Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My Public Portal
About
TBP 2021-11-17
Board of Trustees Workshop and Regular Meeting Agenda Fraser Town Hall, 153 Fraser Avenue and Virtually Wednesday November 17, 2021 6:00 PM - 9:00 PM Members of the Board may have dinner together @ 5:30 p.m. NOTE: Times are approximate and agenda subject to change Watch the meeting live on Fraser's YouTube Channel Participate in the meeting through our virtual platform Zoom Meeting Information Meeting ID:259 040 8013 Phone 1 -346 -248 -7799 2022 Budget Workshop - Ed TOF DRAFT 2022 Budget.pdf JFF DRAFT 2022 Budget.pdf Roll Call Approval Of Agenda Consent Agenda Minutes November 3, 2021 TBM 2021 -11 -03.Pdf Sign In Sheet November 3, 2021.Pdf Public Hearing And Possible Action 2022 Budget Discussion And Possible Action Regarding Water Efficiency Plan - Adam Water Efficiency Plan Board Memo.pdf WaterEfficiencyPlan_GuidanceDoc_Reduced.pdf Telluride_WEPlan2020.Pdf Resolution 2021 -11 -01 GP Willows FPDP Amendment Preliminary Plat The Willows Apartments Planner Briefing 10 -27 -2021.Pdf Resolution 2021 -11 -01 GP Willows FPDP Amendment Preliminary Plat.pdf REVISED FPDP10 -28 -2021.Pdf PC Resolution 2021 -10 -01 Concerning The Application For Approval Of A FPDP And Preliminary Plat Willows Apts.pdf Project Narrative.pdf Final Plan Willows Apartments.pdf Preliminary Plat_18 -030 Willows PHASE 1_6 -8 -21.Pdf Preliminary Plat_18 -030 Willows PHASE 2_6 -8 -21.Pdf TOF PW - Willows Apartment Second Comments.pdf Willow Apartments Utility Review -Merrick.pdf Willow Apartments Drainage Review_2021 -0707.Pdf Agency Review Comments.pdf Attorney Correspondence.pdf Public Comment.pdf 2W Trip Generation Letter 030821.Pdf 2004 RENDEZVOUS TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS.pdf CIVIL TKE Response Letter 2021 -06 -10.Pdf CIVIL TKE Response Letter 2021 -03 -10.Pdf Terracina Response Letter 2021 -05 -19.Pdf Terracina Response Letter 2021 -03 -10.Pdf USACE Coorespondance.pdf Proof Of Publication.pdf Ordinance 485 Water Wastewater Advisory Committee Ordinance No. 485 Water And Wastewater Advisory Committee.pdf Open Forum a) Business not on the agenda (If you would like to request time on the agenda please contact the Town Clerk, Antoinette McVeigh at 970 -726 -5491 ext. 201) Updates Grand Park Drive Settlement - Ed Building Report Fraser Report October 2021.Pdf Financials TOF 08 - August 2021 Financial Statements.pdf Executive Session For a conference with the Town Attorney for the purpose of receiving legal advice on specific legal questions under C.R.S. Section 24 -6 -402(4)(b) and For the purpose of determining positions relative to matters that may be subject to negotiations, developing strategy for negotiations, and/or instructing negotiators, under C.R.S. Section 24 -6 -402(4)(e). Regarding Litigation Adjourn UPCOMING MEETING WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 1, 2021 BOARD OF TRUSTEES https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCs5aHnl7d -kk0j1cxV28DSg https://us02web.zoom.us/j/2590408013 1. Documents: 2.7:00 P.M. 3. 4. a. Documents: 5. a. 6. a. Documents: b. Documents: c. Documents: 7. 8. a. b. Documents: c. Documents: 9. 10. Board Staff Direct : Define the service, product or value to be delivered Lead : Future focused planning Protect : Establish the operational boundaries to be respected by Staff and monitored by the Board Manage : Now focused policy and procedural guidance to ensure on time, on budget, and on target service delivery Enable : Advocacy, resource development, and role discipline Accomplish : Ensure the work defined by the direction of the Board of Trustees is accomplished Board of Trustees Workshop and Regular Meeting Agenda Fraser Town Hall, 153 Fraser Avenue and Virtually Wednesday November 17, 2021 6:00 PM - 9:00 PM Members of the Board may have dinner together @ 5:30 p.m. NOTE: Times are approximate and agenda subject to change Watch the meeting live on Fraser's YouTube Channel Participate in the meeting through our virtual platform Zoom Meeting Information Meeting ID:259 040 8013 Phone 1 -346 -248 -77992022 Budget Workshop - EdTOF DRAFT 2022 Budget.pdfJFF DRAFT 2022 Budget.pdfRoll CallApproval Of AgendaConsent AgendaMinutes November 3, 2021TBM 2021 -11 -03.PdfSign In Sheet November 3, 2021.Pdf Public Hearing And Possible Action 2022 Budget Discussion And Possible Action Regarding Water Efficiency Plan - Adam Water Efficiency Plan Board Memo.pdf WaterEfficiencyPlan_GuidanceDoc_Reduced.pdf Telluride_WEPlan2020.Pdf Resolution 2021 -11 -01 GP Willows FPDP Amendment Preliminary Plat The Willows Apartments Planner Briefing 10 -27 -2021.Pdf Resolution 2021 -11 -01 GP Willows FPDP Amendment Preliminary Plat.pdf REVISED FPDP10 -28 -2021.Pdf PC Resolution 2021 -10 -01 Concerning The Application For Approval Of A FPDP And Preliminary Plat Willows Apts.pdf Project Narrative.pdf Final Plan Willows Apartments.pdf Preliminary Plat_18 -030 Willows PHASE 1_6 -8 -21.Pdf Preliminary Plat_18 -030 Willows PHASE 2_6 -8 -21.Pdf TOF PW - Willows Apartment Second Comments.pdf Willow Apartments Utility Review -Merrick.pdf Willow Apartments Drainage Review_2021 -0707.Pdf Agency Review Comments.pdf Attorney Correspondence.pdf Public Comment.pdf 2W Trip Generation Letter 030821.Pdf 2004 RENDEZVOUS TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS.pdf CIVIL TKE Response Letter 2021 -06 -10.Pdf CIVIL TKE Response Letter 2021 -03 -10.Pdf Terracina Response Letter 2021 -05 -19.Pdf Terracina Response Letter 2021 -03 -10.Pdf USACE Coorespondance.pdf Proof Of Publication.pdf Ordinance 485 Water Wastewater Advisory Committee Ordinance No. 485 Water And Wastewater Advisory Committee.pdf Open Forum a) Business not on the agenda (If you would like to request time on the agenda please contact the Town Clerk, Antoinette McVeigh at 970 -726 -5491 ext. 201) Updates Grand Park Drive Settlement - Ed Building Report Fraser Report October 2021.Pdf Financials TOF 08 - August 2021 Financial Statements.pdf Executive Session For a conference with the Town Attorney for the purpose of receiving legal advice on specific legal questions under C.R.S. Section 24 -6 -402(4)(b) and For the purpose of determining positions relative to matters that may be subject to negotiations, developing strategy for negotiations, and/or instructing negotiators, under C.R.S. Section 24 -6 -402(4)(e). Regarding Litigation Adjourn UPCOMING MEETING WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 1, 2021 BOARD OF TRUSTEES https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCs5aHnl7d -kk0j1cxV28DSghttps://us02web.zoom.us/j/25904080131.Documents:2.7:00 P.M.3.4.a.Documents: 5. a. 6. a. Documents: b. Documents: c. Documents: 7. 8. a. b. Documents: c. Documents: 9. 