town of Vail - Reroof of Community Development Department Building. Dirk
1 l 1 S. Frontage Rd. West/unplatted.
Applicant: John Gallegos
Golden - Window and window well additions.
14031VIoraine Drive/Lot 24, Dauphinais-Mosley
Applicant: Diane and Paul Golden
The applications and information about the proposals are available for public inspection during regular office hours in the
project planner's office, located at the Town of Vail Community Development Department, 75 South Frontage Road.
Sign language interpretation available upon request with 24 hour notification. Please call 479-2114 voice or 479-2356
TDD for information.
5
?
?
?
?
? ?
° TOWN OF VAIL PARKING .
0
o PROGRAM
0
0
o 0
° 8 JULY 1997
?
? .
? ,
?
° VAIL TOWN COUNCIL
?
a
. ?
?
0
?
?
?
0
'
?
?
?
~ DISCUSSION OUTLINE
0
0
0
0
0
? ¦ INTRODUCTION / PURPOSE
? .
~ ¦ OVERVIEW
?
° ? OBJECTIVES
?
° ? PROCE S S
?
?
? ? ROLE of COMMUNITY TASK FORCE
?
? ? TIME LINE
?
° ¦ HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE
?
° ¦ PRELIMINARY FINANCIAL RECAP
?
"FREE A
? FTER THREE" SNAPSHOT
? .
,
?
?
?
?
~ DI
U B
DJECTIVES
0
0
0
0
? ¦ INFORM TOWN COUNCIL and PUBLIC
?
° ¦ DEVELOP and DECIDE
? on•
.
?
~ ? L ONG TERM PARKING STRATEGY
?
° ? SUPPORTING POLICY GUIDELINES
?
~ ? 97 - 98 PARKING PROGRAM
?
a _
0
?
?
?
?
?
? .
?
?
?
? ,
° THE PROCESS
0
0
o -
0
? ¦ INVOLVEMENT
?
° ? TOWN COUNCIL
?
° ? CITIZENS
?
0
? ? COMMUNITY TA S K F ORC E
?
~ ? PROPERTY and BUSINESS associations
?
° ? VAIL ASSOCIATES INC.
?
° ? TOWN STAFF
?
?
?
0
?
? .
?
?
?
° ROLE of COMMUNITY TASKTORCE
?
?
? ¦ Represent a cross section of the business commun'lty.
?
? ? Lodging. ,
?
? ? Retai 1 ~ ? Food and b
? everage
~ ? Ski industr
? y
~ ¦ Review and anal ze arkin information
? y p g and programs.
~ ¦ Coordinate and collect arkin ro ram in ut from th'
? p g p g p elr
~ constituents.
? -
? ¦ Develop a task force recommendation for TOVstaff
F] assessment.
?
~ ¦ Collectivel develop, with staff a recommendati
Y , on to be
~ presented to the Town Council.
?
?
?
o ,
o ROLE OF.COMMUNITY TASK
o FORCE
° (Cont' d
0
0
a
? ¦ Task Force must be prepared to get to the
?
~ "heart" of the issue by asking the
parking ? •
hard questions.
?
? ~ h .
? W at are the ob~ ectives of business' to be
° achieved with regard to parking?
?
?
? ? How are these obj ectives measured?
?
? ? What function'
should the parking structures
?
? serve in regard to employees?
?
o ? Who should the parking structures rimar
? p Y
o users be?Guests? Locals? Employees?
?
?
?
0
° TIME
LINE
0
0
o .
0
? ¦ Julv 15 . Work Session)
° ? Review existing parking programs
?
~ ? Free after Three
?
~ + Gold and Blue passes
?
~ ? Debit cards
?
o + Colorado and Vail Valley cards
0
. ° ? Discuss financial and operational impacts.
o
Discuss near term considerati
? ons.
?
? ? Community Task Force assignment/acceptance.
?
0
?
? 0
° TIME
LINE
0 (Cont'd)
0
0
~ ¦ Au o ust 18
0
? ? Community Task Force reccomendation to TOV
~ staff.
?
° ¦ Se tember 2
? p (Work Session)
? .
? ? Preliminary STRATEGY and POLICY discusslon.
~
? ? Preliminary PARKING PROGRAM for 97/98
~ discussion.
?
° ¦ September 9 16 '
? , , and 23 (Work Sesslon)
~ ? C ontin
? ued discussion, as necessary
0
? ¦ October 7 (Work Session)
?
? ? FINAL DECISION target date.
?
~ HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE
0
n ¦ CONSTRUCTION HISTORY
?
~ ? 1977 Village 850 spaces $ 3.5 million
?
° ? 1981 Lionshead 1150 spaces $ 7.0 million
a
° ? 1989 Village 350 spaces $10.0 million
?
° ¦ TOTAL 2350 spaces $20.5 million
?
° 0 PARKING OPERATIONS
?
° ? 24 acres of "brid es"
? g to maintain.
? ~ .
? 522,525 transactlons in 96-97.
~ ? 47- 4 °
? 8 /o of all transactions were free .
? _
? ? Structures **"turned over" average 2.5 times/day.
o
? ? No parking rate changes in 5 years.
?
? ? Average length of stay is 5-7 hours.
?
~ Denotes before "free after three" program '
?
0
o HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE
o ,
° ¦ CURRENT GOALS & OBJECTIVES
?
~ ? Use Traffic, Demand Management techniques to reduce
?
? parking demand, i.e., carpooling, pricing controls, and
~ transit service.
0
~ ? Parking demand is a result of how parking supp1Y is
?
? managed.
?
? ? Up to 15 days of frontage road overflow parking is
~ acceptable.
0
~ ? Provide reasonably priced arkin to serve the visit
? p g or.
~ ? Provide discounted parking for residents & emploYees.
?
~ ? Maintain adequate revenue to fund maintenance &
0
? operations.
?
? ? Retain the PRIVATE parking supply as an important
~ and crucial element.
o
?
?
o HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE (Cont'd)
o .
? ¦ OPERATIONAL (96 - 97 season)
?
? ? Filled parking structures 83 times during season.
?
? ¦ FINANCIAL (96 - 97 season)
~ ? REVEN
a UES
~ ? TOTAL 1 543
o $ , , 819
~ ? EXPENSES
?
~ ? Gate op erations $ 310J74
~ ? Capital maintenance $ 7829441
o
~ ? Capital improvements $ L205~387*
?
~ ? Debt Service $ 809,044
?
~ ? TOTAL $ 3,107,046
?
?
~ * Remodel of TRC ?
?
?
o HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE (Contd)
° ¦ DEBT
? SERVICE SCHEDULE
0
? ? 1998 $ 842,802
?
° ? 1999 . . $ 8919301
0
° ? 2000 $ 192609955
?
? s 2001 $ 1,167,3 03
D
? ? 2002 $ 1,171,628
?
° ? 2003 $ 191449450
?
° ? 2004 $ 191249673
?
?
o ? 2005 $ 1,472,895
?
? ? 2006 $ 9479833
?
~ ? 2007 - 2012 $ 3439000 /year
o
?
0
?
?
~ FINANCIAL RECAP for 96 -97
~ SEASON
0
0
0
? ¦ SALES TAX COLLECTIONS
? .
° ?BY BUSINESS
? SECTOR
?
~ ? RE TAIL -I-2 . 2 %
0
° +LOD ~
? GING --9.7/o
?
~ ?FOOD & BEVERAGE -+-3.0%
?
?
? +OTHER +6,3%
?
0
?
0
?
?
? ? o SNAPSHOT of
0
° "F REE AFTER THREE" PROGRAM
° (Cont'd)
0
o ? ¦ PARTICIPATION / AWARENESS
0
° ? Created private-public partnership for
o
~ marketing and promotion.
?
° ? 22 business' artici ated in rogra
a p p p m.
° ? 7 000
? was raised by business' to promote
o
? program.
?
? ? $5,000 matching funds by TOV
0
~ ? Community survey results were a 99%
?
o awareness by respondents.
?
? :
?
° «
o SNAPSHOT» of
0
o FREE AFTER THREE PROGRAM
0
° (Cont'd)
0
0
0
° ¦ MARCH & APRIL 97 SALE S TAX C OLLEC TI ONS
?
° ? Comparisons with 96 Season by Sector
o
° ? RETAIL - ~
~ 5.7 /o ($539000)
° ? LODGING + ~
? 19.6 /o $160000
~
o ? FOOD & BEVERAGE +6.4 o/o $ 25,000
0
? ? OTHER + 1.5% $ 4,000
?
~ ? TOTAL - $136,000
0
0
?
? .
?
.
?
~ «
~ SNAPSHOT» of
o ,
° FREE AFTER THREE PROGRAM
? c
0 o nt,d
0
0
° ¦ POSITIVE
?
° ? Locals an
o d employees loved it.
0
o ? It appears people stayed in town longer.
?
~ ? Perception of a big difference between $7 &$9.
?
° ? Reduced parking fee complaints
o
° ? Complemented "
Colorado Card" incentives
?
a ? Guests. were surprised and happy with program.
o
?
0
o .
4 •
?
~ SNAPSHOT of
° F
AFTER THREE PROGRAM
o ,
~ (Cont'd)
?
° ¦ NEGATIVE
? 0
? ? Parking, staff directed traffic more.
?
° ? Reduced capacityOwithin structures.
o
° ? Decreased turnover.
?
° ? Re
? duced revenue collections.
?
? ? Increased wear-and-tear on structures.
?
° ? Some customer confusion about program.
o
° ? Ine uit issues re ardin ass holders.
q y g g p ° ? Appearance ? of subsidizing restaurant and bar
? business'..
' , ?
?
?
?
? '
~ "FREE AF'TER THREE" P
o ROGRAM
0
0
0
0
o .
0
0
0
0
° ¦ MORE NEXT WEEKH
?
?
?
?
?
? 0
?
?
?
?
0
?
u
. 1~
TOWN OF YAIL
~
Office of the Town Manager
75 South Frontage Road
Yail, Colorado 81657 .
970-479-2105/Fax 970-479-2157
TM
MEMORANDUM °
TO: Vail Town Council
FROM: Robert W. McLaurin, Town Manager DATE: July 3, 1997 ' -
SUBJECT: Free After Three Parking Update
Last February at the inception of the "Free After Three" parking program, the Council agreed to
evaluate the impacts of this program. We have scheduled time at the July 8th and July 15th
Council work sessions to conduct this review and analysis. Additionally, we would like to utilize
these sessions to begin formulating a parking strategy for the 1997/98 ski season. Once a strategy
has been articulated, we anticipate the formal adoption of polices and programs to implement this
strategy. In order to give you a complete understanding of the parking issue, it is our intent to provide some
background data on the parking structures and the parking program within the Town of Vail. The
session on July 8th will include an overview of our presentation, historical synopsis of the public
parking program in Vail, preliminary sales tax recap and a snapshot of the "Free After Three"
parking program. _
On July 15th we will review extensively the impacts of the Free After Three program. Specifically,
we intend to provide you with data on sales tax collections for the months of March and April,
parking transactions and bus ridership. We also intend to present results of customer surveys
which were taken before and during this program. Finally, on July 15th we would like ta discuss
other discount programs which we currently offer. These include Colorado Card discounts, Vail
Valley Card discounts, Gold Passes, Blue Passes, and Debit Cards.
~
It is my recommendation that we utilize the TOVNA Community Task Force to help the Council
develop a parking strategy for the upcoming season. As I have discussed with most of you, we have invited the Task Force to attend these work sessions in order to receive the same background
information you will be receiving. It is our expectation that following the July 15th meeting the Task
Force would work with its various constituencies (Village property owners, Village merchants,
Lionshead merchants, etc.) to develop a recommendation for the Council for a comprehensive
policy for parking for the upcoming season.
RWM/aw
L~ RECYCLEDPAPER
JUL-07-97 13:02 From:TCi 3034883206T-772 P.02/02 Job-575
3-Pack
TransRonder ,A PPV Hits
8arker
2 Aduit channels
- 6 Encore piexes
18 channels -
Transponder 2: Brave - - - - ~
, HBO (2.3)
' History Channel Independent Film Channel (IFC)
. '
Romance Classics ,
Showtime (2) .
Starz (2)
The Movie Channe! (TMC) (1)
YCTV (3 channels)
DMX (14 channels)
12 channeis plus DMX
?ransponder 3: American Sports Ciassics
BBC World/America
Discovery Civitization
Discovery Kids
Discovery Science
Discovery Travel/Leisure
ESPNews
Fox/Liberty Sports Net . . . . . , -
Game Show Network
Health/Wellness Net (AHN/Kaleidoscope)
HGN
SciFi
12 channels
~
- 97/01/1997 18:05 19794762789 HONEYWAGON/DOPDVAN PAGE 01
. ' ' ' . . .
~ 7,/05
. ; .
~ ?
i .
~
G?,e~. ~ ~ " • .
` - ~
- ; .
.
• I
I f ^
. ;A -
ha
I~
. AL 10 YS
,
a ~ a
,
~
I
\
TOWN OF VAIL
75 South Frontage Road
Yail, Colorado 81657
970-479-2100
FAX 970-479-2157
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
July 1, 1997
Contact: Todd Oppenheimer, 479-2161 . TOV Parks Superintendent
TOV, VAIL VALLEY FOUNDATION COLLABORATE TO EASE PARKING, TRAFFIC
CONGESTION AROUND FORD PARK DURING PEAK TIMES THIS SUMMER
(Vail)--Beginning today (7-1), the Town of Vail and the Vail Valley Foundation are increasing
efforts to ease summer parking and traffic congestion in and around Ford Park, especially during
peak times. The coordination involves improved informational and directional signs and an
emphasis on the town's free shuttle service to events at the Ford Amphitheater. Also, the 250-
space parking lot at Ford Park on South Frontage Road will be staffed this week along with 13
other peak days to maximize the lot's use.
During those peak days, cars will be directed to assigned spaces--fairgrounds style--for added
efficiency. The program is funded by the Vail Valley Foundation. Parking on the peak days will
continue to be free in Ford Park as part of a summer management plan organized by Todd
Oppenheimer, the town's parks superintendent.
The managed parking program will be implemented over 17 days this summer when heavy
usage of the park's ball fields, tennis courts and other facilities coincide with events at the
Amphitheater, Oppenheimer said. The peak days for managed parking in the Ford Park lot are:
Tues. July 1; Wed. July 2; Fri. July 4; Sat. July 5; Mon. July 7; Tue. July 8; Fri. July 11;
Sat. July 12; Tue. July 15; Wed. July 16; Fri. July 18; Sun. July 20; Tue. July 22; Wed. July 23;
Fri. July 25; Sun. July 27; and Tue. July 29.
"We've been working with all the Ford Park user groups this spring (Vail Valley Foundation,
Alpine Garden Foundation, Vail Recreation District and surrounding neighbors) to improve our
coordination for the summer," said Oppenheimer. "This plan will be much more effective--and
(more)
L~ RECYCLEDPAPER
Add 1/Ford Park Summer
user-friendly--in accommodating the parking and access needs of our guests and residents."
One immediate improvement, says Oppenheimer, wifl be the use of orange event signs to help
motorists find parking during special events at Ford Park. The close-in fots at Ford Park and the
soccer field are expected to fill first. Traffic will then be directed to the Vail Village parking
- structure. From there, additional signs will direct pedestrians to the in-town shuttle for access to
Ford Park at 5-to 7-minute intervals during peak times. There will also be signs along the
streamwalk directing those who prefer to walk the short distance to the park.
Parking will continue to be prohibited along South Frontage Road and Vail Valley Drive,
Oppenheimer said.
For those accessing the Amphitheater during special events, compiimentary golf cart rides will
be available for those who need assistance, Oppenheimer said. Pick-up spots are at the Manor
Vail bridge along the streamwalk path and at the top of the bus turnaround in the Ford Park lot.
The town also operates a wheelchair lift-equipped paratransit van service for those who are
unable to use the fixed route buses. For paratransit information, call 479-2358.
Additional improvements for Ford Park access wiU include construction of a new sidewa{k and
recreational path along South Frontage Road from the Transportation Center to Ford Park.
Construction is expected to begin in mid-August in conjunction with the Colorado Department of
Transportation's frontage road overlay. Completion of the sidewalk is expected in mid-October.
For more information on the Ford Park summer management plan, contact Oppenheimer at
479-2161.
# # #
~
u
~y
TOWN OF VAIL
75 South Frontage Road
Yail, Colorado 81657
970-479-2100
FAX 970-479-2157 MEDIA ADVISORY
July 2, 1997 Contact: Suzanne Silverthorn, 479-2115
Community Information Office
VAIL TOWN COUNCIL HIGHLIGHTS FOR JULY 1
Work Session Briefs
Council members present: Armour, Foley, Ford, Jewett, Johnston, Kurz, Navas
--Joe Kochera 25 Year Anniversary
Joe Kochera, a maintenance supervisor II in the Public Works Department, was
honored for 25 years with the town. Kochera is one of only two employees to celebrate
25 years of service in the town's (short) history. Kochera received a check for $3,000 in
recognition of his contributions to the town.
--Northwest Colorado Council of Governments Water Quality/Quantity Committee
Following an update on past actions of the NWCCOG Water Quality/Quantity
Committee, which included a briefing on water quality performance standards and
legislative lobbying efforts, the Council authorized staff to begin reviewing the town's
current water quality standards. In particular, Vail's stream setbacks --cu rren tl y set at 50
ft. from the high water line--are among the weakest in the area, said Councilmember
Sybill Navas, who represents Vail on the QQ Committee. Russell Forrest, the town's
senior environmental policy planner, proposed using the department's summer intern to
plot possible setback changes on an aerial map. Forrest said the water quality
standard review would involve input from the public throughout the process. For more
information, contact Forrest at 479-2146.
-Executive Session/Alpine Gardens Lease
After a brief executive session, the Council returned to open session and voted 7-0 to
approve a 49-year lease between the town and the Alpine Garden Foundation. The
terms of the lease allow the foundation to continue operations of the gardens in the
town-owned Ford Park and to have nonexclusive possession of the town-owned soccer
field parking lot until such time a building permit is issued for construction of the
proposed environmental education center. Councilman Michael Jewett asked that the
public record reflect his support for a lease longer than 49 years. For more information,
contact Town Attorney Tom Moorhead at 479-2107.
(more)
%s4W*j* RECYCLED PAPER
\
'Y
~
TOV Highlights/Add 1
--Austria Haus SDD
In preparation for the evening meeting, the Council reviewed modifications to the
Austria Haus Special Development District ordinance for second reading. The
ordinance was later approved by a vote of 7-0. For more information, see evening
meeting briefs, or contact George Ruther in the Community Development Department
at 479-2145.
--GRFA Policy for Interior Conversions
The Council authorized staff to move forward in preparing an ordinance for first reading
that would allow for the interior conversion of existing single family, duplex and
primary/secondary structures that have no remaining Gross Residential Floor Area
(GRFA). The ordinance, to be considered for first-round approval on July 15,
completes a nine-month process in which the Council, responding to citizen requests,
agreed to evaluate the existing GRFA system and explore alternatives. As proposed,
the modification would keep GRFA as a tool to control bulk and mass of structures, but
would allow interior conversions to existing homes. This would be achieved by allowing
for the conversion of existing interior spaces such as vaulted spaces, crawl spaces and
other interior spaces into useable floor area. During discussion yesterday, consultant
Tom Braun said the proposal would apply only to structures that are in existence as of
the effective approval date of the ordinance. Reaction by Council members was
upbeat. Mayor Bob Armour said the changes would address recent complaints by
those who've said the current GFRA standards make it hard for families to live in Vail
due to the inability to convert interior space. Counci{ members suggested adding
. several provisions to the ordinance, including establishment of a maximum length for
dormers and the possibility of allowing basement doors to be added as part of an
interior conversion for increased safety. For more information, contact Russell Forrest
in the Community Development Department at 479-2146.
--Rockfall. Mitigation for Booth Falls Condominium Association .
The Council voted 7-0 to fund up to $20,000 for the engineering and design of a rockfall
mitigation wall to protect the Booth Falls Condominiums in East Vail and to build the
wall on town-owned land. Meanwhile, Gerry Greven, representing the condominium
association, agreed to pursue home equity loans with each of the 18 condominium
owners or a loan for the homeowners association to finance construction, estimated at
$200,000 to $300,000. Greven had originally asked the town to finance the project on
behalf of the condominium association. But a town-financed timeline won't meet
Greven's goal of constructing the wail this fall. The Council agreed to revisit Greven's
request for creation of a local improvement district to finance the project if the
condominium association is unable to obtain independent financing. Greven said he
wanted to construct the rockfall wall as soon as possible before someone gets hurt. In
March, several large rocks above the townhomes broke loose, causing extensive
damage to one of the units. For more information, contact Russell Forrest in the
Community Development Department at 479-2146.
--Regional Marketing Funding Discussion
The Council heard from representatives of the Vail Valley Marketing Board, Vail Valley
(more)
t
TOV Highlights/Add 2
Tourism Bureau and the Chamber of Commerce who've been exploring concepts for a
permanent funding source for regional marketing. The best approach--a business
improvement district--is still years away because it would require legislation by both the
state and county, according to the group. An alternative approach, they said, would be
to pass a lodging tax of between 1.5 percent to 2 percent for Vail and Beaver Creek.
The same percentage of funding, estimated from lodging revenues, would be sought
from Minturn and Edwards, they said. Also, the Town of Avon would be asked to
allocate a percentage of its existing 4 percent lodging tax towards regional marketing. Implementation of a lodging tax in Vail would require voter approval. A 1.5 percent
lodging tax in Vail and Beaver Creek would generate about $2.2 million annually. Frank
Johnson, president of the Vail Valley Tourism and Convention Bureau, said the group
was floating the concept with various constituencies to determine if the issue should be
pursued for the November election. Reaction from the Council was mixed: Paul
Johnston said he wouldn't support a lodging tax because the winter guest would bear
the brunt of the load. Rob Ford said although the concept is moving in the right
direction, he thought November was too soon to put the proposal to a public vote.
Sybill Navas said she'd hate to see the current momentum and energy level lost if the
election were deferred to a later date, while Bob Armour wondered if it would be
possible to consider a lodging tax that would not only take care of the regional
marketing needs, but would also help pay for a civic center or performing arts center.
Ludwig Kurz agreed with Armour. Kevin Foley said he looked forward to hearing an
update on the group's progress. Michael Jewett, who said he personally has a problem
with new taxes, said he thought a ballot measure would have a difficult time generating
voter approval in Vail. Public comment came from Jim Lamont of the East Village
Homeowners Association. Lamont urged the marketing alliance to continue to exhaust
efforts to pursue the business improvement district approach as it looks to other
alternatives. For more information, contact Ross Boyle of the Vail Valley Marketing
Board, 479-9164; Brian Nolan of the Chamber of Commerce Board, 845-8666, or Marc
Hoffman of the Vail Valley Tourism & Convention Bureau Board, 476-4444.
--Council Reports Bob Armour was elected president at the most recent meeting of the Colorado
Association of Ski Towns; Town Manager Bob McLaurin was elected secretary.
Evening Session Briefs
Council members present: Armour, Foley, Ford, Jewett, Johnston, Kurz, Navas
--Citizen Participation
Joe Staufer of the Vail Village Inn urged the Council to reject the concept of a lodging
tax to fund regional marketing. Staufer said a study by the American Hotel/Motel
Association indicates a bed tax is detrimental to resort communities and harmful to
convention cities. Additionally, he said the burden should not be placed on one
segment of the community to carry the load for marketing.
Next, Sue Dugan of the Intermountain neighborhood suggested the town address
several problems impacting the success of the Main Vail roundabout. Her suggestions
(more)
:
~
TOV Highlights/Add 3
. included adding directional arrows and/or striping to the lanes. She said the
roundabout is more like a"race track" these days with most offenders being locals.
Noting that budget time is just around the corner for the town, Lou Meskimen of Masked
Man Services, suggested the town take a hard look at converting its seasonal
employees to full time employees to help with retention.
--Austria Haus SDD
The Council voted 6-1 (Foley opposed) to approve second reading of the Austria Haus
Special Development District. In voting to approve the SDD, Councilmember Sybill
Navas said she hoped the process will be improved for future projects, especially when
redevelopment in Lionshead comes before the Council. Navas also expressed
frustration that a draft streambank restoration plan wasn't available until the day of
second reading. She said Vail's stream issues need to be taken more seriously. After
hearing a construction timetable in which construction would cease throughout the ski
season, Councilman Paul Johnston said he would support the Austria Haus
redevelopment. The project includes 18 member-owned fractional fee club units, 25
hotel rooms and one on-site manager's residence, plus 5,402 sq. ft. of new
commercial/retail space, meeting room facilities, an outdoor pool and other accessory
facilities commonly associated with hotels and lodges. In voting against the proposal,
Councilman Kevin Foley said he was disappointed in the loading and delivery plan, as
well as elimination during first reading of references to the streamwalk concept,
including a requirement to place $100,000 into an escrow account for the possible
construction of a streamwalk along the property. Also yesterday, Jim Lamont of the
East Village Homeowners Association said his group now applauds the project because
it is in keeping with the Vail Village Master Plan. Lamont urged the town to move
forward in its review of the SDD, rezoning and master plan processes. For more
information, contact George Ruther in the Community Development Department at 479-
2145.
--Lionshead Public View Cortidors
The Council voted 7-0 to give preliminary approval to five public view corridors to be
included in the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan. The views are currently widely
defined. They'll become more narrowed upon completion of the master plan process.
The five view concepts are:
1. Looking from the east end of the parking structure to the mountain. (This will be
defined as a design parameterfor future development as opposed to a specific
view corridor).
2. Looking from the west end of the parking structure to the mountain.
3. Looking from the mall area up the gondola line.
4. Looking from the east of the Landmark and looking south through the Vail
Associates core site. (This will be defined as a design parameterfor future
development as opposed to a specific view corridor).
5. Looking from east of the Landmark looking south through the Vail Associates
core site from a higher elevation than view # 4.
During discussion, David Corbin, representing Vail Associates, said he supports the
(more)
,
~
TOV Highlights/Add 4
view corridor recommendations. The idea of knowing that a design constraint exists will
be useful to VA as it looks to design its core site, he said. Also, Corbin said he
appreciated the fact that the view corridors and design parameters haven't been
narrowly defined that might otherwise inhibit design concepts. In addition, Corbin said
the view from the popcorn wagon area may need adjustment following a survey of VA's
property line (since view corridors may only be preserved from public spaces.)
. Councilmember Sybill Navas noted that although other views were found to be critical in
Lionshead, they don't need additional protection because the views don't appear to be
threatened by any future development or redevelopment. For more information, contact
Dominic Mauriello at 479-2148.
--Call-up of PEC Decision on Proposed Batting Cage at Garton's Saloon
The Council voted 6-1 (Armour against) to uphold a decision of the Planning and
Environmental Commission which now allows Garton's Saloon to go through the
application process for an amendment to its conditional use permit to allow for
operation of a batting cage on its outdoor dining deck. The issue centered on
interpretation of the zoning code and corresponding definitions of permitted uses,
conditional uses and accessory uses. The Council, citing unclear language in the code,
voted to allow the batting cage application to go through the process. The application
had previously been denied based on a staff interpretation which held permitted uses
only are allowed to be located outside rather than conditional or accessory uses. Also
yesterday, the Council voted 7-0 to direct staff to evaluate the relationship of accessory
uses to conditional uses in the code. For more information, contact Lauren Waterton
in the Community Development Department at 479-2454.
--Citizen Participation
Councilman Paul Johnston stepped behind the podium to address the Councif as a
citizen representing the interests of Vail Village and Lionshead. He asked the other
Councilmembers to revisit the town's policy on the hours of construction occurring in the
business districts. The current hours are 7 a.m. to 7 p.m. Monday through Saturday
and from 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. on Sunday. Johnston said the policy should be changed to
be more in keeping with the needs of the overnight guests. He suggested no work be
allowed on Saturday or Sunday during the months of July, August and September.
Also, he proposed an 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. work day Monday through Thursday and an 8
a.m. to 4 p.m. schedule on Fridays.
--Town Manager's Report
In his report, Bob McLaurin noted the I-70 underpass at West Vail would be shut down
Wednesday and Thursday this week to allow for paving of the underpass and the north
side roundabout. The work will be completed by the end of the day Thursday.
--Last Call for Citizen Participation
Dick Stratton, district manager for Holy Cross Electric, introduced himself and provided
an update on the utility's new emphasis on improved customer service.
(more)
.
~
f
TOV Highlights/Add 5
UPCOMIIVG DISCUSSION TOPICS
Ju/y 8 Work Session
DRB Review
Parking Fees
Update by TCI re: system upgrade
Ju/y 15 Work Session
PEC Review
Parking Fees
Housing Action Items
AIPP Jesus Morales Updated Design(s)
July 15 Evening Meeting
Seibert Circle Design Approval
First Reading Ordinance No. 13, GRFA Interior Conversions
July 22 Work Session
DRB Review
Executive Session/Personnel Matters
# # #
To: Town Council Members Town of Vail From:
•
• ~
• ~
•
• ~
• • ~
: Communic-lati"on :
.
. .
.
. .
VAIL VILLAGE ;
: MERCHANT :
. 4~ .
ASSOCIATI4N ;
• • ,
• ~i .
.
• .
. ~
• ~ .
. ,
.
. ~
.
. ~
.
. ~
.
. .
' Monthly Meeting
.
. . . .
. .
. .
~ Wednesday, July 9 '
. .
, .
. .
. .
• i •
' 8:30 AM '
.
. , .
~ Colorado Ski Museum:
.
. .
. ~ .
, , .
. •
. .
. .
Agenda: :
. , .
.
To be presented at :
. .
. .
. g .
' meetin ~
. .
.
.
. .
. .
.
. .
. .
RECEIVED JUL 7 19g? x~~. ~
PARTt`ICRSI-i1P F'OR Cf`IVIROf`iME(`ITAL (
CDUCAT[Of`I PROGRAMS, If`iC.
,
: 5047Matn Gone Cinck Vag Colorado 51657 970-476-27011476-4001(fax)
MEMORANDUM T0: AN IMPORTANT GROUP OF ORGANIZATIONS
FROM: JEFF BOWEN, TREES FOR VAIL
SUBJECT: OUR ANNUAL NEED FOR VOLUNTEERS ~
DATE: 23 JUNE 1997 ,
This year we have decided to plant trees in the fall, and are considering
Saturday September 13th. There are several reasons for this, notably among
them is the fact that schools will be back in session and it is our hope to have
students, faculty and parents help us plant this year.
We are particularly hoping that we might couAt on you and your organization to
help us plant this year. We have an ambitious group of objectives and we
therefore will need a good number of volunteers and leaders--both adult and
youth.
We will provide the usual inducements--such as a T-shirt, lunch and perhaps an
after-planting party.
But as one worker said, the real reason she volunteered was it made her feel
. . good to do something with the earth that created beauty and gave something to
the community. That is; perhaps, what volunteering for Trees for Vail is about.
Trees for Vail would therefore really appreciate it if you would mention the tree
planting date and our need for volunteers, to members of your group. As the
date gets closer, we will send a follow up to this announcement, which will
include a sign up sheet. We would appreciate your help, at that time, to muster
a great group of volunteers from your organization. .
Thanks much--in advance--for communicating the tree planting and promoting
volunteers from your organization.
~ ~:.a . ~RE~CEIVED JUL _ 7 1997-
~r
.
DELATITE SHIRE .
AS29RH/GS
Delatite Shire Council
12 June 1997 Po BoX 227, Benalla, 3672
Telephone: 03 - 5760-2600
• 1300 364 111
Local calls only
: Alderman Robert W Amour Facs;m;le: 03 - 5762 5537
Mayor - • - Town of Vail '
. 75 South Frontage Road
VAIL COLORADO 81657
Dear Alderman Amour
Thank you for your letter of 19 February 1997 enclosing two originals of the Sister
Cities Protocol Agreement between Vail, Colorado and Delatite Shire, Australia. At its meeting on 25 June 1997, Council resolved to execute the Agreement.
Please find a copy of the originally executed resolution.
Delatite Shire Council is very enthusiastic about the possibilities provided by the Sister
City relationship with the Town of Vail and we look foward to the development of that
relationship over time. " Yours sincerely
. ~
Councillor Bill Hill
Mayor
Enc Delatite Civic Centre
Fawckner Drive, Benalla
!
A RESOLUTION ADOPTING THE SISTER CITIES PROTOCOL
AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE TOWN OF VAIL, COLORADO AND
DELATITE SHIRE, AUSTRALIA.
WHEREAS, the Delatite Shire Council is interested in expanding its sister city
relationship to stimulate economic and cultural cooperation between and among cities
and towns similarly situated.
NOW, THEREFORE, be it resolved by the Delatite Shire Council, Australia:
1. The Delatite Shire, Australia and the Town of Vail, Colorado, shall
henceforth as mutually agreed create a sister city relationship for the purpose of
economic cooperation and contact in the fields of science, education, culture, health,
sports and tourism.
2. To memorialise such cooperation and agreement the Council hereby
approves and adopts the Sister Cities Protocol Agreement attached hereto as Exhibit
A, which Agreement will go into effect upon the date of the execution by the Town of
Vail Mayor and the Mayor of the Delatite Shire Council.
3. This resolution shall take effect immediately upon its passage.
INTRODUCED, READ, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 25th day of
June 1997.
Az~
- Cr William Henry Hill, Mayor
ATTEST:
.
~
Robert Hauser, Chief Executive Officer •
.
-
Ms t' .
i
SISTER CITIES PROTOCOL AGREEMENT
Regarding economic cooperation and contact in the fields of science, education,
culture, health, sports, and tourism between sister cities Vail, Colorado and
Delatite Shire, Australia.
In order to develop friendship between people of Delatite Shire, Australia and the United
States of America and to stimulate economic and cultural cooperation, the Town of Vail and
Delatite Shire delegations came to terms of the following agreements:
1. The Executive Committee of Delatite Shire and the government of the Town of
Vail will do their utmost in order to facilitate the most favorable conditions in cooperating in the
areas of science, economy and culture. They agree to establish direct contact between enterprises
and scientific organizations, to organize mutual visits, and exchange delegations.
2. We agree to study mutual possibilities in order to develop joint ventures and
prepare practical exchanges in fieids of industry, mercantile, and others.
3. We will take steps to realize friendly activities; to have cultural exchanges in the
areas of sports, health, and other fields. In order to do this, we would like to exchange friendly
delegations and to look for other means of cooperation.
4. This document goes into effect on the date of signature.
Delatite Shire, Australia Town of Vail, Colorado By: By: uu~
Cr William Henry Hill Robert W. Armour
Its: Mavor Its: Mayor
By: ~.d .
Robert Hauser
Its: ct,; Pf FXPnut;.ve.()fficPr
By:
Its:
xc-
VEO -=7.1997~~~ 1h~
5TATE ni: -COLOR,ADO
EXECUTIVE CHAMBERS ~6oF•Co~
136 State Capitol
Denver, Colorado 80203-1792
Phone (303) 866-2471
* *
~ s
1876
Roy Romer
Governor
July 2, 1997 .
; The Honorable Bob Armour
Mayor of Vail -
: 75 S. Frontage Rd. West _
Va.il, CO $165 i .
. .
- Deaz Bob:
Thank you for your continued support of the Smart Growth and Development effort.
I"am writing to invite you to the third presentation of the Govemor's Awards for Smart
Growth and Development. The awards will recognize some outstanding plann.ing efforts
around Colorado and will be presented at a luncheon on Saturday, July 19, from 12 to
2 p:m. at the Govemor's Mansion, 400 E. Eighth Ave., Denver.
Although the awazds lu.ncheon is a casual barbeque, it is by invitation only. To RS.V.P.
for you and your guest, please call (303).866-2771 or (303) 866-3296 by Tuesday, July 8.
There is no charge for the luncheon. The entrance for the luncheon is the north gate on
Eighth Ave. Parking is available in the lot on the comer of Eighth Ave. and Logan
Street.
. Again, thank you for your commitment to this process. I look forward to seeing you on _
Tu]y..1.9. `
Sincerely,
Roy Romer
Governor
MCMOR.A,NDUM
To: Dcsign Rcvicw Board
From: Gcorgc Ruthcr, Town Planncr
Datc: July 2, 1997
Rc: AUSTRIA HAUS CONCEPTUAL REVIEW DISCUSSION ISSUES
The Vail Town Council on July l, 1997, approvcd the Austcia Haus SDD. The SDD permits the
redcvclopment of the existing property according to the approved dcvelopment plan. The
redevclopmcnt includes thc new Austria Haus, East Meadow Drivc and Slifer Squarc
improvcmcnts, Gore Crcck strcambank restoration, and landscaping.
Thc applicant has requested a conccptual rcview with thc Design Review Board to begin
discussions on thc redevclopmcnt. Staff would suggcst that at a minimum, thc DRB discuss the
following issues with thc applicant:
. 1, Thc cxtcrior building ?natcrials/dctails (i.c., balconics, fcncing, window trim, fascia,
mullions, flowcr box, ctc.) including color and application.
2. Thc dcsign of thc bus shcltcr in Slifcr Squarc.
3. Thc dcsign and location of the "overlook" in Slifcr Square.
4. Thc strcambank restoration plan. Thc Town Council's dcsire was to scc thc strcam bank
restored to a morc "natural" statc with thc minimal usagc oFrctaining walls.
,
5. Thc outdoor lighting of thc building including the location and typcs of fixtures. •
6. A comprchensive sign program for thc building. S
' . ~
7. The type, location and quantity of landscaping on thc property.
8. The screening of all rooftop mechanical equipment. r .
9. The paving materials and pattern. , Staff would further suggest that the DRB provide clear direction to the applicant regarding any
issues or concerns which must be resolved prior to a final review. The applicant is tentatively
schcduled for final review of the Austria Haus on July 16, 1997.
~ ' ' s x ' b • s,
t . ~ 5F. •
•.N, . . , . . ..n + t.
. ' . . • ' , . . . . ' . ~ 1,:3
~
l/a 04"~' ~ ~ YR k~ 3
xi . .s~l,.,~~F'~~~ >ac` ~ •"~T~.~i„ ~'~X~'.~'"~`~` ~,°~'~'~F~<A~~
's
~ ~~a"~ • ~g '~s~m„ ~ . s;H'~"' `~<y ~
,
r
,a
w: . . ~'':°ski v. . ' .::.v ~ n•; ~ ^ `n'„'.F r' 2>:~ . .'a'z~~ .T~ifk. Vy.''441 :.y°.,,~y,~.n,.'H%F~~~ :=Y~ \ /w/~"~~..,aei ~w -
:
,
. . . . ~
. . . . . . .