10. Board Staff Direct : Define the service, product or value to be delivered Lead : Future focused planning Protect : Establish the operational boundaries to be respected by Staff and monitored by the Board Manage : Now focused policy and procedural guidance to ensure on time, on budget, and on target service delivery Enable : Advocacy, resource development, and role discipline Accomplish : Ensure the work defined by the direction of the Board of Trustees is accomplished Board of Trustees Workshop and Regular Meeting Agenda Fraser Town Hall, 153 Fraser Avenue and Virtually Wednesday November 17, 2021 6:00 PM - 9:00 PM Members of the Board may have dinner together @ 5:30 p.m. NOTE: Times are approximate and agenda subject to change Watch the meeting live on Fraser's YouTube Channel Participate in the meeting through our virtual platform Zoom Meeting Information Meeting ID:259 040 8013 Phone 1 -346 -248 -77992022 Budget Workshop - EdTOF DRAFT 2022 Budget.pdfJFF DRAFT 2022 Budget.pdfRoll CallApproval Of AgendaConsent AgendaMinutes November 3, 2021TBM 2021 -11 -03.PdfSign In Sheet November 3, 2021.PdfPublic Hearing And Possible Action2022 BudgetDiscussion And Possible Action RegardingWater Efficiency Plan - AdamWater Efficiency Plan Board Memo.pdfWaterEfficiencyPlan_GuidanceDoc_Reduced.pdfTelluride_WEPlan2020.PdfResolution 2021 -11 -01 GP Willows FPDP Amendment Preliminary Plat The Willows Apartments Planner Briefing 10 -27 -2021.PdfResolution 2021 -11 -01 GP Willows FPDP Amendment Preliminary Plat.pdfREVISED FPDP10 -28 -2021.PdfPC Resolution 2021 -10 -01 Concerning The Application For Approval Of A FPDP And Preliminary Plat Willows Apts.pdfProject Narrative.pdfFinal Plan Willows Apartments.pdfPreliminary Plat_18 -030 Willows PHASE 1_6 -8 -21.PdfPreliminary Plat_18 -030 Willows PHASE 2_6 -8 -21.PdfTOF PW - Willows Apartment Second Comments.pdfWillow Apartments Utility Review -Merrick.pdfWillow Apartments Drainage Review_2021 -0707.PdfAgency Review Comments.pdfAttorney Correspondence.pdfPublic Comment.pdf2W Trip Generation Letter 030821.Pdf2004 RENDEZVOUS TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS.pdfCIVIL TKE Response Letter 2021 -06 -10.PdfCIVIL TKE Response Letter 2021 -03 -10.PdfTerracina Response Letter 2021 -05 -19.PdfTerracina Response Letter 2021 -03 -10.PdfUSACE Coorespondance.pdfProof Of Publication.pdfOrdinance 485 Water Wastewater Advisory CommitteeOrdinance No. 485 Water And Wastewater Advisory Committee.pdfOpen Foruma) Business not on the agenda(If you would like to request time on the agenda please contact the Town Clerk, Antoinette McVeigh at 970 -726 -5491 ext. 201)Updates Grand Park Drive Settlement - Ed Building Report Fraser Report October 2021.Pdf Financials TOF 08 - August 2021 Financial Statements.pdf Executive Session For a conference with the Town Attorney for the purpose of receiving legal advice on specific legal questions under C.R.S. Section 24 -6 -402(4)(b) and For the purpose of determining positions relative to matters that may be subject to negotiations, developing strategy for negotiations, and/or instructing negotiators, under C.R.S. Section 24 -6 -402(4)(e). Regarding Litigation Adjourn UPCOMING MEETING WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 1, 2021 BOARD OF TRUSTEES https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCs5aHnl7d -kk0j1cxV28DSghttps://us02web.zoom.us/j/25904080131.Documents:2.7:00 P.M.3.4.a.Documents:5.a.6.a.Documents:b.Documents:c.Documents:7.8. a. b. Documents: c. Documents: 9. 10. Board Staff Direct : Define the service, product or value to be delivered Lead : Future focused planning Protect : Establish the operational boundaries to be respected by Staff and monitored by the Board Manage : Now focused policy and procedural guidance to ensure on time, on budget, and on target service delivery Enable : Advocacy, resource development, and role discipline Accomplish : Ensure the work defined by the direction of the Board of Trustees is accomplished TOWN OF FRASER 11/30/2021 DRAFT 11/11/2021 2020 2021 2021 2021 2022 Actuals Budget Year to Date YEE Budget GENERAL FUND REVENUE TAXES 10-31-100 General Fund Property Tax 334,794 350,000 350,606 350,606 575,735 10-31-200 Specific Ownership Tax 24,947 12,000 22,376 25,000 12,000 10-31-300 Motor Vehicle Tax 0 4,500 0 500 500 10-31-400 Town Sales Tax 3,746,914 2,750,000 3,184,567 4,100,000 3,200,000 10-31-410 Use Tax - Building Materials 171,598 100,000 554,502 575,000 250,000 10-31-420 Use Tax - Motor Vehicle Sales 154,760 65,000 114,096 160,000 140,000 10-31-430 State Cigarette Tax 6,905 3,200 4,385 4,800 3,000 10-31-800 Franchise Fees 69,491 55,000 85,878 150,000 60,000 Sub-Total 4,509,409 3,339,700 4,316,410 5,365,906 4,241,235 LICENSES & PERMITS 10-32-100 Business License Fees 15,783 15,000 13,160 15,500 15,000 10-32-110 Regulated Industry Fees/Taxes 237,718 120,000 214,144 250,000 200,000 Sub-Total 253,501 135,000 227,304 265,500 215,000 INTERGOVERNMENTAL 10-33-100 Grants 640,973 0 206,645 225,000 221,645 Sub-Total 640,973 0 206,645 225,000 221,645 CHARGES FOR SERVICES 10-34-100 Annexation Fees 0 1,000 0 1,000 1,000 10-34-110 Zoning Fees 0 1,500 750 1,500 1,500 10-34-120 Subdivision Fees 5,950 1,500 25,350 30,000 1,500 10-34-130 Miscellaneous Planning Fees 80 1,000 710 1,000 1,000 10-34-150 Affordable Housing Impact Fee 0 0 0 0 0 10-34-300 PAYT 72,557 35,000 60,702 65,000 70,000 10-34-600 Distribution 62,074 0 0 162,717 182,000 10-34-740 Fees in Lieu of Park Land 0 0 0 0 0 10-34-750 WTHP Revenue 0 0 0 0 0 Sub-Total 140,661 40,000 87,512 261,217 257,000 FINES & FORFEITURES 10-35-100 Court Fines 0 0 0 0 0 10-35-200 Police Dept. Sur-Charge 0 0 0 0 0 Sub-Total 0 0 0 0 0 MISCELLANEOUS REVENUE 10-36-100 Interest Earnings 32,375 35,000 2,589 6,000 4,500 10-36-300 Rental Income 10,385 12,000 6,557 10,000 10,000 10-36-500 Sale of General Fixed Assets 0 0 0 0 0 10-36-600 Community Housing 16,650 15,000 19,350 19,500 15,000 10-36-610 Reimbursable - Prof Services 53,478 50,000 37,355 50,000 100,000 10-36-620 Reimbursable - Night Shuttle 0 0 0 0 0 10-36-630 Disposable Bag Fees 18,478 10,000 28,020 35,000 25,000 10-36-900 Miscellaneous Revenue 70,723 30,500 42,793 48,000 30,000 Sub-Total 202,088 152,500 136,663 168,500 184,500 SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS 10-37-100 Byers Vista SID 0 0 0 0 0 Sub-Total 0 0 0 0 0 OTHER SOURCES AND TRANSFERS 10-39-100 Bond Proceeds 0 0 0 0 0 10-39-900 Transfers in from Other Funds 0 0 0 0 0 10-39-920 Transfer in from GF Reserves 0 6,379 0 0 6,379 10-39-940 Transfer in from WF Reserves 0 0 0 0 0 10-39-960 Transfer in from WWF Reserves 0 0 0 0 0 10-39-999 Unassigned Fund Balance 2,055,683 2,508,918 4,172,073 4,172,073 4,237,643 Sub-Total 2,055,683 2,515,297 4,172,073 4,172,073 4,244,022 Page 1 TOWN OF FRASER 11/30/2021 DRAFT 11/11/2021 2020 2021 2021 2021 2022 Actuals Budget Year to Date YEE Budget GENERAL FUND "NEW" REVENUES 5,746,632 3,667,200 4,974,535 6,286,123 5,119,380 GENERAL FUND TOTAL REVENUE 7,802,315 6,182,497 9,146,608 10,458,196 9,363,402 EXPENDITURES TOWN BOARD 10-41-110 Salaries 37,120 35,000 28,070 35,000 35,000 10-41-220 FICA Tax 2,279 3,825 1,990 3,825 2,678 10-41-280 Training Programs 110 6,000 1,325 6,000 6,000 10-41-290 Travel, Meals and Lodging 1,770 5,500 3,360 5,500 6,000 10-41-295 Meals and Entertainment 4,865 10,000 4,793 5,000 10,000 10-41-690 Miscellaneous Expense 7,935 10,500 12,304 15,000 20,000 10-41-860 Grants and Aid to Agencies 0 5,000 650 5,000 5,000 10-41-861 Intergovernmental Agreements 4,500 5,000 0 5,000 5,250 10-41-862 Fraser/Winter Park Police Dept 619,683 650,000 532,922 650,000 732,000 10-41-863 Street Lighting and Signals 15,342 22,750 11,669 22,750 23,000 10-41-864 Special Events 13,857 15,000 18,246 20,000 20,000 10-41-865 Grand County Dispatch 0 0 0 0 0 10-41-866 Wood Stove Rebates 0 0 0 0 0 10-41-867 Chamber of Commerce - IGA 0 0 0 0 0 10-41-868 Winter Shuttle - IGA 0 0 0 0 0 10-41-869 Summer Shuttle - IGA 0 0 0 0 0 10-41-870 Business Dist StreetScape 4,800 5,000 4,000 4,000 5,000 10-41-871 Business Enhancement Programs 181,513 82,500 100,500 150,000 82,500 10-41-872 Sustainability 4,955 15,000 2,344 5,000 10,000 10-41-873 Recycle Facility 63,193 50,000 62,666 70,000 60,000 10-41-874 Community Housing 50,000 750,000 0 155,000 750,000 10-41-875 Marketing 11,660 25,000 19,836 25,000 25,000 10-41-880 Center for Creative Arts 0 0 0 0 0 10-41-885 Economic Incentives 31,788 0 0 0 0 Sub-Total 1,055,371 1,696,075 804,674 1,182,075 1,797,428 ADMINISTRATION 10-45-110 Salaries 347,230 500,000 408,961 500,000 471,545 10-45-210 Health Insurance 76,219 90,000 65,375 85,000 88,663 10-45-220 FICA Tax 24,806 32,000 25,261 38,250 36,073 10-45-230 Retirement 16,280 20,000 19,389 30,000 47,155 10-45-250 Unemployment Tax 1,048 1,200 1,050 1,500 1,415 10-45-260 Workers Comp Claims 0 0 0 0 0 10-45-280 Training Programs 7,126 8,000 5,273 8,000 6,000 10-45-290 Travel, Meals and Lodging 1,556 10,000 12,739 20,000 7,000 10-45-295 Meals and Entertainment 2,781 6,000 5,255 6,000 6,000 10-45-305 Municipal Court Judge 0 0 0 0 0 10-45-310 Legal Fees 85,758 175,000 209,694 225,000 175,000 10-45-320 Audit Fees 20,604 18,200 20,250 20,604 24,000 10-45-330 Engineering Fees 0 3,500 648 3,500 4,000 10-45-360 Computers-Networks and Support 57,457 90,000 69,123 90,000 90,000 10-45-370 Other Professional Services 38,767 90,000 51,335 60,000 210,000 10-45-375 Reimbursable Prof Services 25,269 50,000 31,674 50,000 100,000 10-45-380 Janitorial Services 11,989 15,918 9,498 15,918 16,561 10-45-385 Treasurer's Fees 6,696 7,725 7,013 7,725 10,815 10-45-390 Abatement Fees 0 0 0 0 0 10-45-395 Recording Fees 2,000 1,500 750 1,500 1,500 10-45-410 Bank Charges 8,397 8,000 7,526 8,000 8,000 Page 2 TOWN OF FRASER 11/30/2021 DRAFT 11/11/2021 2020 2021 2021 2021 2022 Actuals Budget Year to Date YEE Budget 10-45-420 Elections 829 5,000 0 0 5,000 10-45-430 Insurance - All Departments 82,870 75,000 141,466 75,000 75,000 10-45-440 Advertising 2,764 2,500 760 2,500 2,500 10-45-490 Professional Memberships 10,797 12,000 11,504 12,000 11,000 10-45-500 Operating Supplies 12,973 15,435 10,858 12,000 12,000 10-45-510 Equipment Purchase and Repair 4,250 10,000 210 3,000 5,000 10-45-550 Postage 2,156 2,500 1,383 2,500 2,500 10-45-560 Utilities -Telephone 8,556 7,500 6,083 7,500 7,575 10-45-561 Utilities - Natural Gas 2,704 3,500 2,343 3,500 3,700 10-45-562 Utilities - Electricity 7,030 6,400 7,657 10,000 10,000 10-45-569 Utilities - Trash Removal 0 0 0 0 0 10-45-670 Prop Mgmt - 107 Eisenhower Dr 13,509 20,000 27,268 30,000 70,000 10-45-671 Prop Mgmt - 105 Fraser Ave 826 500 224 900 20,000 10-45-672 Prop Mgmt - 0 0 0 0 0 10-45-673 Prop Mgmt - 153 Fraser Ave 57,845 60,000 12,666 15,000 95,000 10-45-674 Prop Mgmt - 200 Eisenhower Dr 1,035 500 93 500 1,000 10-45-675 Prop Mgmt - 216 Eisenhower Dr 0 0 0 0 0 10-45-676 Prop Mgmt - 400 Doc Susie Ave 0 0 0 0 0 10-45-690 Miscellaneous Expense 20,952 20,000 13,274 20,000 20,000 10-45-695 Bad Debt Write-Off 540 0 0 0 0 10-45-730 Capital Projects 0 0 0 0 0 10-45-740 Capital Purchases 0 0 0 0 0 10-45-810 Lease/Purchase - Principal 0 0 0 0 0 10-45-820 Lease/Purchase - Interest 0 0 0 0 0 10-45-830 Loan - Principal 703 0 38,413 42,000 5,000 10-45-840 Loan - Interest 74 0 83 200 100 Sub-Total 964,394 1,367,878 1,225,098 1,407,597 1,649,102 PUBLIC WORKS 10-60-110 Salaries 665,360 735,000 430,069 550,000 827,050 10-60-210 Health Insurance 176,569 215,000 119,506 201,000 233,831 10-60-220 FICA Tax 46,691 58,000 29,399 42,075 63,269 10-60-230 Retirement 26,413 33,000 20,094 33,000 74,958 10-60-250 Unemployment Tax 2,012 2,350 1,297 1,650 2,481 10-60-260 Workers Comp Claims 0 0 0 0 0 10-60-280 Training Programs 7,510 3,500 1,960 3,500 3,000 10-60-290 Travel, Meals and Lodging 391 2,500 30 2,500 3,000 10-60-295 Meals and Entertainment 717 1,500 421 1,500 1,500 10-60-330 Engineering Fees 92,446 50,000 5,770 50,000 50,000 10-60-360 Computer Network Support 27,450 33,075 36,532 40,000 50,000 10-60-370 Other Professional Services 9,281 90,000 21,296 90,000 50,000 10-60-380 Janitorial Services 0 0 0 0 0 10-60-470 Contract Grounds Maintenance 0 0 0 0 0 10-60-475 Contract Snow Removal 0 0 0 0 0 10-60-480 Equipment Rental 1,403 2,500 2,418 5,000 2,500 10-60-490 Professional Memberships 786 1,000 1,001 2,500 1,000 10-60-500 Operating Supplies 89,959 90,000 84,628 90,000 94,000 10-60-506 Plants/Planter Supplies 27,279 70,000 16,881 26,333 75,000 10-60-510 Equipment Purchase and Repair 84,074 75,000 89,959 75,000 75,000 10-60-560 Utilities - Telephone 4,550 4,000 3,668 4,000 4,080 10-60-561 Utilities - Natural Gas 3,929 5,000 3,291 5,000 8,000 10-60-562 Utilities - Electricity 0 0 0 0 0 10-60-569 Utilities - Trash Removal 0 0 0 0 0 10-60-670 Prop Mgmt - 125 Fraser Ave 5,970 7,500 11,119 10,000 32,500 10-60-671 Prop Mgmt - Clayton Ct Parcel 0 0 0 0 0 10-60-672 Prop Mgmt - Elk Crk Wetlands 0 0 0 0 0 Page 3 TOWN OF FRASER 11/30/2021 DRAFT 11/11/2021 2020 2021 2021 2021 2022 Actuals Budget Year to Date YEE Budget 10-60-673 Prop Mgmt - Fraser River Trail 2,526 10,000 1,559 10,000 160,000 10-60-674 Prop Mgmt - Hwy 40 Pedestrian 295 6,000 0 6,000 6,000 10-60-675 Prop Mgmt - Koppers Park 0 1,500 0 1,500 1,500 10-60-676 Prop Mgmt - Old SchlHouse Pk 433 5,000 331 1,500 76,500 10-60-677 Prop Mgmt - Planning Area 28 0 0 0 0 0 10-60-678 Prop Mgmt - OutdoorActivityCtr 917 0 0 0 0 10-60-679 Prop Mgmt - School Bus Garage 6,630 5,000 5,932 6,500 26,500 10-60-680 Prop Mgmt - Gardner Shed 0 0 130 150 5,000 10-60-681 Prop Mgmt - Cozens Ranch Park 19,512 15,000 10,827 15,000 15,000 10-60-682 Prop Mgmt - Amtrak Station 2,199 0 0 0 0 10-60-683 Prop Mgmt - Ptarmigan OS 0 0 0 0 0 10-60-684 Prop Mgmt - FRODO 0 5,000 79,006 60,000 40,000 10-60-685 Prop Mgmt - Mtn Man Park 640 500 331 500 500 10-60-686 Goranson Station 127 500 80 500 750 10-60-687 Prop Mgmt - 6 W 321 5,000 763 5,000 50,000 10-60-690 Miscellaneous Expense 6,935 8,000 10,933 12,000 10,000 10-60-695 Fraser Mustang 0 0 0 0 0 10-60-725 Street Improvements 0 0 0 0 250,000 10-60-730 Capital Projects 0 0 0 0 0 10-60-740 Art In Public Places 38,536 90,000 65,467 90,000 141,100 Sub-Total 1,351,860 1,630,425 1,054,698 1,441,708 2,434,019 Outdoor Activity Center 10-65-110 Salaries 0 0 0 0 0 10-65-210 Health Insurance 0 0 0 0 0 10-65-220 FICA Tax 0 0 0 0 0 10-65-230 Retirement 0 0 0 0 0 10-65-250 Unemployment Tax 0 0 0 0 0 10-65-260 Workers Comp Claims 0 0 0 0 0 10-65-280 Training Programs 0 0 0 0 0 10-65-290 Travel, Meals and Lodging 0 0 0 0 0 10-65-295 Meals and Entertainment 0 0 0 0 0 10-65-370 Other Professional Services 0 0 173 200 0 10-65-380 Janitorial Services 11,790 15,000 11,070 15,000 15,000 10-65-490 Professional Memberships 0 0 0 0 0 10-65-500 Operating Supplies 0 0 0 0 0 10-65-510 Equipment Purchase and Repair 0 0 0 0 0 10-65-560 Utilities - Telephone 0 0 0 0 0 10-65-561 Utilities - Natural Gas 987 1,236 871 1,236 1,200 10-65-562 Utilities - Electricity 1,196 1,236 998 1,236 1,200 10-65-665 WTHP Expenses 0 0 0 0 0 10-65-670 Prop Mgmt - 120 Zerex 120 5,000 533 1,000 60,000 10-65-690 Miscellaneous Expense 0 0 0 0 0 10-65-730 Capital Projects 0 0 0 0 0 10-65-740 Capital Purchases 0 0 0 0 0 Sub-Total 14,093 22,473 13,646 18,673 77,400 TRANSFERS 10-90-920 Transfer to CERF - Police Dept 60,000 60,000 0 0 84,000 10-90-925 Transfer to RRF 0 0 0 0 0 10-90-930 Transfer to CERF - PublicWorks 0 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 10-90-935 Transfer to CAF 200,000 550,000 550,000 550,000 750,000 10-90-940 Transfer to Debt Service Fund 0 0 0 0 0 10-90-950 Transfer