. ~
. . „ .
~
awwre~:i.< . . . ~ . A:.v . ~ . :bM,d:: , Y.:h' .r/~.
.
. y. . . . . x~ . .
. `
,~:",,r~. ,y, ' wv~". . ,~N 1 . V ~ ' ~ ':P,~
K „.T.,R'.,~" w,.~ II:<`:a- : '~.h.c:i.,x ,'7~,b~~~ ~ee~",.a'.o~q~"' .~'y'w' •~~"w'M.9.~'.~Ls'av~~~~ 7~Iro~
p r .
,
~.,,.:x•»...»,<..,~z s-t
~ . .
.
, y-.... _
. e
. . .
• • palities Mu micl
r~: ~ry ..u
~
~
aa
~~f~~
k~ d `^S'. . . . ~.?~/oK~:~ .
~
x'.~c: and
. ~ .
. _
.
: . , .r'.c~'" • . . A'~6{'~N ~ . P ~
> ~
~
-..e •.z: ~ r ~ :,r<
Se~',;~: .:.,~y~.:~~.k"':~~'°`'~::<.`,~,,..~.."' ~'a~:iP.'.~r"%~~:,>~t''s:;:''.';~w;';::~;a.:.Y~''~`~~~r:•~w..
.
:
Schools:
. . . , .
~
.
,
>4 44,
. .
,
. .
: .
. . .
.:.w::.,-,:~< ~
r...
. . .
. . .
. . . .p.... .
£rc; • afk~
.
~
~
~ ~ . . s<s-.. .
.
~
;~~°"~~~s;r, . • ~ ~ -
;~~'~~s
::r;....«.f;.~::.ra;,c ~j~:e..~..:~.,~.•, :~<:r,.~.,..~,,;y;~.,,,:~xe;:.~:>... ,~'a;~::,~~~;~~:.. •
asa.a.:w.~:<„: ~s:.a:ae.x..,<.-:r.~.M,.~x~. .,:ti:~, ..~•r'• . ~ ~
~.~.•;.::~~af:,#~•...:..'C. ~,.....a'.?:!:w.<.~.,~u~.:.-,:a:. . r~: ' ~.::s??:fr~-ra . h. _
.
- .e,.:.,_ . , ~
~ . . 's ,"~v ~ ~ " -
.
r.. . .a~ a....
. ~
C
Partnerships
.
r, ~ • . ~
~,H~ ' - ~ .r• >
~~~u~'_ ~
. . .
v...,.
, :
..z:.....
u..>
.~.~~;;a ~,...:y;;-i-:~~ s:~;:;'a~,~~;' :~5~„:e's>~:;k;•,` `..a^
. . ~ .
.n ~M~>^"~~.'.n. ~<s. . . , .~"`_°~:;r~y..tt~ X~ ' r, k':r.,~ .z~ ~ . yt""•
...,...::..,:.....~..,w .
~M:> . '
. . . . -.....o>-
r.:
~..°t`t..:<::,...;~~:.~, . ....,.s„~:~?:.... ~
>.•..:~:.M.,.....;._4;. :F
r... e . . ~`V
~
.~:...d~v:...:,...
' . ~xx:~'.~..t
. , ..::':.~:t.:<~...~~:.t::'.~.....
:
.v~~w..w..
. ~~,....a
. ~:>,....~..:e~~
~ . ~F: ~
That Work ~
;
..._.K
.,.:.w.:ro.
;
.:v <\g'::p
.
. ~ ~ .
. . . .
.
' ' .
. . '
. . . .
. . ~ :r.:..: _
~ .......~.........F::: y
+4c
.w .e~o.... ~
. :
. . Y. rc.
. . . .
.
. .a~..:,.....: . . e~:::~...o..~.... ..s..~.
x~.... a ?:ai,~$..x. ~.;.s_:r ~.z-„,~;~a~ F ~t`£.S.a•-`as`.:.
. . :::e... . -ti.' •
. .a.. . .~,•?'N..~~~',~~e~:`:a v.6~~a; .::~;...N'a` rvt.. (~¢s
M . ~
.a...s:..:.:: ;
v ..r .
. . . . . . . 'r':: ? . '
........:..:::.:..e~.a..:.Feau..a:,:'.,: . ~ `~J:.~ Friday, e~..
u.:. ..,_.....k " h'>....:. `Vi
...:..s:o...s..~..::3:I'..........,o:...:«..~.:r.,.u .x...._.. a.: , p .S`E~$~l'^.
a .a .,...a....:::z....~'.::,.~. ...c.s+~,.t.:... x~D::'s~«s.w..::.,:.t';Yn:a:x~k~::~::.N'[~~ a...'„<•~`r.,~~
. 1
.;.....':::.:"....^••~::..:...~.~~.':`:m::
~
<p , . : : , w
<.,<<.:. .
, w~
: <
. >
:>:c .+~`e:•.~.
g.:y:>~~..:.:.<a
~
_ ..a:.u
. _ 0. . . .
. .
~r
~
, . ,
. _
...k.~::>.::~:. ,~,,.v,:~~:;~,.; €
, . ; . ,.a, , f~~'~
w_........
. . . ~
~r.?;; ~a r e.~••
; . ....s
. . .
'.:~-y,.:
. . . ~
. .
. . . . . .
"v . . . : ~:i.:: ~ a::.~. '
..:.......<.a. v~.. . : ..5. . ~ . ~x.~i:AO. ~
Yence Centey~,
Confe
or
. F. . . .n e» /
. -,.,~~..u.
,
~ . . . : . _ . . . . . . ~
. . .::......w: .
.
. . .
t . .
. . . . ~ _
.
::~.;w....~:~~
. . , ,
. , A erson Room
. ~
,
°a .
. . . .
..:..::.t r=
~ . . . , .
s . . . ..m ..W w, . . . . F i.y
. . .
. . . ..„:.r . ',a,~g%'.
~
. ....j:.
.
~ y.. ....:.b.::...:. . . ~ . ~
. , . '':~ra . . ~ > :
. ~:.'__..::..::e.. . .
.a~r>,:~:...:. .
.,..{.Z: ~
f
...:K~.:..'~:,...V....:~::.:i, _.:.:Y...
. .
~.r.a.. .v.~.~.
w..
a<..rts
. . .
. ..;,..s<. : i
. :
. . . . . . . . . . . . . ~ . ~ 9 e
....:r..~ .
• .
. ~
. . . . . y....,. . ..,.H:..:
:.._:..a`Y.^.._:" :a . . . . . x.. . x'f, . ~..:....~,..L~...: y~, •
tv . . ~ , o... . ~ . ........>:.~'~#.a.:r'`ij:;~>.`;."~y~~~~ ~.;v°
.,..v., e..a
. .3.,....,~. .;s~~,..;..,..... . ee-;4, M ~ :n. ~,.c...,. ~
.,a
.•4::
. ..y.
. _ . .
, .
.
.
. . ......:.,r.... . . . : ....r:: .
........c. . . . . .~.ix. :e~t~. .
- . . x:...~,. . . . _
: : .
.....:'s~a.::..,.
°a,.,...
~..~;n.. -
:e':~.::.......:._,. . ~:°r -
. . . . . ,e':+,'
. . . . . .
. o. , . .:.,..r.. .L..~.a ~
: r. :::~^.'a£.. .:F.~:
<s.-.~~
~ : . . .
:
. . . .
.
r..:.:....r~:.~..'..:-::... .
~
` _ . .
: . : ~.:.<s: ~ c
~ . . .
~
....<...,.,•.~.._r ::.x..:,.
:
- ~
. .
„ . . . . ;.:,:r
. . . .
.
. .
, . .
. T....,. ~.z.... •.:s....>...::~~..: • Colorado
. . , . . , . .
,r,.~ ._,..a:~., , r:.. .r;'
...,...........s......M,. ,:u<.._., ~_M..>... ..:~a=.,c,. _ ......ri>. ;~fi-! s:~~~".
. ; .
~.-..:~;M.
. . - . . . . . .
..z.
. . ~ r .
~
, .
. , . . . . . .
~ . . . . . . . 1Vlunicpal Le ge
, _ .
. . . . . .
. ~h ~ ..n . . .
. . _
.,..,..:;>.::.::.,...,._:,e...,v...~.:..w.:~ .
e
. . , _ ,
~ :.:..........y.,.....,-~-~:.,
_ .
. . . .
~
. . : . . .
':~3^.<
. . . . . . .
. . . . . .
. . ,
. ,r . .
..~...e,.w:. .
s«-< F..:'~....~....:.,.,-
.......;.,..r .s .
,r .
~ - . . . . <....~y..:: ..R :~'.K~:~z
. . . . . . .
. . . . . ~ ~ . . .
. ~ . . . . . . . . .
~.n . . . . . ......:...S.:.e.
..u.. ..n . . .y........:...~~.....:..:.....,...~, ~,x-:r,n~,
.r...n t.
~ r... . . ....,.nv e
. . . . . ti> . . ~y ~ .
. :,....a:.....r ......:.~.hn-....M. ~Vn.a.-:~:.a.,.x.r::x~: .'¢T9i.', :i3?
M.d:.:.
.
h nnual
~
~ . _ 4w
. ~ . ~
. , . . . . . :,.z
~ . . _
, . : . . ~ , .
. . . . r „R.<. . . ~ . :
.....,,:~,L.......v..:~..n.. ..rcn.aa...v. ax........ .L^
.
. , . . ,a:s~ .s;'~:.r... ~~3c; ~r` -
. . . . . : ~x,
.
~ . . . . . . . . . .
_ . . .
, . ~ . _ . ~ ' ' ' . . - '
:
. . Conference
. .M~ . . .
, . . . ~ : ':!~9v^K.. '~S ~w..~
.
......'av ...:3::"~^.;.'`
~
.
. . ~ ~
. . : ~
;
. ~ r~
. .
i:
. . ~
. . . .._...~;w_.
...;F
:.a.
_
. . , ~
. . . . . ....,.:'a
:
. . . . . . . . . ~
. . . _ . ~
~ .a . . , . <.:;'r:~M:
. . r > _ . ,a.. ..z~;• ~i...a. :~:..:r,<
. . . .k ) . . . . .
~ . _K'.... . _ _ .>:....w... . . ~%3 ^.~.z ~
. . . .
.
.......r.:.,:,..,
;
. . . : . .
. _ . 24-28, -
1
: -
ne 997 -
T
. r . . . , . .
o;
s
: ...;65..~,a..:'.S :_R ,
?
~~f~ '
.
. , ~
. ~ . . . . . . .
,
; ~
.
. - . .
:
.
~ ..,..~......:,;,y _e......:.x..: ,.s~<m~.'
: ~ . . . . . ~ . .
.
r:
_ . . . .
. . . . . .:.......s .
: : . .
. ~ . ' . .
. . . . . . . . .
~
. . . . . : : .
. .e.........>...:.,~..,.:. ~
:
. . _ , .
. . r . . n;.,` ~x4z.'i`.;wk,~:,;'~
. . . . .
, ,
, . . . .
n c~t
.
'~LP
Sno s Village,
,
.
~ .
.
. . .
r'...~:,.. ....is . . ~::.,.:.>.as..
. : . ~ ...,a..~............~ ~ '~,~~~':Yy.~:x
w..s. . . ..5... . „q...: .,;"E <..A:ttc~~,n~
- _
,
.
. . . . . . ~
.
.
. ~ . . . . . ~ ~
: . . .
. . . . . . . . .
. .
. . . . „ .
. . . . .
: . w Colorado
.t:. : , .s s
a -
. . ~ _
,
:
~
;
, . :.c.
: ; .
. .
,
~ .
.
, -
; - .
-
~
:
. .
.
. , : .
:
, _
. . . ~ .
.
. . . _ ~ . . , . .
. . _ . . z q
. a ~ . . . . . . . . .
a_,.;,.....~s.._,.. . .V , ..:..~,~~.~i:..„....i. x~>
~ a....... .~~v.. ..~...a.~:..:.i.;^ ~
. .
. . . : . . . . . ~ ~<=i:''>
. _ K. ..s... r.x.•~.:::.:..\<:..E..,......~.ad~'a$...~..xma, x: x :~,:•>~e:,w^s;es.~r.. ;C"„~~:
kii':.F~~`~T°,
x:$'0:~:.
. . . . . . . . . . . _ , , ....,.,.:a_..a..,. . .
. . . . •
, ,
. . , ; .
' . . . . . . . . ~ . . ~ . , .
. . . . . ~ . . _ .
~ . .
, . ~ . ~ . . . . . . . . . . . .
„ .
: _
.....c:,. . . . . c ~ .
. . . . . . .
. . . . . .
. . . . . . . n . . .s<:... . .
. . , , . . , . . . . . . ,
. . . , . , , . . . . ; `
. . . _ . . .
. . ,
. . . . . . . . . -
. . . . : _ cM..:
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...u.. ~ ~ ~
. . . r . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ~
. . . . • . :
. . . , . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . .
. . . ~ . . . . . . . . . . . . ~ . . . .
. . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . .
. . . . , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ~
. . . , . ' _ ' .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . -
. . . . . . . . . i . . ~"kG'~-`~e~'
_ _
_ . : - ;
. : . . ~ ~ . . . . . ~
: .....:~~-~.~......y<
.
. . .
. . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . , . . . . .
.
. . . . . . . . . . _ . ~
.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. ~ .
. . . . . . . . .
.
. . . . . . . s . . .
. . . . , . . . . . . .
_ . _ .
. . . . . . . _ . . .
. . . . . . . . .
.
. . ; . ,
. : : . . . : . . . . ~ . ~ , ~ :
. , . : . . ~ ~ ,
. . . . . . ' .
. . ~ . ~ .
. . . . . . . ~ , . . . . . . . . ' . . .
. . . ~ . . . . . . . . . . . . . _ . . .
. . . , . _ . . . . .
. . . . . . : . .
. . . . . . . .
f Municipalities and Schools: Partnerships
That Work
Friday, June 27, 10:30 to 11:45 a.m.
Objective
To provide information on successful intergovernmental anangements
between municipalities and school districts
Panelists
Janet Terry, mayor, Grand Junction, 970-244-1501
Bill Behrens, mayor, Broomfield, 303-438-6300
Carol Boigon, Office of Denver Mayor Wellington Webb, 303-640-3250
CML Staff Contact
Sam Mamet, associate director, 303-831-6411
.
What is the Appropriate Role for
Local Government in Education.?
bv Ron Stock - '
he recent round of elec- tion from the school.
However, when a local govern-
tions has once again raised 1
i the question of the proper i ment proposes to provide financial
a p p ro p r i ate ; role of local government i assistance to local school districts,
in the education of our children. Is it ; questions arise as to the appropriate-
f r a I oc a I appropriate for a local government ; ness of such assistance.
i to assist a loral school board and if ! This article looks at three of the
~ the answer is in the affirmative, i most interesting and sweeping
govern ment ~ what type of assistance should or j efforts in the state of Colorado
could be provided? ~ where local government agreed to
~ to ass iS+ I Clearly, no one objects to cooper- i provide financial assistance to
~ f ation between school districts and ! local school districts-the adop-
~ local governments when the purpose ~ tion of a school impact fee by
a i oca I j of such cooperation is the utilization i Douglas Counry, the imposition of
' of facilities and the elimination of i a 1-cent sales tax by Montrose
licate services. oun
~ ty ry of Montrose,
school board ? I duP C and the Ci
I It is quite common for local gov- and the imposition of a 0.5-cent
ernments to contract with school I sales tax by the City of Steamboat
~ districts to u1e school facilities for ~ Springs.
~ recreational programs when the i
~ facilities are not being used by the ~ School funding in general
; school distnct. i School funding in Colorado is
~ archaic, restrictive, and has not been
~ Local governments and school I
, districts regularly purchase materials I at a level sufficient to provide for .
; and supplies jointly in an effort to 1 the needs of our children.
~
obtain better prices. The Colorado Constitution pro-
~ ;
~ By statutory directive, local gov- ~ vides that the General Assembly is
_ j ernments are required to consider ~ to provide for the establishment and
Ron Stock is citv attorney for I school interests in making some i maintenance of a thorough and uni-
decisions. ; form system of free public schools
raig. ~
C
~ For example, in liquor licensing i throughout the state.'
j matters, a local jovernment is , The General Assembly, under this
~ required to take into consideration ~ mandate, has from time to time
the location of schools and the dis- ~ adopted many laws relating to the
tance of the proposed license loca- establishment of school distncts.
contintted on page 19
18 Color,ado Municipalities November-December 1995
~
continued f'rom page 18 ~ in July 1992. This fee was calcu- ; funds were ever made available to
their classification, powers and ' lated on a square-foot basis on resi- : the school district.
administration. ; dential property and assessed at the ~
For no appac•ent reason other than ~ time of the issuance of a cert ificate ' Montrose
tradition, the General Assembly has ; of occupancy. In 1990 the Montrose County
limited the taxing power of school ; The fee had been deve(oped after ~ School District was faced with S 12
districts to ad valorem property I a careful study of the number of ~ million in needed repairs and
~ taxes.' ! new students that had been gener- ; improvements but could not obtain
Such taxes are particularly I ated by past single-family develop- j voter approval for a property tax
unpopular at the present time,' and ; ment in the county, the capacity of ~ increase. The school district
1 school districts often fail to obtain ~ the school district's facilities, and ! approached the Ciry of Montrose
voter approval when mill levy !,<..,.,,,,,,,,r,..~._,,:.;:..,,,„_~ _ and Montrose County seeking finan-
i increases are proposed. i cial assistance.
It would be difficult enough to ~eS° After lengthy negotiations, a
i respond to growing enrollments in a 1~ complicated agreement was reached
i time of rapid growth with funding ~~a;Ve' I ed t,Q % , to submit three separate issues to the
i restricted to property taxation, but electorate: a 1-cent sales tax in the
i mill levies are also limited by I city to be collected until $3 million
fcee~~.
Amendment 1 and further limita- -..a..:_I~,"~ . was collected and paid to the school
tions imposed by statute. district, a 1-cent sales tax county-
The General Assembly, respond- wide-to be collected until S3 million
ing to litigation challenging the uni- ~ . . was collected and paid to the school
~ formity of funding statewide and . districts,s and a mill levy increase
~ taxpayer revolts to increases in , i n c rease~ ~ nand bonding authoriry allowing the
~ property taxation, has attempted to j j school district to obtain $4 million
j absorb a greater share of the costs ~ costs res u I tin g ; in immediate funding.
of K-12 education in the state bud- ~ The school district obtained the
' ~et'' f rom i n C reased ; final $2 million from its capital
i These statutory provisions limit ~ ; reserve account. All three issues
the taxing authority of local school were approved by the electorate in a
i districts, attempt to obtain a uni- I e n ro I I m e n ts i combined special election held in
~ form mill levy for education February 1991.
~ throughout the state, and supple- ! a n d i-n f I at i o n, ~ So as to avoid any concern about
ment locally raised revenues with ; ; the legality of such financial assis-
( state revenues. i ' tance, the agreement provided that
~ Unfortunately, since its adoption ~ a n d ed u c at i o n i in return for this financial assistance
; in 1988, the state has never had suf- i ; the school district would convey an
ficient revenues to fully fund the ~ h as s u ff e red . ~ old and unused school, the Moraan
' program. As a result, revenues have School, together with the entire ciry
~ failed to keep pace with the increase block on which the school was con-
1 in costs resulting from increased ; the cost of constructing and equip- ; structed to the city and county to be
enrollments and inflation, and edu- i ping new facilities. I restored and used by them as a com-
cation has suffered. ' Short(y after its adoption, the ~ munity center.
~ school impact fee was challenged by ; Unlike Douglas County, there
, Douglas County ! a homebuilders association, and ulti- ; was no challenge to the Montrose
As one of the fastest growing ~ mately overturned as an ultra vires ~ plan. The increased sales taxes were
counties in the nation, Douglas ~ act. The fee was collected for a time collected paid over to the school County attempted to ensure the con- ~ by voluntary deposits from develop- ' district, and used to make the
struction of adequate school facili- ers who were not challenging the ~ improvements as originally planned.
ties by adopting a school impact fee ' fee into an escrow fund, but no conrinued on page 20
November-December 1995 Colorado municipalities 19
r ~
~
contrncred from page 19 ; and due to the a.doption of i expenditures for new books and ;
Steamboat Springs Amendment 1, even with increased computers were being delayed and ~
~ assessed valuations within the dis- funds were being diverted from ~
Like Montrose, the Steamboat ~ tnct, no additiomal dollars could be ; existing programs to lease modular !
Spnnors School District was facin- a i collected without voter approval. ; classrooms. ;
financial crisis in 1993. By legisla- i The district was looking at signif- I The school district knew that it
tive action the district's mill levy ~ i
i icant cuts in its budQet while at the would have to develop a plan for
was not allowed to increase, state i ~
~ same time the d.istrict was seeing ~ addressing the community's needs
unding had fallen from a high of
f
increased student enrollment. As ' and seek voter approval for funds to
$l.l million in 1991 to $0 in 1993, ' class sizes were increasing, needed ~ accomplish these goals, but the dis- ~
~
trict hesitated joing to the electorate ;
; without a well-thought-out plan.
I The district had sought voter
Colorado Code Publishi.ng Company , approval to build a new elementary
' school in 1991 only to see the pro- • Code Publishiug • Supplemention oiE All Codes ; posal defeated because the voters
PC applications included Reasonable rates, prompt service ~ were not convinced that the district
When you want Colorsdo e:perience for accui'ate code ' had looked at every option and
publication and supplementation, call us. You wffl be because the district had not ~
aatisfied with the quality and timelinesa of aur aervica. explained how it expected to pay '
305 West Magnolia, Suite 382, Fort Collins, CO 80521 ~ for necessary equipment or staff ;
(970) 498-9229 •(800) 352-9225> ~ once the new school had been
built.
Call for more information. ' The school district approached
% the city for assistance and convinced
' the city council to submit to a vote
• ; of the electorate a proposal to
increase the city sales tax from 4 to
i 4.5 percent for a period of 48
. . . . j months. ~
We're the F~nancial lnstitution ; Half of the funds collected were ~
That Every Expert Adminastrator ; to be used for school books, materi- ~
; als, computers, and other technolog- ;
ShoulC~ ~ow About ical advances. The other half of the ~
When ic comes to em- quirement and no monthlyser- ~funds were to be used for plann:ng, +
ployee administration, we vice charge. And our NO r1N- ~ land acquisition, building design, ?
know you're an experc. And so NUAL FEE VIS.A credit cards i and similar growth-related needs. i
do the employees you interaa with some of che lowest rates in I The city and school district ~
with each day. the nation. ; received voter approval in November '
Thac's why we'd like to Colorado Sitate Employ- ~ 1993. '
remind you of the tinancial in- ees Credit Unio.n is definitely '
stitucion that's designed espe- part of your employees' ben- I, T'he City of Steamboat Springs ~
ciallyforchem. ColoradoState efits package you don'c wanc i did not seek anything in return for it ~
Employees Credit Union. chem to pass up. For more j financial assistance, believing that it ~
We save what your employ- information, contact the ; , ;
ees work hard for each day by CSECU Marke:cing Deparc- ;~'as within the city s discretion to
ofFering lower interest races on ment at 832-4816 or 1-800- 'assist the school district without I
loans and low or non-exiscent 444-4816. ! havinb to receive land property, or ;
fees on other products and ser- ~ services in return. ~
vices. Like a checking accounc ~ ~NNAI ; Primarily the city relied upon its
wich no minimum balance re- eharter, which granted to the city ~
, i
continued on page 21 i
~
20 Coloradio Municipalities November-December 1995 '
~
continued fiom page 20 ; tional funding and equality of edu- i be accomplished by bringing the
council the discretion to determine , cational opportunity have one signif- ~ best down to the lowest common
what expenditures were for a munic- j icant flaw-one size does not fit all. j denominator, but by ensuring a min-
C ipal or public purpose, and court ; As these efforts to assist local ' imum level of educational quality in
i determinations that have found ~i school districts in meeting commu- ; our poorest communities. If others
~ financial expenditure for economic nity goals and expectations show, ~ demand greater excellence and are
; development to be proper govern- ; equality of opportuniry should not i continued on page 22
mental expenditures. The city coun- j
cil reasoned that the existence of a ~
~ well-funded and strong educational j
~
; system within the community i &
assisted the city's economic devel- ~ ~5~t~iT~
opment efforts and improved the ~ CONSULTING F.NCINEERS
~ quality of life for its citizens. "Practical solutions meeting your goals. "
I
; Colorado authority i
? Municipal Services 0 Structures
for assistance j ? Water Systems ? Construction Services
I
Although there is no specific ? Wastewater Systems ? Operational Assistance
;
i O Infrastructure Rehabilitation ? CADD Mapping .
, constitutional or statutory authority
• permitting local governments to pro- ~
~ 143 UNION BOULEVARD ? SUITE 600 0 LAKEWOOD, CO 80228
vide assistance to school districts, i (303) 985-3636 FAX (303) 985-3800
; .qrticle XIV, Section 18(2)(a) of the '
Colorado Constitution and C.R.S. i
Sections 29-1-201 through 203, as j
well as C.R.S. Section 22-32-122, ~
when taken together, can support
~
. such mutual support and coopera- ; It A 1`~ll Ad& U to Somethin More
± tion. ' p g
' These provisions generally permit i A retirement program from the
' local governments to cooperate or ' ICMA Retirement Corporation offers...
I contract with each otherto provide ,
i any function, service, or facility i ...EVERYTHING you want in a retirement plan
~ lawfully authorized to each, includ- ! ¦ a wice spectrum of investment options including brand name
i ing the sharing of costs, the imposi- ; mutual funds'.
~ tion of taxes, and the incurring of ¦ stote-of-the-art recordkeep+ng featuring daily voluation
~ debt. i ¦ full-service plan administration
Additionally, Article XI, Section ; ¦ telephone tronsfer and reallocation capobilities
7 of the Colorado Constitution j ,
specifically provides that no provi- ...and MORE
1 sion of the constitution is to be con- ~ ¦ unmatched service and technical expertise
' strued to prevent a local government ~i ¦ comprehensive porticipant communications ~ entity from giving direct or indirect 1 ¦ independent, non-profit organization
y
financial support to another local , ¦ provider exclusively to the public sector
~
oovernment "as may be authorized j by general statutes" ~ Discover how an RC plan can be a real plus
! for you and your employees.
Conclusion
T'he General Assembly's efforts to ~ CCll t0dOy at 1-800'700'4401. ~
provide for uniformity in eduea- ; • Securilies woilable through ICMA-RC Services Inc., member NASD & SIPC, a wholly owned broker-dealer
, wdsidiary of the ICMA Refiremenf Corporalion. ~
November-December 1995 Colorado Municipalities 21
~
V j
i
~
i continued f'rom page 21
.
~ willing and able to pay for it, they
! should not be discouraged from
FACILITATION SERVnCES ; doing so.
i It may be impossible to identify
; the proper role of local government ~
Have your next meeting facilitateci ' in education, other than to say that ;
by a skilled neuval facilitator allowing everyone local government, if it operates cor- i
full participation in the meeting. ! rectly, will respond to the demands '
I
• City Council Retreat • Budget R~c[reat j and desires of its citizens. When cit- (
• Department Head Retrcat • Planning Meeting i izens demand and expect a pro-
• Stakeholder Meeting active role on the part of local gov-
~ ernment, then, for that community,
; that is the local government's appro-
COLLABORATI L'E j priate role.
Growth i '
Footnotes ;
390 Union Blvd., # 415, Lakewood, CO 80228 i 1Article IX, 2. ~
(303) 980-8893 2 Article 40, Title 22, C.R.S.
~
Marcia M. Hughes, J.D., M.A. Nancy McCullou€;h, J.D., M.S. W. i 3 The public's displeasure with ~
property taxes was apparent on Nov. '
~ 3, 1992, when Amendment 1 was ti
j adopted. This amendment added
' Section 20 to Article X of the
Colorado Constitution. Among other {
items, this amendment reduced the ;
total mill levy in all jurisdictions to ;
ti ~ ° ,
69 mills and prohibited the increase ~
•Y.r ~ of properry taxes without a vote of ~
the electorate. On six preceding I
i occasions prior to 1992, similar tax ~
J.-uwUtY 25 -FEBRUARl' 3, 1996 IN DuXANGO, COLORADO I limitation measures were prevented ~
AUGUST 1-1 0, 1996 iN VAiL. COILOR,IDO I and narrowly defeated-1966, 1972 '
Fur elected officials and upper-level managers firom local. state. antl ;(when two separate and competing ~
fe(ieral ,;overnment, this training program enhances leadership skills ! measures were proposed), 1976, ~
and encourages innovative approaches to bovernance. The $2.400 fee ~ 1978, 1986, and again in 1988. +
covers instruction. stud,y materials. lodging and meals. limited number ! 4 See the Public School Finance j
oF scholarships are available and academic credit mav be obtainetl from ' Act of 1988, C.R.S. 2253-101 to 22-
CU-Denver's Graduate Sehool of Public AFfairs.
i 53-208, and the public School
FOR JIORE INFOR;1IATION, ' Finance Act of 1994, C.R.S. 22-54-
CALL S"fEPHANlE SA11TF! :1T (303) 820-5670 UR 1VRITH 'rO: 101 to 22-54-120.
Rocky Mountain Program i 5 A part of the countywide sales
Center for the lmprovement of Puhlic Vlanabement i tax was paid to a second school dis- )
1=445 klarket Street. Suite 380 i trict that zducated a limited number ~
Denver. CO 80202-1727 ; of students from the county.
~
University ~
~
of Colo .do Denve,
~
22 Colorado Municipalities November-December 1995 i
~
i
Big city schools Ci#y Leaders Address l.oral Education
Draf t'Maashall Plan' by lauro Turner
"It riocs?i'f reqnirc a rockct screfitist
- 'I'ho quality ul' luual sclinnl, i.;
by5hawnaLaRue Cassurlp, who spuke tu uia,jm fucwr in sIwping tluv tn FI~IIYC' Otlt I-Illlr tlle CO11lt1f1011 Or
- mayura and wuncilmembcrs quoJii.y nl' lili! in cmnmunil~cs. f c~ .
Arciericn's Lig city schaols at NLCs mcent Cungressiun- l6un cily u0icial; h;rve uNesled -
arecnllingfingrcaterfideral a ICityConference,notedUmt intcn:;tinensuring th;uAmh•ri- O1lYSC.hUOl b1[ll[llilb'Sl/llllCl'/11U1C'S ti1C' .
mnd state invulveiuent as part urbxu schoul districLS nre educntiunal s.q,11011 i; the
„fa stintcgy tu tiulvc the prub- cliarged with the care and bc;t it uan hc, Madisun. \Visc
Icros uflucal educatiun in kernmgofnwi'ethansixmil- AIJh:rwuman Su,nn ll.unblin Cn31 fidence tlic penplc lIl1I7C /Il 7Uh/Zt
iunwrcitius. liuu o6udents with complex todd dclegate, t" the Cungro:-
Ameiicn needs tn launch a needs and that public cunfi- ;ion;d-(:ity Cunference. gnCS OJI LIISI ilf'. "
ucw Mar,hull Plnn fur its dence in these schunls is 11amLlin, a memLmr uf NL(",
urbnn xhad syalems, uccord- dcclining. Therefiue, the dir }luman DevelupmenL Stc~:ring
iuR the Cuwncil of the trict leaders called on the C,,,oin;«ee, iiio<ieiatea ti,e w•(,i-k- -Miehael Casserly,
Grual City Schools, which nalion w make imprm•ed S6up, F.ducatiun vnd Citic,.
Ia,t week released a five-part w'ban educatio~~ a top priori- DeputyAssistunt Secrctaiy uf exeeutive direetor,
('rwuework: 13uilding An Ly. Educatiun Jennifu- Duvis said
[lrb;ui Sc6uuls hlarshall 7'hc document is built dclegatea' Ic:idciship un eauc.,- Couneil of Great Ciy Sehools
1'lau. Superintendunts and arouud what ur6an schools tiun iasue, is critical, a; i.hcy
scLoul buard memLers in the will be doing to improve ,tu- h:ire the hullv pulpit in lhcir
naliun's lurgest cities dentachievementandluader- cummwiilies. ;y,lems, nuted thc rul:diun.:liip uur,:ur•.
anuwncud a consensus nn ship; what urban schools. n:rvi: uuUined lhu Clinwn Imtwcen puvert~' :and schuul 7'hunuis Curwin, dimctnr nf .
huw tu educate the wnrld's neud from federal end sWte AJminiatraliunis $61 hilliun pro- building condiliona und the dia- the Iliaisiun uf I:IcmenLary. Ser
must divm'ne studenl popula- guvernmenLs; and what these pr,;al which includes iniliativw parity iu Lacilitics amunti cum- undary :tnd Vucut.iunal Analysis
tiun to the highest acaclemic districts require tiom par- in :ruas ranging IFum school cuu- munities. nf lhe F.ducatiun Dep:u7ment's
stundards. enls, cummuiutien, and lucal aLruction Ur cnllege schulnrships "Il dur.snil require :t roxkeL f3udget Service, cuncw•red that
"The new h1arshall Plen ia Bovernments for children to tu (nlernet accuss. Shc stuid city ,cicntist tu ligure ouL that lhe w•ban areas aru moru likely to
morallY right, pwlitically nec- ducceed. Icaders need nul wait lur the cundiliun uf uur schail buildings have schuul; in p(Nn• cunditiun
esaary, end in uur demucratic Fur fuclher informatiun on ennchuent uf Icdurul prugr,uns, undermines the cunfidance the end said lheir high numlwr of
selt=intereats;" said Michael the Urban Schoola Marahell Lut cuuld lakc actions such as pcuple huve in wh.LL gucs un tiFwci;J uceds studcntti iu:ikua it
Casnerlg executive director of Plan, conlact tlie Cowicil of Ieccping schuol builclinga open iusiJe," hu tiaid. "...(ncililic, difiicult fur the,c schiNol distiict,
the Council. "The time is the Great City Schools, 1301 ullci' hou[s Ibr Wtorial pru- iiITecl 6he Iearuing nl' kid,-.rver- tu ineel cnnstruclinn necds.
'right' fur this plan, hecauae Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, grams cruwding, cechnolntiry, schedul- Curwin stressed that Clinton
much of the nelion ia focused Suite 702, Washington, DC Michael Casscrly, executive ing, libraries, 1a65 and all the initiative cun,tructiun funds
nn rdurntinn i4+uea." 20004; 202l393-2427. ¦ Jirertor of the Cuuncil of the pVryvical iogrudicW, nf educ.diun wuuld bc Lill'gCLC(1 lU LI1L' lILSU'ICtY
Great Cily SchuoL , which rc:pre- are missing in aclion in build- with Lhe grcatcst numLer of
nents large, urb:in pu6lic xhad ings Ihat are in as bad a shape as imryrverished students. ¦
7he Ur6ayi Schools Marshall Plasa
1.Aunifiedcommihnenf6 improvingurbanschoolsbasedon, Clinton Proposes Federal Help To Build Schools
`Educoting Ihe ration's most diverse sqident body b Iha highest
by Shaun Bernier im~es6 the lederal grants, whidi be alloc:iled W+tates based on
aoadernic standards ar~ prepore them b tonhib~Ae to ~e global thcy would reccivc in une-timc lhe same '15t1e I furnwlii, wiLh
COtMIUflllr Clld OW dEIIIOQOCr." "ilnderinveslment in schaol ?Ilutmenta, they cuuld retise un the exception [hat the yualifying
infrnstructure haa becume u amuunL of muney eyual tn half children living in Iceal school dis-
national problem, and it the cu.L nf interesl payments on tricts that nre eligible tu apply
2~' ~y,W""~ ~ fi~~ ~~I~ ~ dumands national action;' suid ~ bond isauc. A statc or local gov- dire:lly for 1'unds are subG•acted
skde laws b permit valus in ary tity b estabbsfi Iheir awn *r" fa President Clinlon un hTnrch 14 ~l""»ctit cuuld put tLe gn-ant into fi om the =tatc; totnl numlwr.