to Water Fund 0 0 0 0 0 10-90-960 Transfer to CROS 0 326,379 0 0 326,379 10-90-970 Transfer to Committed Reserves 0 75,500 575,500 1,170,500 0 10-90-980 Transfer to Strategic Reserves 0 400,000 400,000 400,000 0 Page 4 TOWN OF FRASER 11/30/2021 DRAFT 11/11/2021 2020 2021 2021 2021 2022 Actuals Budget Year to Date YEE Budget 10-90-995 Salaries Clearing 0 0 0 0 0 10-90-996 FICA Tax Clearing 0 0 0 0 0 10-90-997 Unemployment Tax Clearing 0 0 0 0 0 Sub-Total 260,000 1,461,879 1,575,500 2,170,500 1,210,379 FISCAL AGENT 10-95-110 Salaries (8,252)0 0 0 0 10-95-210 Health Insurance (4,350)0 0 0 0 10-95-220 FICA Tax (575)0 0 0 0 10-95-230 Retirement (405)0 (25)0 0 10-95-250 Unemployment Tax (25)0 25 0 0 10-95-260 Workers Comp Claims 0 0 (43)0 0 10-95-560 Telephone (43)0 43 0 0 10-95-690 Misc. Payroll Expense 0 0 0 0 0 Sub-Total (13,650)0 0 0 0 GENERAL FUND EXPENDITURE TOTALS 3,632,068 6,178,730 4,673,615 6,220,553 7,168,328 GENERAL FUND REVENUE TOTALS 7,802,315 6,182,497 9,146,608 10,458,196 9,363,402 GENERAL FUND NEW REVENUE TOTALS 5,746,632 3,667,200 4,974,535 6,286,123 5,119,380 GENERAL FUND EXPENDITURE TOTALS 3,632,068 6,178,730 4,673,615 6,220,553 7,168,328 GENERAL FUND REVENUE OVER EXPENDITURES 4,170,247 3,767 4,472,993 4,237,643 2,195,075 GENERAL FUND EXPENDITURE OVER NEW REVENUES 2,114,564 (2,511,530)300,920 65,570 (2,048,948) GF Restricted Reserves - Tabor Emergency Reserve 110,000 185,500 110,000 185,500 185,500 GF Restricted Reserves - Affordable Housing Reserve 135,426 135,426 135,426 730,426 730,426 GF Restricted Reserves - Fees in Lieu of P&OS Reserve 6,379 0 6,379 6,379 0 GF Committed Emergency Reserve 1,000,000 1,575,500 1,575,500 1,575,500 1,575,500 GF Strategic Reserve 1,100,000 1,500,000 1,500,000 1,500,000 1,500,000 GF Unassigned Fund Balance 4,170,247 3,767 4,472,993 4,237,643 2,195,075 RESTRICTED REVENUE FUND REVENUE TAXES 12-31-100 Restricted 1% GF Sales Tax 936,728 687,500 796,142 1,025,000 800,000 12-31-800 Interest Income 1,257 500 185 400 400 Sub-Total 937,985 688,000 796,327 1,025,400 800,400 INTERGOVERNMENTAL 12-33-100 Grants & Aid to Agencies 11,000 11,000 10,460 14,000 11,000 Sub-Total 11,000 11,000 10,460 14,000 11,000 OTHER SOURCES AND TRANSFERS 12-36-900 Transfer In from Other Funds 0 0 0 0 0 12-39-999 Unassigned Fund Balance 158,332 38,838 537,577 537,577 696,977 Sub-Total 158,332 38,838 537,577 537,577 696,977 RESTRICTED REV FUND "NEW" REVENUES 948,985 699,000 806,787 1,039,400 811,400 RESTRICTED REV FUND TOTAL REVENUE 1,107,317 737,838 1,344,364 1,576,977 1,508,377 EXPENDITURES 12-40-610 Transportation O&M 518,215 680,000 341,396 600,000 400,000 12-40-615 Transportation - Capital Exp 0 0 0 0 0 Page 5 TOWN OF FRASER 11/30/2021 DRAFT 11/11/2021 2020 2021 2021 2021 2022 Actuals Budget Year to Date YEE Budget 12-40-710 Trails O&M 16,525 20,000 17,786 35,000 185,000 12-40-715 Trails - Capital Expenditures 35,000 35,000 0 35,000 30,000 12-40-810 Capital Projects 0 0 0 0 0 12-40-900 Transfer to Trans O&M Reserve 0 0 210,000 210,000 0 12-40-915 Transfer to Trans Cap Reserve 0 0 0 0 0 12-40-920 Transfer to Trails O&M Reserve 0 0 0 0 0 12-40-925 Transfer to Trails Cap Reserve 0 0 0 0 0 12-40-930 Transfer to Cap Proj Reserve 0 0 0 0 0 12-40-940 Transfer to Other Funds 0 0 0 0 0 Sub-Total 569,740 735,000 569,181 880,000 615,000 RESTRICTED REV FUND REVENUES 1,107,317 737,838 1,344,364 1,576,977 1,508,377 RESTRICTED REV FUND EXPENDITURES 569,740 735,000 569,181 880,000 615,000 RESTRICTED REV FUND REVENUES OVER EXPENDITURES 537,577 2,838 775,183 696,977 893,377 RRF - Committed Emergency Reserve 0 210,000 210,000 210,000 210,000 CONSERVATION TRUST FUND REVENUE 20-30-100 Cons Trust (Lottery) Proceeds 6,738 6,800 6,063 7,000 7,000 20-30-800 Interest Earnings 107 75 8 75 75 20-30-999 Unassigned Fund Balance 13,762 20,637 20,608 20,608 27,683 Sub-Total 20,608 27,512 26,679 27,683 34,758 EXPENDITURES 20-40-410 Bank Charges 0 0 0 0 0 20-40-650 Cons Trust Program Expenses 0 0 0 0 0 20-40-910 Transfer to General Fund 0 0 0 0 0 20-40-920 Transfer to Other Funds 0 10,000 0 0 10,000 Sub-Total 0 10,000 0 0 10,000 CTF REVENUES OVER EXPENDITURES (Unassigned Bal YE)20,608 17,512 26,679 27,683 24,758 CAPITAL EQUIP REPLACEMENT FUND REVENUES 30-30-100 Hwy Use Tax Proceeds 47,218 47,394 45,283 58,000 48,346 30-30-500 Sale of CERF Assets 0 0 0 0 0 30-30-800 Interest Earnings 2,170 2,500 68 200 200 30-30-900 Transfer from G/F - PoliceDept 60,000 60,000 0 60,000 84,000 30-30-910 Transfer from G/F - PublicWork 0 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 30-30-920 Transfer from Utility Funds 0 90,000 90,000 90,000 90,000 30-30-999 Unassigned Fund Balance 259,267 139,839 205,695 205,695 97,895 Sub-Total 368,655 389,733 391,046 463,895 370,441 EXPENDITURES 30-40-745 Public Safety Fleet Purchase 57,731 60,000 0 51,000 84,000 30-40-750 Regular Fleet Purchase 6,658 0 0 0 140,000 30-40-755 Heavy Equipment Purchase (7,925)200,000 0 200,000 150,000 Page 6 TOWN OF FRASER 11/30/2021 DRAFT 11/11/2021 2020 2021 2021 2021 2022 Actuals Budget Year to Date YEE Budget 30-40-810 Lease/Purchase - Principal 92,265 100,000 92,391 100,000 100,000 30-40-820 Lease/Purchase - Interest 14,232 15,000 9,051 15,000 15,000 30-40-910 Transfer to General Fund 0 0 0 0 0 Sub-Total 162,961 375,000 101,442 366,000 489,000 CERF REVENUES OVER EXPENDITURES (Unassigned Bal YE)205,695 14,733 289,605 97,895 (118,559) CAPITAL ASSET FUND REVENUE 32-30-100 Reserved for Future Use 128,985 80,000 0 87,000 0 32-30-500 Sale of Capital Assets 0 0 0 0 0 32-30-800 Interest Earnings (690)0 (89)(100)0 32-30-910 Transfer in from General Fund 200,000 550,000 550,000 550,000 750,000 32-30-940 Transfer in from DSF 0 0 0 0 0 32-30-950 Transfer in from Water Fund 0 0 0 0 0 32-30-999 Unassigned Fund Balance 299,058 113,179 53,434 53,434 134 Sub-Total 627,353 743,179 603,345 690,334 750,134 EXPENDITURES 32-40-810 Capital Proj- Streets Existing 573,919 740,000 266,103 660,000 700,000 32-40-815 Capital Proj - Streets New 0 0 0 0 0 32-40-820 Capital Proj - Buildings Exist 0 0 19,652 30,200 0 32-40-825 Capital Proj - Buildings New 0 0 0 0 0 32-40-830 Capital Proj - Parks/OS Exist 0 0 0 0 0 32-40-835 Capital Proj - Parks/OS New 0 0 0 0 0 32-40-900 Transfer to General Fund 0 0 0 0 0 32-40-910 Transfer to CAF Res - Streets 0 0 0 0 0 32-40-920 Transfer to CAF Res - Bldgs 0 0 0 0 0 32-40-930 Transfer to CAF Res - Parks/OS 0 0 0 0 0 Sub-Total 573,919 740,000 285,754 690,200 700,000 CAF REVENUES OVER EXPENDITURES 53,434 3,179 317,591 134 50,134 CAF - Committed Reserves 0 0 0 0 0 COZENS RANCH OPEN SPACE (CROS) FUND REVENUE 35-30-100 Grants and Awards 0 735,000 0 75,000 300,000 35-30-110 In-Kind Services 0 0 0 0 0 35-30-120 Miscellaneous Revenue 0 0 0 0 0 35-30-130 Interest Income 1,529 0 83 200 0 35-30-910 Transfer in from General Fund 0 326,379 0 0 326,379 35-30-920 Transfer in from CTF 0 10,000 0 0 10,000 35-30-999 Carryover Balance 212,233 212,963 212,992 212,992 274,892 Sub-Total 213,762 1,284,342 213,074 288,192 911,271 EXPENDITURES 35-40-300 Design 0 0 0 0 0 35-40-310 Amphitheater 0 0 0 0 0 Page 7 TOWN OF FRASER 11/30/2021 DRAFT 11/11/2021 2020 2021 2021 2021 2022 Actuals Budget Year to Date YEE Budget 35-40-315 Bike Park 0 0 0 0 0 35-40-320 Landscape 0 60,000 0 0 50,000 35-40-325 Parking 0 0 0 0 0 35-40-330 Playground 0 600,000 0 0 0 35-40-335 Restrooms 770 600,000 1,735 2,500 250,000 35-40-340 Trails 0 0 10,515 10,800 0 35-40-345 Utilities 0 0 0 0 160,000 35-40-900 Transfer to General Fund 0 0 0 0 0 Sub-Total 770 1,260,000 12,250 13,300 460,000 CROS FUND REVENUES 213,762 1,284,342 213,074 288,192 911,271 CROS FUND EXPENDITURES 770 1,260,000 12,250 13,300 460,000 CROS FUND REVENUES OVER EXPENDITURES 212,992 24,342 200,824 274,892 451,271 DEBT SERVICE FUND REVENUE 40-30-100 Property Tax 0 0 0 0 0 40-30-200 Specific Ownership Tax 0 0 0 0 0 40-30-500 Bond Proceeds 0 0 0 0 0 40-30-800 Interest Earnings 254 1,000 14 100 100 40-30-910 Transfer in from General Fund 0 0 0 0 0 40-30-990 Transfer in from DSF Reserves 0 0 0 0 0 40-30-999 Carryover Balance 1,573 2,573 1,827 1,827 1,927 Sub-Total 1,827 3,573 1,841 1,927 2,027 EXPENDITURES 40-40-385 Treasurer's Fees GO Bond 0 0 0 0 0 40-40-390 Abatements - GO Bond 0 0 0 0 0 40-40-500 Cost of Issuance 0 0 0 0 0 40-40-550 Underwriters Discount 0 0 0 0 0 40-40-810 Bond Principal - 02 S&U Issue 0 0 0 0 0 40-40-811 Bond Principal - 98 GO Issue 0 0 0 0 0 40-40-812 Bond Principal - 98 S&U Issue 0 0 0 0 0 40-40-820 Bond Interest - 02 S&U Issue 0 0 0 0 0 40-40-821 Bond Interest - 98 GO Issue 0 0 0 0 0 40-40-822 Bond Interest - 98 S&U Issue 0 0 0 0 0 40-40-850 Bond Agent Fees 0 0 0 0 0 40-40-910 Transfer to DSF Reserves 0 0 0 0 0 40-40-920 Transfer to Other Funds 0 0 0 0 0 Sub-Total 0 0 0 0 0 DEBT SERVICE REVENUES 1,827 3,573 1,841 1,927 2,027 DEBT SERVICE EXPENDITURES 0 0 0 0 0 DEBT SERVICE REVENUES OVER EXPENDITURES 1,827 3,573 1,841 1,927 2,027 Debt Service Fund Restricted Reserves 0 0 0 0 0 Debt Service Fund Committed Reserves 35,520 40,411 35,534 35,620 35,720 Page 8 TOWN OF FRASER 11/30/2021 DRAFT 11/11/2021 2020 2021 2021 2021 2022 Actuals Budget Year to Date YEE Budget WATER FUND REVENUES TAXES 50-31-100 Property Tax 0 0 0 0 0 50-31-200 Fraser Firming Revenue 0 0 0 0 0 Sub-Total 0 0 0 0 0 LICENSES & PERMITS 50-32-100 Excavation Permit Fees 2,250 275 2,475 3,000 275 Sub-Total 2,250 275 2,475 3,000 275 CHARGES FOR SERVICES 50-34-100 Customer Service Charges 1,073,290 1,100,000 827,989 1,025,000 1,093,075 50-34-150 Penalties & Interest 4,227 2,000 5,790 6,500 5,000 50-34-200 Plant Investment Fees 182,389 7,700 586,365 593,000 154,000 50-34-300 Water Meter Sales 32,084 50,000 92,462 95,000 50,000 Sub-Total 1,291,990 1,159,700 1,512,606 1,719,500 1,302,075 MISCELLANEOUS REVENUE 50-36-100 Interest Earnings 9,341 6,000 734 3,000 3,000 50-36-900 Miscellaneous Revenue 3,844 2,500 2,817 3,000 2,500 Sub-Total 13,185 8,500 3,551 6,000 5,500 OTHER SOURCES & TRANSFERS 50-39-100 Debt Service Proceeds 0 0 0 0 0 50-39-200 Grants and Aid from Agencies 0 0 0 0 0 50-39-910 Transfers In 0 0 0 0 0 50-39-999 Unassigned Fund Balance 654,680 764,124 781,538 781,538 1,362,293 Sub-Total 654,680 764,124 781,538 781,538 1,362,293 New Revenues 1,307,425 1,168,475 1,518,631 1,728,500 1,307,850 Total Revenue with Carryover 1,962,104 1,932,599 2,300,169 2,510,038 2,670,143 EXPENDITURES 50-40-110 Salaries 284,349 310,000 242,258 310,000 350,659 50-40-210 Health Insurance 67,048 80,000 51,376 80,000 81,878 50-40-220 FICA Tax 20,027 25,000 17,346 23,715 26,825 50-40-230 Retirement 14,501 15,000 13,781 18,600 35,066 50-40-250 Unemployment Tax 849 1,000 729 930 1,052 50-40-260 Workers Comp Claims 0 0 0 0 0 50-40-280 Training Programs 2,884 3,500 1,318 3,500 3,500 50-40-290 Travel, Meals and Lodging 295 3,500 79 3,500 3,500 50-40-295 Meals and Entertainment 6 2,000 74 2,000 2,000 50-40-300 Administrative Reimbursement 0 0 0 0 0 50-40-310 Legal Fees 77,298 65,000 39,132 65,000 65,000 50-40-330 Engineering Fees 46,427 100,000 91,438 100,000 90,000 50-40-360 Computers-Networks and Support 12,243 7,000 43,845 49,000 25,000 50-40-370 Other Professional Services 8,613 60,000 3,384 10,000 105,000 50-40-385 Treasurer's Fees 0 0 0 0 0 50-40-390 Abatements 0 0 0 0 0 50-40-410 Bank Charges 0 0 0 0 0 50-40-430 Insurance 14,422 27,000 0 27,000 27,000 50-40-440 Advertising 0 500 0 500 500 50-40-460 System Repair and Maint - Prod 65,506 160,000 36,353 40,000 245,000 50-40-465 System Repair and Maint - Dist 21,580 265,000 8,957 25,000 162,000 50-40-490 Professional Memberships 5,814 9,500 5,542 9,500 9,500 Page 9 TOWN OF FRASER 11/30/2021 DRAFT 11/11/2021 2020 2021 2021 2021 2022 Actuals Budget Year to Date YEE Budget 50-40-500 Operating Supplies-Production 15,589 25,000 11,513 25,000 35,000 50-40-505 Operating Supplies-Distrib 38,954 80,000 63,948 70,000 45,000 50-40-510 Equipment Purchase and Repair 541 15,000 22 5,000 5,000 50-40-520 Testing 17,970 10,000 2,437 10,000 10,000 50-40-550 Postage & Billing Supplies 1,649 3,000 990 3,000 3,000 50-40-560 Utilities - Telephone 11,298 10,000 8,918 10,000 12,000 50-40-562 Utilities - Electricity 40,979 50,000 31,713 50,000 50,000 50-40-670 Prop Mgmt - Fraser WTP 1,087 60,000 185 5,000 60,000 50-40-680 Prop Mgmt - Maryvale WTP 8,927 8,000 236 5,000 5,000 50-40-685 Prop Mgmt - St. Louis Headgate 0 0 0 0 0 50-40-690 Miscellaneous Expense 1,218 1,500 1,192 1,000 1,500 50-40-695 Bad Debt Write Off 0 0 0 0 0 50-40-715 Water Rights - Diversion & Dev 3,908 45,000 9,821 12,000 65,000 50-40-730 Capital Projects 0 425,000 0 0 805,000 50-40-740 Capital Purchases 0 0 0 0 0 50-40-760 Fraser Firming - CapProj 0 0 0 0 0 50-40-770 PIF - Capital Purchases 0 0 0 0 0 50-40-780 Capitalized Assets - Audit 0 0 0 0 0 50-40-790 Depreciation 396,586 0 0 0 0 50-40-810 Debt Service - Principal 0 0 0 0 0 50-40-820 Debt Service - Interest 0 0 0 0 0 50-40-850 Debt Service - Agent Fees 0 0 0 0 0 50-40-910 Transfer to General Fund 0 0 0 0 0 50-40-930 Transfer to CERF 0 45,000 45,000 45,000 45,000 50-40-970 Transfer to Reserves 0 0 0 100,000 77,000 50-40-980 Transfer to Strategic Reserves 0 7,700 38,500 38,500 77,000 50-40-990 Transfer to Wastewater Fund 0 0 0 0 0 Sub-Total 1,180,566 1,919,200 770,086 1,147,745 2,528,980 WATER FUND REVENUES 1,962,104 1,932,599 2,300,169 2,510,038 2,670,143 WATER FUND EXPENDITURES 1,180,566 1,919,200 770,086 1,147,745 2,528,980 WATER FUND REVENUES OVER EXPENDITURES 781,538 13,399 1,530,083 1,362,293 141,163 Water Fund Committed Reserve 500,000 500,000 500,000 600,000 677,000 Water Fund Strategic Reserve 155,525 194,025 194,025 194,025 271,025 Water Fund Unassigned Reserve 781,538 13,399 1,530,083 1,362,293 141,163 WASTEWATER FUND REVENUES TAXES 0 0 0 0 0 Property Tax 0 0 0 0 0 Specific Ownership Tax 0 0 0 0 0 Sub-Total 0 0 0 0 0 LICENSES & PERMITS 55-32-100 Excavation Permit Fees 0 0 0 0 0 Sub-Total 0 0 0 0 0 CHARGES FOR SERVICES 55-34-100 Customer Service Charges 860,950 990,000 663,485 990,000 982,702 55-34-150 Penalties & Interest 3,820 1,000 4,240 5,000 3,000 55-34-200 Plant Investment Fees 180,000 300,000 616,875 624,000 150,000 55-34-999 Contributed Assets 0 0 0 0 0 Sub-Total 1,044,769 1,291,000 1,284,600 1,619,000 1,135,702 Page 10 TOWN OF FRASER 11/30/2021 DRAFT 11/11/2021 2020 2021 2021 2021 2022 Actuals Budget Year to Date YEE Budget MISCELLANEOUS REVENUE 55-36-100 Interest Earnings 50,972 18,500 1,975 10,000 10,000 55-36-500 JFF Management Fee 29,000 29,000 14,500 29,000 37,800 55-36-900 Miscellaneous Revenue 0 0 0 0 0 Sub-Total 79,972 47,500 16,475 39,000 47,800 OTHER SOURCES & TRANSFERS 55-39-100 Debt Service Proceeds 0 0 0 0 0 55-39-200 Grants and Aid from Agencies 0 0 0 0 0 55-39-910 Transfer in from General Fund 0 0 0 0 0 55-39-920 Transfer in from WWF Committed Res JFF Plant Rqmts 0 0 0 0 0 55-39-999 Unassigned Fund Balance 4,867,989 2,953,351 4,726,399 4,726,399 4,555,961 Sub-Total 4,867,989 2,953,351 4,726,399 4,726,399 