O~~ Of ~OCO~ ~S Olld ~CYIES. as his udminisu'n6iou senL Cnn- .i ;epen utc pwil or aceuunt, alluw- 7'he legislation would give st,ale
pess a bill thal propu,es spend- ing it tn cullecL inlerest, and then and lucal communities Ilexibility
ing in the aniuunt uf $5 billiun U5" it to meet bunJ paymcnts. in using the (inancing of school
3.ExtensivenewiederalaidforurbanschoolsthrWlgh dEVClopfIICfIt Of uvertinu•yu.u;luliclp.statesund Fur ex:unplr, a schnnl district cnnstniclwnlocanynuttheprn-
n Iucalities reLuilJ tichuuls. i,nuin~; debt with a yield ul'ri per- lects LhcY bclievc nwsL impur-
IINN ~IS~OfWO, 00 'Amerimn Ci6es Educafion Ad, That will provide kepulilicans and I)enuocrats ce'lI w(iuld receive ik une-time l:mt. In nrder tu he cligiLlc for
urbanschoolbbckgrantstodevelopandimplementnalionalandstate i,;,V,,,;,idtn:uUaOa:aii„~t k :l t(ii) Riant ;,ndcmitdinve.t iiti) rai.t! the grant;.•tate and itical.,i,i>r-:._
amdemicslandards,andimplemenlprogmmsfhatbuildfrommodelsaf poi+cY is,u< <his ye:tr. but th,, :~~id~(~~in.,l riitia,iti ,,m r,t u,,tt) caoi„w„uid l;i.i i,e r<<,~~~~~~~~ to
ndmiiii.lruliun's bill dncs ni,l b"ur Inrconl uf thu int"rc>t rusi.. euiuplctc n:uracY uf Ihcir cuu-
success in urban educotion. II;I.-'. any kcpuLlicnn ru-tipuu- l Inilrr lliu {iruyH,~:~1, ~'~.•4~i Lil slrucliuu nri~d.,
zor.: Iush'iid. Hc~nJdinins fu-r liI~n ~amJd Lc dc.;ignaurd Ilir Ihr. \Vhilc Ihi.: i.: n frd.v'nl inilia-
4.SupportforinfrashucNre lhroughthenew"PartnershiproRebuild •Ch,~~~~ ~~~~~~lwr;and ia. ~ledii, iuu .~11 ill dr.ilici. \6111 illi: u,u, kuevVmuha.v'!d that chc
fur pricmc cducauuu. tiupp.n'1. 4rr.;ilr:,i numLrr ~,f rliildrrn lic- Inn"hluin 0.rh~~ul Jrlrriur.uinn
America'sSchoolsAcY'providing$S.ObillioninaidMbeginrepairing 1_1.1 „r thU I".,:,i,i„Ali'; i,iu :.uu In i~~~~~rh, ct, cuw<_;'•".1i1v ~~t";on :t :1:u,! and i"cai
undrenovatingthenofion'spublicschoolbuildingsandthrough i,~~i,~•~~lod'!r:li" K,-poidw:an.;,"u i~~~~ow .ru~~~~~~'oidi~(. n,a,141• v -The i>w:idvnt.hiii;.:
additionalleyislationtoprovidesufficientoddifionalfundingtoconfinue "ll"'r itnniI - Uu•i.:sw•;;nin, li<lr!ia:+unih'• do,i;;n"d Iu ~ir~~~ulr J;dc;.ind
n~nr~inuwrnluiu .unnL:c,i, Ilcil Ihr~ rvrri~~b~r:~61ir-L~dli ilu:~<:i>i:iurr:unl
undcompleledierapoirandrenovationo{urfwnschoolsacrosithe I.-;1,i„1i1.; ioI'i'-:J i~~~~~i, ~~~~~i,•~ ~i~~ r~~~~•~:,~ >u~~,
counhy. ~~u~u~•,i. °P:iruicrs1111i lu If, LiuIJ nu id ~ ia:'pn' 1in"W-ui I"n' L"dp
:\inrruu'.tich~~nl~Arlid 14!I-,.i:, ln.ni n:il;nn'r-n :ind
srlw,d ~Ic,lrirl., .nuli- , L:::ir >lutuld pl~~~ :I nJv. ii, p:u'iii'•i::hip
S.Mobilizafiono(thenationandurbonwmmuniliesinsupportofour ,4,ti, i,,:,i, i,,,,,.,i, 1111, 1 ~.l ~h. 11 1•sdh ;md ki,ahl~•> 'I'll,
schoolswithavarieryofurbanparmersinlheurbancommuniryro ''"n"irurlioni "u'-1> TL, Lill i~ i-d ti~r~n~,LuPd u.:r I'--id-i= hilli"n, li,huili6
Inl~~udrd lu h rlp I~n:il ;;ucrrn.. li~ni :\rl ~'I'ho ni, Auuric,(. ,rl~uinl~ I'~ ~eill
mobilizesome2millionparentsinour50citiesthatwillpledgetotoke , i~~, ~„~~.~~~.i~~~~ ~.,•~~~,~~~~d~ii~~•:~,,:~„~,~~~~~~:~~„~~~- ~~„~i~ ~~~~,i~:~~i~~~,~~l,~i,.¦
theirchildrenloschools,meetwithlheirteachers,NrnofftheN,readto ,n„i1,i,;m~,r,u.5uni>oidr, i~~tal\i ~~~~~I-, Shm"„,1;,,'.",, uln,,,;n
lheirchildrenforatleast30minutesaday,andpickuptheirchild's ,(iwoi.; th-~~ch ~'u ~~ni~ ..~;:~~~it~:~~~i inrm.~rmul„• ;,,r tsai,,,-0 V'd.-
Lilln"u d"llur: ;~rcurdiu~ lo 1i.1. n~~d. Ih;? will usc dhr..r fiuul: rrdl („dnrn~n. .~!~~~.;rurrrnllru
reportwrds. ic,i"c"riml ;cci'cl~u.\' I{iduu'd rllicu•nlly ui Ir. rr:i~in; uur~l~il- luni,,r u! InJ~unn l;i~~rr~'silr
liilcv. rrd m-urcr.,. trArr,sh" i1 ruql,din~ iii InurnulfSy :Jluwingscbuul (listrirIs 1" Ai-dl-r $'_'.I i I,illiun ~ai~u61 I.;iu
gets mto the swi -m
. . . O A ~ ~ Tiie Cil.y Council voted'I'uesda,y to seri- plans for a new high school withoul. cit.y hond issue to p:iss. 7'hat coulcl "n'ike 1111-
City may Jouz w_ld1 011sly consider splkCting the cosl of build- parLicipaLion. pu~rl ~~enlure ~+()ssihle ~t~ilhiii Il~rve ~~e;~rs,
ing a pool durirlg construction of a new A swinuning pool iisPd by ihe general while a new ?nult.ipurpose pooI at Roo-
• 4~^ } + 1 high school if voters ap{~rove a bond issue puUlic a~ould cost mo?•e Lhan a pool dedi- evelt Ya?•k could I.~Ice five lo lii }~cars if il
d1S1.1~_~l. l.U pLll, ~OOl in Noveinber. caLed only for sch~iol use because of adcled is approveci at all.
The council inst.ructed the cit.y staff to expenses for locker rooms, ent.rances anel Councilman Ron G:111et;os said he waF
In 11e~V ~71~~~ SC~ZOO~ negoliate wiLh the school district. on tet~ms concession areas, Moderhak said. concerne~l lhal ~Iraft ~~lans tor 1t~~usevell
o[ a possible joint venture. Yhil llelVecchio, Lhe ciky's director of Park arc: raising lhe public's expeclalions
I1: approved Councilman John CaId- communit.y decelopment, sairl lhe nev,, higher lhan the cit,N, inxy be alrle lo afford..
if bond approved ~'ell's suggeslion Lhat Lhe cily offer to pay high school may be built adjacent to a I'm not a big su~~porlFr ol l~trnin{; il
50 percent of capital conslruct.ian costs planned canmunit,y park in the Clover inl.o a I)isne,vla?ui" wit.h ice m-enas .+nd a(i
, and t.hen a percentage of operations and Basin area in soulhwesl Longmonl. ditional pools, he said.
By Ted Nelson maintenance costs hased on usage. Half lhe cost. of a school pool would Uallegos said he likcd Ihe idva nf a
Thc O«ih Times-c_'al1 'The St. Vrain Valley school board is ex- probably be between $2 million and $3 mif- school-city part.nership le prcvide hrffei
LONGMONT - Longmont, is offering to pecled to consider the offer at its meeting lion, he added. '1'he council directed the recreatioiial facilities in «urthwvst f,rni{;
team uii with the Sl. Vrain Valley School tonight. Assistant School Superintendent cit.y staff to look for tnoney lo pay for ils rnonl. He said this would be a nlnre e(
District to build a new indoor swi?nming Bob Moderhak said the school board share wilhin the cit:y budgel. ficient use of fun(ls lhan expanding oi- ref
pool. would not include a swimming pool in Caldwell said he expecl,s the school rofitting the exisling Centeniiia1 Pool.
oul of space.,,
?~~~~~oko1 board appoints city-county panel members
By DeeDee Correll s^g~ T? "Can the media cenler tie in somehow wiLh the cily? w'Che boarci authorized the dislrict lo solicil, huy-
L-O« eporter-Nerald SIaN Writer Can the gyrnnasium?" ers for ils 255 S. i leveland Ave. property, where lhe
I-------~----~- 'I'he intergovernrnental agreemenL between the I'acilities Service Cenler is located.
I I-'oin• 5~hnn! hnarrl nivnihers wilt spend port.irms of cily and dist.rict lo eYamine gr~o~vth issues, ~vhich led ''he cenler will move to the forrner Group Publish-
Ilii ii s~irnni~~r \\ilh Ihrir coiintcrparls froln lhe cil,y lo Llie forrnalion of the commil.l.ee, is another ex- ing building on 291h Street, which the dislricl houghl
' aund aoiunly, searchhik ('or ways to pay for new ample, Moo?re saici. wilh bond proceeds in January. The Cleveland prop-
schonl~. i~~~~;~ir olcl ones and leam up ~n other Sch~~ol hoard memhers Pal Chase and Joe Jabaily erly must be sold to stay within the budgel frn• the
pro,jc(•(s. will .join Councilors Forresl Knox and Starr on a new building.
Frances Moore, Pat Chase ancl l.eam looking for allernative ways Lo fund capit.al ¦ The board awarded contracts to replace ele?Tien-
,?uc lnh,iilv will represenl (lie sc•hool hoard o? two projecls. Lary school roofs to lwo roofing cnmpanies.
jniiif pImiiiing lemms, the ''liompson Schnol 13oard 't'hey will likely focus on the possibililY of a.joint 7'he disl.rict will pay Alpine Roofing Co. $39,425 Lo
e,ccieied Wecluesciay nighl al ils acLion meeling al use of Ihe city's sales tax, Chase said. replace portions of Big I'hompson Elementary
Icertiioud llif;h Schoul. While cilies pay for costs wiCh sales tax revenues, School's roo[ and pay B&M Roofing ot Co(orado
t1'eslbr,x,lz and Moore will work with Ma,ynr Treva schouls fun(l Lheir operaLing costs wiLh slale and $50,192 Lo replace Truscott Flementary School's roof.
I?iiwardt and t'ouncilor Nita 5larr In invesl.igate properl.y lax nxmey. I3ul dislricts musl pav for capi- ¦ 1'he hoard approved Lhe purchase and inslalla-
p,irlruershi~,s bel~~~een the dis(ricL an~l city. Ial {~ro,jects, such as building uew schools, wilh bonci lion ot a new freezer warehouse for the Nut.rifional
"'I'hi:= is nothing new," saicl WesUhrnolc. "4Ve've issues. Services I)eparlment.
hecn ciuin„ Uiis for yevrs." Some Colorado school dist.ricts have used ciLy Total costs for the freezer, which measures ahoul
Ile cifecl Ihe crnnmtmitv audi4o?•ium and swimming sales Iax lo fund capital projecls. 21 feet in diameLer, are $141,341. Money f?•otn re-
p+loI al 'I'hr,rrip.,;om Vrillev Iligh School as cxamples ol County commissioners and members of the plan- serve an(l general funds will pay for the freezer. .
li:,t 4r.~r+nrr~•.hiE~e c,~n {~ri,slucc.. ni?ig comtimission wi4{ also work on holh conunill.ees. It. witl he placed at the new suP{xrrL srrvices reh- "\1'c're fniilding a iie%\ hi~;li st-liu~~l." l~tomre sai(l. lii ulh~•~• busin~•ss: Ler on 291h Slreet..
s?'.
4~i ~4~t~ CITIES AND SCHOOLS
Broomfield, Colorado
Presented by Mayor Bill Berens
Colorado Muncipal League
1997 Annual Conference -
City of Broonitield 6/27/97
ir
, ~ ¦
Broomfield
~
? Broomfield Facts
4Incorporated in 1961 25,000
4 1974 Home Rule 20,000
Charter
434,000 Residents 159000
o Peopl~
4Located in 4 Counties: 10 00 by
~ o
Count
:
Y
Adams
Boulder 5,000
Jefferson 0 -
Weld A B J W
City of E3rooiiifield 6/27/97 :
~
, Broomfield
' ur+IV ov Lafayette
coLoa~o ee.~... ne 2 e...w.
e...~~..
ep° Boufder Louisville " f- g
SpiN Bau1Or RO oo o .
a u _
y a,,. L , o i P .
]a ' p . 2
$UPCfiOI ~ .
Marshall oro~ ~a _
"c`°ss ~
Ftexrvo ir Broo fieid 'ZE ~ e
McKay e ~ Marshall ne ~ late t ~ .
ELWRADOUNYON likt ,
$TATE PARK s g ; Essdalce ~ o
Eldorado rmw. : IM~' A•
Spnngs < um..
L _
BaxoEa cA ~P ~ o Hende /
JEiFEH50NC0-_-
JEFFCA tlaerM
„ o hgle n '
ROC"
s -
FL,4T5 w tm*A.
!(Y r ll
~ N ~
G 1- A. W i 221
_ stm ter w ` 12
Standley ~ ORltO »
N - ~ l.ake 'ai°•• = F~ r _ to Irondale '
Qa.rw. ~ e e ~ itTAr y .
r~ R~1s~on ~wA. c 3 sun.. ' p+ j 9 '
°o Rcsrn~ou y0 w~mA.
~ Tuckcr ~ ~s ~ ~A, ROCKY
l~tcO : ~A. 17 Dupont MOUNTAIN
o " A. ~ ARSENAL
GOLDEN GATE Ci<c\ '
S~:.TEPARK o z ada u
~ ; ~A 6 Y ' e ~A• w CO merce
- rEMNCti F e u m Z ity
COUNiYPARK S" Ar 9 h
~ ' _ i ~~i~~e ~_n ~ P15 ua• e~ e. 2 36mA. Y wm~.
sanA. ~ Y ~ ~
REGiS °
- 267 --277 COLLIk`GE 272 271 ~ ~ Np ontbello [
Narth
Tiblc = Cum~r sune. 1___ •
o Mm
arw
n v o 2t2 STAPLETO
Iden - ~
. soum uwP'- e° = A. s~+vvt-. $ INrL 'zee
Crcrk Ca J~ / TaDlc cEOa(SE _ ~n•, a ~ 1 Firzs
AIqPORT ~ .
<lcir nvon 9~ Mrn wESr wn~A . 4= ~ '
s i
_ J1' 8a ~9° 0• a~ ' ~ ' ' ~~w ~ . 210 - Imn : rwnw~.Br.a GEN-
A, 3t
Pleasani W o caiu~. ~ m NOSa
View
~~KO~T D Coia. A. _ 10 .o~ s co
n E $ o ~ g p uuv co c.a. A,
MTNPqqK M^~' ;
a, . 9 a~ ~
2e1 aFO--Y oEr+vFa o o ~owar
~ FS \'~r~l~:~i p~~ P~ .l~ill ~5 ~ ~MI• ~ -
_Z S ( qpp~g e FEDEML n AIR FORCE = o n =
JEFFCO GMRA CENTFA ~ X?B a ~'n BASE ~
I 25a u i SO:: !h ¢ F
BUCKLEV AIR
~ nIRGROVn95 ~ ur...a. ~ C~ ~ ! ~a•
57 9~I- 259 ~ [....c.rA. Y ~ f a v300 $ NATL GII:..RC
~ 4 ~ W OCi ~Y GI ndal A rora BAse
Cit\ uC Broouili, ld 6/27/97 ~ 3
a ~
~ Broomfield
• IA: .
!Kathy ~rown 7'om ~runn6r
: ~lVarci 1 1lUarci 1 : :
L~rry Gcx~per ~Iartc Gnep '
-
Allen;
;
Vil~'d
Ultard 3 '
;
. ,
Kar~en ~tusrE Hart~ ~fova!(; :
UVard A , . .
, V4~ard 4
,
L~t~a Fa~ren6r'uch Re1ph ~ohnsori °
V1i~r~! 5 W~rtl 5
~.v.__ .
Biff Beren~ ; :
,
.
,
George Dr Ciera ' Ray Nowarrci Ronald `Mfller ,
C~ty M~nager ~?~y ~~orn~y ` Murticapal Judg~ ,
Citv oC 13rooni(ield 6/27/97
Boulder Valley
3,906 StudE:~nts
Adams 12
2,177 Students
Jefferson RE-1
379 Students
~
St. Vrain Valley Ft_ Luptor,
O Students Brighton O students
O Students
Cit}, of Broomlield 6/27/97
. >
Broomfield.Schools
Another Broomfield Fact
4Located in 6 School Districts:
Boulder Valley 3,906 students
Adams 12 2,177 students `
_
Jefferson RE 1 3 70 students
St. Vrain Valley* 0 students
Brighton* 0 students
Ft. Lupton* 0 students
*Districts in Broomfield's future growth areu.
Cit}' of Broouilield 6/27/97 '
Broomfield Schools
~
? Schools in Broomfield
4Boulder Valley School District
.
3 Grade Schools, 1 Middle School, 1 High Scha0l-
+Adams 12 School District
2 Grade Schools, 1 Middle
4Jefferson County School District
1 Grade School nearby in Westminster
4St. Vrain, Bri hton and Fort Lupton str'
g , Dlicts
No Schools Nearby
City of Broomfield 6/27/97
:
. .
Broomfield Schools
~
?Why is the City Council Involved?
4Planning,' Values, and Synergy
Council plans for and obtains school site dedications
Education is a core value of our communit
y :
ICaA's allow joint communitY use of facilities
The synergy created by the cooperation of local
government and school officials
4Improve the of Edu '
Quality cation in the
Broomfield Community
Cily of 13roomfield " 6/27/97 $
.
~
' - _ . . mfield roo Schools,
? H 0 W? ~
4Public Land Dedication from Developers
4Municipal Service Expansion Fee (SEF)
$1.00/SF on every new residential unit (ExcisP Tax)
• Business & Commercial excluded
• Senior Housing excluded
At least 50% of SEF to be spent on schools `
$3 Million to joint use school/municipal facilities such
as gyms, recreation areas, joint use library
;
=>Intergovernmental Agreements
Police Officers: teaching and counseling in school
Sharing of recreational facilities e.g. gyms & ballfields
Cit}' of Broomfield 6/27/97 <
::i:`
Broomfield
Schools
? BALLOT QUESTION
4November 1995
? IMPLEMENTING ORDINANCE
4Ordinance No. 1165
City of Broomfield 6/27/97 ;
City of. Broomfield
? UES TIONS ?
For Further Information Please Contact.
->Broomfield Municipal Center 303/438-6300s:~.*::.:
4Public Information Officer 303/438-630&::%%~:.:-:-* _
4City Clerk
303/438-6330*%.-t...
City of I3roomfield 6/27/97 .
- OFFICIAL BALLOT
REGULAR MUNICIPAL ELECTION
City of Broom(ield, Colorada, November 1, 1995
% `:4
CIIy Clefk
6:a:: r•:
.YAM1I'fr
ISSUE 2A - SERVICES EXPANSION FEE TAX ON
NEW RESIDENTIAI. CONSTRUCTION FOR TNE CON-
~.w;.
~STRUCTIQN OFJOINT-USE EDUCATIONAI.IMUNICIPAL
FAC(LITIE:S, FOR TRANSPORTATION IMPROVE-
MENTS, AND FOR PAAKS ANO RECREATION IM-
PROVEME:NTS
SHALL C1'1Y OF BROOMFIELD EXCISE TAXES BE
INCREASED $1,620,000.00 ANNUALLY IN THE FIRST
FULL FISGAL YEAR BY IMPOSING A NEW SERVICES
EXPANS(ON FEE EXCISE TAX FOR A PERI00 OF
FIFTEEN YEARS IN THE AMOUNT OF NOT MORE
THAN $1.00 FOR EACN SCIUARE FOOT OF TOTAL
RESIDENTIAL FLOOR AREA FOR ALL NEW RESI-
DENTIAL CONSTRUCTION FOR TNE PURPOSE OF
PROVIDING FUNDS FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF
JOINT-USF ED UCATIONAL/M UNICI PAL FACiIlTIES,
AND FOR TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENTS, AND
FOR PARtCS AND RECREATION IMPROVEMENTS;
AND SHALL CITY OF BROOMFIELD DEBT BE IN-
CREASED $6,000,000 WITH A REPAYMENT COST
OF $10,486,764 BY THE ISSUANCE OF MULTIPLE-
FISCAL YEAR OBLIGATIONS NOT TO EXCEED 14
YEARS AT A NET EFFECTIVE INTEREST RATE NOT
TO EXCEED 8.50% IN SUCH MANNER ANO WITH
SUCH TERMS AS CITY COUNCII MAY DETERMINE
FOR THE PURPOSE OF PROVIOING FUNOS FOR
•~c..•
CONSTRUCTION OF IMPROVEMENTS OF JOINT-
U'SE EDUCATIONAL/MUNICIPAL FACILITIES,
TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENTS, OR PARKS
AND RECREATION IMPROVEMENTS; AND SNALL
ALL PROCE=EDS ANO REVENUES THEREFROM ANO
ANY EARNINGS FROM THE INYESTMENT OF TNE
REVENUES ANd THE REVENUES FROM ANY
OTHER FEES IMPOSED BY THE CITY BE COL-
~~=A~`: A: LECTED AND SPENT WITNOUT LIMITA- YES +
TION OR CONOITION, AND WITHOUT
LIMITING TNE CO.LLECTION OR No +
SPENOING OF ANY OTHER REVENUES OR FUNOS
BY THE CITY UNOER SECTION 20 OF ARTICLE X
OF TNE GOLORADO CONSTITUTION OR ANY
OTHER LAW, SUCH AMOUNTS TO CONSTITUTE
VOTER APPROVED REVENUE AND SPENDING
X~ I;~v CHANGES?
~:j:.
as amended December 12, 1995
ORDINANCE NO. 1165
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TIT'LE 3, REVENUE AND FINANCE, OF THE
BROOMFIELD MUNICIPAL CODE BY ADDING A NEW CHAPTER 3-28,
EN1'I1'LED "SERVICES EXPANSION FEE"
BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCII. OF THE CITY OF BROOMFIELD,
COLORADO.
SECTION 1. Title 3, Revenue and Finance, of the Broomfield Municipal Code is
amended by adding a new chapter 3-28, entitled "Services Expansion Fee," to read as
follows:
Chapter 3-28
Services Expansion Fee
3-28-010 Short title.
This chapter is known and may be cited as the "Broomfield Services Expansion
Fee Ordinance."
3-28-010 Purpose and intent.
(A) This chapter is adopted pursuant to the approval of the registered electors of
the City off Broomfield at the general municipal election held November 7, 1995, at
which the question of whether, inter alia, the city should impose a services expansion fee
tax on nevo residential construction. This chapter complies in all respects with the
provisions of section 13.1 of the Charter for the City of Broomfield aad wit6 Section 20
of Article X of the Constitution of the State of Colorado.
(B) The purpose of the services expansion fee is to impose an excise tax on new
residential construction within the city as hereinafter required. The services expansion
fee is not an ad valorem tax on real property. 3-28-020 Definitions.
SEFTAX95.ORD; 6.1219 1
As used in this chapter, unless the context requires otherwise:
(A) Building official means thi! officer of the city charged with the administration
and enforcement of the Uniform Buikfing Code, or the building ofCcial's authorized
representative.
(B) Building means any structure used or intended for supporting or sheltering
any use or occupancy.
(C) New residential construction means any new building that houses one or more
dwelling units.
(D) Total residential floor area is the area inclucIled within the surrounding
exterior walls of a new residential dwelling unit.
3-28-030 Services expansion fee.
(A) 1'here is hereby levied anci imposed on all mew residential construction within
the city an excise tax of $1.00 on each square foot of total floor area for which a
building permit has been issued by the city after the effective date of this chapter. This
excise tax shall be referred to as a"siervices expansion fee."
(B) Any person who applies for a certificate of occupancy for any new residential
construction shall pay to the city a services expansion fee of $1.00 for each square foot
of total floor area for any dwelling uiait as defined in section 17-04100, B.M.C., or in
section 405, Urciform Building Code, 1991 Edition; or for any one-family dwelling unit as
defined in section 17-04095, B.M.C.;; or for any multiple-family dwelling unit as defined
in section 17-04-090, B.M.C.
(C) The building official shall not issue a certificate of occupancy unless the
services expansion fee has been first paid. to the city.
3-28-040 Exceptions.
(A) Neither garages and unf'udshed basements on new residential coastruction
nor garage conversions or additions to existing dwellings shall be subject to the services
expansion fee.
(B) Assisted care facilities, nursing homes, and hospices shall not be subject to the
services expansion fee. 3-28-050 Services expansion fee fund.
SEFTAX95.ORD; 6.1219 2
(A) There is hereby established a services expansion fee fund into which shall be
deposited all moneys collected by the city from payments for the services expansion fee. (B) T6e following are the purposes for which monies from the services expaasion
fund may be expended:
(1) Capital improvements within the subdivision payiwg the services
expansion fee;
(2) Capital improvements adjacent to the subdivision paying the
services expaasion fee;
(3) Capital improvements in the area directly benefiting the subdivision,
such as arterial roadways;
(4) Community parks that serve the area within which the subdivision
is located;
(5) Community facalities that serve the area within which the
subdivision is located;
(6) Storm water facilities that serve the area within the subdivision is
located;
(7) Street scapes in the area of the subdivision;
(8) Traffic signals in the area of the subdivision;
(9) Joint-use educationaUmunicipal facilities in the area; and
(10) Payments of obGgations issued to construct joint-use
educationaUmunicipal facilities, transportation improvements, or parks
and recreation improvements.
(C) In addition to the monies collected from the services expansion fee, fifty
percent of general fund use tax revenues on new residential building and construction
materials shall be deposited into the services expaasion fee fund.
(D) Should multiple-fiscal year obligations be issued, not less than one-half of the
proceeds therefrom shall be expended for joint-use educationaUmunicipal facilities.
SEPTAX95.ORD; 6.1214 3
Seeflon 2. This ordinance shall be effective seven days after publication fotlowing final
passage.
INTRODUCED AND APPROVED after first reading on December 2, 1995, and
ordered published in full.
INTRODUCED A SECOND TIME and approved December 12, 1995, and further
ordered published.
CITY OF BRCJOMFIELD, COLORADO
l.t~ ~~,,.r, ?1~ • ~
Mayor
ATTEST:
.
Cit, Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
-7~ 'z
ity Att ney
First Publication: December 4, 1995
Second Publication: December 21, 1995
SEFTAX95.ORD; 5.1205 4
.
CITY and COUNTY of DENVER
v
U Z
SEAL
WEUmcroN E. w~s, nuYOe
1997
~
~ •
,
I
,
CITY AND COUNTY OF DENVER
April 15, 1997
1997
GREAT KIDS MTIATIVE
The Ciry and Counry of Denver, through the Mayor's Office of Educauon and Advocacy and the Communiry Development
Agency, has designated Community Development Block Grant funds for one-time grant awards up to $50,000 for projecu
during the 1997-1998 school year which unprove the literacy and/or graduation rates of at-risk students enrolled in Denver
Public Schools in grades 6 through 12, or of youth in tt?is age group who have dropped out of school.
APPLICATION PROCESS
Applicaaons for the 1997 Great Kids Initiative are available at Ciry libraries, recreation centers and Denver Public Schools'
middle and high schools begiruiing April 15, 1997. Completed applications must be received no later than 4:00 p.m., on
Thursday, June 12, 1997, at the Communiry DeveloF?ment Agency, Suite 1400, 216 16th Sueet, Denver, Colorado, 80202.
Technical assistance, additional information and clarification regarding the 1997 Great Kids Initiative may be obtained by
calling Karla Gomez-Meyer at 640-5718, or Yolanda Wesley at 640-4793.
All project applicants must participate in one technical assistance workshop.* Technical assistance workshops will be held:
DATE TIME LOCATION
Monday, Apri128, 1997 6:00 to 8:00 p.m. Barnum Recreation and Senior Center, 360 Hooker St., 9374659 (Between 3rd and 4th Aves.
on Hooker St. Handicap accessibiliry loca[ed at south enawce to Senior Center)
Tuesday, May 6, 1947 6:00 to 8:00 p.m. Clayton Caznpus - Program Building, 3801 Martin Luther I{ing Blvd., 355-4411 (Intersecdon of
Colorado Blvd. and Martin Lu[her King Blvd. (3200 N] - vavel west on MLK Blvd. and take first .
right to encer Clayton Campus. Handicap accessibility loca[ed on eas[ side of Program Building).
Wednesday, May 21, 1997 6:00 to 8:00 p.m. Platt Pazk Recreation Center for People 50 and Over, 1500 S. Grant St., 698-4965
(Florida Ave. and Gran[ St. Handicap accessibiliry located on easc side of building on L.ogan S[.)
Tuesday, May 27, 1997 6:00 to 8:00 p.m. Woodbury Library, 3265 Federal Blvd., 455-3930 (Entrance to parldng lot on south side of 33rd
Avenue, west of Federal Blvd. Handicap accessibility [hrough west entrance adjacent to parking lot..)
•NOTE: Please call 640-4793 ac least 48 hours in advance of the workshop you plan co attend if you will require the services of a Sign Language Incerpreter.
BACKGROiJND Mayor Wellington E. Webb first authorized the Great Kids Initiative grants in 1996 to address major
change occurring in the Denver Public Schools (DPS) as a result of the end of court-ordered busing. He believed that new
patterns of high student achievement, and strong parent and communiry :nvolvement could be set by maldng those goals the
focus of the transition to neighborhood schools. While teachers, parents and community members were reinventing
neiahborhood schools and managing the nuts and bolts of the change, they also couid build new partnerships for the children's
school success. They could work together on desiping schools to help young people move up to their grade level and beyond
throu;h new programs and strategies.
In order to promote greater community involvement and improve student achievement, Mayor Webb directed a share of
Communiry Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds tc, the Great Kids Iniuative. It was the first time that CDBG funds were
used for educational programs in Denver or in any major ciry. The 1996 grants were awarded for school readiness through
early childhood education and for literacy projecu for elementary school aged youngsters, two of DPS' four top educadon
goals. The 1996 grants were timed to coincide with the rransition to neighborhood school attendance at the elementary level.
1997 GREAT KIDS INI7'IATIVE In 1997, the Great Kids Initiadve granu will be awarded to projects that benefit at-risk
middle and high school aged students; as DPS secondary schools move to neighborhood attendance zones starting in the Fall of
1997.
All 1997 Great Kids Iniuative grant applicadons will be reviewed by the Mayor's Education Advisory Council and its
communiry review team which will make recommendations to Mayor Wellington E. Webb. Mayor Webb will make the final
determinadons. Grant applications must address the Great Kids Initiative goals and criteria.
Proposed projects:
• must serve at risk students who will attend Denver Public Schools' middle and high schools during the 1997-1998 school
year or at-risk neighborhood youth wlio have dropped out of school.
• may be based inside or outside DPS buildings .
• may or may not operate during the school day.(i.e., projecu conducted before, during, or after school, Saturdays, etc.).
• must complete project activities by September 1, 1998.
GOALS: ACHIEVEMENT AND COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT
The overall goals of the 1997 Great Kids Initiative grant program are to generate communiry support for Denver's
neighborhood schools, and to improve literacy and the graduation rates of DPS students. These goals may be accomplished by
providing at-risk middle and high school students, as well as youth in this age group who have dropped out of the public school
system, with an addidonal boost in the area of literacy. Grant applicants must include the proposed project's objectives as they
relate to Achievement Goal A or Goal B or both Goals A and B. Each application must also address the Communiry
Involvement Goal as it relates to the Achievement Goal(s).
ACHIEVEMENT GOALS There are two Achievement Goals: A) improved literacy as measured by standardized test
scores, and B) improved graduation rates. Proposed projects may be designed to meet one or both goals. Bonus points will be
given to proposed projects that include a project design that makes effective use of school-to-career strategies, a key DPS goal.
A) LITERACY Proposed projects targeting improved literacy, the top DPS education goal, must be designed to
achieve two (2) years of improvement in reading scores within a one-year testing cycle: Many school nnprovement
plans already call for 18 months of improvement. The Iowa Test of Basic Skills is presendy used as the DPS
standardized testing program. Resulu from the tests conducted in May 1997 and May 1998 must be used to evaluate
the 1997 Great Kids Initiative projects.
AND/OR
B) GRADUATION RATES Proposed projects aimed at improving graduation rates must be designed to raise the rates
by at least two (2) percentage points overall, with a special emphasis on school population segments with the lowest
graduaaon rates in the local DPS high school. The measure ef success will be graduation rates reported to the
Colorado Department of Education immediately following completion of the project. (A key performance goal for the
Colorado Depar[ment of Education is irnproved graduadon rates to 90 percent. )
Bonus School-to-Career The 1997 Great Kids Initiative grant program also supports the DPS goal of the use of
Points school-to-career strategies. Proposed projects that include implementation of school-to-career strategies will receive
additional points in scoring.
COMMU1vITY INVOLVEMENT GOAL Grant funds will be awarded to projects designed through real collaboration and
the formation of partnerships of parents, communiry organizations, businesses and schools. Parents, members of the
communiry and school staff will play strong cooperative roles in the planning, design, implementation, completion and
evaluation of the project. The involvement of each par[ner will be measured by the quantiry and quality of participation in the
project desip and by a defined role throughout the grant project. Great Kids Initiative grant recipienu will provide
documentation of the quantity and quality of inember participation throughout the term of the project.
2
FEDERAL RULFS The 1997 Great Kids Initiative grant program is designed to provide a public service through projec[s
implementing the goals defined above and must meet federal rules and reguladons for the use of CDBG funds.
• Projects must benefit a majoriry of low, or low and moderate income DPS middle or high school studenu, or youth in this
age group. Applications must include a defined service area for the proposed project.
• Budget line items, expenditures and disbursement of funds must be in compliance with federal rules and regulations.
These requirements will be explained in detail at the mandatory technical assistance workshops. Technical assistance will be
available through the Communiry Development Agency.
SIZE OF AWARDS Project applicants may apply for up to $50,000. Additional points will be awarded for projects that .
show how this money will be leveraged with other financial resources (i.e., public, private and in-kind contribucions). The
1997 Great Kids Initiative grants are one-time awards.
CRITERIA - Each project must have a design ttiat includes the Community Goal and at least one of the Achievement Goals
(Goal A and/or Goal B); progress benchmarks, and measurement tool(s).
1. The projecc must focus on literacy of at-risk middle or high school studenu enrolled in DPS in grades 6 chrough 12 or of
youth in this age group who have dropped out of school who reside in Denver, and/or on improved graduation rates.
2. The applicant must provide evidence that demonstrates broad community participation and partnership in the Great Kids
Initiative project planning, design, unplementation, completion and evaluation. Participants may include parents, the
surrounding community of neighbors, businesses, meighborhood organizadons and other communiry groups.
3. The applicant must describe how the project will nmprove the outcome of reading test scores for li[eracy projects; or will
improve the graduation rates of DPS students. The applicant also must show how these results will be measured.
GUIDELINES
' 1. The applicant must identify all other funds and resources for the project, such as in-kind, private, and othcr public
contributions (see Attachtnent A).
2. The applicant must include a project timeline for implementation.
3. The applicant should describe performance measures, such as the number of students and/or paren[s to be sen•ed, the
target population and how the recipients will benefat from the proposed project. How will children be identified, recruited
and benefit from the project? Explain the types and hours of student/youth contact, the steps to be accomplished to
establish and conduct the project, including communiry outreach, and the steps to be taken to measure and report'
student/youth progress.
4. The grant applicant must demonstrate that the project meets the Community Development Block Grant program's national
objective to benefit at least 51 percent low and moderate income recipients. L.ow and moderate income service areas are
based upon 1990 Census Data (see map - Attachment B). The 1997 Great Kids Initiative grant program is not necessarily
confined to the low and moderate income census tract service areas. However, data will be required to demonstrate that at
least 51 percent of the recipients who will benefit fiom the project are low and moderate income. Information on census
tracts and low and moderate income levels will be available at the mandatory technical assistance workshops.
5. The grant applicant must participate in at least one technical assistance workshop. Grant applicants may receive technical
assistance regarding this grant application or relateci information at the 1997 Great Kids Initiative workshops or by calling
Karla Gomez-Meyer at 640-5718, or Yolanda Wesley at 640-4793.
6. Each 1997 Great Kids Initiative grant recipient (or :its fiscal agent) must enter into a legally binding contract with the Ciry
and Counry of Denver. The contract must be with a legal entiry and will set forth the Ciry and federal requirements
applicable to the specific project. The Community Development Agency will assist the grant recipients in the contract
process.
TBE CTTY RESERVES THE RIGHT TU REJECT ANY AND ALL GRANT APPLICATIONS
3
GRwM' MtOUNi
REQUESIED
PROIECT HUI.33ER
~ COUN~j.
FOR OFFlCE USE ONLY
t
I/
,
y y~~ l
~~G~
l/W
• ~ ~ / 2
MAYOR CITY AND COUNTY BUILDING • DENVER, COLORADO • 80202
Nal
AREA CODE 303 640-2721
640-2720 (VlTDD)
1997
GREAT KIDS INITIATIVE
PROJECT APPLICATION
GENERAL INFORMATION
1. PROJECT TITLE:
2. NAME OF GRANT APPLICANT:
3. PROJECT ADDRESS:
Street Zip Code
4. PHONE NUMBER: w) h) 5. FAX NUMBER:
6. CONTACT PERSON:
Name Title
7. MAILING ADDRESS:
(lf different from Project Address) Street Zip Code
8. PHONE NUMBER: w) h) 9. FAX NUMBER:
W. NEIGHBORHOOD(S) TO BE SERVED:
11. PROJECT SERVICE AREA BY CENSUS TRACT(S)*:
*NOTE: Census Trect intormation will be evailable at the technical assistance workshops.
12. NAME OF NEIGHBORHOOD MIDDLE AND HIGH SCHOOL(S):
13. GRANT APPLICANT'S (OR FISCAL AGENT'S) FEDERAL EMPLOYMENT IDENTIFICATION NUMBER:
Name of Fiscal Agent if different from Grant Applicant: t
14. MANDATORI' WORKSHOP ATTE[YDANCE:
DetelLucation .
Grant Applicant Representetive
9
1997
GREAT K1DS INITIATIVE
PROJECT APPLICATION
PROJECT TITLE:
NARRATIVE
Be brief. Limit your response to the following questions to no more than four (4) pages.
1. Which achievement goal(s) will your project targe:t?
a. Choose one or both: Literacy Improved Graduation Rates
b. Does your proposed project include impYementation of school-to-career stra[egies?
Yes or No
Explain your answers to a. and b.
2. Who will your project serve? Why? Why is there a need for this project in your community?
3. How will this project help build a sense of commuauty within the newly defined school community?
4. Name [he panners, their roles in the community and their roles in each stage of the project, including planning, design,
implemen[ation, completion and evaluation.
5. What will your projec[ do? Give a short description of the actual work you plan to undertake.
6. How will you conduct your project? Describe the :;teps you will take and the proposed timeline for each activity; from
community outreach - to selecting panicipants - to assessing results. Note performance measures and key milestones. Explain
how par[icipants will be identified, recruited and helped by your projec[, and the types and hours of contac[ with the
participants. Describe the plan to measure and report student progress.
7. a. If this is a new project, list participants and steps taken to develop this applica[ion.
or
b. If this is an extension of an on-going project, summarize the history of the project.
8. What is the total cost of the proposed project and haw much is your 1997 Grea[ Kids Initiative gran[ request? How will the
funds be used?