4,555,961 New Revenues 1,124,741 1,338,500 1,301,075 1,658,000 1,183,502 Total Revenues with Carryover 5,992,731 4,291,851 6,027,473 6,384,399 5,739,463 EXPENDITURES 55-40-110 Salaries 287,334 325,000 254,060 325,000 378,751 55-40-210 Health Insurance 66,911 83,000 53,845 83,000 87,908 55-40-220 FICA Tax 20,149 27,000 18,181 24,863 28,974 55-40-230 Retirement 13,782 17,000 14,388 19,500 36,291 55-40-250 Unemployment Tax 852 1,000 764 975 1,136 55-40-260 Workers Comp Claims 0 0 0 0 0 55-40-280 Training Programs 700 3,000 193 3,000 3,000 55-40-290 Travel, Meals and Lodging 0 3,000 0 3,000 3,000 55-40-295 Meals and Entertainment 0 2,000 0 2,000 2,000 55-40-310 Legal Fees 0 5,000 0 5,000 5,000 55-40-330 Engineering Fees 82,690 20,000 0 20,000 85,000 55-40-360 Computers-Networks and Support 9,290 7,000 14,258 18,000 15,000 55-40-370 Other Professional Services 8,577 15,000 3,384 6,000 45,000 55-40-410 Bank Charges 0 100 0 100 100 55-40-430 Insurance 9,027 7,000 0 7,000 10,000 55-40-440 Advertising 0 500 0 500 500 55-40-460 System Repair and Maint-Collec 66,307 150,000 80,600 150,000 150,000 55-40-490 Professional Memberships 5,252 6,000 5,314 6,000 6,000 55-40-500 Operating Supplies-Collections 698 5,500 247 5,500 5,500 55-40-510 Equipment Purchase and Repair 39 50,000 22 2,500 55,000 55-40-520 Testing 0 1,000 0 1,000 1,000 55-40-550 Postage & Billing Supplies 1,649 2,500 958 2,500 2,500 55-40-560 Utilities - Telephone 3,256 2,000 2,864 5,000 5,000 55-40-650 WW Treatment Charges/JFOC 228,471 290,000 183,235 290,000 325,000 55-40-660 JFF CapRepl Reserve 0 0 0 0 0 55-40-670 JFF O&M Reserve 0 0 0 0 0 55-40-690 Miscellaneous Expense 1,038 3,000 1,099 3,000 3,000 55-40-695 Bad Debt Write Off 0 0 0 0 0 55-40-730 Capital Projects 14,082 250,000 0 0 70,000 55-40-740 Capital Purchases 0 0 0 0 0 55-40-760 PIF - Capital Projects 0 0 0 0 0 55-40-770 PIF - Capital Purchases 0 0 0 0 0 55-40-780 Capitalized Assets - Audit 0 0 0 0 0 55-40-790 Depreciation 446,229 0 0 0 0 55-40-810 Debt Service - Principal 0 0 0 0 0 55-40-820 Debt Service - Interest 0 0 0 0 0 55-40-850 Debt Service - Agent Fees 0 0 0 0 0 Page 11 TOWN OF FRASER 11/30/2021 DRAFT 11/11/2021 2020 2021 2021 2021 2022 Actuals Budget Year to Date YEE Budget 55-40-910 Transfer to General Fund 0 0 0 0 0 55-40-930 Transfer to CERF 0 45,000 45,000 45,000 45,000 55-40-970 Transfer to Reserves 0 0 0 0 50,000 55-40-980 Transfer to Strategic Reserves 0 800,000 800,000 800,000 0 55-40-990 Transfer to Water Fund 0 0 0 0 0 Sub-Total 1,266,332 2,120,600 1,478,413 1,828,438 1,419,660 WASTEWATER FUND REVENUES 5,992,731 4,291,851 6,027,473 6,384,399 5,739,463 WASTEWATER FUND EXPENDITURES 1,266,332 2,120,600 1,478,413 1,828,438 1,419,660 WASTEWATER FUND REVENUES OVER EXPENDITURES 4,726,399 2,171,251 4,549,061 4,555,961 4,319,803 WWF Committed Emergency Reserves 2,101,000 2,101,000 2,101,000 2,101,000 2,151,000 WWF Strategic Reserves 1,255,000 2,055,000 2,055,000 2,055,000 2,055,000 Wastewater Fund Unassigned Fund Balance 4,726,399 2,171,251 4,549,061 4,555,961 4,319,803 FRASER HOUSING AUTHORITY REVENUES 60-30-100 Reserved for Future Use 0 0 0 0 0 60-30-200 Grants 0 0 0 0 0 60-30-400 Application Fees 0 0 0 0 0 60-30-800 Interest Earnings 0 0 0 0 0 60-30-900 Miscellaneous Revenue 0 0 0 0 0 60-30-910 Transfer in from General Fund 0 0 0 0 0 60-30-999 Unassigned Fund Balance 0 0 0 0 0 Sub-Total 0 0 0 0 0 EXPENDITURES 60-40-310 Legal Fees 0 0 0 0 0 60-40-370 Professional Services 0 0 0 0 0 60-40-430 Insurance 0 0 0 0 0 60-40-900 Transfer to General Fund 0 0 0 0 0 Sub-Total 0 0 0 0 0 FHA REVENUES OVER EXPENDITURES 0 0 0 0 0 FHA Committed Reserves 0 0 0 0 0 SUCCESS SUCCESS Page 12 DRAFT 11/30/2021 JOINT FACILITIES FUND - O&M 2020 2021 2021 2021 2021 2022 Actual Budget Amend Budget Year to Date YEE Budget REVENUE 40-30-100 Interest - O&M Accounts 0 400 400 66 200 400 40-30-200 O&M Reimbursement - WPR 204,199 257,621 257,621 161,617 221,152 240,297 40-30-205 Capital Reimbursement - WPR 0 0 0 0 0 0 40-30-210 O&M Reimbursement - GC#1 330,549 414,684 414,684 264,613 355,980 395,356 40-30-215 Capital Reimbursement - GC#1 0 0 0 0 0 0 40-30-220 O&M Reimbursement - TOF 228,471 285,395 285,395 182,038 244,993 271,127 40-30-225 Capital Reimbursement - TOF 0 0 0 0 0 0 40-30-230 Study Reimbursement - WP 0 0 0 0 0 0 40-30-235 Study Reimbursement - Granby 0 0 0 0 0 0 40-30-500 Sale of General Fixed Assets 0 0 0 0 0 0 40-30-800 Interest - Cap Res Accounts 0 0 0 0 0 0 40-30-900 Miscellaneous Revenue 0 0 0 652 800 0 Sub-Total 763,219 958,100 958,100 608,986 823,125 907,180 OTHER SOURCES AND TRANSFERS 40-30-930 Transfer In From Cap Project 0 0 0 0 0 0 40-30-980 Capitalized Reimbursements 0 0 0 0 0 0 40-30-999 Carryover Balance 220,947 281,004 281,004 220,947 220,946 221,946 Sub-Total 220,947 281,004 281,004 220,947 220,946 221,946 2020 2021 2021 2021 2021 2022 PLANT EXPENDITURES Actual Budget Amend Budget Year to Date YEE Budget 40-85-110 Salaries 225,001 285,000 285,000 141,705 167,000 240,000 40-85-210 Health Insurance 52,202 81,000 81,000 36,740 53,994 65,000 40-85-220 FICA Tax 15,739 22,000 22,000 9,409 14,180 18,360 40-85-230 Retirement 11,008 11,500 11,500 7,361 7,480 14,400 40-85-250 Unemployment Tax 678 1,000 1,000 426 561 720 40-85-260 Workers Comp Claims 0 0 0 0 0 0 40-85-280 Training Programs 350 3,000 3,000 450 3,000 3,000 40-85-290 Travel - Meals and Lodging 0 3,000 3,000 0 3,000 3,000 40-85-295 Meals - Local Business 45 300 300 57 300 300 40-85-310 Legal Fees 0 10,000 10,000 0 10,000 10,000 40-85-320 Audit Fee 5,868 6,000 6,000 6,750 7,000 3,000 40-85-330 Engineering Fees 5,125 10,000 10,000 4,242 10,000 10,000 40-85-340 Financial Services 0 0 0 0 0 0 40-85-350 Sludge Removal 59,495 70,000 70,000 64,609 70,000 70,000 40-85-370 Professional Services 2,590 10,000 10,000 4,008 10,000 15,000 40-85-375 Reimbursable Prof Services 7,620 0 0 0 0 0 40-85-410 Bank Charges 23 0 0 34 0 50 40-85-430 Insurance - Plant 36,296 45,000 45,000 0 40,000 40,000 40-85-440 Advertising 0 1,000 1,000 0 500 500 40-85-460 Plant Maintenance and Repair 45,778 55,000 55,000 23,828 55,000 55,000 40-85-475 Grounds Maintenance 1,272 1,000 1,000 627 1,000 1,500 40-85-480 Equipment Rental 268 500 500 85 500 500 40-85-490 Professional Memberships 180 600 600 162 600 600 40-85-500 Operating Supplies 4,329 10,000 10,000 5,680 10,000 10,000 40-85-506 Operating Supplies - Chemicals 22,508 50,000 50,000 21,071 50,000 50,000 40-85-510 Equipment Purchase and Repair 17,525 20,000 20,000 16,249 20,000 20,000 40-85-520 Testing 61,718 55,000 55,000 53,399 55,000 65,000 40-85-525 Permits 0 10,000 10,000 0 0 10,000 40-85-550 Postage 672 0 0 0 700 700 40-85-560 Utilities - Telephone 4,115 4,000 4,000 3,147 4,000 5,850 40-85-562 Utilities - Electricity 172,467 175,000 175,000 138,822 175,000 175,000 40-85-565 Utilities - Natural Gas 2,217 3,500 3,500 1,539 3,500 3,500 40-85-567 Utilities - Plant Generator 610 1,500 1,500 2,262 3,000 3,000 40-85-569 Utilities - Trash Removal 3,160 2,800 2,800 2,486 2,800 2,800 Page 1 DRAFT 40-85-650 Vehicle Expenses 3,861 8,000 8,000 9,297 10,000 8,000 40-85-690 Miscellaneous Expense 500 2,000 2,000 3,625 4,000 2,000 40-85-730 Capital Projects 0 0 0 0 0 0 40-85-740 Capital Purchases 0 0 0 0 0 0 40-85-750 Contingency 0 0 0 0 0 0 40-85-810 Lease/Purchase - Principal 0 0 0 0 0 0 40-85-820 Lease/Purchase - Interest 0 0 0 0 0 0 40-85-930 Capital Reserve Projects 0 0 0 0 0 0 40-90-900 Transfer to Nutrients 0 0 0 30,010 30,010 0 Sub-Total 763,220 957,700 957,700 588,081 822,125 906,780 Joint Facilities Fund Revenues 984,166 1,239,104 1,239,104 829,933 1,044,071 1,129,126 Joint Facilities Fund Expenditures 763,220 957,700 957,700 588,081 822,125 906,780 Joint Facilities Fund Revenues over Expenditure 220,946 281,404 281,404 241,851 221,946 222,346 Joint Facilities Fund O&M Reserve Reduction/Refund GC#1 Budget Total - O&M Reimb. and Mgmt Fees *345,049 429,184 429,184 279,113 370,480 409,856 WPR Budget Total - O&M Reimb. and Mgmt Fees *218,699 272,121 272,121 176,117 235,652 254,797 TOF Budget Total - O&M Reimb. 228,471 285,395 285,395 182,038 244,993 271,127 * Mgmt Fee Billed/Entity Annually 14,500 14,500 14,500 14,500 14,500 14,500 2020 2021 2021 2021 2021 2022 Actual Budget Amend Budget Year to Date YEE Budget JOINT FACILITIES FUND - CRR REVENUES 47-30-100 Interest Income - CRR Accounts 0 15,000 15,000 1,039 2,000 3,000 47-30-110 Interest Income - CIP Accounts 0 0 0 0 0 0 47-30-210 CRR Reimbursable - WPR 0 0 0 0 0 0 47-30-215 CIP Reimbursable - WPR 0 0 0 0 0 0 47-30-220 CRR Reimbursable - GC#1 0 0 0 0 0 0 47-30-225 CIP Reimbursable - GC#1 0 0 0 0 0 0 47-30-230 CRR Reimbursable - TOF 0 0 0 0 0 0 47-30-235 CIP Reimbursable - TOF 0 0 0 0 0 0 47-30-240 CRR Reimbursable - NCWCD 0 0 0 0 0 0 47-30-800 Sale of JFOC Fixed Assets 0 0 0 0 0 0 47-30-900 Miscellaneous Revenue 0 0 0 4,500 4,500 0 47-30-990 CRR Carryover Balance 2,702,417 2,587,245 2,587,245 2,702,417 2,702,417 1,783,917 47-30-999 CIP Carryover Balance 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sub-total 2,702,417 2,602,245 2,602,245 2,707,956 2,708,917 1,786,917 EXPENDITURES Capital Replacement Reserve Projects (existing) 47-60-370 Engineering, Legal and Other Prof. Services 0 0 0 18,766 20,000 145,000 47-60-730 CRR Projects 0 0 0 0 0 622,000 Capital Improvement Projects (new) 47-65-370 Engineering, Legal and Other Prof. Services 0 0 0 91,263 100,000 100,000 47-65-730 CIP Projects 0 905,000 905,000 719,370 750,000 778,000 Capital Purchases 47-69-740 Capital Purchases 0 130,000 130,000 30,763 55,000 40,000 Sub-total 0 1,035,000 1,035,000 860,162 925,000 1,685,000 Joint Facilites Fund CRR Revenues 2,702,417 2,602,245 2,602,245 2,707,956 2,708,917 1,786,917 Joint Facilites Fund CRR Expenditures 0 1,035,000 1,035,000 860,162 925,000 1,685,000 Joint Facilites Fund CRR Revenues over Expenditures 2,702,417 1,567,245 1,567,245 1,847,794 1,783,917 101,917 2020 2021 2021 2021 2021 2022 JOINT FACILITIES FUND - NUTRIENTS Actual Budget Amend Budget Year to Date YEE Budget REVENUE 50-30-100 Interest - Nutrients Accounts 0 0 0 0 0 0 50-30-200 Nutrients Reimbursement - WPR 0 0 34,755 15,233 34,755 46,247 50-30-205 Capital Reimbursement - WPR 0 0 0 0 0 0 50-30-210 Nutrients Reimbursement - GC#1 0 0 55,944 25,111 55,944 76,089 50-30-215 Capital Reimbursement - GC#1 0 0 0 0 0 0 Page 2 DRAFT 50-30-220 Nutrients Reimbursement - TOF 0 0 38,502 17,208 38,502 52,180 50-30-225 Capital Reimbursement - TOF 0 0 0 0 0 0 50-30-230 Nutrients Reimb - NCWCD 0 0 136,134 107,601 136,134 116,344 50-30-235 Capital Reimb. - NCWCD 0 0 0 0 0 0 50-30-800 Interest - Cap Res Nutrients 0 0 0 0 0 0 50-30-900 Miscellaneous Revenue 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sub-Total 0 0 265,335 165,153 265,335 290,860 OTHER SOURCES AND TRANSFERS 50-30-910 Transfer In From O&M 0 0 0 30,010 30,010 0 50-30-930 Transfer In From Cap Project 0 0 0 0 0 0 50-30-980 Capitalized Reimbursements 0 0 0 0 0 0 50-30-999 Carryover Balance 0 0 0 0 0 30,010 Sub-Total 0 0 0 30,010 30,010 30,010 2020 2021 2021 2021 2021 2022 PLANT EXPENDITURES Actual Budget Amend Budget Year to Date YEE Budget 50-85-110 Salaries 0 0 63,000 49,736 63,000 80,000 50-85-210 Health Insurance 0 0 13,506 10,088 13,506 25,000 50-85-220 FICA Tax 0 0 4,820 3,820 4,820 6,120 50-85-230 Retirement 0 0 2,520 1,989 2,520 4,800 50-85-250 Unemployment Tax 0 0 189 150 189 240 50-85-260 Workers Comp Claims 0 0 0 0 0 0 50-85-280 Training Programs 0 0 1,500 0 1,500 1,500 50-85-290 Travel - Meals and Lodging 0 0 1,500 0 1,500 1,500 50-85-295 Meals - Local Business 0 0 300 0 300 300 50-85-310 Legal Fees 0 0 2,500 0 2,500 5,000 50-85-320 Audit Fee 0 0 0 0 0 3,000 50-85-330 Engineering Fees 0 0 2,500 0 2,500 5,000 50-85-340 Financial Services 0 0 0 0 0 0 50-85-350 Sludge Removal 0 0 7,000 0 7,000 10,000 50-85-370 Professional Services 0 0 4,000 1,169 4,000 5,000 50-85-375 Reimbursable Prof Services 0 0 30,000 49,226 30,000 0 50-85-410 Bank Charges 0 0 0 0 0 0 50-85-430 Insurance - Plant 0 0 10,000 0 10,000 10,000 50-85-440 Advertising 0 0 100 0 100 500 50-85-460 Plant Maintenance and Repair 0 0 6,000 3,732 6,000 10,000 50-85-475 Grounds Maintenance 0 0 1,000 0 1,000 1,000 50-85-480 Equipment Rental 0 0 500 0 500 500 50-85-490 Professional Memberships 0 0 300 0 300 300 50-85-500 Operating Supplies 0 0 6,000 3,167 6,000 8,000 50-85-506 Operating Supplies - Chemicals 0 0 45,000 49,303 45,000 47,000 50-85-510 Equipment Purchase and Repair 0 0 12,000 4,773 12,000 12,000 50-85-520 Testing 0 0 18,000 1,772 18,000 20,000 50-85-525 Permits 0 0 5,000 0 5,000 5,000 50-85-550 Postage 0 0 300 0 300 300 50-85-560 Utilities - Telephone 0 0 300 194 300 300 50-85-562 Utilities - Electricity 0 0 24,000 14,779 24,000 25,000 50-85-565 Utilities - Natural Gas 0 0 0 0 0 0 50-85-567 Utilities - Plant Generator 0 0 1,000 1,091 1,000 1,000 50-85-569 Utilities - Trash Removal 0 0 1,500 0 1,500 1,500 50-85-650 Vehicle Expenses 0 0 0 0 0 0 50-85-690 Miscellaneous Expense 0 0 500 0 500 500 50-85-730 Capital Projects 0 0 500 177 500 500 50-85-740 Capital Purchases 0 0 0 0 0 50-85-750 Contingency 0 0 0 0 0 0 50-85-810 Lease/Purchase - Principal 0 0 0 0 0 0 50-85-820 Lease/Purchase - Interest 0 0 0 0 0 0 50-85-930 Capital Reserve Projects 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sub-Total 0 0 265,335 195,164 265,335 290,860 Joint Facilities Fund Revenues 0 0 265,335 195,164 295,345 320,870 Joint Facilities Fund Expenditures 0 0 265,335 195,164 265,335 290,860 Joint Facilities Fund Revenues over Expenditure 0 0 0 0 30,010 30,010 Joint Facilities Fund Nutirents Reserve Reduction/Refund GC#1 Budget Total - Nutrients Reimb. and Mgmt Fees *0 0 57,594 25,111 59,244 79,389 WPR Budget Total - Nutrients Reimb. and Mgmt Fees *0 0 36,405 15,233 38,055 49,547 TOF Budget Total - Nutrients Reimb. 0 0 38,502 17,208 38,502 52,180 NCWCD Budget Total - Nutrients Reimb. and Mgmt Fees **0 0 137,234 107,601 138,334 118,544 * 60% Mgmt Fee Billed/Entity Annually 0 1,650 3,300 3,300 3,300 ** 40% Mgmt Fee Billed/Entity Annually 0 1,100 2,200 2,200 2,200 Page 3 FRASER BOARD OF TRUSTEES MINUTES DATE:November 3, 2021 MEETING:Board of Trustees Regular Meeting PLACE:Fraser Town Hall Board Room and Virtually PRESENT Board:Mayor Philip Vandernail; Mayor Pro-Tem Eileen Waldow; Trustees; Andy Miller, Brian Cerkvenik, Katie Soles, Parnell Quinn and Kaydee Fisher Staff:Town Manager, Ed Cannon; Town Clerk, Antoinette McVeigh; Assistant Town Manager, Michael Brack; Town Planner, Catherine Trotter; Finance Manager, Beth Williams; Police Chief, Glen Trainor Others:See attached list Mayor Vandernail called the meeting to order at 7:06 p.m. 1.Workshop- 2022 Budget Town Manager Ed Cannon presented to the Board. There will be a Budget Hearing on November 17 and December 1. 