9. If the 1997 Great Kids Initiative grant request does not cover total project costs, how will you obtain the additional
funds/resources for your project? Attach any docun?ents that show firm commitments of other sources of public, private and
in-kind contributions.
5
Attachment A
1997 '
GREAT KIDS I1vITIATIVE
PROJECT APPLICATION
PROJECT TITLE:
BUDGET * Schedule A: .
GREAT KIDS OTHER
INITIATIVE SDURCES
IF ITEM DESCRIPTIDN CDBG OF TOTAL
FUNDS FUNDS
REQUESTED
(Schedule B)
1. $ $ $
2. $ $
$
3. $
$
4. $ $ $
5. $ $
$
6. $ $ $ I
7. $ $ $
8. $ $ $
9. $ $ $
10. $ $
$
TOTAL PROJECT COST $ $ $
Schedule B(Public, Private and In-Kind Contributions by Source and Estimated Dollar Amount):
SOURCE' CONTA~TPI
RS
ON/PHONE NO. TOTAL
1.
$
?2
$
3.
$
TOTAL OTHERSOURCES ~
*Attach additional pages if necessary.
Attachment B
DENVER
~ INTERNATIONAL
AIRPORT
RC61S:.?.~?: . iCHAFRg•; PARK'. .i:•i:•.~ irrr:~:•:•:i~'.•::•:•ii: i: i}i:~?i.i•?:•:i::: r:i~ii:
UONiBELLO CATEWAY CREEN VALIEY
~'CLOBfVICfE?~.((ELYAIA~.tii-:S1YAH9~Ai i•rri.i~r:i....:::...:.:..:.r:...:::.:. RANCN
ItK[l[Y:ii,:,.: .:.riiLi r: i:~.iii:.:'i~i :•i:•:•:ii:^i:i::...:•:i ..?iir::iiLi.riri:.i:.:.:(.:•i:•r:i•:::: iii::
3UnNrs~o~ :?i:::~:~::.:
:•::•::f'ANK: HICG:•:::::•::;~:
STAPLETON
;i::•i::.~ ~ •
::^::::;:•:•:i•::•::•i:•:i•: :.,{rr:•:.:.
CUYfAN•::
:(C9AE:: : `
WESi H.HU1N0:4NR.•:.•.::•.::•:.•:::::::.::~::.:::::.::~::::•:.•:.•...~::.':...•.::...~.•:.•:::...:•.::
.'•::•:f WL`::POlN15:•: i:
..:~.:$M(IAND;-;~: NORTH
i:::. J[ii Lf{ :UM.Off:::;iiiii?::~ ii :~ii::~?:i~..
SAN. : .Ai10N'..':..•:.•.'.•::.•.:•.:::.::.:.
'PABK~.'.'.:•:•:•::•:..':.,::.:•:::..':::::::.::•: _ nPviaw 'ivd.
GITX Ma
. . rAFK*
~ .:ilURilpLt': ~::•:~p;.: CARITOI; ::`y~Y:•: pTM::pARK. SOUTMI PARK fIILL
. ..Ili~l. : ~ ~ EI!ST::.::::
w~s?:~o~r~ic:::: . coirnx: SHADED AREAS INDICATE
CAPI70L' CNUSWN
::;:i•:?iii:i: :i;'r. GRE.SS: :;(i; i}:~:;•:i(ii
UNCOIN'VANK ..HiLL:• ~.:i?~!~K~.~
.:.:.::::::..i.:.:::::::.: ::::H LE MoNTCuIA ~lih Av.. CDBG PROGRAM LOW
. . ~
b.': ~ ~
CHERAY AND MODERATE-I
OUNTR NCOME
BARNV~. ~'6ARNVM EF},?i}:i.:.:::. i:.i(iii CWB CREEK
w„EST BAicER:: ~:..•.:CO.W.RY...iIE~O.::•.....
SPCE1~.. HILITOP NEIGHBORHOODS
.:i: iY.A4Y[P.4Aii•.~:. :r::'r:::•.~. :~:.~:.•rr.iii
Alamedo Ava.
: WA H.
WASH.
A
CCOR
AsHiNCroN DING TO
WES!?f'O.OD ;''AYAuiik''.~Vi~lNC;~.`:~~~?:~: : PA K PARK BELCARO r: VIR INI
~ vnieA ::...:wit+osoR;:.:.::.; ~ 1990 CENSUS DATA
.
...IAla3lfalppl Ave.
CORY-
'~~•r.RUBY.'.NILC:i.r.,r~._.,.,.: IAERRILI
~IdAR lCt~.•::•:~:~ PUTTC ~ .
PANK ~~VIRCI IA VILUGE
.a...
.
•::i~:::i :~OLLCCE':. 5
.::P.~~::.':.•.~.'. Evana Ave.
HARV ..:PARK,~ i(.iir.; .L.:.r.: ....o... .{i UNIVERSITY COLOS111fH
ROSE- :
pALE PARK ~
:w::
BEAR VAL4.Y HA EYi~PiiHN:i~i .~.~.•iii: yj WELLSHIRE NIVFR51
e HILLS
• QU1N.::~:::........ HAMPDEN
g 4 ~ .K[NNEDY
Y
m Hampden Ave.
o a ~ i
fONi LOCAN y m m HAAIPOEN
y ~ £ o SOUTH
~ C °o
L `o
c o
YAASTON ~ u
Bdl~rl~w
Clry & County ol Denvei
.a~L`'\
i 5{~, w,~-~t, ~ ~t. l~f.~.d~ cr ?t~ ~-d ~ee~~~c 6-t.c,~ ~~~~e.,k-~ . ,
V~uU~
U-u, t~-u,t.(. ~ ?riu-4 L c.,~u;~-r-t,..~' )
~ r
f ~ , l~• -
L.:~~/v ~ v`,^~v ~ ~.~,.'GA't~'l~/ ~ u-'Q-~- ~ ~ • , ~l,d.~'C~C~I U'~~
4"klq, , ML cu.t.c.. . , ~
40.5 RL -~o 4tk~
? ~ ~ .C~ ~a3v~ oa~8 (~~,a,+r
.
C6 ~
.
c~.Dl~.~ ~ ; ~--t~,~, ~e-r~-~
?'Vi
~ J
•k .
t ^
. COUN
~ • i~ ~ ~~i ,V~~~ .
?A"oR ~ SEaL ~ CITY AND COLTNTY BUILDING • DENVER, COLORADO • 80202
.
AREA CODE 303 640-2721
640-2720 (V/TDD)
PROG'RESS RE'PORT
MAYOR'S OFFICE OF EDUCATTON AND ADVOCACY
DECEIBER 1995 SEPTEMBER 1996
Carol Boigon, Manager
~ GREAT KIDS IrIITIATIVE Set up structure and identity for programs of the Mayor's 0$'ice of Education and
Advocacy.
GP.r AT KIDS GRANTS $500,000 a year for three: years committed co grants to develop neighborhood and parent
par-~i::ipation in local schools by working ou rigarous ,academic-goals. This program was designed to support the change to neighborhoai attendance zcnes for Denver Public :3chools'and.was funded by community development biock grants.
First year grants for elementary literacy projects and preschool school-readiness projects were awarded in AugusL
Planning now rrust begin for se ;end year grants to support new boundaries forDPS• niddle and high schools. This
project is a partnership wi:h Lhe Denver Community L)evelopment Agency. It was developed ar,d managed ur,der the
direction of the Mayor's Education Advisory Council. '
.CLUB DENVER A new $300,000 a year program, announced Sept 3, 1996, to create after-school theme clubs in
each nf DPS's 18 middle s&r,ois, with teachers as sponsors, city activities as the tihemes, city deoartments as parUiers
and private money from Colorado Rockies and ott-,ers ro undenvrite. Tnemes are Platte River, Aviaton, Meciica!, Arts,
Fu efighters and 2 i st Century Teachers. .
MII,E HIGH SCHOLARS Mayor's program to honor thousands of good students. First year project was a full page
listing, donated by the Denver PosL Plazuung team is being formed now to host a competicion between teams of -
architects and shuder.ts to c'esigr: a perma.nent monume:nt to be built in a public-place. Tne monument wi?I allow posting
of 3,000-6,000 new names at the end of each semester. Key participatien wiL be trom the Denver plar.nin; Board, the
LancL-nark Commission, Denver Library, Colorado Roc:kies, Denver Post, DPS: MINORITY T'EACHER RECRUITMENT Contracts are compiete for Denver to tiire a Hispanic and an African- American consultant to work with DPS recruiters to ac;hieve 20 highly qualified new mi.norty teachers this year by .
recruiting from colleges with high numbeis of minority education students.
24th STREET GII,PIN Contributed $100,000 in CD BG funds to assist in reopening old Crofton School to ease
crowding in northeast Denver that resulteci from the retiun to neighborhood schools. .
12N~2MUNIZATIONS Expanded immunization service to seven DPS eleinentary schools, as an extension of the
planned expansion of midclle school immunizations. T'his is a program of ttie school-based health centers operated by
Deuver Health Medical Center in partnership with DPS. . New funding was awarded by the Centers ior Disease Control.
CITY-SCHOOLS COORDrLqATING COMvIISSION Reestablished this 20-year-old entity as a bocty composed of
Ieaders of DPS and Denver. It convenes monthly to share information and coordinate services. Task forces have
addressed risk management; transportation plaruung; aEsant application for $5 million for technology upgades in DPS
schools, Denver libraries and Denver Housing Authority communities. Other CSCC accomplishmenis include signing a
memorandum of understandUing between Denver and DPS on operation of school-based clinics, transfer of crossing
guard progam and fundino to DPS, a task force on builcfing permits, a pilot project on Saturday work program for
juvenile offenders.
PROGRESS REPORT, MAYOR'S OFFICE OF EDUCATTON AND ADVOCACY •
September 3,1996
Page 2
MAYOR'S IDiICATION ADVISORY COLTNCIL Established this new body to advise the Mayor on education
issues and to develop and guide projects.
HEAD START - Mayor Webb negotiated a local role in defining goals for the next Head Start grant; with DPS,
appointed a steering committee of inembers of the Joint Council on Early Childhood Education to develop local goals,
recruited UCD to conduct three parent foctu groups and a telephone survey, and acted as liaison to the interim director
of the regional office of the Children and Families Administration, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.
BACK-TO-SCHUOL Developed a package of ideas for families to prepaze their children for the first day of school,
presented in articles and speeches.
MISCEI.LAIVEOUS PROJECTS East High focus gzoups on race ar:d violence; DpS/Chamber summer program at
Horace Mann and Cole middle schools; Platte River Redevelopment education programs, television promotions for the
DPS Shakespeare Festival, produced Channel8 television series for DPS on t-ansition to neighborhood boundaries,
participation on the Joint Council for Early Childhood Education, the School-based Clinics advisory committee, Citizens
for Quality Schools, and other boards and task forces.
~ •
~
C~4
t
C,- '
, ' 1 //,pyAj/ • LV'i .
i
~4C~ ~
~03, ~53~ V
A
5
HEY, MIDDLE OCtuBDENVER'
YESO Mnti~oR WrBB, SicN, Mr Ui, Forz: SCHOOLERS! (~,~~«k ~~iie) END THE ? AxTS cLUS ~ENvER
B~~~ ~ ? AVIATION CLUB DENVFR ARTS Try music, acting, dance, computer art, television,
radio, writing, potteiy, singirig, cartooning, painting, drawing,
? FIREFIGHTERS CLUB DENVER sculpttu•e. Meet actois, artists, musicians, singers, dancers, writ-
GO FOR FUN, ? MEDICS CLUB DENVER ers, painteis and cartoonists who are ready to work with Art~s Club
N~~ ~ Denver. See museums, performailces, recording studios. I:Yplore
? TEACHERS CLUB DENVER technical and professional work:lv cameras, wstume design,
FREE TRIPS- ~ ? PI.ATI'E F?IVER CLUB DENVER stage lighting, book binding.
GO FOR AVIATION Work with the U.S. Air Porce, the Civil Air Patrol
~ Name rim and Denver International Airport. Explore flight, rockets, flight
CLuB D ~i~R~ simulators, mapping, round-the-world tours, airplane building
Las[
and D[A, the world's newest airport. Meet pilots, engineers, air
School traffic controllers, travel agent~s, map makers, mechanics, navi-
D o yon tuant to lairizc% a yocket? Wi°estle nfi.'i-e gators and others.
hose? Fl~~ a jel.~ Boal the Sbutb Pl~atte? Dr~rect TV
shows.? Di°ive czn anabula7ace? Draiu comic books? Parents' FIREFIGHTERS Partner with a Denver Firehouse. I.earn
rl,,,,.. • ~~,.1 n,.,.,....... • . n .
1 ue~~ fviii licte(/ Ue/[Uer, ~tCG%`Gl/Gg Z%lfLG'/GZLGl7:)~ GlZ CIGG Ut'J orGu.irdi:m's Name i1b0Ut fll'e SafEty, fll'e QIlgI11eS, Fll'e flgl]tIIIg, Se1PCil c111d 1'eSC118,
iniddle sGhool,s, andft'nd'Your dreana,job. and emergency first aid. 71y the Fire Acadenly's fitness course.
Address Practice CPR. l,earn ahout llenver's Safety Cadet program, which
S/<K firee qftel=school cai-eer clubs iozll sfas°l, nnany wztb is the start of a career with firefighters, police or sheriffs and a
cha/Veny in yozcr school. Jo7n Ads, Avintion, Fhvfighteis, "°1111"1"«°' straight track to college scholarships and GOOD JOBS.
Medics, or 21st Ceiatier), Teachers. ,Sbzrth Platte Clal.b ,,;ty ,,.l)
Dc7tve;l° staT,ted lttst fall in 18 DPS tniddle scbools. , MEDICS Meet doctors, nurses, paramedics, sports medicine
Phone u2~u,,,~ experts, x-ray techs and coroners, pharmacists, scientists, splint-
Deazver Patblic Schools, the C1ti) aiacl Countp of Denvei, makers, cast-breakers laser-builders and ambulance outfitters.
ancl the Codo~ado Rockies sta~ted CIZib Denvei• for you. Test space-age machines. Clinib in an ambulance. Practice CPR
Club Denver paylneis 2oill bi•ing netu thirtgs fotjou to and first aid! See how healthy living, goo(I eating and the right
see aiad do. Claib chapters ioill tyavel all over' DG'nUG'i: DEAR MAYOR WEBB: kind of exercise help us live long and strong!
Check oitt Club Denvcw chaptei-s at yow• school. Ead) YeS I/We give permission for PLAMRIVER I:xplore, experiment and play! See what the
sc%ool's »2eeting dqvs ai2d th7aes ai-e clffetent to take part in Club Denver activities in scliool and on field trips. river means to the people of llenver, past and present. Study ani-
We know these activities will be supervised by a DPS teacher and i»`ils, P~~nts and rocks. 'lest water quality. Raft and fish. [3uild
Check il out- will meet all DPS rules for in-school activities and field trips. We new parks and clear away old tra.sh. Meet engineen and parks
7ben sign u/~! also give per~l~ission for ,~~ll'! to take part in pho- Plal~~~eis, earth movers. water scrubbers, bridge huilders and tree
tographs, television, radio, magazine or newspaper stories about Planters.
Yo2ns d Club Denver. Club Denver will tell you about all trips in advance. 21ST CENTURY TEACHERS Meet teachers who are in
~•irl~~,
Parents' the classroom, on IN, in business boardrooms and high-tech
r`~GC~` orGu;irdi;ms'tiign;uure(s') COIIIPUtCP l~Lf)S, 011 COlle~,e C1111~)USeS, IIl ~)I'CSC~100l5 111(~ IIl I11L1Se-
~~r~ ~~~1~ ums. '['our college campuses. I:xplore computer learning. See
WELI.INGTON E. WEBB Date feal-life teaching ide;Ls through the people aund rlaces of llenver.
MAYOR ~~~~~~ti/ ~,:~sn'e~« Talk to cor~~orate trainers, college researchers, business recruiters
Pdnnalun'dcvlraper and Clf1SSl'0011] telCllefS f01' VOUII~T 111C{ 0l(1.
' ~5~~~'C7zt7-onzt7c~t7~t7-onrc~ncc~a~~?7^oc~t7t7C7t7Ct7t7t7nt7nb
Z z Z z Z z=
~
~ z z z~ rs: s,7~^., ~ z~~~~ C> > m z v' r-. cn z°=~ y`' z~ z z r' a~: z~
~ t?: v: c~ O c=' z~~° x~y%~ c~ ~ c?^ o n~ o z,zT, z°'z ° tr: °o s NZ~ 9'~
C7 7~
~ ~ z ~ a p c Z ~ , c o ~n~' n x r-, a ~ • - _ ^ - ~
z 3 z Z
a c'. n ~ > ~ ^ ?
~ •~-.n .'TJ ,D ~ v :r. 9 ,T, c a 3 ~ y C c~i. z Z = - _ ~ :
L> z C7 z Z C7 T C1
~ ~ ~ ~ Z 3 2 z v' `r .Z I ~ .
Z z> a ~ I~ I
J ~ ~ I
II ~ I
MAYOR'S OFFICE FOR EDUCATION AND ADVOCACY
Room 350, Citv and Counry Building •
Denver CO 80202
~ E.
A R T S AVIATION FIREFIGHTERS
~
?
LUB ENVER
2IST ~CENTURY
M E D I C S PLATTERiVER TEACHER S
,
,
, .
J C"'
~
.
Z;`; . ~
- . . . R ,
~ . ~ ~ } ~ ; .
~
a ,
>Z=~
, ~
cn CC
' .
b~A
a--+
,
12
; (Q
ideas
working
0
4
WORKSNOPS `1 f for you
1660 Lincoin St., Suite 2100
Denver, CO 80264-2101 .
REGISTER NOW FOR
Connecting Citizens With Loc:al Government
L T3 bA
~ U ~ Cdt
_ ~ rn O
w, ay ~ ~ O ~ ~ 'b G~ r~i y. '3 C ~ C •ti
y W 0 s., ~L" cl rn N 0
~ .r.' ~ ~ bp L ~ • ~
= C 'o ~ o Zs
~N ~ ~ y a~i ~ ~ 4,,, ~s c~ ~ ~ ~ ea C ~ ~ e~e ~ ~ ~
f+ > v A > ~ V1 y ° ~ ,a ~ ~ ~ .s o~
Im ~ F» > cl 3 " 'n o 0 cn
Q ~ a ...v; ' ~ ~ • ~ C s. a ~ ° N 0 0 = U
y 'o
c E E p o
~ b
~ ~o ~ o ~ i •C ~ s ~ ~ o 0
L 0 o 9 o ~
"
rM ~ v~ y N G t~.. -O •~..d y uj U
~i o' o L. 3 ~ $ L °0°•
O
Q aoa ~ ~ > ~ o
~ cc :o ~ a, ~ o CA ~ L ° ° o ~ ~ °D ~ V
_ o ~
C _ ~ U ~ ~ ~
Q ~ ~ ~ • cn cn
°
Qn
Agenda General Information Registration Form
8:30 Registration & Coffee Registration: Please return the attached reg- Connecting Citizens With Local Government
istration form to CML by August 1. A$10 late
9:00 Welcome & Introduction charge applies to any registration received after Saturday, August 9, 1997
Lorraine Artderson, mayor pro tem, that date. Registration fee includes all workshop Anrada Center for the Arts and Humanities
Arvada, and member, CML Executive materials, continental breakfast, lunch, and Please submit a separate form for each participant.
Board afternoon snack. This form may be copied. Re[um this form by
9:10 Restoring the Public Trust August 1. Add a$10 late registration fee if
Buie Seawell, co-director, Norwest Cancellation policy: Full refunds (less a$25 returned after August 1.
Public Policy Research Instirure administrative charge) will be given only if
10:00 Break written notice of cancellation is received by 5 Name
p.m. Friday, Aug. 1. Substitutions may be made
10:15 Building Partnerships to at any time.
Encourage Civic Participation Title
CML EOLTP Credits: Six Elected
Norene Aydelotte, mayor, Crowley , ' Paul Grattet, manager, Greeley ~~cials Leadership Training Program credits
have been approved for this workshop. Sign-up Represents
11:00 Cities Communicating With and program description forms will be provided
Citizens in the workshop packet for those not presently
Dallas Everhart, manager, Silverthorne enrolled. Phone
Nancy Heil, mayor, Westminster
Location & Directions: The Arvada Center
12:00 Lunch for the Arts & Humanities is located at 6901 Address
CML Video Preserrrarion; Sam Mamer, Wadsworth Blvd. The Center is conveniently
associate direcror, CML . located just 2 miles north of I-70 on the north-
1:00 Municipal Government and west corner of 68th Avenue and Wadsworth in
Civic Journalism Arvada. Go through the main entrance of the
Rod Wensing, manager, Windsor center. The workshop will be held in the main City/State/Zip
Todd Vess, editor, Windsor Beacon Banquet Hall on the main level.
1:45 Re-engaging Citizens Through Parking: There is free and ample parking at Nonrefundable registration fees
Youth Programs the Arvada Center. $75 (CML members/associate members,
Sam Mamet, associate director, CML if received on or before August 1)
Peggy Bowers, coordinaror, Fort Collins Hotels: There are several hotels within min-
. Youth Advisory Board utes of the Arvada Center. Denver Marriott $65 (each registrant, when three or more
AbbyJones, member, Fort Collins West (1-303-279-9100); Holiday lnn Express from the same municipality attend)
Youth Advisory Board (1-303-423-4000); Motel 6 Wheat Ridge-South
Speaker to be announced, Assets for (1-800-466-8356); Quality Inn West (1-800- $85 (CML members/associate members, .
Colorado Youth 228-5160). For rates, reservations, and direc- if received after August 1)
2:45 Break tions, please call the hotel numbers listed.
_ $95 (for all nonmembers)
3:00 The Future of Municipal More information: For more information on Mail a completed form along with payment to CML,
Governance the workshop, contact John Covert, CML staff 1660 Lincoln St., Suite 2100, Denver, CO 80264-
Carl Neu, president, Neu & Company; associate, at (303) 831-6411. 2101.
Lakewood, Colorado Make checks payable to Colorado Municipal
4:15 AdjOUt'n League. Registration must be paid prior to the ,
workshop.
? yC,, ~G
.
Rate Structure Assessment
for
Water 1g Sanitation Distrects in
Moiuntain Communities
(Region 12)
January 1997
NWCCOG Water Q!uality and Quantity Committee (QQ)
P.O. Box 2308
Silverthorne, CO 80498
(970) 468-0295
~
Rate Structure Assessment for Water & Sanitation Districts in Mountain Communities
(Region 12)
Table of Contents
page
• Background 1 . ~
• Water Utilities - Summary and Discussion 3
• Sewer Utilities - Summary and Descussion 10
• APPENDICES
A. Participating Jurisdictions
B-WATER. Copy of Survey for Water Service Providers
B-SEWER Copy of Survey for Sewer Service Providers
C-WATER Charts of Responses to Each Question
C-SEWER. Charts of Responses to Each Question
.
Background Legal Ramifications of Rate Structures
The Northwest Colorado Council of There is no magic formula that must be
Governments Water Quality and Quantity followed when establishing utility rates.
Co.mmittee (QQ) has compiled the folloNving Rate-setting is essentially a governmental
report based upon 35 surveys received fi-om legislative function (Cottrell v. City and Countv
local water and sanitation districts in Region 12 ofDenver, 636 P. 2d 703,710 (Colo. 1981))
(for a full listing of the respondents, please see and the court will not substitute its judgment
Appendix A). QQ thanks everyone who took for that of the governmental body asserting its
the time to fill out the survey. rate-making authority (Board of Countv _
Commissioners v. Denver Board of Water At the August 7, 1996 QQ meeting in Commissioners, 718 P. 2d 235,246 (Colo.
Kremmling, QQ members expressed interest in 1986)). A rate will not be set aside unless it is
an evaluation of how individual water and inherently unsound City of Montrose v.
sanitation districts developed their rate P.U.C., 198 Colo. 534, 539-40, 602 P. 2d
structures, with specific emphasis on moiuntain 861,864 (1979)). Rates and charges rationally
communities. Request for this information was related to the governmental utility purpose,
primarily the result of concern over a takings including having additional development pay its
suit filed against a local sanitation district own way, are within the scope of rate-making
because of its rate structure. authority (City of Arvada v. City and Countv of
Denver, 663 P. 2d 611, 614-15 (Colo. 1983)).
The purpose of the survey was to compile Those challenging the legislative rate-making
information on rate structures for providiing function have a heavy burden to sustain
wastewater and water services in the headwater (Colorado Ground Water Commission v Eaizle
communities. In particular, the focus of this Peak Farms, 919 P. 2d 212, 217 (Colo. 1996)).
research is on how rates and fees are
determined for the various communities. This Generaily, the rate must be "reasonably
information can be used by the providers of designed" to defray the cost of services
these services to assess their own fee stnicture rendered (Bloom v. City of Ft. Collins, 784 P.
. in relation to others. 2d 304, 308 (Colo. 1989)), and it will be
presumed to be valid (Manor Vail
The report is broken up into two section;c - one Condominium Association v. Town of Vail,
addressing water service and the other 604 P. 2d 1168, 1172 (Colo. 1980)). A utility
addressing sewer service. The individual provider is given significant flexibility in
sections are further broken down into the: designing a rate structure, and a rate will not be
following categories: system information, tap invalidated even if there may be a"better" or
fees, service fees, and other. Survey responses "more equitable" alternative rate structure (Id.
are summarized and analyzed in these sections. at 1172). There is no requirement that a utility
Detailed tables of responses are also provided select the "best" possible method for allocating
in the appendices. The appendices include a list costs (Loup-Miller Construction Co. v City
of the respondents to the survey as well a.s copy and County of Denver, 676 P. 2d 1 l 70, 1174
of the survey itself. (Colo. 1984)), and the mere existence of
alternative methods for raising funds is not
sufficient reason to invalidate the particular
method selected (Western Heights Land Corp.
1
,
v. Citv of Ft. Collins, 146 Colo. 464, 466-67,
362 P. 2d 155, 155 (1961)). A utility provider
need not apply a mathematically precise
formula to develop a rate structure nor must is
use actual measurements; reasonable estimates
may be used (Manor Vail Condominium
Association at 1171-72).
2
.
WATER SERVICE water connections that are metered, or some
combination of inetered and unmetered (see
SUMMARY AND DISCUSSIOIV Figure 1-1). The only districts without metered
connections were Columbine Lake Water and
System Information Sanitation District (WSD), Dillon Valley
District, and the Momson Creek Metropolitan
This section describes the water collection, Water District (MWD). The Town of Fraser
treatment and delivery system as well as had some metered connections but was
providing other pertinent background primarily unmetered. The Colorado Municipal
information for each of the respondents. Please League's (CML) "Water and Sewer Utility _
see Appendix A for a full listing of the Charges and Practices in Colorado", which was
respondents to this section. published in December of 1994, estimates fhat
99 percent of water connections will be
CaQacitX metered by 1998.
The rated capacity for the facilities responding
ranged from 15,000 gallons per day at the Water Connections
Hamilton Creek Metro District (NID) to
5,500,000 gallons per day at Steamboat
Springs Water. The average was 1,434,650
gallons per day. The percentage of the rated
capacity that was actually in use ranged from a Residential
low of 20% to a high of 100% (the Mintiurn
-Metered
Water Plant hits 100% in the summer buit is at oUn„eterea
50% the rest of the year). Most of the olthers
Commercial
fell in the range of 30 to 50%. Several
respondents indicated that their percenta;ge of
0 2 4 6 8 10
rated capacity actually in use jumped Tho„w„ds o}Con,,o„0„5
dramatically during the peak tourism seasons
and in the summer.
Most of the facilities serve primarily residential Fi ut~ e 1_1
areas. Only the Town of Breckenridge's Tarn Water Production
Water Treatment Plant (WTP) reported less Groundwater is the main source of raw water
than 75% residential service, with its figuires in our region, with slightly over half of the
being 50% residential. Health Department respondents indicating that they get their raw
Classifications~ for the various facilities was ~,~,ater from groundwater. Seventy-one percent
mixed, but 60 /o of the responding facilities of those receiving their raw water from
were either C or D classifications. Fifteen groundwater get 100% of their raw water from
percent had an A classification and 25% were groundwater sources. Thirty-six percent use
B.
surface water as their source of raw water and
Water Connections 5% purchase water. These figures track closely
The 20 water service providers respondirig to with the results of the statewide 1994 CML
this survey serve approximately 15,216 mrater report. In that report, 51 % of the respondents
connections. Most of the respondents have used groundwater as their major source of
3
,
supply, 45% used surface water, and 10% responses that indicated the cost of treatment in
purchase water. mountain communities to be higher or more
, complicated than elsewhere.
dVhere Raw Water Comes From
Water Main Installation/Extensions
In response to the question of who pays for
installation of a water distribution main, the
z 60 majority response was that the customer pays
~.o - (50% of the time). Twenty-five percent of the.
,p
mm~ time it is a district/customer share of the
expense. In general, when the district and the
(irwnAw.l.r Sumo wrr PuM.aW Nbl.r
° customer split costs, respondents indicated that
T''°°°`mw the customer pays for the line but the district
Fi re 1-2 will reimburse a percentage (around 50%) of
that cost either directly or through a reduction
Special Conditions in tap fees. In the Town of Hot Sulphur
Respondents were asked to mention any special Springs, if the work is an upgrade, the Town
conditions which affect the cost of treatment at PaYs. If it is new construction, the customer or
their facilities. Out of the 20 respondents, 8(or developer pays. Twenty-five percent of the
40%) did not mention any special conditions responses were a district/municipality share.
although some of the conditions that were Respondents did not indicate how the costs are
identified here are likely to apply to other shared.
entities. Those that did have special conditions
affecting the cost of treatment had varying Four of the 20 respondents do not allow water
conditions. The following is a list of the service extensions outside their district or
answers received: municipality boundaries. Those that do allow
extensions often attach conditions such as `
? Lead and copper problems (1) increased cost or by reyuiring inclusions or
V Very cold water (1) inclusion agreements or both. Forty-four
- J Runoff from Interstate 70 (1) percent of the respondents allow water service
~ Conosive water (3) extensions without inclusion or inclusion
~ Water quality (2) agreements. Generally the customer pays for
~ Slow sand filtration (1) the extension and oftentimes pays an increased
~ Electricity costs because of wells (1) amount for service and tap fees. For example,
? Power costs (1) the Copper Mountain CNID requires customer
~ Using surface water (3) to pay 125% of service and tap fees but does
? Analysis required per EPA Safe not require inclusion. The Town of Granby,
Drinking Water Act - analyzing for the Town of Hot Sulphur Springs, the Town of
compounds not found in watershed Silverthorne and the Town of Yampa also
(1) increase fees, usually double, when outside of
. district or municipality boundaries. No
The special conditions mentioned by the inclusions are required (except in the Town of
respondents do not appear to be especially Silverthorne). The Hamilton Creek NID also
unique to mountain communities. In asking allows extensions, which the customer must
this yuestion we had anticipated getting pay for, but the other charges do not increase.
4
.
The Town of Breckenridge requires the charge for each house. This exercise gives
customer to pay for the extension but the your facility the opportuniry to compare your
contractor then bids with the town on cost for tap fee structure with similar facilities in our
services. mountain community for a specific situation.
See Figure 1-5 for a complete breakdown of all
In the Town of Avon, an inclusion is required the responses.
and the district and the customer share ithe cost
of the .extension. The service charges must Tap Fee Schedules
equal the cost of service plus the mill levy and The overwhelming majority of the respondents .
tap fees that the property would be responsible (75%) base their tap fee schedule on
for if it were within the town boundarie;s. In single-family eyuivalents (SFEs) or equivalent
the Town of Frisco, an inclusion agreement is residential units (EQRs). An SFE or EQR is a
reyuired and the customer pays for the way of assessing different water users'
extension and the other service fees are (residential and commercial) tap fees based
different than within town boundaries. upon the amount of water or service they are
expected to use in comparison to a typical
Respondents did not indicate how the residential home. Some facilities are more
difference in cost for new service extensions aggressive in their technique of using SFEs or
outside the district/municipality boundaries is EQRs and charge larger homes more than
determined. smaller homes. Other facilities charge one rate
for a single family home whether its 2,000
Tap Fees square feet or 20,000 square feet, three
bedrooms or thirteen.
The primary purpose of the questions in this
section was to develop an understanding of Facilities that did not base their tap fee
how facilities determined what the dollar schedule on SFEs or EQRs generally used pipe
amount of their tap fees will be, i.e., what sizes as the base (Towns of Granby, Hot
baseline data are used to set tap fees? Is the fee Sulphur Springs, and Yampa; the Town of
based upon studies and tangible data or ys it Avon uses pipe sizes for commercial
discretionary? What issues are considered structures). Steamboat Springs Water uses the
when setting tap fees? What determines an square footage of the house and a f xture unit
SFE (single family equivalent)? We assumed count to determine its tap fees. The Vail Water
that "discretion of the Board", the System uses square footage and the Minturn
overwhelming response to yuestions about who Water Plant uses a flat rate until meters are
determines the tap fee, did not mean that it was installed.
an arbitrary decision but one based upon factual
information. There was a wide range of responses on what
criteria was used to determine what one SFE
This section provides an overview of how all was. The slim majority response was that any
the municipalities and districts that responded residence equals one SFE. Other responses
to this survey determine the dollar amount of included: water meter, number of bedrooms,
their tap fees and how those fees are used. number of kitchens, size of structure and a
Respondents were also asked to evaluate two fixture unit count, square footage, tap size, and
floorplans of two different houses and pipe size.
determine what tap and service fees they would
5
Tap Fees Determined By: ? Impact to system
# of Respondents ~ . Facility replacement
0 2 4 6 8
S;ngle Fam;y un~ Actual costs of service and future water needs
# of ~d~om were the issues used by the majority of the
~ F~` R"° respondents as reasons for setting their tap fee
N~ter Mete
i # of Kitchen ot Rpspondenls at a particular dollar amount.
La
~ Squaie FooWge
Sq. Footage & Fbcture The tap fee itself is used to recover the costs of
Pipe S¢e
many of the facility's services as well as to
cover future expenses. For example, 65°/a of
Figure 1-3 the respondents include a plant investment fee
as part of their tap fees. Fifty percent (50%)
Settin tg he Tap Fee use the tap fee to cover capitol cost
The amount of the tap fee is generally replacement. Other uses that the tap fee covers
determined by the District Board ofDirectors include: future water acquisition (30%); future
or, in the case of a municipality, the Town system development costs (35%); labor and
Council. The Copper Mountain CMD, the materials (5%); cost of water meter (10%);
Silver Creek WSD, and the Town of Granby debt reduction (30%); water meter installation
indicated that the Staff or Manager determines (10%); and, initial water turn-on fee (30%).
what the dollar amount of the tap fee will be.
Silver Creek WSD mentioned that if the fee is Use of Tap Fees Respondents)
at all questionable, the Board makes the final
decision - which is the likely case for all the ° 20 s°
FNUre NkterACpuis2ion
entltle$. Futuro System Devepmnt
LeDa 6 Metedak
CoA of Nhter Meter
Respondents were also questioned about what pebt Redudion
data they use to base the above fee on. The GDial Cosf RaDlo«ment
Weter Meter InstaUstbn
majority of the respondents answered that the Initiel Tum-0n Fse
amount is based upon board discretion and not panf Investmenl
any data in particular. 1Vlany use a combination
of board disaretion and other variabies such as: Fi re 1-4
comparison with other districts and engineering
studies; and, other studies specific to their Tap Fee Administration
district. The respondents had a wide variety of answers
on when a tap fee must be paid. Responses
Issues that were considered in establishing tap ranged from prior to excavation for the water
fees included the following: tap to before a certificate of occupancy. The
most prevalent response was that a tap fee must
? Projected growth be paid around the time of the issuance of the
~ Need for future water storage building permit, either before or when it is
J Cost of service issued.
~ Costs of taps at other districts
~ Water use Tap fees for 90% of the districts and
~ District indebtedness municipalities responding do not expire. Only
6
40% allow tap fees to be transferred and two of each unit would be charged as if it were its own
the respondents saying yes to transfers limit the single family residence. Grand County WSD
transfers. For• example, Grand County WSD #1 did increase the tap fees for a condo,
#1 only allows transfers to occur in the same duplex, and triplex as these types of residences
subdivision under the same ownership. fell under their definition of multi-family
residences and under Grand County WSD #1's
It is rare for a district or municipality tci pay for system, multi-family units are charged more.
the maintenance of a service line from the main
to the property line, most respondents (iid not. Figure 1-5 (following page) details the
One hundred percent of the respondents said responses received to these questions by each
that the customer pays for the maintenance of respondent.
the service line from the property line ti) the
structure. Service Fees
House #1 vs. House #2 General Information
Respondents were asked to assess tap fees for Service fees represent a customer charge that is
two different floorplans for hypothetical typically used to pay all or a portion of the
houses. The floorplans varied subtly by the costs of operation and maintenance of a water
addition of a closet or bathroom facility. treatment facility. These fees are usually billed
Copies of the floorplans can be seen in to a customer on a quarterly basis. The
Appendix B-WATER at the end of the majority of respondents indicated that the
enclosed survey. The survey also quesxioned amount of the service fee was established
whether or not the tap fee would change if the primarily at the discretion of the Board of
floorplan was actually one unit of a duplex or Directors. Although there was not much
triplex or if it was a condominium. information provided about what the basis was
for establishing a particular fee amount, several
The tap fees for House #1 ranged from a low of respondents mentioned the following as why
$750 at Morrison Creek Metro Water I)istrict their rates were set at a particular level: studies,
to a high of $5,500 at Grand County WSD #1. actual costs, a comparison with other rates in
The average response was $3,158. Bec;ause the area, end budget need, and national
many of the districts charged a tap fee based standard water use. Sfeamboat Springs Water
upon one single family living unit equals one mentioned that their rate is based upon
SFE, most of the respondents assessed House recovering the same revenues that it garnered
#1 and House #2 at the same tap fee. 7'hus, the under a previous unmetered flat rate.
high and low ratings for House #2 remain the
same as for House #1. Only Copper Mountain Allocation of service fees to users tracks fairly
CMD, Steamboat Springs Water, the Vail closely with the approach used to determine tap
Water System and the Town of Breckenridge's fees (SFEs, EQRs) although 50% use meters to
Tarn WTP assessed different tap fees for determine service fees and/or some
Houses #1 and #2. combination of ineters and SFEs and EQRs.
Columbine Lake WSD is somewhat uniyue in
Most of the facilities did not change their that they base the service fee on a base amount
assessment based upon the floorplan being one plus the number of fixtures in the building.
unit of a duplex or triplex or if it was a Forty percent of the respondents have
condominium. Many respondents said that ineremental costs plus a base service fee, so, for
7
Co
f Wate r Tap Fees
Bellyache Ridge Metro Dist. ~
~
Columbine Lake W&S ~ i
Copper Mtn. CMD ~
Dillon Valley Dist.
East Dillon Water Dist.
Grand County WSD #1 '
Hamilton Creek MD ;
Minturn Water Plant ~
Morrison Creek MW
Silver Creek W8S
Steamboat Springs Water
Vail Water System ~
Town of Avon :
Town of Breck.-Tarn WTP
Town of Breck.-Peak 7 WTP
Town of Fraser
Town of Frisco
Town of Granby
Town of Hot Sulphur Spgs.
Town of Silverthorne =
;
Town of Yampa
0 ~ 2 3 4 5 6
Yearly $ (Thousand)
INHouse#1 [:]House #2
Figure 1-5
example, a customer pays more as his or her is summarized in Figure 1-6 on the following
water use increases beyond a fixed amGUnt. page.
Issues that were considered in establishing Other
service fees included the following:
Sixty percent of the respondents to this survey
V Projected growth are established as enterprise funds under
V Need for future water storage Amendment 1. Almost all of the faci(ities have
' ? Cost of service established their current rate structures during
V Market comparison the past five years. Only four respondents
? Water use indicated that they had rate structures that were
~ Treatment upgrades established prior to 1990. In general, rate
~ Impact to system structures are modified or revised on a regular
~ Conservation schedule, often yearly. Sixty-five percent
indicated that they plan to revise their water tap
Most water providers charge additional fees to fee schedule soon.
customers for such things as: turn on /off,
inspections, release of lien, temporary Only four out of the 20 respondents said that
construction water, bulk water use, and they had applied for federal or state grant/loans
delinquent payments. for water system improvements within the last
three years.
When asked how funds are generated for future
expansions or improvements (including plant When asked if they felt if a more standardized
investment) most respondents indicated that tap rate structure between differing jurisdictions
fees or a combination of approaches which would be useful, most respondents felt that it
included tap fees were used. Service fees were would not. Most respondents cited that fact
used in some proportion to fund these that their individual facilities were unique and
improvements by 94% of the respondents. The to try and standardize a rate structure between
Copper Mountain CMD, the Dillon Vallley different jurisdictions would be difficult
District, and the Town of Hot Sulphur Springs because of the vastly different situations and
all use neaTly 100 percent service fees to fund needs of'the various districts. One respondent
improvements. did mention that a uniform set of guidelines to
establish tap fees would be a good tool.
House #1 vs. House #2
As discussed in the Tap Fees section, two
floorplans were provided as a tool to compare
service fees among various wastewater
treatment facilities. The floorplans varied
subtly by the addition of a closet or bathroom
facility. These floorplans are attached to the
surveys found in Appendix B-WATER. The
survey also asked if the service fee would vary
if the floorplan was for a unit in a duplex,
triplex, or condominium. The response: to the
yuestion on service fees for the two floorplans
8
Monthly Service Fees
Dollars
0 10 20 30 40
Bellyache Ridge Metro Dist.
Columbine LaW W&S
Copper Mtn. CMD
Dillon Valley Dist.
East Dillon Vlkter Dist.
Grand County W51) 91
Hamikon CreekMD
Mintum Mter Plant
Morrison CreekMW
>1 SiNerGeekW&S
.5 Steamboat Springs V1ater ~ Monthy Service Fees
LL Town of Avon
Town oi Bredc-Tam WfP
Town of Breck-Peak7 WfP
Town of Freser
Town of Frisco
~ Town of Gtanby
Town of Hot Sulphur Spgs.
Town of Silverthome
Town of Yampa
Vail Water System
Figt,tre 1-6
SEWER SERVICE treatment, five respondents did not list any
unique conditions. Following is a list of the
SUNIlMARY AND DISCUSSION special conditions that were mentioned:
System Information ~ Altitude (6)
~ Dechlorination (4)
This section gives an overview of the faGilities ~ Nutrient removal (4)
which have responded to the sewer service ? Seasonal population fluctuations (6)
portion of the QQ survey. See Appendix A for ? Gold Medal receiving waters (1)
a listing of the respondents to this sectian and ~ Resort cost of living (3)
Appendix C-SEWER for a summary of ;system ~ Siudge disposal (1)
information. ? Cold temperature (3)
~ Infiltration (1)
Ca aci ? Collection system (1)
The rated hydraulic capacity for the wastewater
treatment facilities responding to this survey Sewer Line Installation
ranged from 7.1 million gallons per day for The survey contained several questions
Eagle River Water and Sanitation District regarding how sewer lines were paid for. All
(WSD) (comprised of three treatment facilities) the respondents indicated that sewer main
to 90,000 gallons per day at Hot Sulphuir installation is paid for by either the customer or
Springs. Of this capacity, the actual use ranged a developer with the sewer treatment entity
from a low of 15% at Morrison Creek sometimes participating financially where
Metropolitan Sanitation District (MSD) to a oversized pipes or other special features are
high of 90% at Eagle River WSD. Most needed. The Town of Yampa indicated that
entities were at about 40 - 65% of rateci they waived tap fees once in exchange for
capacity and most of the facilities serve sewer main installation.
primarily (80% or more) residential uses.
Of the 15 respondents only the Three Lakes
Capacity for biochemical oxygen demarud WSD indicated they do not permit sewer
(BOD) loading ranged from 14,700 pounds per service extensions outside district boundaries.
day for Eagle River WSD to 247 pounds per However, 36% provide service if the residence
day for Hot Sulphur Springs. Seventy one is included into the district and another 36%
percent of the respondents are classifiedl as require an inclusion agreement to provide
either A or B facilities by the Colorado service outside existing boundaries. Where
Department of Public Health and Environment, there is an extension outside district boundaries
one entity is classified as C and three are D. the customer or developer always pays that
cost. Of the entities that provide service
Treatment outside their boundaries only four (Snake River
Fifty-seven percent of the facilities have: tertiary Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP), Granby
treatment, five with advanced treatment: for Sanitation District (SD), Breckenridge SD, and
phosphorus removal and three removing Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District (CSD))
ammonia. Some form of industrial did not charge a higher fee for that service.
pre-treatment program is in place at 21% of The additional cost varied from merely an
these facilities. When asked if there are special inclusion fee at Morrison Creek Metropolitan
conditions that affect the cost of wastewater Water and Sanitation District (MWSD) to three
10
times the tap and service fee in Kremmling SD. presence of a closet. Grand County #1 WSD
Respondents did not indicate how the required the presence of a closet and an egress
difference in cost for new service extensions window. Frisco SD and Snake River WWTP
outside existing boundaries were determined. let the building or planning department
determine the number of bedrooms.
Tap Fees
Setting the Tap Fee
This section of the survey was developed to The amount of the tap fee is generally
gain an understanding of how facilities determined by an elected board. Aspen CSD,
deternune the dollar amount for their tap fees, Copper Mountain Consolidated Metropolitan _
i.e. what information is used to set the tap fees? District (CMD), Frisco SD and Granby SD
What issues, studies, or data are considered indicated that the staff or manager determined
when setting tap fees? What deternvnes an the dollar amount of the tap fee with the board
SFE (single family equivalent)? We assumed making final approval or adopting that
that "discretion of the Board", the most recommendation as a policy - this is likely the
prevalent response to questions about who case for all entities.
determines tap fees, did not mean that it was an
arbitrary decision but one based upon some Respondents were also questioned about what
factual information. data they use to base the above fee on. The
majority (57%) answered that the amount is
Tap Fee Schedules based on studies performed within the district
Sixty-four percent of the entities responding by either staff or outside consultants. In other
base their tap fees on SFEs or EQRs. The situations (36%), the tap fee appears to be
Towns of Hot Sulphur Springs and Yampa, based more on board discretion that is
which also provide potable water, base their presumably linked to budgetary needs. This
fees on the water line pipe diameter. later situation appears more prevalent when the
Kremmling and Morrison Creek MSD charge a sewer treatment service is affiliated closely with
single tap fee for each tap to the sewer main. a town government. Copper Mountain CNID
Eagle River WSD tap fees are based solely on reported that their tap fee is based on a
. the area of living space. comparison with other facilities.
There was a wide range of responses on what Issues that were identified as considerations in
criteria was used to determine what one SFE is. establishing tap fees include the following:
Eighty-nine percent of those respondents using
SFEs used the number of bedrooms or a ? Actual system investment (4)
combination of number of bedrooms and ~ Reserves for future needs (6)
bathrooms to determine one SFE. Aspen CSD ? Water use (3)
considered bedrooms, bathrooms, number and ? Projected population growth (5)
type of fixtures, and syuare footage to ? Debt service (2)
determine an SFE. Grand County #1 WSD ~ Cost of operation (2)
considered number of kitchens in addition to
bedrooms and bathrooms to determine SFEs. Most entities use tap fees or a portion of tap
When asked what determines whether a room fees to pay for plant investment (79%) and
is a bedroom for purposes of establishing fees, future system development (43%). Other uses
most of those responding indicated the for tap fees include debt service (29%), and
11
labor and materials (7%). Tap fees wer~e not sewer service providers consider all residential
used for such things as pavement cuts or units the same for purposes of fees, therefore
service line maintenance or installations. many had identical fees for Houses # 1 and #2.
See Figure 2-1. Others fee structures resulted in some
differences as depicted in the Figure 2-2 on the
Use of Tap Fees Respondents) following page.
Service line Breckenrid e SD, Grand Count # 1 WSD and
rav~mt cut g Y
Labor&.matmal the Town of Silverthorne were the only entities
Debt service that would have an different fee if the floorplan
Funue sys devipmnt
Plant invesimrnt was for a duplex. The fee increased for
Breckenridge SD and Grand County #1 WSD,
Zo ao 60 8o and decreased for Silverthorne. Breckenridge
SD was the only respondent that would have
Fi re 2-1 had yet a different fee if the unit was a triplex.
The tap fee for a condominium was the same as
Tap Fee Administration for a duplex for Grand County #1 WSD and
Tap fees are paid before connection to the Silverthorne, and the same as for a triplex for
system (36%) or in association with the issuing Breckenridge SD.
of a building permit (54%). Paid tap fees do
not expire in 57% of the surveys. Of those Service Fees
entities that do allow tap permits to expire half
(50%) will refund the fee when the tap permit Service fees represent a customer charge that is
has expired and half do not. Six of 15 typically used to pay all or a portion of the
respondents allow a tap permit to be costs of operation and maintenance of a
transfened within the district. Of those 6 that wastewater facility. These fees are usually
allow transfers 3 have permits that expijre billed to the customer quarterly.
(Breckenridge SD, Frisco SD and Grand
County #1 WSD). The majority of survey respondents indicated
. that the actual fee is established by the
House #1 vs. House #2 - Tap Fees respective Board. The fee structure and fee
Survey respondents were asked to assess tap amount varies although little detai) was
fees for two different hypothetical floor plans. provided on the basis of specific service fees by
The floor plans varied subtly by the addition of survey respondents. In most cases (57%) it
a closet or bathroom facility. Copies of the appears that these fees are developed either by
floorplans are at the end of the survey found in consultants or staff and are based on the
Appendix B-SEWER. The survey also specific needs that the fee satisfies, for instance,
questioned whether or not the tap fee would regular operation and maintenance. In other
change if the floorplan was actually for one unit situations (36%), the service fee is based more
of a duplex, triplex or a condominium. on board discretion and budgetary needs. This
latter situation appears more prevalent when
Taps fees for House #1 ranged from a tow of the sewer treatment service is closely affiliated
$750 at Morrison Creek WSD to a high of with a town government. Copper Mountain
$5,500 at Grand County #1 WSD. The CMD reported that their service fee was based
average tap fee was $2,851. Many of the on a comparison with other facilities.
12
Comparison of Sewer
Tap Fees
Aspen Cons. San. Dist.
Breckenridge San. Dist.
Copper Mountain CMD
Eagle River W & S
Frisco Sanitation District
Granby Sanitation District
Grand County W & S #1
Hot Sulphur Springs WTP
Kremmling San. Dist. ;
Morrison Creek MWD
Silverthorne Dillon Joint
Snake River WTP
Town of Silverthorne
Three Lakes W & S
Town of Yampa
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
Yearly $ (Thousand) N House #1
0 House #2
Figure 2-2 ,
Allocation of service fees to users tracks fairly Source of Operating Expenses
consistently with the approach used to (Percent of Regional Total)
deternune tap fees (bedrooms, bathroorns,
0 20 40 60 BO
residential service lines). See Figure 2-3.
Aspen CSD's service fee structure is unique in S°^^m
that it is based solely on the number and type of Tep fee
fixtures. The Town of Hot Sulphur Sprangs ProD tex
and Eagle River WSD base service fees on S,w „x
metered potable water consumption, which F,n, tr,nst,
they also provide. ~nterost .
Other Basis for Service Fees
F"``""° Fi rug_e 2-4
FloW
ServiceLine
Bed/bat}?kitchn
Bed/bath When asked how funds are generated for future
B`& b. 7-1 expansions or improvements (including plant
1 z 3 a s 6 investment) 40% of the entities used tap fees or
a combination of approaches which included
Fi rg;u e 2-3 tap fees. Service fees were used in some
proportion to fund these improvements by 80%
Forty-seven percent of the entities do not begin of respondents.
charging a service fee until after a certificate of
occupancy is issued. Two of the entities that House #1 vs. House #2 - Service Fees
, do charge service fees prior to certificate of Two floorplans were provided as a tool to
occupancy indicated that there was a reduced compare service fees among various
"standby" charge, presumably to cover the Wastewater treatment facilities. The floorplans
user's portion of existing capital expenditures varied subtly by the addition of a closet or
rather than operation and maintenance costs. bathroom facility. These floor plans are
attached to the surveys found in Appendix
A wide variety of approaches were.used to B-SEWER. Breckenridge SD, Grand County
generate revenues to pay for operation and 41 WSD, and the Town of Silverthorne all
maintenance, capital expenses, and othe:r . indicated that service fees would be different
expenses. The majority of these expenses were for these floorplans if they were a unit in a
paid for through service fees. How the various duplex, triplex or condominium. The response
funding approaches are utilized is summarized to the question on service fees for the two
in the following Figure 2-4. floorplans is summarized in Figure 2-5, on the
following page.
Other
Nearly all of the entities responding to this
survey (87%) are established as enterprise
funds under Amendment 1. Only three
respondents have significantly revised their fee
13
Compariso nof Sewer
Service Fees
Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District
Breckenridge Sanitation Disirict
Copper Mountain Consolidated Metro District ~
Eagle River Water and Sewer District
Frisco Sanitation District
Granby Sanitation District
Grand County Water & Sanitation District #1
Hot Sulphur Springs Wastewater Treatment Plant
~
Kremmling Sanitation District
Morrison Creek Metro Water 8 Sanitation District
Silverthome Dillon Joint Sewer Authority
Summit County Snake River Wastewater Treatment Pla
Town of Silverthorne Wastewater Collection System
Three Lakes Water & Sanitation District
Yampa
0 10 20 30 40
Monthly $
~House #1 OHouse #2
Figure 2-5
structure in the last five years. Fifty-three
percent of the entities, however, indicated that
they are planning to change their fee schedule
or, are evaluating it on a regular basis.
When asked if they have applied for or received
state or federal grant funds for system
improvement in the last three years, 80% indicated they had not. Finally, when asked
whether a standardized fee schedule wauld be
valuable to them most entities responded that it
would not be useful. Some respondents
qualified their "no" answer with comments
implying that a standard for what consti.tutes an
SFE, or a standard approach to developing site
specific fees structures would be useful..
14
DistricUMunicipality Received Completed Survey
- Water Service Sewer Service
Aspen Consolidated San. Dist. NA yes
Bellyache Ridge Metro. Dist. yes NA
Breckenridge Sanitation District NA yes
Columbine Lake Water & San. Dist. yes NA
. Copper Mtn. Water & San. Dist. yes yes
Dillon Valley Metro. Dist. yes NA
Eagle River Water & San. Dist. see Vail WS yes
East Dillon Water Dist. yes NA
Fraser Sanitation Dist. NA no
Frisco Sanitation Dist. NA yes
Granby Sanitation District NA yes
Grand County Water & San. Dist. yes yes
Hamilton Creek Metro. Dist. yes NA
Kremmling Sanitation Dist. NA yes
Minturn Water Plant yes NA
Morrison Creek Water & San. Dist. yes yes
North Shore Water & San. Dist. no no
Redstone Water & San. Dist. no no
Silver Creek Water & San. Dist. yes NA
Silverthorne/Dillon Joint Authority NA yes
Snake River Wastewater Treatment NA yes
Steamboat Springs Water yes NA
Three Lakes Water & San. Dist. NA yes
White Horse Springs Water & San. no no
Winter Park Water & San. Dist. no no
Town of Avon yes NA
Town of Breckenridge yes NA
Town of Dillon no NA
Town of Eagle no no
Town of Fraser yes NA
Town of Frisco yes NA .
Town of Granby yes NA
Town of Grand Lake no NA
Town of Gypsum no NA
Town of Hot Sulphur Springs yes yes
Town of Kremmling NA NA
Town of Silverthorne yes yes
Town of Yampa yes yes
Vail Water System yes NA
Total Retumed 20 15
NA = Entity does not provide that service
APPENDIX A
WATER AND SANITATION DISTRICTS' RATES
IN MOU:KTAIN COMMUNITIES
Rate St:ructure Assessment
- VVATER SERVICE
Please fill out the survev and return to 00 bv November lst.
Name of Person Responding to Survey: _
Title:
Address:
Telephone:
e-mail address (if you have one):
Facility name:
System Information
Generally, what are the boundaries of your service area?
1. What is your facility's rated capacity? _ (gallons per day)
_ (SFEs or EQRs)
What percentage of this capacity is in use?
What percentage of your current use i:, residential?
Number of Connections
Water
metered unmetered
Individual residential units
Non-residential units ~
Totais
2. What is the health department classification of your water treatment plant? (check)
A B C D
3. What percent of your provided raw water is from:
Groundwater Surface Purchased Other
4. What special conditions affect the cost of treatment, e.g., altitude, surface water source, etc.?
5. Who`pays for a water distribution main installation? (check)
DistrictJMunicipality Customer District/Customer share Other
If costs are shared, please indicate the basis for sharing the cost: % each pays, pipe size,
oversizing requirements, etc.
6. Do you permit new water service extensions outside your district boundaries?
Yes Inclusion required Inclusion agreement required No
If Yes, who pays for the extension?
District/Municipality Customer District/Customer share Other
If costs are shared, indicate the basis for sharing the cost: % each pays, pipe size, oversizing
requirements, etc.
Is the cost for new service extensions different outside your municipaVdistrict boundary?
_ Yes _ No
If Yes, what is the difference and how is it determined?
Tap Fees
7. Please enclose a copies of your water tap fee and service fee schedules which indicate how
fees are assessed (e.g., apartment buildings, mobile homes, commerciaVindustrial, etc.)
8. Is your tap fee schedule based upon (check):
Single-family equivalent (SFE) or Equivalent residential unit (EQR)
Pipe sizes Flow
Other (please explain)
9. How do you determine what an SFE/EQR is? What is the basis?
10. What is your tap fee for residential units based upon: (please check box(es) that apply):
O Number of bathrooms
? Number of bedrooms
D Square Footage
? Property Valuation
? Water Meter
? Other
If based on the number of bedrooms, what deternunes if a room is a bedroom?
11. What does the total tap fee include? (check all that apply)
future water acquisition debt reduction
future system development costs capital cost replacement
labor and materials pavement cut
cost of water meter water meter installation
running the service line from the initial water turn-on fee
main to the valve plant investment
other (describe)
12. Who determines the tap fee for new service (i.e., A Board? The Manager? A Citizen's
Advisory Board?)
13. Is the fee based on studies specific to your district, other information, or is it at the discretion of
an individual or board? Please list any documentation used for establishing rates
14. What does your district consider in establishing tap fees (i.e., projected population growth,
actual costs of service, reserves for future needs, water use, etc.)?
15. Does the District pay for the maintenance of a service line from the main to the property line?
Yes No
16. Who pays for the maintenance of a service line from the property line to the structure?
District/Municipality Customer
17. When must a tap be paid for (before building pernuts? before certificate of occupancy?)
18. Do your tap fees "expire" if no certificate of occupancy is issued? Yes No
If Yes, is the tap fee refunded? Yes No
Can tap fees be transferred for use at another site in your district? Yes No
Service Fees
_ 19. What is your service fee for residential units based upon: (please check box(es) that apply):
? Type of Use (residentiaUcommercial)
? SFE/EQR
? Number of bedrooms
O Metered Use
? Other
20. Is the fee based on studies specific to your district, other information, or is it at the discretion of
an individual or board? Please list any documentation used for establishing rates
21. What does your district consider in establishing service fees (i.e., projected population growth,
actual costs of service, reserves for future needs, water use, etc.)?
22. What other fees does your district levy - such as turn on/off, inspections, etc.? (List if not on
enclosed fee schedule)
23. During 1995, what percentage of your expenditures for operations and maintenance, capital
expenses and principal and interest payments were provided from:
% tap fees
% service fees
% property taxes
% sales taxes
% fund transfers (indicate from which fund)
% interest income
% other (indicate)
100 % total current utility expenditures
24. Do any of the following provide resE;rves for future expansion and improvement (including
plant investment) of the system? (check)
service fees tap fees taxes
other (indicate)
Other
25. Do you consider your facility to be an "enterprise" for purposes of TABOR (Amendment I)?
Yes . No
26. When was your current rate structure established? -
27. Do you plan to revise your water tap fee schedule soon? Yes No
28. Have you applied for federal or statE; grants/loans for water system improvements within the
last three years?
Yes No
29. Would a more standardized rate structure between differing jurisdictions be useful?
Yes No
vvhy?
30. Enclosed are 2 different blueprints crf various house configurations. Please determine what fee
you would assess for each blueprint. Assume each house is within your district. Piease show
how you determined the particular rate (e.g., 2 bedrooms = 1 SFE _$2500 tap fee, $25/month
service fee).
, - HOUSE #1
HOUSE #2
Would the fees for House #2 be different if this floorplan was for one unit of a condominium? If
Yes, how?
Would the fees for House #2 be different if this floorplan was for one unit of a duplex? If Yes,
how?
Would the fees for House #2 be different if this floorplan was for one unit of a triplex? If Yes, .
how?
THANK YOU FOR TAKING THE TIlVIE TO FILL OUT THE SURVEY
Please return to: NWCCOG/QQ
Attn: Monique Gilbert
P.O. Box 2308
Silverthorne, CO 80498
REMINDER: Please include copies of your tap and service fee schedules.
I
~
. ;
. i
~
o O
i
~
~
Ll-r
,
N I
,V . ; i
~
107
~
I - 274 -
f
I 13'7
~
i i
m L----- i ~
,
; 28,5 - ~ ~
~
. I I+
I ~ I
I I
I L _ - _ 71
~
I
~
flousE .*1.
iT8 10'9
sog
I
I
~ ~
~ ~
I ;
m i
" I
~ t I
~ ,r7-~ I ~
~
~
~ o I ~
I -
N ~
I ~0~
274
N
~ 137 ~
I
I .
~
! 28•s--------------
I + l0f I ~
I
I ~ ~ ;
~USE 2.
WATER AND SANTI'ATION DISTRICTS' RATES
IN MOUNTAIN COMMUNTTIES
Rate Structure Assessment
SEWER SERVICE
Please fill out the survev and return to OQ 6v November lst.
Name of Person Responding to Survey:
Title:
Address:
Telephone:
e-mail address (if have one):
Facility name:
System Information
Generally, what are the boundaries of your service area?
1. What is your facility's rated capacity? (gallons per day)
(lbs of BOD per day)
What percentage of this capacity is currently in use? What percentage of your current use is residential?
2. What is the health department classification of your wastewater treatment plant? (check)
A B C D
3. What level of treatment do you provide (e.g., tertiary treatment of phosphorus)?
4. Does your district or municipality administer an industrial wastewater pretreatment program?
Yes No
5. Are there special conditions that affect the cost of treatment, e.g., altitude, dechlorination,
population fluctuations, etc.?
6. Who pays for a sewer main installation? (check)
District Customer DistrictlCustomer share Other
If costs are shared, please indicate the basis for sharing the cost: % each pays, pipe size,
oversizing requirements, etc.
7. Do you permit new sewer service extensions outside your district boundaries?
Yes Inclusion required Inclusion agreement required No
If Yes, who pays for the extension?
District Customer District/Customer share Other
If costs are shared, indicate the basis for sharing the cost: % each pays, pipe size, oversizing
requirements, etc.
Is the cost for new service extensions different outside your district boundary?
Yes No
, If Yes, what is the difference and hoNa is it determined?
Tap Fees
8. Please enclose a copy of your sewer tap fee schedule which indicates how fees are
assessed (e.g., apartment_buildings, mobile homes, commerciaVindustrial, etc.) 9. Is your tap fee schedule based upon (check):
Single-family equivalent (SFE) or Equivalent residential unit (EQR)
Pipe sizes Fiow
Other (please explain)
10. How do you determine what an SFE/EQR is? What is the basis?
11. What is your tap fee for residential units based upon: (please check box(es) that apply):
? Number of bathrooms
El Number of bedrooms
? Square Footage
? Property Valuation
? Other
If based on the number of bedrooms, what determines if a room is a bedroom?
12. What does the total tap fee include? (check all that apply)
debt reduction future system development costs
labor and materials pavement cut
running the service line from the plant investment
main to the property line
other (describe)
13. Who determines the tap fee for new service? (i.e., A Board? The Manager? A Citizen's
Advisory Board?)
14. Is the fee based on studies specific to your district, other information, or is it at the discretion
of an individual or board? Piease list any documentation used for establishing rates.
15. What does your district consider in establishing tap fees (i.e., projected population growth,
actual costs of service, reserves for future needs, water use, etc.)
16. Does the District pay for the maintenance of a service line from the main to the property line?
Yes No
17. Who pays for the maintenance of a service line from the property line to the structure?
District Customer
18. When must a tap fee be paid for (before building pernuts? before certificate of occupancy?)?
19. Do your tap fees "expire" if no certificate of occupancy is issued? Yes No
If Yes, is the tap fee refunded? _ Yes No
Can tap fees be transferred for use at another site in your district? Yes No
Service Fees
20. Please include a copy of your service fee schedule.
21. What is your service fee for residential units based upon: (please check box(es) that apply):
? Number of bathrooms
? Number of bedrooms
D Syuare Footage
O Property Valuation
? Other
22. Is the fee based on studies specific to your district, other information, or is it at the discretion
of an individual or board? Please list any documentation used for establishing rates.
23. Do you charge a service fee for a new service if no certificate of occupancy has been issued?
Yes No
24. What other fees does your district levy - such as turn on/off, inspections, etc.? (List if not on
enclosed fee schedule)
25. During 1995, what percentage of your expenditures for operations and maintenance, capital
expenses, and principal and interest payments were provided from:
% service fees
% tap fees
% property taxes
% sales taxes
% fund transfers (indicate from which fund)
% interest income
% other (indicate)
100 % total current sewer utility expenditures
26. Do any of the following provide reserves for future expansion and improvement (including
plant investment) of the system? (check)
service fees _ tap fees taxes
other (indicate)
Other
26. Do you consider your facility to be an "enterprise" for purposes of TABOR (Amendment 1)?
Yes No
27. When was your current rate structure established?
28. Do you plan to revise your sewer tap fee schedule soon? Yes No
29..Have you applied for federal or state grants/loans for sewer system improvements within the
lastthree years?
Yes No
30. Would a more standardized rate structure between differing jurisdictions be useful?
Yes No
wt,y?
31. Enclosed are 2 different blueprints of various house configvrations. Please determine what fee
you would assess for each biueprint. Assume each house is within your district. Please show
how you determined the particular rate (e.g., 2 bedrooms = 1 SFE _$2500 tap fee,
$25/month service fee).
HOUSE #1
HOUSE #2
Would the fees for House #2 be different if this floorplan was for one unit of a condominium?
If Yes, how?
Would the fees for House #2 be different if this floorplan was for one unit of a duplex? If Yes,
how?
Wouid the fees for House #2 be differe:nt if this floorplan was for one unit of a triplex? If Yes,
how?
THANK YOU FOR TAHINiG THE TIIVIE TO FILL OUT THE SURVEY
Please xeturn to: NWCCOG/QQ
Attn: Monique Gilbert
P.O. Box 2308
Silverthorne, CO 80498
REMINDER: Please include copies of your sewer tap fee schedule and service fee schedule.
5(r9- -
I ~ 90 i
I N
I
I
'I I 1
~$7 I I
I I I
i ~
~
, ~
,
h Y~-'f l I
: i I lI
• I i I I ll JL~Ji ~ 22*4 ------------------~--y
i ~
<50 ~ I
~ ~U0
~-i- 137 i
i I ~ r ~I
~
m
~ I
ID
~ I I
28'S-----------------------
'
i i
i
I
I
i ! I
I I
, i
ovs~ *1
; - sas -
~
i
~nj
i 9D i
I i i ~ -
I ~ m I
I N I
I I I
I
10'7;-------It ~
! I ~ Ii
~
~ j I~ o
- ,
~
~ i
~
N t i f~' O, D I
otCJJ
1
~
i I o~li
N
~ ~~T 137 ~ ~
I~I ' ~ - - -
I I I
' r-------- ~ I I
FF
~ ~ ~ i
. ; - I I I
I I '
~ I
~ --r- 28•5
- - - - - - ' ~ N
~
' ~ I I I I
~ ~ -
L' '
ROUSE 4 2.
System Information
Capacity Number of Connections Health Department
DistricUMunicipality gallons/day SFEs/EQRs Capacity Percentage Metered Unmetered Classification
In Use residential residential comm. residential comm.
Bellyache Ridge Metro District 50% 100% 53 q
Columbine Lake Water & San. Dist.. 350,000 352 30% 100% 350 2 D
Copper Mtn. Cons. Metro. Dist. 1,400,000 45% 100% 75 C
Dillon Valley District 1,296,000 66% 98% 359 3 B
East Dillon Water District 648,000 2000 50% 100% 1012 q
Grand County Water & San. Dist. #1 2,000,000 5714 38% 90% 288 45 20 B
Hamilton Creek Metro Dist. 15,000 50% 100% 53 C
Minturn Water Plant 1,000,000 50-1000/ no answer
Morrison Creek Metro Water Dist. No treatment 215 D
Silver Creek Water & San. Dist. 1,300,000 500 20% 90% 75 5 p
Steamboat Springs Water 5,500,000 50-850/ 85°/a 2200 1000 A
Town of Avon Purchase treated water C
Town of Breckenridge - Tarn WTP 3,000,000 58% 50% 3160 2840 B
Town of Breckenridge - Peak 7 WTP 250,000 50% 100% combined with above C
Town of Fraser 1,000,000 30% 80% 70 530 130 D
ToWn of Frisco 2,500,000 40% 92% 1193 96 31 4 C
Town of Granby 1,000,000 30% 485 combined metered g
Town of Hot Sulphur Springs 500,000 30-500/ 90% 159 49 C
Town of Silverthorne 2,880,000 25-50% 82% 829 190 p
Town of Yampa 250,000 40% 89°/a 210 23 ' pVail Water S stem 5,000,000 75% 70% 1863 799 g
TAP FEES
DfstricUMunlcipality Tap Fee Schedule Tap Fee for Rezidential Who Determines Rates Are Issues Consldered
Based Upon: Units Determined 8: Ta Fee9 EzWblished b: When EsWblishiny Fees
Bellyache Ridge Metro. Oist. SFEs/EQRs Water meter Metro District Board Discretion of Board; Comparison with Projected Growth; Need for future water
other districts storage; costs of continued service
Copper Mtn. Cons. San. Dist. SFEs/EQRs Number of Bedrooms District Staff Discretion of Board Costs of taps at other districts
Columbine Lake Water 8 San. SFEs/EORs Single family residence only Board Discretion of Board Cost of service; future needs
in subdivision
Dillon Valley District SFEs/EQRs Single family residence Board of Directors Discretion of Board; surrounding no answer
areas' fees for information
East Dillon Water District SFEs/EQRs Single family unit Board of Directors Discretion of Board Future needs; Market comparison
Grand County Water 8 San. Dist. #1 SFEs/EQRs Single family home is a home Board of Directors DiscreGon of Board based on Projected populaUon growth; actual
with one kitchen; muki•family engineering studies, studies specific costs of service; reserves for future
units based on # of bathrooms to district and nadonal standard needs; water use .
and bedrooms water use
Hamilton Creek Metro. Dist SFEs/EQRs single family unit Board of Directors Discretion of Board Comparable districts - market value
Minturn Water Plant Flat rate Flat rate until meters are Town Council Discretion of Board Projected population growth; actual
installed costs of service; reserves for future
needs; water use
Morrison Creek Metro Water Oist. SFEs/EQRs Flat rate Board of Directors Tap fee has remained the same since
the OistricCs inceptlon due to
bankruptcy in Me mid 1970s.
Silver Creek Water 8 San. Dist. SFEs/EQRs One single family house Manager; if questionable Own schedule, if have application not Projected population grwWr, actual
one kitchen Me Board decides addressed by ovm schedule, they costs of service; reserves tor future
review schedules of similar mounWin needs; water use; district indebtedness;
districts tap fees of nearby districts; projected
Steamboat Springs Water size of structure and size of structure and fixture Board of Directors; City Fees based on studies done in Future needs and buy-in to existing
fixture unit count unit count Council conjunction with citizen impact fee system
advisory committee
Town of Avon SFEs/EORs; pipe Square footage The Board Discretion of Board no answer
sizes for commercial
Town of Breckenridge - Tarn WTP SFEs/EQRs Number of bedrooms Town Manager/Finance Based on studies specific to Breck. Reserve for future water needs
Director/Town Council
Town of Breckenridge - Peak 7 WTP SFEslEQRs t SFE per kitchen until Town Manager/Finance Based on studies specific to Breck. Reserve for future water needs
12I31/2000 then # of bedrooms Director/Town Council
Town of Fraser SFEs/EQRs SFEsIEQRs Town Board Discretion of Board; studies Costs of service; reserves for tuture
water needs
Town of Frisco SFEs/EQRs single family residences and Town Council Discretion of Council Actual cost of services
mobile homes = 1 EOR
Town of Granby Pipe sizes Tap size Manager/Water Actual costs of service; reserves for
Superintendent future needs
Town ot Hot Sulphur Springs Pipe sizes pipe size The Board by ordinance Discretion of the Board; Growth; impact Grovrth; cost; impact to system
to system; cost for maintaining system
Town of Silverthorne . SFEs/EQRs single family = 1 EQR Town Council Discretion of Council Water use; projected population growth
Town of Yampa Pipe sizes pipe size Town Board Present tap fee is based on what pipe size; potential water use
similar dishicts in the area were charging
Yampa took a mid-ran e a roach
Vail Water System Square footage $2.25 per square foot; 1 EQR = 8oard of Directors Board discretion Projected growth; faciliry replacement
3000 squarefeet
Are water service
Who pays 1w weter extensions pertnitted When must e Do tep fees Can tep fees
Dlstrlct/Munlcl ali mainlnstaBatlon? oiAsideboundartes? ta be aldfa? e re7 betrensfeRed7
BeAyaMe RIEge Metro Dist. DistricthrnmlclpaRty no prior to excevatlon for no rro
ter tep
Columbine Lake Water d San. DistrictArnmicipa6ry yes, customer pays; beiore buildn9 Pemdi no yes service aAslde 9sMd issued ` Is metered and charged ,
besedonreadrgs
Copper MRn. Cons. Me7o. Dist. customer yes, customer pays 125% at buildirg permit yes; rmt refurded ra
of seMce eM tep fees
Dllon VaAey District customer Irxknion requlred; belwe certlficate of no rp
customerpays occupenry
East Ditlon Weter District customer IrxNslon reqierea, no
chenge in cost before bWldrg perMt no yes, but YMted
Cxend Coun Weter 6San. Dist. 6stricUcustomer shere inchislon requlred before cormectlrg onto yes orYy In seme
meln a stadoul sW6Nsion uxler
same ovmersHp
Hemllton Creek Metro Dist. customer yes; customer peys, rro before buildng permlt rw yes
chenge In cost
MInMn Water PIaM DistricthnuricipaFry no Defore weter is Wmed on no yes
Morrlson Creek Metro Weter customer Incluslon reqiAreC, 1when bulldng pemYt Is rro
customer pays Issued
SiNer Creek Weter 8 Sen. Dist. dshicVCUStomer - no belore buliding permit ra no
customer peys fa Ine
bul dstrld rNmdrses
48% of tep fees to ottset
cost of ine
Sleemboet Sprirgs Weter customer inchislon egreertwt Defae issuence of
reqiiretl; custamer peys. buiklrg pemYt no rq
no change In cost
Town of Avon districUcustortKr share incknlon requlred, ds6lct pria to instnla6on of no yes
up la 50% of tep fees end customer shere cost, seMCe ine
genereted by meln seMCe cherges must equal
extension may De cost o1 seMce pfus MI levy
retunded to customer and tep fees property woUd
be responslDle 1or in town
Town of Breckercidge customer yes; customer pays: Ih building pertrtit no rw
contrector bids on charge '
Town of Freser 6stricMrnmiclpaliry no et time of building permit ra no
Tovm of Frisco 6stricUrtMnicipafry; new irkkision egreemeM required at issuance of fuo no no
development peys fa customer pays, cost Is buildrg pemdt
InsteOetlon dlffererd
Town of Cxanby customer case by cese basis betore bidl6ng pemtit no ra
customer or devebper pays;
double water rates
Town of Hot SiAphur Springs 6stricUCUStomer share yes, custamer pays, double before tap Is made no no
if upddgre6ng, town pays oN of corporete Nrtuts
il new constructlon, coMracta pays
Tovm o1 SiNeMome customer; il new project yes, irclusion end inckision before buiiding perrtdt no yes
devebper pays 100 % agreement reµdred; customer
or developer pays 100%;
1.5 tlmes in town service and
tap fee
Tovm of Yartja districUcustomer share yes, customer pays, one before taps ere made no yes ,
and a Mtl 6mes ernant in '
tov+n
Vail Weter System tustomer yes. Incluslon enC Intlus on before comec6on to no yes
agreement requlred system
What does Total Tap Fee Include7
DistricVMunicipality Future Water Future System Labor 8 Cost of Debt Capital Cost Pavement Water Meter Initial Water Plant Running Line Other Comments
Ac uisition Develo ment Costs Materials Water Meter Reduction Re lacement Cut Installation Turn-On Fee Investment from Main to VaNe
Bellyache Ridge Metro. Dist. X right to drew water (rom
distribution system
Copper Mtn. Cons. Metro. Dist. X
Columbine Lake Water & San. Dist. X X x
Dillon Valley District X X
East Ditlon Water District X X X
Grand County Water 8 San. Dist. q1 X X X X X X past water acquistion
Hamilton Creek Metro. Dist. X
Minturn Water Plant X
Morrison Creek Metro. Water Dist. Silver Creek Water 8 San. Dist. X X X X X X
Steamboat Springs Water X X X X X X X X X
Town of Avon X X X X X X
Town of Breckenridge X X X X x
Town of Fraser X X
Town ot Frisco x
Town oI Granby x
Town of Hot Sulphur Springs X X
Town of Silverthorne X capital improvements
Town of Yampa X X
Vail Water System X X X X
SERVICE FEES
DistrieUMunieipeliry Service Fes for Reeidential Retes Are lesues Considered Whet Other Fees Doas Your
Unita Detertninsd 8: Established b: When Establishln Fee~ Dietrld Le 7
Bepyeche Ridge Metro. Dist. SFE/EaRs; Metered use; plaM Discretlon of Boerd; based AcNel cost of service Is compared sMrt ott charge; Nm on charge;
imestrnent fee on cortperison with other to reverwes generated; lees for water fee for release of len
service retes In eree use escalete to errcasege conservatlon; plant Irrvestrnent fee is essessed monlMy
to contributa to future need for grovM
ceused by expenslon o1 system
Copper Mfi. Cons. Sen. Dist. SFEIEORs; Metered use Dlscre6on of Board ProJecteO popVetlon growth; ecNel no enswer
cosLS of seMce; reserves fa fuhre
needs; weter use
CoAimDine Leke Weter d Sen. bese pkn rwnber of fixGres Disttetlon of Board Cosls of seMces; reserves for fuhre inspectiorrs
Bne replacemerA; treatrnerri upgredes .
Dibn VaAey Distrid Type of use (residentlaVCOmn.) Dlscretlm o/ Board beseC AcNel costs of suvices delrpueM biing; hm ofl/on for late
on ecNel end proJected dh
expenses •
Eest DIAan Water qstrict SFE/EaRs; Metered use Disuetlon of the Boerd Cost of seMce; merket compeMson hytreM fee: water meters; Inspectlo
ee; len fee; Imerest on pest due
eccourds; ettomey iees: reRmied
check fee. Mn oNofl lee Grend Couriy Weter 6 San. Disl pt SFEIEpRs pisttetlon of tlu Board; P.rojeMed popdetlon growTh; ecWel costs rtdl levy
sNdes spedflc to astrict; of seMce; reserves lor fuMe weter needs;
netlonal sMndard weter use water use
HeMtlon Creek Metro. Dist. S EIEaRs Dlsuetion of ihe Bonrd Cost of service; cortparSSOn to other comectlon inspectlon
6stricls
minMn we[er Piant S EfEtSRs Giscreoon of "vie Boerd Projecied populauan grwi9i; ecwe~ cosP3 hxn erJvY
of seMce; reserves tor tuhre water needs;
weter use
M son Creek Metro Weter Dist. Flet rote pisuetlon of meneger Cost of seMce; reserves shut ott fee; esstopple lee .
1he Boerd
SINer Geek Weter San. st SFE/Ep s rajecled popiietlan growth: ecdrol costs inspectlpi of fep .
of seMCe; reserves la fuMe weter needs;
weter use
Steemboat Sprfrgs Water Metered use pisuetlon of BoerE end Ciry Revenues requred for seMCe Mn oNott; new eccard; out o y
Coundl; retes based upon sircherge; IMeresl cherge on lete
recovering same revenues es peyment; dscomect notlce postlng
previous ufinetered flat rate chergr, constructlon weter
Town of Avon SFE/EQRs; metereE use DisaeEOn ot Boerd Acluel cost of service; water use; reserves ra emwer
for future needs
Town of Breckercidge SFE/EORs DistteBon o1 Board Discretlon of Board excess water use; MJC water use:
conshuctlon wetM: deirpueM
paymerrt; Am on/off
Town of Froser SFE/EaRs; rype of use DiscreUOn ol8oard; studies no answer meter lee
( residentleYcommerciel)
Town of frisco Type of use (residenGeV carm,) The metered rete is strucUred Adual costs of service L..: ary cantruc0on weter; Nm
. to cover opere6ons and maiMenance costs of the
ter departrnerA
Town of Grenby Metered use no answer Actual cosls of seMCe; reserves for fu6ve leck of peymeM; special
nee0s meter reed fee fa cbsings
Town of Hot SUphur Springs Metered use Discre0on of Board; what Growlh; impact to system; cost of operatlon lum ofllon
ihey Defieved was fair •
Town of Siberihome Type of use; metxeG use: flat rate Tovm Cantii Water use and Oat rate Mn oNott: construc6on: bUk water
fees
Town o1 Yempa Metered use Pub6c meeting irqul with en AcNal cost to operate system; reserves Nm o11/on
end DuOgel need fa ftfire needs: metered rates based on
ected use
Vell Weter System MetereA use DiscreEOn ol Board Projected popWa6on grov.M; acNal casts ra enswer
of seMCe: reserves ta luhre weter needs:
water use
Where Revenues are Generated
DistricUMunicipality tap fees service property sales taxes fund interest other comments
fees taxes transfers income
Bellyache Ridge Metro. Dist. 13% 53% 112% 4% Total revenues also cover fire and emergency services
Reason why total exceeds 100°r6
Copper Mtn. Cons. Metro. Dist. 100%
Columbine Lake Water & San. Dist. 5% 84% 10% 1% Other is tap transfer and connection permits
Dillon Valley District 95% 5%
East Dillon Water District 22% 45% 24% 6% 3% Other is meter sales and inspections
Grand County Water & San. Dist. #1 15% 54% . 23% 6% 2% Other is specific ownership tax
Hamilton Creek Metro. Dist. 34% 10% 52% 4%
Minturn Water Plant no answer
Morrison Creek Metro. Water Dist. 37% 60% 1% 2% Other is miscellaneous income
Silver Creek Water & San. Dist. 70% 30%
Steamboat Springs Water no answer
Town of Avon 13% 37% 27% 4% 19%
Town of Breckenridge 30% 50% 13% 7%
Town of Fraser 15% 40% 5% 40%
Town of Frisco 100%
Town of Granby 1% 73% 20% 4% 3%
Town of Hot Sulphur Springs 100%
Town of Silverthorne 64% 36%
Town of Yampa 2% 82% 4% 12% Other is from water thaw, work on services billed
to customers and an intergovernmental agreement
with Phippsburg District
Vail Water System 7% 54% 27% 10% 2%
OTHER
Rate Structure Plan to revise Applied for Standardized
DistricflMunicl alit Tabor Established soon? Loans? rate structure?
Bellyache Ridge Metro Dist. no 1996 no no no, our system is a complete stand
alone system unique to ail others in
the area
Columbine Lake Water & San. yes 1993 yes no Comparison with other districts vrould
be beneficial
Copper Mtn. Cons. Metro. Dist. yes 1989 yes no no
Dillon Valley District yes 1996 yes no no
East Dillon Water District yes 1976, modified no no no
annualy
Grand County Water 8San. Dist. no no answer maybe no yes, less confusion between jurisdictions
and a way to justify
Hamilton Creek Metro Dist. no annually yes no no, unique character of mountain
subdivision
Minturn Water Plant yes no one knows yes yes no, Minturn lies b/w Vail and Avon, both
of these communties are more artluent
and are not considered
Morrison Creek Metro Water no tap fees - 1972; yes no possibly, but it seems it would be difficult
rates - 1995 because of the vastly different situations
and needs of the various districts
SiNer Creek Water & San. Dist. no 1985 no no yes, rate structure is diRcult to justify at
times; having a standardized structure
would eliminate some of the customers
complaints, of different assessments in
difrerent jurisdictions
Steamboat Springs Water yes 1995 no yes no, each utility is highly unique; rete
structures need to be unique
Town ofAvon yes 1995 no no yes
Town of Breckenridge yes 1989 yes no no
Town of Fraser no 1991 yes no no answer
Town of Frisco yes 1994 no no no
Town of Granby no 1989 1997 yes no
Town of Hot Sulphur Springs yes 1994 1996-1997 yes no answer
Town of SiNerthorne no 1978 yes no yes - possibly to be comparable with
fellow water systems in area
Town of Yampa yes 1994 yes no yes - this would give more equality in an
area as far as new construction costs, but
each district or water system is different
and costs are different (or each one. Tap
fees need to refiect individual system
needs, a uniform set of guidelines to
establish ta fees would be a ood tool.
Vail Water System yes 1996 no no no - service levels, system age, system
types are different so rates will probably
need to be different
House #1 House #2 Condo Du lex Trl lex
DistrictlMunicipality Tap fee Service fee Incremental Tap fee Service fee Incremental change7 change? change?
er month Costs er month Costs new cost new cost new cost
Bellyache Ridge Metro Dist. 4000.00 20.00 $2 per 1000 gal. 4000.00 20.00 $2 per 1000 gal. N/A no N/A
$5 per 1000 gal. $5 per 1000 gal.
over 8000 gal. over 8000 gal.
Columbine Lake Water & San. 3000.00 20.58 3000.00 19.50 N/A N/A N/A
Copper Mtn. Cons. Metro. Dist. 4550.00 21.83 4200.00 no no no
Dillon Valley District 3000.00 13.33 3000.00 13.33 yes no yes
($11.67 per ($11.67 per
month service month service
fee fee
East Dillon Water District 4000.00 11.00 $1.40 per 1000 g 4000.00 11 00 $1.40 per 1000 gal no no no
0-10,000 used 0-10,000 used
Grand County Water &San. Dist. 5500.00 13.86 5500.00 13.86 yes yes yes
($7425 tap fee ($7425 tap fee ($7425 tap fee
plus $18.71 plus $18.71 plus $18.71
service fee) service fee) service fee)
Hamilton Creek Metro Dist. 4000.00 30.00 4000.00 30.00 no each unit each unit
would be would be
considered considered
a single family a single family
Minturn Water Plant 4000.00 34.30 4000.00 34.30 no no no
Morrison Creek Metro Water 750.00 13.75 750.00 no no no
SiNer Creek Water & San. Dist. 1475.00 14.00 1475.00 14.00 no no no
Steamboat Springs Water 2554.38 12.35 $1.05 per 1000 g 2471.12 12.35 $1.05 per 1000 gal no no no
up to 12,000 then up to 12,000 then
$1.60 $1.60
Town of Avon 4000.00 12.75 $2.60 per 1000 g' 4000.00 12.75 $2.60 per 1000 gal no no no
Town of Breckenridge - Tarn WTP 3690.75 24.61 2775.00 18.50 yes no no
($3330 tap fee
plus $22.20
service fee)
Town of Breckenridge - Peak 7 3000.00 27.75 3000.00 27.75 N!A no no
Town of Fraser 2000.00 15.35 2000.00 15.35 no no no
Town of Frisco 3200.00 10 00 $1.25/1000 gal. 3200.00 10.00 $1.25/1000 gal. no no no
over 24,000 gal. over 24,000 gal.
Town of Granby 3000.00 5.00 $3.50 per 1000 g 3000.00 5.00 $3.50 per 1000 gal depends on depends on depends on
pipe size pipe size pipe size
Town of Hot Sulphur Springs 1500.00 20.00 1500.00 20.00 no yes yes
(each unit has (each unit has
own service own service
line) line)
Town of Silverthorne 3200.00 11.74 3200.00 11 74 no no no
Town ot Yampa 1500.00 15.00 $1 40 per 1000 g 1500.00 15.00 $1.40 per 1000 gal no no no
over 15,000 gal, over 15,000 gal.
Vail Water System 4405.50 4.50 per SF $1.50 per 1000 g 4329.00 4.50 per SF $1.50 per 1000 gal no no no
over 3000 al. over 3000 al.
System Information
Capacity Health Department
Sanitation District Gallons/Day BOD Capacity Percentage Treatment Advanced Pre- Classification
In Use residential Level Treatment Treatment
As en Consolidated SD 3,000,000 9,100 60% 60% Tertia Ammonia Y A
Breckenrid e SD 3,000,000 5,900 80% Tertia Phos horus N A
Co er Mountain CMD. 700,000 3,478 45% 100% Tertia Phos horus N B
Ea le River WSD 7,100,000 14,700 90% Tertia Ammonia N A
Frisco SD 1,200,000 2,500 60% Tertia Phos horus Y B
Granb SD 999,000 1,700 40% 90% Tertia Ammonia N B
Grand Count WSD #1 1,460,000 2,471 40% 90% Seconda N C
Hot Sul hur S rin s WWTP 90,000 247 70% 90% Seconda N D
Kremmlin SD 170,000 425 85% 85% Prima N D
Morrison Creek Metro WSD 500,000 800 15% 100% Seconda N B
Silverthorne/Dillon Joint Sewer Authori 2,700,000 5,840 71 % 80% Tertia Phos horus N B
Summit Count Snake River WWTP 1,250,000 2,085 64% 100% . Tertia Phos horus Y B
Town of Silverthorne VWV Collection S N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Three Lakes WSD 1,300,000 2,200 64% 90% Seconda N B
Yampa WWTP 105,000 285 45% 89% Seconda N D
qq:lsewrlabl:A.wk4
TAP FEES
Sanitation District Tap Fee for Residential What Determines Who Determines Issues Considered
Units Determtned B: a Bedroom? Ta Fee? When Establishin Fees
Bathrooms Beds S. Ft. Fixtures Other
Aspen Consolidated SD X X X X Closet Board of Directors System investments, potential use
Breckenridge SD X X Closet Board of Directors Population growth, exisiting costs,
reserves for future, water use
Copper Mountain CMD X X Metro District Staff Other district charges
Eagle River WSD X Board of Directors Capital costs, replacement costs,
projected growth
Frisco SD X Planning Dept Staff Future plant expansion, debtreduction
Granby SD Residence Staff Future plant needs, results of
engineering studies
Grand County WSD #1 X X Kitchen Closet + Egress window Board of Directors Future needs, past costs, population
growth
Hot Sulpur Springs W1NTP Single tap Town Council Growth, cost of operation, impact to
system
Kremmling SD Single tap A Board Water use, future imiprovements
Morrison Creek MWSD Residence Board of Directors
Silverthorne\Dillon Joint Auth. X X Board of Directors
Summit County Snake River WWTP X Building Dept BOCC Water use
Town of Silverthorne WW Collection X X Town Council Populatin growth, treatment requirements
Three Lakes WSD Residence Board of Directors
Yampa WWTP Single tap Board of Directors Reserve for future water needs
sewrtable:B.wk4
What Does the Tap Fee Include? When is Tap Fee Paid Does Tap If Expired Is Can Tap Fee
Sanitation District Debt Labor 8 Service Future Pavement Plant Other Fee Expire? Fee Refunded Be Transtered
Service Materials Lines Costs Cuts Investment 134 Connect Bid ermit
As en Consolidated SD X X X X N N
Breckenrid e SD X X X Y Y Y
Co er Mountain CMD X X Y N N
Ea le River WSD X X X N Y
Frisco SD X X X Y N Y
Granb SD X X N N
Grand Coun WSD #1 X X X X X Y N Y
Hot Sul ur S rin s WWTP X X X N N
Kremmlin SD X X X Y Y N
Morrison Creek MWSD X N 7
Silverthome\Dillon Joint Auth.
Summit Count Snake River 1NWTP X X X Y Y N
Town of Silverthorne VW1l Collection X X N N
Three Lakes WSD X X N y
Yam a VWVTP X N Y
seMrteEk:C.wk1
SERVICE FEES
In 995 What ° of Expens s Paid Fro : Future Pla t Expansio Costs Pai From: Year Fees
Sanitation District Service Tap Property Sales Fund Interest Other Service Tap Enterprise Were
Fee Fee Tax Tax Transfers Income Fee Fee Taxes Other Fund? Established
As en Consolidated SD 72 20 8 X X X Y Since be In
Breckenridge SD X X Y 1980
Co er Mountain CMD 40 10 30 10 10 X X X Y 1989
Ea le River WSD 48 18 17 3 14 Y 1996
Frisco SD X Y 1989
Granb SD 82 18 X Y 1955
Grand Coun WSD #1 54 15 23 6 2 X X X N
Hot Sul ur S rin s WWTP 97 3 X X Y 1994
Kremmlin SD 75 25 X Y 1995
Morrison Creek MWSD 37 60 1 2 X X N
Silverthome\Dillon Joint Auth. 91 7 2 X Y 1990
Summit Coun Snake River W1NTP X Y 1985
Town of Silverthorne VW1/ Collection 100 X Y 1990 '
Three Lakes WSD 50 20 16 12 2 X Y 1986
Yam a 1NWTP 80.9 2.9 5 11.2 X X Y 1994
SU 59.1 6.1 12.8 0.0 0.7 3.4 3.7
sewrtabb:D.wk4
Com arison of Fees
House #1 House #2 Duplex Triplex Condo
Sanitation District Tap Service Tap Service Change? Change? Change?
Fee Fee Fee Fee new cost new cost new cost
Aspen Consolidated SD 2394 12.39 2448 11.36
Breckenridge SD 4000 19 4800 22.8 4800 5600 5600
Copper Mountain CMD 4550 7.77 4200 7.77
Ea le River WSD 2663 23.7 2617 23.7
Frisco SD 4000 25 4000 25
Granb SD 1500 13 1500 13
Grand County WSD #1 5500 15.08 5500 15.08 7425 7425 7425
Hot Sulpur Springs WWTP 1500 15 1500 15
Kremmling SD 1000 9 1000 9
Morrison Creek MWSD 750 13.75 750 13.75
Silverthorne\Dillon Joint Auth. NA NA NA NA
Summit Count Snake River WWTP 3500 36.3 3500 36.3
Town of Silverthorne WW Collection 3200 24.24 3200 24.24 2720 2720 2720
Three Lakes WSD 2500 16 2500 16
Yampa WWTP 1500 13 1500 13
sewrtable:E.wk4
ELIMINATION OF HIGH PHOSPHORUS DETERGENTS IN COLORADO
A FEASIBILITY WHITE PAPER -
Prepared by Northwest Colorado Council of Governments
249 Warren Avenue
P.O. Box 2308 Silverthorne, Colorado 80498
• and
Denver Regional Council of Governments
2480 West 26th Avenue, Suite 200B
Denver, Colorado 80211
[Review Copy]
March 29, 1996
TABLE OF CONTENTS
. INTRODUCTION 4
White Paper Application . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
GENERAL WATEFi QUALITY PROBLEMS CAUSED BY NUTRIENTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Reservoir/Lake Eutrophication . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Nutrients and Algal Growth . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
WATER QUALITY IMPAIRMENT IN COLORADO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Use Impaired Receiving Waters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Phosphonus Control Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Nonpoint Source Management Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
PHOSPHORUS DETERGENT BAN BENEFITS IDENTIFIED IN OTHER STATES 15
Wastewater Treatment Facility Benefits . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
OperafionalExpenses 17
Construction Expenses 19
Wetland Polishing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
Wastewater Reuse Irrigation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
Other Economic and Environmental Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
Public Benefits 20
PERFORMANCE OF PHOSPHATE-FREE DETERGENTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . : . 21
ConsumerCosts 21
Pollution Prevention . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
LEGISLATIVE RESEARCH . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
States With a High Phosphate Detergent Bans . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
Indiana 23
Maryland 23
Massachusetts 23
Michigan 23
- New York 24
Ohio 24
Pennsylvania 24
Vermont 24
Virginia 25
Washington, D.C . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . : . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . : . . . 25
Wisconsin 25
Legisiative Models . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
Example 1- Virginia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
Example 2- Michigan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
Example 3 - Washington . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
SUMMARY OF LESSONS LEARNED FROM PHOSPHORUS BAN STUDIES 32
General 32
Nutrients, Algal Growth and Water Quality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
2
Sources of Nutrients in Surface Water and Municipal Wastewater . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
Control of Phosphorus in Wastewater . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
Summary of Potential Benefits to Colorado . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
PHOSPHORUS BAN LITERATURE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
APPENDIX 42
Appendix A - Wastewater Treatment Facilities in Colorado . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
APPendix B - State Contacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50
3
INTRODUCTION
Across the United States, nutrient enrichment has been identified by various local
management agencies, regional agencies and state departments as a significant water quality
problem. The nutrient phosphorus has been targeted by many states through regulations or
management programs. A major source of phosphorus has been associated with household
cleaning products. A water quality management strategy used in various parts of the United .
States is source reduction of phosphorus. Legislative action to restrict the use of specific high
phosphon.is-containing cleaning products has occurred in 21 states over the last 24 years.
The application of a high phosphorus content detergent ban has been suggested as a
potential water quality improvement strategy for the State of Colorado. The Northwest
Colorado Council of Govemments and the Denver Regional Council of Govemment have
gathered information from those states with phosphorus detergent bans and summarized the
information in this feasibility white paper.
Source reduction has been identified as a best management practice which can be widely
applied to nonpoint source pollution in Colorado. Source reduction has also been used to
target specific water quality parameters in point source effluents. Four basin control
regulations have been adopted by the Colorado Water Quality Control Commission to reduce
phosphorus loading into receiving waters from a combin2tion of nonpoint and point sources.
The ban of high phosphorus content detergents is a source reduction best management
practice which might benefit both nonpoint and point source management programs in
Colorado.
. Water quality management agencies in Colorado are continually evaluating effective and
affordable water quality improvement strategies which can be applied to the numerous lakes,
reservoirs, rivers and streams with identified water quality problems. Most of the measurable
water quality problems identified in Colorado are caused by human activities which generally
include agricultural and silvacultural practices, mining activities, rural and urban development,
construction projects and hydrologic modifications. The Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment has evaluated water quality
within state waters and summarized this information in the 305(b) report to congress updated
every three years. At the state level, the Colorado Department of Public Health and
Environment is responsible for approving local or regional management plans, monitoring
state water and environmental quality and enforcing associated state and federal laws. At the
local level, designated local and regional management agencies are responsible for site-
specific water quality planning, management and implementation of water quality improvement
best management practices.
White Paoer Application
This white paper should be used as an evaluation tool to determine if a phosphorus detergent
ban is a reasonable best management practice strategy for Colorado. Studies and reports
supplied by those states who have adopted high phosphorus detergent bans was reviewed
and summarized for this document. No judgements were made on the quality of the
. information or the absolute application to Colorado. Information and legislative reports from
4
these states were used to devetop many ,ections of this document. The successes and
failures of the phosphorus ban on environmental quality are highlighted.
The nutrient loading problems associated with Colorado lakes, reservoirs and other
waterbodies are summarized as they are 'ndentified in published reports and the Colorado
Department of Public Health and Environrnent 305(b) reports. The Northwest Colorado
Council of Governments and the Denver Regional Council of Govemments recognize that
some of this water qualiry information is ini dispute. No pertinent water quality information was
purposely excluded from this report.
This document fists potential benefits which can be expected in Colorado from phosphorus
source reduction. Benefits found in other states were compared to water quality conditions in
Colorado and only those beneflts specific to Colorado conditions were included in this
document. Other water quality benefits cauld occur and some benefits found in other states
may not be beneficial in Colorado.
Legislative efforts from other states and model legislation as adopted in other states and
modified for Cotorado are listed. This legislative models are intended for guidance only and
do not recommend any specific legislative action.
Although a number of local govemments, special districts and other agencies have shown
support for the concept of a high phosphoivs detergent ban, reference to these entities in this
document does not constitute official support. After state-wide circulation of this document, a list of support groups can be solicited.
5
GENERAL WATER QUALITY PROBLEMS CAUSED BY NUTRIENTS
The Water Quality Control Division of the Colorado Department of Public Health and
Environment prepares a report on Water Quality in Co/orado in fulfillment of section 305(b) of
the Clean Water Act of 1977. This report is updated every three years with the last report
released in November 1992. The report characterizes surface and groundwater quality at
selected monitoring stations throughout the state. The Water Quality Control Division draws .
upon a number of sources for information including public and private agencies, areawide
water quality management plans,the Colorado Nonpoint Souroe Assessment report and
efforts sponsored by the Association of State and Interstate Water Pollution Control
Administrators (ASIWPCA).
Water quality information about Colorado contained in this document is consistent with this
report and other published water quality data reports. The U.S. Geological Survey is
evaluating water quality in Colorado as part of the National Water Quality Assessment. A
historical data summary report was completed for the South Platte River Basin (Dennehy et.al.
1995).
Information presented on reservoir/lake eutrophication and algal growth provides a general
characterization of the process and potential water quality issues. Reservoirs or lakes in
Colorado classified as eutrophic in the Water Quality Cohtrol Division 305(b) report may not
exhibit all of the water quality problems listed in the following section of this document.
Reservoir/Lake Eutroohication
Algae, like other plants, are a natural component of a healthy ecosystem. Algae are primary
producers, the foundation of the food chain, which transform the energy of the sun, through
photosynthesis, into matter which can be consumed by higher organisms. In low amounts,
they do not interfere with beneficial uses of water.
An over-abundance of algae, however, harms water quality, aquatic ecosystems, and the
ability of rivers and lakes to support beneficial uses. One beneficial use directly affected is
aesthetics. Algae blooms cause domestic water supplies to have unpleasant taste and odor
problems, decreasing water clarity, causing the water to turn a murky greenish-brown color,
and forming unsightly floating mats on the water surface.' An attached form of algae, called
periphyton, may cover stream-beds, and aquatic plants may overgrow lakes, interfering with
boating and swimming. Some algal blooms are toxic, killing wildlife and preventing the
waterbody from meeting designated uses. Other water supply concerns related to algal
blooms include the rapid clogging of water treatment filter plants and increases in
trihalometheme precursors which require additional treatment.
In addition, excessive algal growth affects the dissolved oxygen and pH of streams and lakes
sometimes damaging the health of aquatic ecosystems and causing water quality standards
exceedences. When this occurs, additional beneficial uses are not supported, potentially
including: recreation, drinking water supply, agriculture, aquatic life, fish rearing and spawning,
wildlife; fishing, and tivestock watering.
6
Those activities of people which introduce excessive nutrients into lakes, reservoirs and rivers
can cause what is termed as nutrient enrir.hment, which stimulates algal growth. Nutrient
enrichment is one of the key factors which causes eutrophication in fakes and reservoirs. Eutrophication is a natural aging process of waterbodies which can take thousands of years.
People activities can result in accelerated eutrophication which reduces the aging process to
decades. Trophic status of waterbodies can range from oligotrophic (few nutrients) to
hypertrophic (excessive nutrients). Eutrophic and hypertrophic waterbodies are generally
characterized by: • undesirable water quality leading to impairment of the designated uses;
• unsightly appearances caused by excessive vegetation and/or phytoplankton
(floating algal plants) growth;
• a decline in certain species of fish and other aquatic organisms;
• a decline in recreational uses;
• noxious odor and unpleasant taste in water (decline of water supply if
designated as a use); -
• a high demand on the dissolved oxygen in the water which stress aquatic life
and degrades water quality;
• high dissolved iron, manganese and other metals due to low oxygen conditions;
• high accumulations of organic matter and sediments which eventually fill in the
waterbody.
Nutrients and Ataal Growth
Algae need nutrients, light and a favorable physical environment in order to grow. Nitrogen,
carbon and phosphonas are the nutrients required in relatively large amounts. Algae also
n-3ed a variety of other nutrients in small or trace amounts. Given adequate nutrients and
pnysical conditions, excessive or nuisance levels of algae can accumulate in lakes and
streams.
Any one of the required nutrients may be present in such low concentrations that growth is
limited, regardless of the availability of light or oth'er nutrients.. This nutrient then controls the
rate at which algae grow. This is called the /imiting nutrient concept (Ryding, 1989). As
nutrient concentrations in water increase from low values, growth of algae increases
proportionally until some other factor becomes limiting. This is most clearly seen in
experiments where one limiting nutrient is added in successive increments. Carbon seldom
limits overall algal production. Phosphorus, nitrogen and sometimes other essential nutrients
needed in smaller amounts, such as silicon or iron, can limit algal growth. A considerable
body of scientific literature has accumulated over the past 50 years on the growth of algae in
surtace waters. The overwhelming evidence from the literature shows those freshwaters
7
where a nutrient limits algal growth, the limiting nutrient is generally phosphorus.
Algae require larger amounts of nitrogen than phosphorus, but nitrogen is also more abundant
in the natural environment. Some species of algae can use nitrogen from the atmosphere.
Nitrogen is also available from soils, and in the soluble form it moves readily through soils.
Multiple sources (atmospheric composition-is 78 percent nitrogen gas) and solubiliry make it
difficult to control nitrogen additions to waterbodies.
Although phosphorus readily absorbs on soil particles, soluble phosphorus which is usually
found in only low concentrations in nature, does not move readily through soil. Some soils -
contain natural high amounts of phosphorus which can be released when disturbed. Nonpoint
sources, such as runoff, contain both soluble and absorbed phosphorus. Additions of high concentrations of soluble phosphorus to waterbodies are largely from wastewater. Discharges
from wastewater treatmerrt facilities contain predominantly soluble phosphorus, which is
readily available to algae for growth.
The phosphorus concentration in waterbodies has been identified in the literature and from
studies in other states as more controllable than nitrogen. Therefore, phosphorus has been
selected as the focus for control of algae in fresh waters. The Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA, 1986) recommends that for the prevention of nuisance algal growth,
phosphorus concentrations should not exceed: '
• 0.025 mg/I in lakes and reservoirs. • 0.05 mg/I in streams entering lakes or reservoirs, and
• 0.10 mg/I in other flowing waters.
No nitrogen criteria has been recommended by the Environmental Protection Agency for this
purpose.
$
WATER QUALITY IMPAIRMENT IN COLORADO
A number of reservoirs and lakes throughout Colorado have exhibited deteriorating water
quality as listed in the Water Quality Control Division 305(b) report. Many of these reservoirs
and lakes show signs of excessive nutrient loading and subsequent eutrophication. Table 1
provides a summary of eutrophic publicly owned lakes or reservoirs by river basin, which are
greater than 25 surface acres. Almost half of the larger eutrophic reservoirs or lakes are
found in the South Platte River Basin. In Colorado, eutrophic waterbodies are generally
associated with urban development.
Increased loading of nutrients has been identified as one mechanism which has caused or ~
could cause eutrophication in waterbodies like Cherry Creek Reservoir, Chatfield Reservoir,
Bear Creek Reservoir, Sloan Lake and Barr Lake. Water quality management programs are
designed to reduce eutrophication in these waterbodies. The management program in the
Cherry Creek Watershed has apparently shifted Cherry Creek Reservoir from a eutrophic
classification to a mesotrophic classification. Dillon Reservoir and Standley Lake are
mesotrophic waterbodies with management programs designed to prevent eutrophication.
Nutrient loading and various stages of eutrophication occurs in more than 100 urban lakes in
the metropolitan region, as well as in numerous lakes and ponds along the front range
(DRCOG 1994).
The Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment has surveyed 149,023 acres of
reservoirs and lakes in Colorado. Based on the total surveyed acres, 50,246 acres (34
percent) are not meeting one or more water quality criteria. Those reservoirs and lakes not
meeting these criteria are not meeting the fishable or swimmable goals bf the Clean Water Act
or designated beneficial uses as defined by the Colorado Water Quality Control Commission.
Table 1
Summary of Eutrophic Publicly Owned Lakes/Reservoirs
Greater Than 25 Acres in Colorado
m
. t~
:
f`~~~.r::.>;;::
; <
.~'tl~{:.;;:.;:.:
Arkansas 12 29% 33,865 ...9...:.::.:::::. 22%:.:,::,:
28,588
Upper Colorado 17 5711/o 29,107 3 10% 2,225
Green ~ 4 67% 2,414 2 33% 1,863
San Juan 4 33% 3,911 1 8% 106
South Platte 42 58% 28,062 26 36% 13,817
Rio Grande 7 50% 3,364 4 29% 2,445
Republican 1 100% 1,900 1 100°/a 1,900
Total 87 49% 102,623 46 26% 50,944
9
Use Imqaired ReceivinQ Waters
The use impaired lakes and reservoirs and stream segments with specific nutrient impairment
by river basin in Colorado, as determined by the Water Quality Control Division 305(b) report
are listed in Table 2. Most of these water bodies are water quality limited or partially
supporting uses. Water quality limited waterbodies do not have designated uses measurably impaired, but information or assessments indicated a potential for impairment of uses in the .
near future. Partially supporting waterbodies have some interference with designated uses,
but use is not precluded.
Table 2
Use Impaired Lakes/Reservoirs and Nutrient Impaired Stream Segments -
.<:>::;»»::::::>::>:<:>;:»::>::::::»::;:::::»::»:::>::>:<:>..
_ . . . . . _ . . _ . . _ ,
atte Ner at e eservoir ater u rtY mne , Allocateci esotro.pic
erry ree eservoir ater u ity mrted, Allocated utrophic
ar ree eservoir ater u tty mrte , ocat ypertrop ic
ary Lake artial y upporting utrophic
Ladora Lake arn y upporting utrop ic
e y Lake arti ly upporting utrop ic
arr lake ater u ity mite ypertrop ic
erlce ey Lake ater u rty mited ypertraphic
vergreen Lake ater u iry mrte utrop ic
Grasmere e ater u ity Umite utrophic
ac son eservoir ater u rty mrte utro ic
en n e ater u ity mited utrop ic
onetree eservoir ater u rty mrte utrop ic
wncy eservoir ater Qualiry 'mited utrophic
oan Lake— ater u rty mrte ypenrop ic
mith La ater u ity mited ypertrop ic
, o a a e ater u rty mite utrop ic
oc ountain Lake ater uality mited Hypertrop ic
r nsas iver e eese eservoir ater u tty mite
ucharas eservair ater u rty mited
e er eservoir arna y upporting
nni a eservoir ater Qu ity mite
onumerrt ater u rty mrte , Allocaled
enry ake ater u rty mrte utrop ic '
ue o eservoir ater u ity mite utrop ic
pper lora o rysta eservoir ot Supporting
i on eservoir . ater u ity mite esotrop ic
reen ountmn eservoir ater u tty mite esotrop ic
reen roer tagecoac eservoir arti y uPportmg utrop ic
ampa iver ater OualRy mited
tte na e iver ater u ity mrte
n uan avajo eservoir arti ly Supporting utraphic
Narraguinnap eservoir arti y upportmg
c ee eservoir arti y upporting
io ran e io ran e iver ater u rty mrte
errace eserooir ot Supporting
anc ez eservoir arn y upporting
io rande eservoir ater Qualrty mited utrophic
epu ican iver on o epu ican iver arti y uppornng
te ing eservoir ater u rty mrte ypertrophic
10
The eutrophication in many of these resen/oirs and lakes shown in Table 2 does not preclude
uses. Some of these reservoirs and lakes are important recreational fisheries. The use
impaired information in Table 2 is provided to show the magnitude (or lack there of) of the
eutrophication problem in Colorado reservoirs and lakes and is not intended to fault existing
management programs.
Phosqhorus Control Proqrams
Controlling point sources of phosphorus has been a successful 'management strategy used at
Bear Creek, Cherry Creek, Chatfield and Cfillon reservoirs. These control programs were
designed to directly reduce point source phosphorus loads and establish best management practices to reduce nonpoint phosphorus and/or nutrients from reaching the waterbodies. A
new voluntary control program has been initiated for Standley Lake which uses best
management practices.
Management agencies are responsible for implementing both point and nonpoint source
nutrient management programs. Limits on point source phosphorus discharge are related to
land use and growth. Nonpoint source phosphorus reductions are required as urban
development increases within these watersheds. Management strategies which target both
nonpoint and point source nutrient reductions are a preference of the local management
agencies. •
Over 30 wastewater treatment facilities in tlhe state-have been required by basin control
regulations to upgrade their facilities for phiosphorus removal. Increased costs to operate
these advanced treatment facilities occurs compared with secondary facilities. Reducing
phosphorus influent concentrations could directly benefit these-facilities. No cost analysis .to
determine benefits from reduced influent priosphonus has been performed at these facilities.
NonQOint Source Ulanaaement Proaram
The Colorado Nonpoint Source Assessmerrt Report (CDH 1989a; and 1989b) identifies
phosphorus nonpoint source pollution of lakes as a significant Colorado problem. Section 314
Clean Lakes-Studies completed for Sloan Lake, Cherry Creek Reservoir, Chatfield Reservoir, .
Bear Creek Reservoir and Dillon Reservoir, as well as other water quality studies in lakes like
Barr lake have shown nutrient loading to be (or could be) a significant contributor to advanced
eutrophication of these waterbodies. .
Basin control regulations have been adopted by the Water Quality Control Commission for
Bear Creek Reservoir, Cherry Creek Resenioir, Chatfield Reservoir and Dillon Reservoir. The
Standley Lake regulation establishes a voluntary management program, but no nutrient
reduction requirements. The control reguiations target reduction of nutrient loading,
particularly phosphorus.
Table 3 lists lakes, reservoirs and stream segments identified by the Colorado Nonpoint
Source Program as potentially impaired by nonpoint source nutrients. Waterbodies listed in
Table 4 may not be currently impaired and management programs may prevent them from
ever being impaired. Any source reduction of nutrients could benefit these waterbodies by
reducing potential water quality problems. Additionally, reducing source phosphorus could
11
benefit wastewater treatment facilities and clean-up and/or restoration projects at targeted
waterbodies.
Table 4 lists nonpoint source priority watersheds in the Denver Regional Council of
Govemments region as adopted in the Clean Water Plan. Watersheds with a high priorify
status generally require some type of water quality management program, while medium and
low priority watersheds may need management some time in the future.
In the mountainous watersheds and along the front range foothills a significant potential
source of ttiis nonpoint source phosphorus has been associated with individual sewage
disposal systems (ISDS). A major household phosphorus source is from, detergents and
soaps which contain high phosphorus compounds. Calculations of phosphorus loads from
ISDSs based on general literature data shows these systems could be a major nonpoint
source phosphonas contributors in the watersheds. However, considerable disagreement from
some ISDS users and professionals exists about the general literature values and load
calculations.
The issue is not the effectiveness of individual systems, which are known to remove up to 95
percent of the nutrients from wastewater flows, but the accumulative amount of phosphorus
reaching waterways or waterbodies in watersheds with high ISDSs utilization. The Bear Cresk
Reservoir Clean Lake Study predicted a significant portion of the nonpoint source phosphorus
loading could be associated with ISDSs, even assuming they removed 90 percent of the
phosphorus and average influent concentrations wEre only 10 mg/I. Typically, ISDSs have
influent phosphorus concentrations ranging from 4 mg/1 to 90 mg/I with a mean concentration
of about 15 mg/1. .
This phosphorus loading from ISDSs issue directly affects management plans for the Chatfield
Basin Authority, the Bear Creek Management Committee, the Jefferson County Mountain
Water Quality Association, the Upper Clear Creek Watershed Association, Summit County
Water Quality Committee, the Upper Fountain Water Quality Management Association and
other similar groups in mountainous regions of Colorado.
12
Table 3
Lakes, Reservoirs and Stream Segments Potential Impaired by Nonpoint Source Nutrients
. . :'o:
. ~ ~ .
Platte River Barr Lake Plum Creek
Bear Creek Aeservoir Turkey Creek
Chaifield Aeserrroir Bear Creek
Charry Creek Reservoir South Platte River
Sloan Lake Boulder Creek
StandeY Lake St Vrain River
North Sterling Fiiaserooir Big Thompscn River
Prewitt Reservoiir
Jackson Reservoir
Empire Reservoir
Riverside Resenooir
Arkansas River Cucharas Fiesenroir Fountain Creek
Lake DeWeese
Upper Colorado Lake San Cristobal • Soda Creek
Dillon Reservoir Otter Creek
Green Mourttain Reservoir . Roaring Fork River
Granby ReservoiU Colorado River
Roan Creek
Red Canyon Creek
Green River Nane Listed Yampa River
Little Snake River
White River
San Juan None Listed None Listed
Rio Grande None Listed Rio Grande River
R.epublican River None Listed Narth Fork Republican
13
Table 4
Nonpoint Source Priority Watersheds in the DRCOG Region
:;::::::::::::::.;~.:;::::;::::::::::2:::;::;`r;;:;;
. Med A?ff~eted :.~~t..
. .~t~t~...tS ::.:;:I~nn 1~
. . . : . : : . . . . . . p.:::::,:: .
: ~Y:._ v...t.
. .
. . : .
:
: .
V1t'R~~r
. . . :>>:::<~>::::<:>::i~~:::. . ~
<:::::::::>;::>.;:..:;::>:<:;:::>>..::.::><:.::<:>>>;::.;::::::;:>::::::<.;::;::::..... >;:::;<:>:::::>:>:;P
. . . . arlt
. . . . . . . . . . : . .
Bear Creek Bear Creek Reservoir/Tributaries Urban/Hydromodification Nutrients/Sediments High
Boulder Boulder Creek Urban/Agriculture Nutrients/Metals Medium
Coal Creek and Rock Creek Urban/Agriculture Nutrients/Sediments Low
Cherry Creek Cherry Creek Reservoir/Tributaries Urban/Hydromodification Nutrients High
East Plains Groundwater - Bijou Agriculture Nutrients/Pesticides Low
Groundwater - Kiowa Agriculture Nutrients/Pesticides Low
Box Elder Barr Lake Urban/Agriculture Nutrients/Sediments/Metals Medium
Groundwater - Box Etder Urban/Agriculture Nutrients/Pesticides Medium
South Platte Urban Standley Lake Urban/Mining Nutrients/Sediments/Metals Medium
Clear Creek Urban Nutrients/Sediments/Metals Medium
South Platte River Urban Nutrients/Sediments/Metals Medium
lower Bear Creek Urban Nutrients/Sediments Low
First, Second and Third Creeks Urban Nutrients/Sediments Low
Lower Cherry Creek Urban ' Nutrients/Sediments Low
Sand Creek Urban Nutrients/Sediments/Metals Low
South Platte Chatfield Reservoir/Tributaries Urban/Hydromodification Nutrients High
Platte River and North Fork Mining/Silviculture Metals Low
St. Vrain St. Vrain Urban/Agriculture Nutrients/Sediments Medium
Upper Clear Creek Clear Creek-Inflow to Standley Lake Urban/Mining Nutrients/Metals High
~ ~ 14
PHOSPHORUS DETERGENT BAN BENIEFITS IDENTIFIED IN OTHER STATES
The information summarized in the following section of the report was derived from reports
and studies conducted in the other states who have developed high phosphorus detergent
bans.
Wastewater Treatment Facilitv Benefits
Phosphorus removal at the treatment plarit is one method to reduce effluent phosphorus. This
removal is typically accomplished by a chemical addition process using iron or alum which
precipitates the phosphorus. The chemical treatment process generates additional biosolid,
. which must then be removed and disposed. Table 5 shows estimated phosphorus loads to
municipal wastewater treatment facilities.
Table 5
Estimated Phosphorus Loads to Municipal
Wastewater Treatment Facilities
Source Phosphorus Load' Percent of
(kg/capita/yr) Total Load
Human Waste 0.76 44
Laundry Detergents 0,37 27
Automatic Dishwashing , 0.098 . 7
Detergent
Other Household Cleaners 0.013 1
Industrial & Institutional:
• Cleaners 0.16'''` 12
• Finishers 0.05*' 4
• Water Treatment Chemicals 0.05" 4
Denitrifices (i.e. Toothpaste) 0.005 0.4
Total 1.35
' These estimates are based on detergent formulations used in the
1990's.
" Industrial loads vary widely. These values are national averages,
assuming that all the industrial phosphorus loads enter municipal
treatment facilities. ln many cases, however, these sources will either
not exist in a service area, be treated and discharged directly rather
than entering a municipal plant, or they will undergo pretreatment before
entering the plant.
15
Reduced influent phosphorus resulting from phosphate detergent bans typically affects the
chemical removal process in the foilowing ways:
• The quantity of chemicals required for phosphorus removal is reduced in
proportion to the decrease in inNuent phosphorus.
• The quantity of biosolid generated from the phosphorus removal process is .
, reduced. .
• The need to add chemicals to correct for pH depression caused by alum
treatment is reduced. • Biological rather than chemical removal may become more feasible.
• Reduced chemical use would reduce the concentrafion of total dissolved solids
(TDS) in the effluent:
Potential additional economic and environmental impacts from reduced influent phosphorus
include:
• Reducing the volume of biosolid to be landfilled, thus increasing existing landfill
life and allocating that volume of landfill space for other beneficial purposes.
• Increasing biosolid disposal options due to the removal or reduction of potential
contaminants (i.e. the metals used in chemical removal) from the biosolid.
• Decreasing the iong-term environmental costs associated with chemical
production and increased biosolid generation, such as fuel for biosolid transport
and possible air contamination during disposal.
Table 6 shows that the amount of phosphorus in municipal treatment plant discharges to
receiving waters (effluent) has decreased an average of 40 percent as the result of phosphate
detergent bans implemented since the late 1970s. These figures represent results at facilities
that do not treat for phosphorus removal. Phosphorus load reductions will aid in improving
water quality if in-stream concentrations are reduced to the levels required to prevent
excessive algal growth.
Whiie there have besn many studies following detergent phosphate bans which document the
reduction in phosphorus in the influent and effluent of wastewater treatment facilities, fewer
studies have been done on the resultant change in in-stream or in-lake phosphorus
concentrations and other related water quality parameters. The literature that is available
varies in its concfusions.
16
Tabie 6
Phosphate Detergent Ban Effects on Municipaf Wastewater
Source: Updated information from Findiilgs of the Region-Wide Phosphate Detergent Ban
Study. Staff report to the Council of the Metropoiitan Service District of Oregon, Jim Morgan,
Portland, Oregon, May 22, 1990
State/Region - Influent P Effluent P Year Ban
- Reduction Reduction Effective
Indiana 60% 60% 1972
New York 48 1972
Michigan 23 24 1977
Minnesota 38 (Laading) 42 (Loading) 1978
Vermont 40 (Loading) 1978
Wisconsin 22 1983
Maryland 32 42 (Loading) 1985
Washington, DC 25 1986
North Carolina 23 44 1988
Virginia 30 51 1988
Missoula, MT 00 40 (Loading) 1988
Atlanta, GA/Georgia 35 (Loading) 40 (Loading) 1989/1990
Pennsylvania Not Yet Available Not Yet 1990
Available
Ohio Not Yet Available Not Yet 1990
Available
Spokane River Not Yet P?vailable Not Yet 1990
Basin, WA Available
Portland, OR Not Yet Available Not Yet 1991
Available
* Reductions were figured as a percent decrease in either concentration
or mass load (which accounts for the discharge flow), as indicated.
Operational Expenses
Operational expenses are driven by the cost of chemicats, how the chemicals are added to
the waste-stream, and how the chemicals and precipitated phosphorus are removed from the
waste-stream prior to discharge. Cost savings result from reductions in the quantity of
17
chemicals purchased, the quantity of chemical/phosphorus solids to be removed, and quantity
of biosolid requiring treatment and disposal. Chemical addition during treatment increases the
amount of biosolid and can change its chemical character, making it more difficu(t to dispose.
Phosphon.is removal generates an estimated additional 25 to 40 percent more biosolid than
typically produced through secondary wastewater treatment (EPA, 1987).
Wastewater treatment facilities practicing phosphonus removal in other states reduced their
chemical use, and therefore chemical costs, by an average o,f about 29-43 percent following
the implementation of phosphate detergent bans. Based on the Unified Sewerage Agency of
the Tualatin River Basin, the estimated savings from a 30 percent reduction in influent
phosphorus range from approximately $100,000 to over $200,000 per year per 10 MGD. The
Unified Sewerage Agency estimates that it will save $389,000 per year in operating costs from
a phosphate detergent ban (HDR Engineering, 1990). These savings, based on 1995 flow
conditions, wi(I be incurred at 2 facilities having a planned'1995 capacity of 35 MGD. The
estimate is based on a predicted 25 percent reduction in chemical use ($308,000), and
retiuced biosolid handling ($81,000). -
The economic benefit to a wastewater treatment plant resulting from a phosphorus detergent
ban will vary with the method of phosphorus removal used at the plant. Facilities that use iron
or aluminum salts to remove phosphorus will experience the greatest reduction in operating
costs when influent phosphorus is reduced. These are the most common methods of removal
used today.
Some additional examples of operational cost savings following the implementation of bans
include the following. Four wastewater treatment facilities in Maryland reported 30 to 57
percent reductions in average monthiy chemical dose requirements (Jones and Hubbard,
1986). Calculated estimates of Maryland's chemical cost savings statewide are $4.5 million
annually (Sellars et al., 1987). Similar(y, Michigan reported chemical use reductions at 9
wastewater treatment facilities ranging from 12 to 49 percent with an average reduction of 29
percent (Hartig and Horvath, 1982).
Washington D.C. reported an actual chemical use reduction of 40 percent and an estimated
annual cost savings of $6.5 million from chemical use and biosolid processing reductions
(Bailey, 1988). The Washington D.C. plant processes 306 million gallons of wastewater per
day. Observed cost savings at Wisconsin facilities were equivalent to $0.05 to 0.26 per capita
per year (Foth and Van Dyke, 1981, 1984). North Carolina also projected operations cost
savings (DiFiore, 1988).
Biological nutrient removal (BNR) is being developed as an alternative to chemical removal.
Typically, chemical treatment capabilities are constructed as backup at facilities using
biologicaf removal. Wastewater treatment facilities that remove phosphorus through only
biological means, with the addition of (ime, or through land disposal of the effluent, do not
have costs proportional to the amount of phosphorus in their influent. Although cost savings
from reduced influent phosphorus can also be realized at biological treatment systems, these
savings may be less direct.
Biological systems usually have chemical systems as backup. By reducing phosphorus loads,
it is possible that reliance on the chemical backup systems could be reduced or eliminated.
18
Therefore, there wiil be esserrtially no significant economic benefit from reduced influent
phosphorus at these facilities.
Permit requirements also affect the amourit of economic benefit resulting from a phosphate
detergent ban. For example, uncertainty exists about the degree to which chemical dose is
dependent on the amount of phosphorus to be removed when facilities must meet very low
efffuent phosphorus levels (i.e. <0.5 mg/I).
Construction Expenses '
The phosphorus removal system at a wastewater treatment plant is designed based on a
number of factors, including: the volume of water to be treated, the quantity of phosphorus to
be removed, and the discharge limits. To date, designs have been based primarily on the volume of water to be treated. A phospha,te detergent ban will reduce the quantity of
phosphorus that must be treated, but will not affect the other factors.
It is possible that a phosphate detergent ban may reduce the concentration of phosphorus in
the wastewater enough to delay or prevent the need for phosphorus removal. Because of the
expense of capital improvements, such a cielay coutd result in cost savings.
Wetland Poiishing The capacity of a wetland to assimilate inpiuts is finite. As the sediment absorption of
phosphorus approaches saturation, the abFlity of the wetland to retain additional phosphorus
will be reduced. If the foad of phosphorus introduced to a wetland is decreased, the ability of
the wettand to retain the nutrient will be prolonged.
Wastewater Reuse Irrigation
The value of wastewater for iRigation is not affected by decreasing the phosphorus
concentration by approximately one-third, the expected reduction from a phosphate detergent
ban. This would not influence a farmer's decision to use or not to use the water because the
water itself is the primary value to the farmer (Jackson, 1990).
Other Economic and Environmental Considerations
The effect of a reduced phosphorus load on water quality is difficult to predict quantitatively
because of the variety among waterbodies and the many other environmental variables that
influence the outcome. Models can be used to estimate the response of a given waterbody to
a change in one factor, such as its phosphorus load. This requires that a set of data on a
specific water body be collected and used to assemble the model. Studies and modelling of
. individual waterbodies to quantify the results of phosphorus control require time and expense.
Reducing concentrations of toxic metals in wastewaters is becoming a priority for some
wastewater treatment facility operators. Metals in wastewater can settle into biosolid or be
discharged to surface waters with the facility effluent (EPA, 1982). A study of Seattle's
municipal wastewater indicates that a signiiicant proportion of many heavy metals originate
from residential sources (Galvin, 1988).
19
A second study conducted for Seattle METRO considered whether laundry detergents were
potential sources of heavy metals (Dickey, 1990). This study determined that increasing
leyels of phosphates in detergents correlated with increasing levels of heavy metals, although
the relationship was statistically significant for only one metal, arsenic. The study concluded
that laundry detergents were a significant source of arsenic to municipal wastewater.
Another study concluded that heavy metals contributed by a range of cleaning products
contributed less than 1 percent of the current effluent limit for selected heavy metals other
than arsenic (REED Corporation, 1990). The cleaners contributed in total, 0.5 parts per billion
of arsenic to sewage effluent at an assumed sewage production rate of 100 gallons per capita
- per day. The presence of this amount of arsenic in sewage does not impair the ability of
municipal discharges to meet water quality standards for arsenic. Public Benefits
Citizens across the county showed pride in the quality of their environment and publicly
declare their commitment to preserving the state's natural resources. If a phosphate
detergent ban is perceived to have an environmental benefit, it is likely to have strong public
support. .
A phosphate detergent ban may promote public awareness of the need for pollution control. It
is a pollution prevention measure at the consumer or household level, an approach that
should be encouraged. To the extent that consumers are aware of such measures, they will
be able to recognize that they are part of a society which made this decision, and that they
are contributing to the solution of an environmental problem. .
20
PERFORMANCE OF PHOSPHATE-FREE DETERGENTS
Approximately 37 percent of the United States population now lives in areas where laundry
detergent phosphates have~ been banned. The reports from the states with bans produced no
reports or survey results indicating citizens were. dissatisfied with the effectiveness of the non-
phosphate detergents they are now using.
A considerable amount of research has been produced on the cleaning properties, cost,
effectiveness and consumers response to phosphonas-free detergent (see Phosphorus Ban
_ Literature). Phosphorus detergent restrictwons have required manufacturers to develop
phosphate-free detergents (Hartig et.al. 1990). -
The performance of 42 phosphate and non-phosphate detergents was evaluated by the
Consumers Union (1987). Results from this survey showed that in terms of cfeaning
perforrnance six of the top ten detergents were phosphorus-free. In cases where a
manufacturer produced both phosphorus containing and phosphorus-free detergents, a brand
phosphate version is usually only a litt/e better than its non phosphate version. The
differences were negligible as it became a matter of clean to c/eanest, not dirty to clean.
Surveys such as this one show manufacturers are now producing phosphate-free detergents
with high cleaning performance and refute the claim that consumers must sacrifice cleaning
performance for use of phosphorus-free cleaning products.
Consumer Costs A phosphate detergent ban.could potentially increase the cost of distributing products. No
cost estimates on the effects of a phosphate detergent ban on the detergent industry are
available. Such estimates are difficult to develop and include proprietary market information.
The cost to public agencies to implement and enforce a phosphate detergent ban is minimal. The implementation is primarily carried out by the product suppliers and enforcement has not
been a problem in areas of existing bans.
. Based on reports from areas currently with phosphate detergent bans, these bans do not
appear to, increase the costs of laundry detergents to consumers. Consumer ReQOrts (1987)
rated the performance of laundry detergents across the country based on laboratory tests in
hard water. Of the top 10 performers:
• 3 were liquids (non-phosphate), with an average cost of $0.23 per dose,
' • 4 were phosphate containing powders, with an average cost of $0.20 per dose,
and
• 3 were non-phosphate powders, with an average cost of $0.17 per dose.
Of all the laundry detergents rated; the average cost per dose for non-phosphate powders was
15.8 cents, for phosphate powders was 17.7 cents, and for liquids (non-phosphate) was 18.4
cents.
21
Pollution Prevention
A phosphate detergent ban is a pollution prevention measure. Environmental foresight has
proved prudent in the past, and has taught us to appreciate the value af pollution prevention
over the treatment or cleanup of problems after they occur. While a phosphate detergent ban
is only one component of a strategy to eliminate algal growth, it reduces human contributions
to the waste-stream. .
Twenty-one other states have aggressively identify threats to public health or the environment
and taken steps to prevent problems which may be created. Additionally, a pollution
prevention management strategy should implement aggressive source control and problem
prevention programs based on the prionties established that explore and encourage use of
environmentally sound alternatives for disposal of treated wastewater which do not adversely
affect air, land, stream and groundwater quality. A ban on phosphorus in detergents is
consistent with this strategy.
,
22
LEGISLATIVE RESEARCH
States With a Hiqh Phosqhate Deterqent Bans
States around the Great Lakes and other parts of the country have banned high phosphorus
detergents in order to deal with a similar nutrient loading problem. Allowing only detergents
with low or no phosphorus content has been shown in these states to be an effective control
strategy. Non-phosphorus detergents are available which meet.consumer cleaning
expectations, therefore,a simple ban of products containing higfi phosphorus does not create
an economic hardship. A summary of state bans on phosphorus detergents is shown in Table
7.
Indiana: Indiana was the first state to implement a high phosphate detergent ban. The ban was
first passed in 1971 and was immediately tested in federal court by the Detergent
Association. The ban was upheld. Initially Industry and Home Economics
organizations claimed that the ban would cause "clothes to wear out faster", but
nothing ever came of such claims. Most people in the state are unaware that such a
ban is even in place. According to John Winters of the Indiana Department of
Environmental Management, phosphorus levels have "absolutely decreased" - about a
60 percent decrease on a statewide level.
Maryland:
According to the United States Environmental Protection Agency, Maryland, as a result
of its high phosphate detergent ban, has experienced a 30 percent decrease in influent
• phosphorus concentrations and a 16 percent decrease in discharged municipal
phosphorus.loads. Biosolid production has been reduced by 28 dry tons/day at the 21
major facilities required to remove phosphorus and $4.4 million dollars is saved
annually due to the reduced need for chemical precipitants.
Massachus.etts: ,
It took the Gommonwealth of Massachusetts seven to eight years to get a high
phosphate detergent ban passed. In the one and half years since the ban passed,
agencies are still working on enacting regulation as the ban was an unfunded
mandate. Initially, Massachusetts received pressure from the Soap and Detergent
Industry and mining companies who claimed that such a ban would reduce their
market share and hurt jobs. This pressure led to many industry exemptions in the
Massachusetts ban.
Michigan: According to the Michigan Department of Natural Resources, the high phosphate
detergent ban led to "dramatic reductions and is considered a great success in the
Great Lakes." Influent and effluent total phosphorus concentrations decreased by 23
and 24 percent respectively between the pre- and post-ban periods. This decrease is
23
primarily attributed to the high phosphate detergent ban. Wastewater treatment
facilities reported annual chemical savings ranging from $113 to $42,373 at nine major
wastewater treatment facilities in 1982. A wastewater treatment facility in Escanaba, .
MI, saved $10,292 for a ten month period following the ban. At the same Escanaba
plant, an additional savings of $1,582 was realized due to the decrease in biosolid
disposal. The Warren, MI, wastewater treatment facility saved $10,000 in biosolid
disposal during the year following the ban.
A new problem in Michigan is the increased number of dishwashers in use since the
ban was enacted in 1972. Michigan is contemplating a change in the ban which would
include dishwashing detergents in the less than 0.5 percent phosphorus concentration
level. Also, bulk buying stores (i.e., Pace or COSCO) have become a compliance
. problem because they often lack sufficient control of their inventory. Michigan does
sporadic monitoring of ban compliance and has taken enforcement action.
New York:
New Yoric saw a 12.5 - 59 percent decrease in phosphorus loading at sewage
treatment facilities during a 1971-1975 study.
Ohio: . A high phosphate detergent ban was debated for more than a decade in the Ohio
General Assembly. Ohio was the last major Great Lakes state to pass such a ban.
Procter and Gamble, located in Cincinnati, led strong opposition to the bill but backed down when local governments said they would enact their own legislation if the state
did not. The Ohio EPA estimated that the ban would eliminate 15 percent of the
excess phosphorus now flowing into Lake Erie. According to Julie Letterhos of the
Ohio EPA (January 1995), "phosphorus loading to Lake Erie has been significantly
reduced and we're now achieving the target ambient phosphorus concentrations
established for the Lake." Due to the lack of a follow-up monitoring plan these
reductions cannot be directly attributed to the ban. Zebra mussels may also be
affecting the decrease in phosphorus levels of Lake Erie.
Pennsylvania: The current ban will expire at the end of 1995 unless extended by act of the General
Assembly. According to the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources,
the ban has resulted in a significant drop in Pennsylvania phosphorus levels as well as
levels in the Chesapeake Bay. The state has had no real problems with compliance
although the ban has not been actively enforced. Surrounding states already had bans
in place so implementation of Pennsylvania's ban was relatively easy.
Vermont:
Vermont's ban took effect in 1978. There was some lobbying by the Detergent
Industry at the time of passage but it had little effect on the outcome. The legislation
instructed the Vermont Department of Water Resources to do a review of the ban and
24
report to the General Assembly in 1982 regarding the effectiveness of the ban.
According to the Vermont Department of Water Quality, the ban led to a dramatic drop
in municipal wastewater facilities phosphorus concentrations. A 40 percent reduction
in effluent phosphorus concentrations was documented at selected municipal
wastewater treatment facilities. Operating costs to remove phosphorus to a 1 mg/I
effluent concentration were predicted to be reduced by as much as 50 percent as a
direct result of the ban. The Department of Water Resources projected that severe
degradation in water quality due ti) accelerated eutrophication would occur if the ban
was not continued. The ban has been continued and virtually no problems have been
reported since that time. Virginia:
The Commonwealth of Virginia has seen a dramatic reduction in the concentration of
phosphorus in municipal wastewater since the ban went into effect. Influent
concentrations were reduced by 35 percent and effluent concentrations by 50 percent.
Total phosphorus loading into the Chesapeake Bay decreased from 10,000 to 5,600
pounds per day. This decrease is principally due to the ban. the ban also decreased
sewage treatment plant operation iand maintenance costs (O&M). The Roanoke plant
O&M costs for phosphorus removal were reduced by over 20 percent. Another plant
saw a 40 percent reduction in chemical usage and biosolid costs. Other facilities did
not see any positive impacts in terms of 0&M costs but this may be due to the fact
that the rate of chemical addition a.t these facilities is controlled by factors other than
phosphorus concentration.
Washington, D.C.:
The District of Columbia's Blue Plains Area Treatment Plant realized significant savings
as a direct result of the phosphate ban. Biosolid volume decreased by 254 wet tons
per day resulting in a$4.4 million annual savings. Chemical costs were decreased by
$2.1 million dollars per year due to decreased phosphorus loads. Overall, the
operating budget of the plant was reduced by 10 percent with a total annual savings of
$6.5 million.
Wisconsin: - Wisconsin initially had a high phosphate detergent ban from 1979-1982. The original
1979 ban had a three year sunset provision with money to assess the impacts of the
ban. Follow-up studies showed that the laundry detergent ban reduced phosphorus
loading to treatment facilities by 6 to 32 percent during the time period 1979-1982.
Studies failed to prove that the ban itself had measurably improved water quality of the
state's fakes and streams. These results may have been due to a lack of pre-ban data
with which to compare the post-ban data. The ban was, however, reinstated in 1984
by the state legislature. The last ten years have produced no adverse reactions to the
ban. Industry had initially claimed that washing machines would break down more
often and clothes would not get as clean if the ban took effect but none of these claims
came to fruition.
25
_ Table 7
Summary State Bans on Phosphorus Detergents
STATES. WITH YEAR PHOS. OTHER REGULATED PAODUCTS DO WE HAVE
BAN ENACTED BAN COPIES OF THE
LEVEL LEGISLATION?
Chicago, Illinois 1971 <8.7% None Yes
Conneciicut 1972 <8.7'9'o Nane No
Florida 1972 <8.7% None Na
Indiana 1973 <0.59'o None Yes
Maine 1993 <0.59'o None No
Maryland 1985 <0.5% Dishwashing detergent must be <8.7% No
phosphorus by weight
Massachusetts 1994 <0.5% No cleaning product can have more than Yes
8.7%
Michigan 1972; 1977 <0.5% No cleaning product can have more than Yes
(rev.) 8.7% ~ .
Minnesota 1979 <0.5% Dishwashing detergent must be <8.70/. No
phosphonus by weight
New York 1973 <0.5% Dishwashing detergent must be <8.70/. Yes .
phosphorus by weight
North Carolina 1988 <0.5% Dishwashing detergent must be <8.7% No
phosphorus by weight
Ohio (Northem portion) 1990 <0.5% None Yes
Oregon 1992 <0.5% Dishwashing detergent must be <8.7% No
phosphorus by weight
Pennsytvania 1990 - <0.5% Dishwashing detergent must be <8.7% Yes
phosphorus by weight
South Carolina 1992 <0.5% Dishwashing detergent must be <8.70/. No phosphorus by weight
Vermont 1978 trace Effective 1981, any discharge into Lake Yes
amourrt Champlain or other water bodies must
only have a phosphorus concentration of no
more than t mg/I. Dishwashing
detergent must be <830% phosphorus by
weigM
Virginia 1988 <0.59'a No cleaning product can have more than Yes
8.7%
Washington, D.C. 1986 <0.5% No
Washington, Spokane 1990 No
Wisconsin 1979-1982; <0.5% 8.7% limit for machine dishwashing or Yes
26
_ 1984 cleansing or medical equipment
Lecaislative Models
Over 20 state legislative bodies have adopted some type of act which restricts certain
phosphate-containing detergents within the state or specified counties. These acts are
generally similar in content with four basic components:
• A description of the need to control phosphonas kom a water quality
perspective which recogniies that excessive amounts of phosphorus in
• wastewater discharges and from nonpoint source runoff can cause excessive
plant growth and cause adverse water quality conditions;
• A restriction on the use, distribution and sale of cleaning agents with greater
then 0.5 percent phosphorus by weight with dishwashing detergents in some
states restricted to 8.7 percent by weight. Restrictions are primarily placed on
• household laundry detergerats and non-health care related commercial laundry
operations;
• A series of exclusions and exceptions directed at certain commercial, industrial,
agricultural, hospital, and snme household purposes; and
• Recognition of a state agency who is involved in environmental regulation or
public health and can set regulations and be responsible for any enforcement
provisions.
The appropriate state agency in Colorado should be the Colorado Department of Public Health
and Environment. Legislative examples were obtained from 19 states and reviewed as a
model for Colorado. Three typical examples of these acts adopted in other states and slightly
modified for Colorado are listed below. These examples provide a range of legislative types.
Additional information will be required to fit any of these examples into the Colorado Statues.
Example 1- Virginia _
An act relating to prohibition on the saie of cleaning agents containing phosphates; penalty.
Be it enacted by the General Assembly of Colorado:
CLEANING AGENTS.
§62.1-193.1. Prohibition on certain cleaning agents.-Except as provided in §62.1-193.2,
a person may not use, sell, manufacture or distribute for use or sale in Colorado any
cleaning agent that contains more than zero percent phosphorus by weight expressed
as elemental phosphorus except for an amount not exceeding 0.5 percent that is
incidental to manufacturing. For the purposes of this chapter, "cleaning agent" means
a laundry detergent, dishwashing compound, household cleaner, metal cleaner,
industrial cleaner, phosphate compound or other substance that is intended to be used
for cleaning purposes.
27
§62.1-193.2. Exceptions.-A. A person may use, sell, manufacture, or distribute for use
or sale, a cleaning agent that contains greater than zero percent phosphorus by weight
but does not exceed 8.7 percent phosphorus by weight that is: 1. A detergent used in a dishwashing machine, whether commercial or
. household; and
2. A substance excluded from the zero percent phosphorus limitation of this
chapter by regulations adopted by the Colorado Department of Public Health
and Ernrironment which are based on a finding that compliance with this
chapter would: _ a. Create a significant hardship on the user; or
b. Be unreasonable because of the lack of an adequate substitute cleaning
agent.
B. This chapter shall not apply to a cleaning agent that is:
1. Used in dairy, beverage, or food processing equipment;
2. A product used as an industrial sanitizer, brightener, acid cleaner or metal
conditioner, including phosphoric acid products or trisodium phosphate;
3. Used in hospitals, veterinary hospitals or clinics, or health care facilities or in
agricultural or dairy production or in the manufacture of health care supplies;
4. Used in a commercial laundry that provides laundry services for a hospital,
health care facility or veterinary hospital; _
5. Used by industry for metal cleaning or conditioning;
. 6. Manufactured, stored, or distributed for use or sale outside of Colorado;
7. Used in any laboratory, including a biological laboratory, research facility,
chemical laboratory, and engineering laboratory;
8. Used for cleaning hard surfaces, including household cleansers for windows,
sinks, counters, ovens, tubs, or other food preparation surfaces and plumbing
fixtures;
9. Used as a water softening chemical, antiscale chemical, or corrosion inhibitor
intended for use in closed systems, such as boilers, air conditioners, cooling
towers, or hot water heating systems.
§ 62.1-193.3. Administration, enforcement and penalty.-The Colorado Department of
Public Health and.Environment shall adopt rules and regulations to administer and
enforce the provisions of this chapter. The Colorado Department of Public Health and
28
Environment or his authorized agenit may seize any cleaning agent held for sale or
distribution in violation of this chaptear. The seized cleaning agents shall be considered
forfeited.
Any person who knowingly sells, mdnufactures or distributes any cleaning agent in
violation of the. provisions of this chapter shall be guilty of a Class 1 misdemeanor.
Any person who knowingly uses any cleaning agent in violation of the provisions of this
chapter shall be guilt of a Class 4 miisdemeanor.
" That this act shall become effective on January 1, 1997.
Example 2- Michigan
An act to restrict the phosphorus content of cleaning agents, rinsing aids, sanitizing agents,
and other cleaners in order to protect water quality by preventing and controlling growth of
algae, weeds, and sfimes.
Definitions; prohibited acts
Sec. 1. (1) As used in this act:
(a) "Cleaning agent" means a laundry detergent, dishwashing compound, household cleaner,
metal cleaner, degreasing compound, commercial cleaner, industrial cleaner, phosphate
compound, or other substance intended to be used for cleaning purposes except any of the
following:
(i) A cleaner, rinsing aid, or sanitizinca agent intended primarily for use in commercial
machine dishwashers with not more than 8.7% phosphorus.
(ii) A cleaner for good processing winh not more than 14°/a phosphorus. (ii) A cleaner for industrial uses with not more than 28% phosphorus.
(b) "Nutrient" means a substance or combination of substances that, when added to the
waters of this state in a sufficient quantity, provide nourishment that promotes the growth of .
aquatic vegetation in the waters to a density as to interfere with or be detrimental to use of the
waters by human beings or by an animal, fish, or plant useful to human beings.
(c) "Water conditioner' means a water softening chemical, antiscale chemical, corrosion
inhibitor, or other substance intended to be used to treat water.
(2) Notwithstanding any other provision of this act:
(a) Beginning January i, 1997, a person shal( not seif or distribute for use in this state
a cleaner, rinsing aid, or sanitizing agent intended primarily for use in commercial
automatic or commercial machine dishwashers which contains phosphorus in excess
of 8.7% by weight expressed as eiemental phosphorus.
29
(b) Beginning January 1, 1997, a person shali not sell or distribute for use in this state
a cleaner, rinsing aid, or sanitizing -agent intended.primarily for use in dairy agricultural
and farm operations, and in the manufacture, preparation, and processing of foods and
food products including those used in dairy, beverage, egg, fish, brewery, poultry,
meat, fruit, and vegetable processing which contains phosphorus in excess of 14% by
weight expressed as elemental phosphorus.
(c) Beginning January 1, 1997, a person shall not sell or distribute for use in this state
a metal cleaner, metal brightener, metal treatment compound, conversion coating
- agent, corrosion remover, paint remover, rust inhibitor, etchant, phosphorizer,
degreasing compound, industrial cleaner, or commercial cleaner intendetl primarily for
use in industrial and manufacturing processes which contains phosphorus in excess of
28°lo by weight expressed as elemental phosphorus.
Sec. 2. The Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment shall promulgate rules
and further restrict the nutrient content and other contents of cieaning agents and water
conditioners, to prevent unlawful pollution and control nuisance growths of algae, weeds and
slime which are or may become injurious to other lawful water uses, to prevent cleaning
agents and water condit+ons, separately or in combination with other substances, from
rendering or tending to render any waters of this state harmful or inimical to public health, or
to animal or aquatic life, or to beneficial water uses, and'to minimize any hazard to the health
or safety of users of the cleaning agents or water conditions. The burden of proof is on a
manufacturer of a cleaning agent or water condition, before distribution for sale or use in this
state, to establish that its contents comply with this act and rules promulgated hereunder, and
will not or is not likely to adversely affect human health or the environment. A person shal{
not sell or distribute for use in this state a cleaning agent or water condition in violation of a
rule promulgated pursuant to this act.
Example 3 - Washington
An act relating to limits on phosphorus contents in certain detergents. Be it enacted by the
legislature of the State of Colorado:
Sec. 1. The legislature hereby finds and declares that:
(1) Phosphorus loading of surface waters can stimulate the growth of weeds and
algae, and that such growth can have adverse environmental, health, and aesthetic
effects;
(2) Household detergents contribute to phosphorus loading, and that a limit on
detergents containing phosphorus can significantly reduce the discharge of phosphorus
into the state's surface and ground waters;
(3) Household detergents containing no or very low phosphorus are readily availabfe
and that over thirty percent of the United States population lives in areas with a ban on
detergents containing phosphorus; and
(4) Phosphorus limits on household detergents can significantly reduce treatment
30
costs at those sewage treatment faGilities that remove phosphonas from the waste
stream. .
It is therefore the intent of the legislature to impose a statewide limit on the phosphorus
content of household detergents.
Sec. 2. Unless the context cfearly requires otherwise, the definitions in this section apply
throughout sections 1 through 4 of this act.
(1) "Department" means the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment.
(2) "Dishwashing detergent" means a cleaning agent sold, used, or manufactured for
the purpose of cleaning dishes, whether by hand or by household machine.
(3) "Laundry detergent" means a cleaning agent sold, used, or manufactured for the
purpose of cleaning laundry, whether by hand or by household machine.
(4) "Person" means an individual, firm, association, copartnership, political subdivision,
government agency, municipality, industry, public or private corporation, or any other
entity whatsbever.
(5) "Phosphorus" means elemental phosphorus.
Sec. 3. (1) After January 1, 1997 a person may not sell or distribute for sale a laundry
detergent that contains 0.5 percent or more phosphorus by weight.
(2) After January 1, 1997, a person ?nay not sell or distribute for sale a dishwashing
detergent that contains 8.7 percent cir more phosphorous by weight.
(3) This section does not apply to the sale or distribution of detergents for commercial
and industrial uses.
Sec. 4. The. department is responsible for notifying major distributors and wholesalers of the
statewide limit on phosphorus in detergents. ,
Sec. 5. The attomey general or appropriate city or county prosecuting attorney is authorized
to bring an appropriate action to enjoin any violation of the provisions of section 3 of this act.
31
SUMMARY OF LESSONS LEARNED FROM PHOSPHORUS BAN STUDIES
General . • Phosphate in detergents is a source of phosphorus identified as being easily reduced
at the source through statewide regulation.
• There has not been a major out-cry from consumers in states or areas with bans and
all states have continued bans that had sunset dates in the adopted acts.
• A statewide ban minimizes the possibiliry of consumers unintentionally bringing
phosphate detergents into areas with local bans. • Detergent phosphate bans do not appear to increase costs of laundry detergents to the
consumer.
• A detergent phosphate ban is a pollution prevention measure, which reduces
phosphorus from the source.
• A detergent phosphate ban is not expected to result in the elimination of detergent
products or brands. All major detergent producers manufacture non-phosphate laundry
detergents formulations. An estimated 37 percent of the U.S. population iives in areas
(12 states and 5 regions) where phosphate laundry detergents are not sold. Products
without substitutes, such as automatic dish-washing detergents, are exempted from
current bans.
• Based on detergent brands on the market today, a detergent phosphorus ban should
reduce phosphorus levels in wastewater by 20-30 percent.
• Phosphorus detergent bans have had a measurable ecological benefit in the Great
Lakes Basin.
• Large reductions in phosphorus loading from a combination of reduced influent
phosphorus and advanced treatment have shown significant water quality
improvements in receiving waters.
• Individual sewage disposal systems as a potential source of phosphorus loading in
watersheds can be significantly reduced as a result of phosphorus detergent bans.
Nutrients, Alqal Growth and Water Qualitv
• Phosphorus from detergents is only one of many sources of this nutrient which reaches
receiving waters and limiting this source may not cause a short-term change in water
quality by solely limiting this source. Other management programs are needed with
detergent phosphorus bans- to improve receiving water quality.
• Natural variation in phosphorus loading from nonpoint sources makes short-term
benefits from phosphorus detergent bans difficult to monitor. Nevertheless, studies in
32
several eastern states have measured 25-30 percent reduction in phosphorus loads in
streams and 1468 percent reductioin in lakes.
• Beneficial uses that may be impaired by excessive algal growth include: domestic
drinking water supply, aesthetics, svwimming, boating, salmonid fish spawning and
rearing, resident fish and aquatic life, wildlife, fishing, and livestock watering.
• The potential water quality impacts of excessive algal growth include: unpleasant taste
and odor, dissolved oxygen depletion, the formation of unsighty algal mats,
_ discoloration of the water, and high IpH levels. The impacts on dissofved oxygen and
pH in tum affect the health of aquatic ecosystems. • _
• Algae need sunlight, nutrients and a favorable physical environment in order to grow.
Phosphorus, nitrogen and carbon aria the major nutrients that contribute to algal
growth.
• Studies of a large number of lakes in North America and worldwide show that high
levels of phosphorus are more often found in lakes having excessive algae and aquatic
plant growth.
• Phosphorus generally limits algal grciwth in fresh waters (streams and lakes), while
nitrogen generally limits algal growth in marine waters. Algal growth in fresh waters
can be controlled by limiting the availability of phosphorus.
• Source reduction of phosphorus would aid in improving water quality if concentrations
are reduced to the levels required to prevent excessive algal growth.
• The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has identified phosphorus concentrations
above which excessive algal growth generally occurs. EPA has recommended
phosphorus criteria for streams and lakes based on these concentrations.
• Water quality managers do not typically attempt to limit nitrogen for controlling algal
. growth in fresh waters. Nitrogen deficient waterbodies can favor the growth of afgal
species capable of using atmospherir, nitrogen, a source which can not be controlled.
Sources of Nutrients in Surface Water and Municipal Wastewater
• The amount of phosphorus in wastewater influent associated with household cleaning
products is consistently between 20 and 30 percent of the total phosphorus.
• Point sources, such as municipal wastewater treatment facilities, direct industrial
discharges, and combined sewer overflows are a major source in most states where
water quality data has been collected and anatyzed.
• Nonpoint sources, such as runoff fronn agricuftural, forestry and urban lands, and on-
site sewage disposal systems can be major sources at site specific areas, but nonpoint
source are more difficult to quantify compared with point sources.
33
• The proportions of the phosphorus load originating from point versus nonpoint sources
will vary by basin or watershed, depending on the sources, land uses and physical
characteristics of a particular basin or watershed. ' -
• Residential, commercial and industrial sources contribute phosphorus to wastewater
treatment facilities. The proportion of the phosphorus load generated from each
source varies according to the population size and industrial distribution in the service
area. Typically, residential sources contribute more phosphorus to municipal
wastewater treatment facilities than commercial or industrial sources. The phosphorus
from residential sources is primarily from human sewage and from detergents
containing phosphate. • Laundry detergents typically account for one-third of tFie total phosphorus entering
municipal wastewater treatment facilities.
• The primary source ot nitrogen to wastewater treatment facilities is residential
wastewater with some industrial sources. The nitrogen in residential sources originates
primarily from human waste.
Control of Phosahorus in Wastewater • Many wastewater treatment facilities have benefited from phosphorus .bans, including
reduced chemical costs at some facilities requiring advanced nutrient removal and
generally reduced biosolids disposal costs.
• The two primary methods to remove phosphorus in a wastewater treatment system
are: a) chemical/physical removal, such as treatment with aluminum or iron
compounds, where the phosphorus is precipitated out of the waste stream and a
biosolid is created and removed; and b) biological removal, where microorganisms are
used to take up the phosphorus. Chemical removal is most commonly used.
• Other potential methods for treatment facilities to prevent the discharge of phosphorus
to streams include applying effluent to land, reusing effluent for irrigation, and using
constructed wetlands for treatment. These practices may become a preferred method
where suitable land is available.
• A reduction in the phosphorus load entering wastewater treatment plants that
chemically remove phosphorus can result in cost savings dependent on the processing
system. Cost savings are generally from reduced chemical use and biosolid handling.
Estimated savings from a 30 percent reduction in influent phosphorus range from
approximately $100,000 to $200,000 per year per 10 million gallons daily plant
• discharge has been documented at several larger wastewater treatment plants.
• Phosphate detergent bans significantly reduced effluent phosphorus loads from .
wastewater treatment facilities that do not practice phosphorus removal. Data from
eight states and one region that have imposed phosphate detergent bans show 24-51
percent phosphorus reduction in effluent from these types of facilities.
34
Summarv of Potential Benefits to Colorado
• Excessive aigal growth has produced widespread water quality problems in- Colorado
lakes and reservoirs. Twenty-six percent of Colorado's river basins have some
waterbody segments that do not support beneficial uses due to excessive algal growth.
• A detergent phosphate ban is a polliition prevention measure, which could reduce
phosphorus loading to those receivirig waters with use impairments.
• To date, the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment has established
or identified a need for phosphorus wasteload aiiocations (sometimes called total maximum daiiy loads) for four resenroirs and lakes. These phosphorus wasteload
allocations were established to control excessive algal growth and resulting beneficial
use impairment.
• Limited experimental information for Colorado waterbodies is available relating
phosphorus concentrations to the growth of algae.
• Approximately 200 wastewater treatrnent facilities in Colorado that discharge to surface
waters with 32 of these currently removing phosphorus. As more wasteload allocations
are established, phosphorus limits may be included in the permits of additional
facilities.
• For watersheds with wasteload allocations, eliminating detergent phosphates alone will
not reduce in-stream phosphorus concentrations to the Ievels required by the
wasteload allocations. A phosphate detergent ban would be only one component of a
complete strategy for the control of a.lgal growth in these watersheds.
• In the watersheds for which phosphorus wasteload ailocations have been established
the largest phosphorus contributors vvere municipal wastewater treatment facilities,
these point sources are now a minor contributor compared to nonpoint sources.
• A reduction in the phosphorus load entering wastewater treatment facilities could result
in a cost savings. • Despite the lack of experimental verification in Colorado, the best available information
indicates that a statewide phosphate detergent ban could be a valuable component of
an overall strategy for water quality management in Colorado lakes and rivers.
35
PHOSPHORUS BAN LITERATURE
Bailey, W., 1988. Impact of the Regional Phosphate Detergent Ban on Washington D.C.'s
AWT Plant at Blue Plains. Washington Suburban Sanitary Commission, Washington D.C.
DiFiore, R.S., 1988. The Phosphate Detergent Ban and Its Impacts on Wastewater Treatment
Facilities in North Carolina. Presented at the North Carolina AWWA/WPCA Conference,
Durham, North Carolina.
EPA, 1987. Design IVlanual: Phosphorus Removai, EPA 625/1-87/001.
Foth and Van Dyke and Associates, tnc., 1981 and 1984. The Effects of the Detergent Phosphorus Ban on Municipal Wastewater Treatment Plants in the State of Wisconsin.
Report to the FMC Corporation.
Gates, D.D., C. Luedecke, S.W. Hermanowicz and D. Jenkins, 1990. Mechanism of Chemical
Phosphorus Removal in Activate Biosolid with AL (III) and FE (III). Presented at ASCE 1990
National Conference on Environmental Engineering, Arlington, Virginia.
Hartig, J.H. and F.J. Horvath, 1982. A Preliminary Assessment of Michigan's Phosphorus
Detergent Ban. Journal of the Water.Pollution Control Federation, 54(2).
Jones, E.T. and S.D. Hubbard, 1986. Maryland's phosphate ban - History and early results.
Joumal of the Water Pollufion Control Federation, 58, 816-822.
Luedecke, C., S.W. Hermanowicz and D. Jenkins, 1989. Precipitation of ferric phosphate in
activated biosolid: A Chemical model and its verification. Water science and Technology, 21,
325-337.
Sellars, Jr., R.B., D.S. Bauer, J.L. Rein and M. Jiang, 1987. Effect af a Phosphate Detergent
Ban on Municipal Treatment Plants in Maryland. Water Management Administration,
Maryland Office of Environmental Program
Booman, Keith. A., Ph.D., Presentation to the Washington Suburban Sanitary Commission,
January 11, 1984.
Booman, Keith A., Presentation to Virginia Task Force, August 21, 1984 Public Fact Finding
Meeting
Chesapeake Bav: A Framework for Action, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
September, 1983.
Comments of the Soap and Detergent Association to EPA-Region III, July 1983.
"Control of Nutrients in Municipal Wastewater Effluents, Vol. 11 Nitrogen" Proceedings of
Intemational Seminar, Municipal Environmental Research Laboratory and Center for
Environmenta) Research Information, Office of Research and Devefopment, USEPA,
Cincinnati, Sept. 1980.
36
Department of Natural Resources and Community Development, C{ean Detergent Bill
Information Booklet, July, 1984, (North Ca.rolina).
"Detergent Phosphate Ban", USEPA Position Paper Prepared by Region V Phosphorus
Committee, June, 1977.
Ecological Effects of Non-Phosphate Detergent Builders, Final Report on NTA", Great Lakes
Research Advisory Board, December 1978.
"Ecologicai Effects of Non-Phosphate Detergent Builders Final Report on Organic Builders
other than NTA", Great Lakes Advisory Board, July 1980.
"Estimated Virginia Consumer Costs Resulting from a Detergent Phosphorus Ban", The
Procter & Gamble Company, August, 1984.
"Evaluation of Costs for Reducing Marylanid POTW Phosphorus Discharges to Chesapeake
Bay", prepared for the Soap and Detergent Association, January 1984.
Ferguson, John F., "Discussion of Possible Reduction in Chemical Dosages for Phosphate
Removal in the D.C. Region", University of Washington, December 12, 1980.
Games, Larry M., Ph.D., Remarks on Sendte Bill 569 to the Maryland Senate Finance
Committee, February 24, 1984.
Greene, Madeline, Presentation to Senate Finance Committee, Maryland on Senate Bill 569,
February 24, 1984.
Hartig, John H., Horvath, Frank J., Waybramt, Ronald C., "Effects of Michigan's phosphorus
detergent ban on municipal chemical costs", Joumal WPCF, Vol. 54, No. 3.
Hartig, John H., "Preliminary Effects of the Detergent Phosphorus Ban in Michigan", State of
Michigan, Dept. of Natural Resources, Environmental Services Division, 1984, Publication
Number 3833-9900.
Hartig, John H., Horvath, Frank J., "A preliminary assessment of Michigan's phosphorus
detergent ban", Joumal WPCF, Vol., 54, No. 2, February 1982.
The Impact of Phosphate Bans on Consumers", SDA Presentation to Washington Council of
Govemments, December 16, 1980.
"Information Verification Report", Panel's Final Statement, Wisconsin Center for Public Policy,
July 31, 1984.
Jones, Edgar R., Comments on the Soap and Detergent Association's Critique of COG
Assumptions Used in Defense of a Detergent Phosphate Ban, January 13, 1981, Washington
Suburban Sanitation Commission.
Jones, Edgar R., Phosphate Ban - Anticipated Biosolid Reductions, Position Statement of
37
Washington Suburban Sanitary Commission on House Bill 168, March 7, 1984.
Ke!lner, Stephen, Testimony before Maryland House of Delegates, Environmental Matters
Committee, March 7, 1984.
Lash, Thomas N., P.E., Statement to the Virginia State Water Control Board Phosphate
Detergent Ban Task Force, August 21, 1984.
Lung, W., "Phosphorus Loads to Chesapeake Bay from POTWs", Department of Civil
Engineering, University of Virginia, Prepared for the Soap and Detergent Association. March
1984. -
Maki, Alan W., Procella, Donald B., and Wendt, Richard H., The Impact of Deterqent
Phosqhorus Bans on Receivinq Water Quality, Water Research, Vol. 18, No. 7, 1984.
Monteith, Timothy J., Sullivan, RoseAnn C., Sonzogni, William C., "Phosphorus Control
Strategies at Municipal Wastewater Treatment Plants in the U.S. Great Lakes Basin",
February 1980, Great Lakes Commission. "Potomac River Water Quality, 1982 Conditions and Trends in Metropolitan Washington",
Dept. of Environmental Programs, Metropolitan Washington Council of Govemments, August
1983.
"Recommendation for Implementing a Phosphorus Detergent Ban in the Washington
Metropolitan Area", Dept. of Environmental Programs, Metropolitan Washington Council of
Governments, December 1977.
Reports of Phosphorus Trends at Municipal Sewage Treatment Plants and in Indiana Streams
for Years 1971-74 Resulting from the Indiana Phosphorus Detergent Law and Indicated
Biological and Limnological Benefits, 1975, Division of Water Pollution Control, Indiana State
Board of Health.
Special Report to the Vermont General Assemblv - Phosphorus Deterpent Prohibitation,
Agency of Environmental Conservation, Dept. of Water Resources and Environmental
Engineering, Water Quality Div., Vermont, March 1981.
"Strategies for Municipal Point Source Phosphorus Control", Division of Environmental
Management, North Carolina Dept. of Natural Resources and Community Development,
January 1983. Viscusi, K.W., "A Regulatory Analysis of the Proposed Detergent Phosphorus Ban in North
Carolina", Center for the Study of Business Regulation, not dated. •
Commonwealth of Massachusetts
Department of Environmental Protection. 1994. Phosphates in Household Cleansing
Products, 105 CMR 680.000. Department of Public Health.
38
Commornvealth of Pennsylvania
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania 1989. Act 31 - Phosphate Detergent Act.
Department of Environmental Resources.
Commonwealth of Virginia
Virginia Water Control Board Chesapeake Bay Office. 1.988. Effect of Phosphate
Detergent Ban on Municipal Wastewater Treatment Plants in Virginia.
Virginia Water Control Board. 1988„ Policy for Nutrient Enrichment Waters - VR680- 14-02.
Commonwealth of Virginia. 1987. 1/irginia Acts of Assembly - Chapter 19.1 Cleaning
Agents, Title 62.1, An Act relating to prohibition on the sale of cleaning agents
containing phosphates.
Virginia Water Control Board Chesapeake Bay Office. 1990. Final Report Effects of
Phosphate Detergent Ban in Virginia.
Virginia Water Control Board Chesapeake Bay Ofifice, Virginia Cooperative Extension
Service. 1984. A Report on the Costs and Benefits of a Phosphate Detergent Ban.
Senate Document No. 9. Presented to the Governor and the General Assembly of
Virginia, in Response to Senate Joint Resolution No. 54.
Connecticut
General Assembly of the State of Connecticut. 1972.
Georgia
General Assembly of the State of Georgia. 1989.
Ilfinois
City of Chicago. 1987. Ordinance X. Phosphorus Control. Metropolitan Water
Reclamation District of Greater Chicago.
Indiana Indiana Department of Environmental Management. 1978. Chapter 5.5. Prohibitions
on the Sale and Use of Certain Detergents, As amended by Acts 1978, P.L.2,
SEC.1305, P.L.143-1985, SEC.33.
Maryland
Maryland. 1984. Senate Bill 569.
39
Jones, E.R. and S.D. Hubbard. 1986: Maryland's Phosphate Ban - History and Early
_ Results. J. WPCF, V58(8). p.816-822.
Michigan Michigan. 1971. Cleaning Agents and Water Conditions, Act 226, Public Acts of 1971,
as amended by Act 453 of 1980.
Michigan Department of IVatural Resources. 1972. Water Resources Commission
- General Rules, Part 6, Cleaning Agents and Water Conditions, R 323.1001 to R
323.1354.
Michigan Department of Natural Resources. 1972. Administrative Consent Order
Example.
Minnesota
State of Minnesota. 1983. Cleaning Agents and Water Conditioners, 7100.0150, Rule
WPC 37, Section 100.28.
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency. Consumer Alotes - The Phosphorus Ban in
Minnesota.
Bureau of Water Resources Management, Wisconsin Department of Natural
Resources. 1988. A Report on the Effects of the 1983 P-Ban. A report to the
legislature, January 1988.
Montana
City of Missoula. 1989.
North Carolina North Carolina General Assembly. 1983. House Bill 1603.
New York
New York State Environmental Conservation. 1971. New York State Environmental
Conservation Law Article 35, Detergents and Other Household Cleaning Products, SEC 35-0101 to 35-0109, Part 659.
Ohio
General Assembly of the State of Ohio. 1988. An Act to amend section 6111.09 and
to enact section 6111.10 of.the Revised Code to restrict the phosphorus content of
household laundry detergents. '
Hartig, J.H., C. Trautrim, D.M. Dolan and D.E Rathke. 1990. The Rationale for Ohio's
40
Detergent Phosphorus Ban. Water Resources Bulletin, American Water Resources
Association, V26(2). p.201-207.
Oregon
65th Oregon Legislative Assembly. 1989. Senate Bill 1079 prohibits sale of laundry
detergent containing phosphorus.
Oregon Department of Environmental Quality, Water Quality Division. 1991.
" Phosphorus and Water Quality. Prepared for the 66th Oregon Legislative Assembly. .
Vermont
General Assembly of the State of Vermont. 1977. An Act to amend 10 VSA, Chapter
10, Subchapter 5. Detergents and Household Cleansing Products
Washington
State of Washington. 1993. Limits on Phosphorus Content of Detergents, Engrossed
Substitute Senate Bill 5320. Senate Committee on Ecofogy and Parks.
Wisconsin
Wisconsin. 1983. Code of Regulatinns, 100.28 Sale of Cleaning agents and water
conditioners containing phosphorus restricted.
Wisconsin Center for Public Policy. '1984. Information Verification Project on the
Phosphate Ban Controversy. Summary Report. Madison, Wisconsin. 4 p.
Water Quality Evaluation Section, Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources. 1982.
Report on the Water Quality Related Effects of Restricting the Use of Phosphates in
Laundry Detergents.
41
APPENDIX
Appendix A- Wastewater Treatment Facilities in Colorado
WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANTS IN COLORADO
Faciliry County Phosphorus Design Curcent
Data Capacity MGD Flow MGD
Bennett Adams N 0.42 0.164
. BrigMon Adams Y 2.63 1.76
Denver North Campground Adams N 0.01 0.004
Hi-Land Acres W&SD Adams N 0.07 0.028
Metro Wastewater Reclamation District Adams Y 185 140
Northgienn Adams Y 6.5 3.6
South Adams County W&SD Adams Y 4 2.74
Tomahawk 7ruck Stop Adams N 0.01 0.0!
Westminster Adams Y 5.5 4.3
Alamosa Alamosa
Town N Country Mobil Lodge Alamosa
Arapahoe County W&S Authority Arapahoe Y 1 0.3
Arapahoe Park Racetrack Arapahoe ' N 0.05 0.003
Foxridge Farms MH Community Arapahoe N 0.13 0.075
Glendale Arapahoe Y 2 0.93
Invemess W&SD Arapahoe Y 0.9 0.29
Kent-Land • Arapahoe N
Littleton / Engiewood Arapahoe Y 32 22.4
OEA Arapahoe N 0.02 0.019
High Country Lodge Archuleta N
Pagosa Area W&SD - Highlands Archuleta N 0.14 0.06
Pagosa Area W$SD - Vista Archuleta N 1.25 0.55
Pagosa Springs Sanftation District Archuleta N 1 0.4
San Juan River Village Metro Archuleta
Wolf Creek Village Atchuleta
Las Animas Bent Y
Baulder Boulder Y 23 16.5
Boulder Mountain Lodge Boulder N 0.01 0.002
Broomfield Boulder Y 5.4 3.2
Fairways Metro District Boulder N 0.11 0.047
Lafayette Boulder Y 2.8 1.8
Lake Eldora W&SD Boulder N 0.03 0.008
Longmont Boulder Y 11.55 7.3
Louisville Boulder Y 2.6 1.8
Lyons Boulder Y 0.29 0.14
Nederiand Boulder Y 0.19 0.05
Niwot Sanitatian Disirict Boulder Y 0.7 0.42
Public Seroice Co - Valmont Boulder Y 0.005 0.005
Red Lion Inn Boulder N 0.01 0.006
San l.azaro Mobil Home Park Boulder N 0.13 0.086
42
San Souci Mobile Home Park Boulder N ~ 0.02 0.01
Superior Metro Disuict 8oulder N 0.55 O.Oa
Chateau Chaparra! Owners Assn Chaffee
Coio Oept Conectians - Buena Vista Chaffee
Frantier Ranch - Young Life Campaign Chaffee
Monarch Ski Corporation Chaffee
Salida Chaffee
Cheyenne Wells Sanitation District . Cheyenne
. Cernral Clear Craek Sanitation Distnct Clear Creek Y 0.08 0.05
Clear Creek Skiing Corporation Clear Creek Y 0.03 0.012
Empire Elear Creek Y 0.06 0.045
Georgetown Clear Creek Y 0,58 0.244
Idano Springs Clear Creek Y 0.6 0.48
Singing River Ranch Clear Creek Y 0.01 0.002
St Mary's Glacier W&SD Clear Creek Y 0.03 0.03
Antonito Conejos N 0.25 0.103
La Jara Conejos N 0.549
Manassa Canejos
Romeo Conejos
Saniord Conejos
Costilla County W&S Association Costilla
San Luis W&SD Costifla
Crowley Crowley
Ordway Crowley N 0.1 0.1
Sugar City Crowley
Round Mountain W&SD Custer
Cedaredge Delta
Colorado Dept Carrections - Delta Delta N 0.05 0.035
Crawford Delta N 0.18 0.006
Delta Deha N 2.45 1.45
Horizon Health Care & Retirement Defta
Hotchkiss Delta N 0.36
Paonia Defta
Dove Creek Dolores N 0.015 0.06
Centennial W&SD Douglas Y 8.48 1.6
Denver SE Suburban W&SD Douglas Y 1 0.45
Larkspur pouglas Y 0.1 0.03
Lincoln Park Metro District Douglas Y 0.25 0,17
Lauvier's Mutual Service Co Douglas Y 0.04 0.02
Meridian Metropolitan District Douglas Y 1.25 0.02
Paricer W&SO Douglas Y 2 0.58
Perry Park W&SD Douglas Y 0.31 0.057
Pfum Creek Wastewater Authonty Douglas Y 2.3 0.86
Roxborough Park . Douglas Y 0.6 0.2
Sacred Heart Retreat Douglas N 0.003 0.003
Basalt Sanitation Distnct Eagle N 0.4 0.3
Eagle Sanitation District Eagle
43
EI Jebel Mobile Home Park Eagle
Gypsum Eagle
Mid Valiey Metropolitan District Eagle N 0.325 0.25
Red Cliff Eagle
Sopns Village HOA, Inc Eagle
Upper Eagle Valiey - Avon Eagle
Upper Eagle Valley - Squaw Creek Eagle
Upper Eagle Valley - Vail _ Eagle
Academy W&SD EI Paso
_ Broadmoor Park Properties EI Paso
Cherokee W&SD EI Paso N 2 1.3 -
Cheyenne Mountain Zoo EI Paso N 0.85
Colorado Springs - Las Vegas Street EI Paso Y 0.6 0.048
Colorado Springs - Pikes Peak Highway EI Paso
Donala W&SD EI Paso N 1.8 0.33
Fountain Sanitation District El Paso .
Garden Valley W&SD EI Paso
Paint Brush Hills Metro District EI Paso N
Security Sanitation District EI Paso
Upper Monument Creek Regional - Gleneagle EI Paso
Walden Corporation EI Paso
Woodmaor / Monument / Palmer Lake EI Paso
Elbert W&SD Elbert
Elizabeth Elbert
Kiowa Elbert N 0.079 0.065
Simla Elbert
Fremont Sanitation District Fremorrt N 8.2 4.3
Royai Gorge Company of Colo Fremortt
Battlsment Mesa Metro Distnct Garfield N 0.4 028
Canyon Creek Estate HOA Garfieid
Carbondale Garfield
Colo Dept Gorrections - Rifle Garfield
Cottonwood Springs Mobile Home Park Garfield
EI Rocko Mobile Home Park Garfield •
Glenwood Springs Garfield N 2.3 1
H Lazy F Mobile Hame Park Garfield N 0.05 0.02
New Castle Garfield
Ranch at Roaring Fo?k Mabile Home Par1c Garfield
Rifle - North Garfield
Rifle - South Garfield
Riverbend Subdivision Garf'ield
Silt Garfield
Ski Suniight Garfield
Talbott Enterprises Garfield
West Glenwood Springs Sanitation District Garfield
Black Hawk - Central City W&SD Gilpin
Conrad Joint Vernure Grand
44
Fraser Sanitation Distnci Grand
Granby Sanitation District Grand N t 0.5
Grand County W&SD Grand N 1.4 0.5
Hot Sulphur Spnngs Grand
lCremmling Sanitation Disfict Grand 0.17 0;
Ouray Ranch Homeowners Assaaation Grand N 1 0.35
Snaw Mountain Ranch - YMCA Grand
Three Lakes W&SD - Sun Valley Grand
Three Lakes W&SD - Willow Creek Grand
_ Winter Paric W&SD Grand
Almont Gunnison N -
Blue Mesa Recreation Ranch Gunnison
Country Meadows MHP Gunnison N 0.025 0.008
Crested Butte Gunnison
Crested Butte South Metro District Gunnison N 0.05 0.029
East River Regional Sanitation Distnct Gunnisan
Gunnison Gunnison Gunnison County - Arttelope Hills Division Gunnison
Meridian Lake Paric Corporation Gunnison
Mount Crested Butte W&SD Gunnison N 0.6 0.38
North Elk Meadows Homeowners Gunnison N 0.013 0.005
La Veta Huerfano N 0.125 0.075
Lake City Hinsdale N 0.5 0.'
Country Host Motel Huerfano N 1.3 0.005
Walsenburg Huerfano
Walden Jackson
Brook Forest Inn Jefferson Y 0.01 0.002
Clear Creek Vailey W&SD Jefferson Y 2,8 1.62
Conifer Sanitation Association Jeffersan Y 0.02 0.007
Davidson Lodge Jefferson Y 0.001 0.001
Evergreen Metropolitan District Jefferson Y 1 0.365
Forest Hills Metropoiitan Distriot Jefferson Y 0.05 0.005
" Genesee W&SD Jefferson Y 0.6 0.237
Golden Jefferson Y 4.1 1.8
Jeffersan Counry Schooi - Mt Evans Jeffersan Y 0.004 0.004
Jefferson County Schaol - High School Jeffersan Y 0.05 0.05
Kittredge S&WO Jefferson Y 0.13 0.04
Last Valley qanch Corporation Jefferson N 0.31 0.057
Mountain W&SD Jefferson N 0.1 0.048
Tiny Tawn Railroad Company Jefferson Y 0.01 0.005
West Jefferson County Metro District Jefferson Y 0.62 0.34
Eads Kiowa N
Burlington Kit Carson
Flagler Sanitation District Kit Carson
Siebert Kit Carson
Vona Kit Carson
Bayfield Sanitatian District La Plata
45
Durango - La Plata
. Durango West Metro District La Plata
Edgemont Ranch Metro Distnct La Piata N 0.1 0.02
Five Branches Camper Park La Plaia
Forest lakes Metro Disuict La Plata
Forrest Groves Estates HOA La Plata
Hertnosa Sanitation Distnct La Plata N 5 1.5
Lightner Creek Campground _ La Plata N 0.01 0.005
LigMner Creek MHP La Plata
Loma Linda Sanitation Distnct La Piata N 0.064 0.03
Narrow Gauge MHP La Plata
Needles Homeowners Association La Plata N 0.034 0.03
Pine-Animas Sewer Company La Plata
Ponderosa KOA La Plata
Purgatory Metro Distnct La Piata
Ranch Property Owners Association La Plata
Sierra Verde Estates La Plata
South Durango Sanitation District La Plata
Tamarron Reson La Plata N 0.24 0.21
Upper Valley Sanitation La Plata
Vallecito Resort La Plata
Lake Fork MHP Lake
Leadville Sanitation District Lake
Mountain View Village MHP Lake
Aspen Lodge at Estes Park Larimer Berthoud Larimer Y 0.904 0.76
Berthoud Estates Cam Association Larimer
Berthoud Estates Communhy Larimer
Boxelder Sanitation District Larimer N 2.34 1
Davies MHP Larimer N 0.0068 0.0037
Esies Park Sanitation District Larimer N 1.5 0.06
Fort Collins - Drake Larimer N 23 17
Fox Acres Corrmmunity Service Corporation Larimer N 0.02' 0.02 .
Johnson's Comer Larimer
Loveland Larimer N 8 7
Rivergien Homeowners Association Larimer•
Sequin Savings Larimer
South Fort Collins Sanitation District Larimer
Upper Thompson Sanitation District Larimer
Vaquero Estates Sewer Association Larimer
Wellington Larimer N
Trinidad Las Animas
Trinidad - Monument Lake Las Animas
Arriba Lincoln N
Genoa Uncoln
Limon Lincoln
Crook Logan
46
.
Logan Inn Logan
5terling Logan N 3.88 Z
Clifton Sanitation pisuict Mesa
Collbran Mesa
De Beque Mesa
Fruita Mesa N 1.25 0.48
Holly Plaza Development Mgsa
Mesa Co / Grand Junction - Persigo Wash Mesa Y 12.5 7,1
Mesa County Valley School Disvict Mesa
Mesa W&SD Mesa
Mobile City MHP Mesa .
Palisade Mesa N 5 1.5 .
Panorama Imorovemertt Disfict Mesa
Powderhom Metro Distnct Mesa
Creede Mineral
Wolf Creek Ski Carporation Mineral
Craig • Moffat N 2,5 1
Moffat County Improvement District - Maybell Moffat
Cortez Sanitation Distnct - North/SW Montezuma N 0.38 0.2
Dolores Montezuma
Dolores River RV Park Mortezuma N 5 0.015
Lee MHP Montezuma N 0.015 0.008
Mancos Mornezuma
Vista Verde Viliage Morrtezuma
Montrose Morrtrose
Naturita Montrose N ; 0,07
Nucia Sanitation District Montrose
Olathe MoMrose
Spring Creek Estates Subdivisian Montrose
West Montrose Sanitation District Montrose
Brush Morgan
Fort Morgan Morgan
Log Lane Village Morgan N 50 ' S0 .
Fowler Otero N 0.1
La Jurna Otero 2.5 1.4
Manzanola Otero • N 0.05
Narth La Junta Sanftation District Otero
Rocky Ford Otero
Colorado Division Parics - Dutch Charfie Ouray
Ouray Ouray N 0.363 0.27
Ridgeway puray
Alma Park N 0.15 0.03
Bailey W&SD park
Fairplay Sanitation District Park N 0.45 0.1
WilI-O-Wisp Metro District park
Aspen Consolidated Sanitatian Oistrict Pitkin Y 3 2.2
Aspen Village Pitkin
47 '
Lazy Glen Homeowners Association Pitkin N 0.05 - 0.042
Redstone W&SD Pitkin
Snowmass W&SD Pitkin
Lamar Prowers
Wiley Prowers
Avandale W&SD Pueblo
Colorado City Metro District Pueblo
Meadowbrook MHP _ Pueblo
Pueblo Pueblo
Pueblo West Metro District Pueblo
Meeker Sanitation District Rio Blanco Y 0.99 0.3
Rangley Rio Blanco
Stagecoach Sanftation Ria Blanco
Del Norte Rio Grande N 1 0,7
Fun Valley Resort Rio Grande
Monte Vista - City Rio Grande
Monte Vista - Veterans Center Rio Grande
South Fork W&SD Rio Grande
Euzoa Bible Church Routt
Hayden qaun
Marrison Creek Metro W&SD Routt N 0.35 0.05
Oak Creek Routt
Routt Co for Milner Community Routt
Aoutt Co for Phippsburg Camm Routt
Steamboat Lake Sanftation Distrrct Routt
Steamboat Springs Routt
Upper Yampa Water Conservancy - Stagecoach Routt
Whiteman Schoo! qQun
Yampa Routt Baca Grande W&SD - Aspen Institute Saguache N 0.035 0.023
Baca Grande W&SD - Casitas Park MH Estates Saguache N 0.02 0.017
Center Saguache N 0.8 0.57
Saguache- Saguache
Cascade Village Investment San Juan
Silverton San Juan
Last Dollar PUD tmprovement Association San Miguel
Norwood Sanftation District San Miguel Y 0.532 0.26
Telluride San Miguel
Julesburg Sedgwick N 0.25 0.12
Ovid Sedgwick N 0.04 0.028
Arapahoe Basin Summit Y 0.035 2.5888
Blue Fliver Sanitation Company Summft Y
Breckenridge Sanitation District Summit Y
Colorado Department Highways - Vail Pass Summit Y
Copper Mountain Sanftation District Summit Y 0.7 0.25
Frisco Sanitation District Summit Y 1.2 0.6
Keystone Summit House Summit Y 0.021 1.7619
48
~ ! .
SUverthome / Dillon Summit Y
Summit County Snake River Summit - Y
Swan's Nest Metro District Summit Y
Cripple Creek Teller N 0.7 0.422
Florissant WBSD Teller N 0.057 0.02
Victor Teller
Woodland Patic Teller
B&B MHP Weld N
Cauntry View Care Center Weid N
Eaton Weld N 0.34 0.18
Erie W&SD Weld Y
Evans Weld N 0.9 0.9
Fort Lupton Weld N 2.25 2
Galeton W&SD Weld N
Gilcrest Weld N 0.1
Greeley Weld N 12 g
HilI-N-Park Sanitation District Weld N
Hudson Sanitation District Weld N 0.2 0.1'
Johnston Weld N 0.41 0.23
Keenesburg Sanitation District Weld N 0.1 0.045
Kersey Sanitatian District Weld N 0.18 0.08
La Salle Weld N 0.46 0.21
Lochbuie Weld N 0.18 0.9
Mead Weld N
Milliken Weld N
Pierce Weld N
Platteville Weld N
Severance Weld N
St Vrain Sanitation Distnct Weld N
Weld County Schaol District Weld N
Weld County Tri-Area Sanitation Oistrict Weld N
Windsor Weld N
Wray Yuma
Tatal 497 348
49
,
Appendix B - State Contacts
' STATE NAME ADDRESS/TELEPHOtVE .
Chicago, Illinais Cecil Lue-Hing, Oirector Metropolitan Water
Research and Development Reclamation District of Greater Chicago
• 100 E. Erie St.
Chicago, IL 60611
(312) 751-5600 Indiana Jahn Winters Indiana Dept. of Environmental
Management
P.O. Box 6015
Indianapolis, IN 46206-6015
(317) 243-5028
Maryland Joseph McKinnis, United States Environmental Protection
Environmerttal Saentist Agency
Chesapeake Bay Program
410 Sevem Avenue
Annapolis. MD 21403 •
(410) 267-5748
Massachusetts Rick McVoy Department of Environmental
Protection
Office of Watershed Mgmt.
One Winter St.. 8th Floor
Boston, MA 02108
(617) 292-5500
Michigan Frank Baldwin . Michigan Dept. of Natural
Resources
P.O. Box 30028
Lansing, MI 48909-7528
(517) 335-4139
Minnesota Mark Townsact Minnesota Pollution Control
Agency
(612) 296-7756
New Yark Jay A. Bloamfield, Chief Lake New York State Dept. of
Services Section Environmernal Conservation
" 50 Wolf Road
- Albany, NY 12233
(518) 457-7470
Ohio Julie Letterhos, Lake Erie Unit State of Ohio Environmental
Supervisor Protection Agency
P.O. Box 163669
Columbus, OH 43216-3669
(614)644-2871
Oregon Bob Baumgarten Oregon Dept. of Environmental Quality
Water duality Division
811 SW 6th Ave.
Partland, OR 97204-1390
. (503) 229-5279
Pennsylvania Stuart Gansell Pennsylvania Department of
Environmeniai Resources
Bureau of Water Quality Mgmt.
50
~
P.O. Box 8465
Hartisburg, PA t 7i 05-8465
(717) 787-8184 Vermont Wally McLaan (802) 241-3777
Virginia AI Pollack (804) 762-4002
Washingtan, D.C. Joseph MacKnis, United States Environmental
Environmerttal Saentist Protection Agency
Chesapeake 8ay Program
410 Sevem Avenue
' Annapolis, MD 21403
(410) 267-5748
Wisconsin Duane H. Schuettpelz, Chief, State of Wisconsin Dept. of Natural
Surface Water Standards 3nd Resources
Monitoring Section - Bureew of Water 101 S. Webster St., GEF 11
Resources Mgmt. Box 7921
Madison, WI 53707
(608) 266-015622
51.
Printed by Pam Brandmeyer 7/08/97 10:22am W6 - -
From: Pam Brandmeyer
To: Pam yer
Subjec : JACK CURTIN
===NOTE====------=====7/08/97=10:22am==
10:05 A.M. - -
Jack called to extend his apologies for
not being able (due to an afternoon
meeting in Denver) to make the ~
"parking" discussion this afternoon; he
will be here on the 15th. He wanted me to convey, on behalf of Curtin-Hill
Sports, their total support of the FREE
AFTER THREE program this past winter.
Because they are open until 9 during
the ski season, they heard many comments from customers specifically .
about the FREE AFTER THREE program,
w/the advantage that the advertising
tor this program seemed to indicate NO
TIME LIMIT, and therefore, it was very
appealing. This program siqnificantly
increased their niqht business. I
asked, since he seemed to indicate a
time period previously covered by our
THREE HOURS FREE BETWEEN 6 AND 9, what
the difference was. He said customers
did not seem to be aware of the
previous proqram AT ALL - and perceived
this to be entirely new - as well, the
simple statement that it was FREE AFTER
THREE left no confusion or
complications about the extent of the
tree parking offer and just how
customers might take advantage of it.
- - -
Pag e : 1 - -