2.Rollcall: Mayor Philip Vandernail; Mayor Pro-Tem Eileen Waldow; Trustees; Andy Miller, Brian Cerkvenik, Katie Soles, Parnell Quinn and Kaydee Fisher 3.Approval of Agenda: Trustee Quinn moved, and Trustee Waldow seconded the motion to approve the amended agenda, Item 6a First Amendment to Economic Inducements and Incentives for Watt Investment LLP will be moved to item 5a and Item 5a will be Resolution 2021- 11-01 Amended Final Plan and Preliminary Plat, The Willows Apartments will move to Item 6a. Motion carried: 7-0. 4.Consent Agenda: a)Minutes October 20, 2021 Trustee Soles moved, and Trustee Miller seconded the motion to approve the consent agenda. Motion carried: 7-0. 5.Discussion and Possible Action Regarding: a)First Amendment to Economic Inducements and Incentives for Watt Investment LLP Trustee Soles moved, and Trustee Miller seconded the motion to approve a six month extension for Watt Investment regarding the First Amendment to Economic Inducements and Incentives. Motion carried: 7-0. Page 2 of 2 6.Discussion and Possible Action Regarding: a)Resolution 2021-11-01 Amended Final Plan and Preliminary Plat, The Willows Apartments Layla Rosales Grand Park Planner and Clark Lipscomb applicant presented and answered questions regarding The Willows Apartments. The applicant informed the Board the apartments will now be condominiums for sale rather than a rental product. Trustee Soles moved, and Trustee Quinn seconded the motion to continue the discussion regarding The Willows Apartments to November 17, 2021. Motion carried: 7-0. b)Ordinance 485 Water Wastewater Advisory Committee No Action 7. Open Forum: a) Lipscomb discussed housing 8.Updates a) Trustee Quinn, Kings Crossing Road b)Trustee Miller, Deed Restricted Housing and Impact Fees c)Trustee Waldow, Construction traffic on Mill Avenue, Rate fee evaluation d)Trustee Soles, Cap on short term rentals 9.Adjourn: Trustee Soles moved, and Trustee Miller seconded the motion to adjourn. Motion carried: 7-0. Meeting adjourned at 9:10 p.m. _____________________________ Antoinette McVeigh, Town Clerk MEMO TO: Mayor Vandernail and the Board of Trustees FROM: Adam Cwiklin, Water and Wastewater Superintendent and Russell Pennington, P.E., Public Works Director DATE: November 11, 2021 SUBJECT: Water Efficiency Plan SUBJECT: Staff seeks Board support in developing a Water Efficiency Plan for the Town and out-of-town service areas. The Town intends to pursue a Colorado Water Conservation Board (CWCB) Grant to cover 75% of costs. DEPARTMENT: Public Works PRESENTER/PREPARER: Adam Cwiklin, Water and Wastewater Superintendent FISCAL INFORMATION: Cost as Recommended: $50,000 max, 75% CWCB/12.5% cash/12.5% in-kind Balance Available: Fund: Other Professional Services Budget Line Item Number: 50-40-370 New Appropriation Required: NO REQUESTED ACTON: Motion to support efforts towards Fraser producing a Water Efficiency Plan through the CWCB grant program. SUMMARY AND BACKGROUND OF SUBJECT MATTER: Colorado water providers who supply more than 2,000 acre-feet of water annually must submit or update water efficiency plans with the Colorado Water Conservation Board (CWCB). Colorado requires that water efficiency plans are updated once every seven years. Water efficiency plans must consider a minimum set of criteria developed by the CWCB in order to gain state approval. The Town of Fraser uses approximately 230 acre-feet or nearly 80 million gallons of water annually ( +/- 10% depending on the year). Thus, this is not required of Fraser by the State, but Staff believes it is prudent for the Town of Fraser to participate as a smaller water provider for a two primary reasons. First and foremost is Fraser’s location in time and space. Fraser is a Colorado River headwater community in a time where current supplies are dwindling, and long-term water supplies are forecast to decline. It is essential that Fraser is proactively efficient in utilizing its supply into order to meet the Towns demands as well as be responsible stewards of the resource for other users. Second, having a Water Efficiency Plan creates opportunities for Fraser moving forward. A Water Efficiency Plan is a planning tool required of larger water providers, that positions providers to take advantage of resources available to communities which have approved plans. Scope of Work: Apply for CWCB grant RFP/Hire consultants Public Process Final Plan PROJECT SCHEDULE The project schedule will ultimately be determined by CWCB grant timelines and Consultant Proposal. Staff anticipates bring the final plan to the Board for adoption in 2022. ATTACHMENTS: Telluride Water Efficiency Plan Outline of Water Efficiency Plan Guidance Document STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends making a motion in support of the Town pursuing a Water Efficiency Plan through the CWCB grant program. Municipal Water Efficiency Plan Guidance Document 1 | P a g e 1.0 Profile of Existing Water Supply System This section provides an overview of the provider’s existing water supply system, supply reliability, system limitations and challenges and historical supply-side water efficiency efforts. 1.1 Overview of Existing Water Supply System Objective: Provide a description of the existing water supply system and service area. 1.2 Water Supply Reliability Objective: Provide an overview of the existing water supply reliability. 1.3 Supply-Side Limitations and Future Need Objective: Identify water supply system limitations, future needs and planned actions to address these limitations and needs. This information will be useful in determining how water efficiency efforts could further address some of these limitations and future needs in Step 3. 2.0 Profile of Water Demands and Historical Demand Management This section provides an overview of the historical water demand trends as well as the influence of historical water demand management on water use and forecasted future water demands. This is a data intensive section where graphs and charts are encouraged. 2.1 Demographics and Key Characteristics of the Service Area Objective: Provide information on descriptions of customer categories, on service area population and other information such as demographics and housing stock age. 2.2 Historical Water Demands Objective: Provide an overview on historical water demand data. 2.3 Past and Current Demand Management Activities and Impact to Demands Objective: Summarize past and current demand management activities, goals and projected savings. Discuss how demand management activities and other factors have impacted historical water use. 2.4 Demand Forecasts Objective: Provide demand forecasts assuming no modifications to the currently implemented demand management activities. Municipal Water Efficiency Plan Guidance Document 2 | P a g e 3.0 Integrated Planning and Water Efficiency Benefits and Goals This section focuses on the role that water efficiency plays in the water provider’s water supply planning efforts. Information is presented on the provider’s water supply planning efforts, future capital improvements, the anticipated benefits of the water efficiency plan and water efficiency goals. 3.1 Water Efficiency and Water Supply Planning Objective: Summarize water supply system challenges/limitations and introduce current water supply planning efforts such as future water acquisitions and capital improvements. Describe how water acquisitions and/or capital improvement modifications could be made as a result of demand reductions through enhanced water efficiency activities. 3.2 Water Efficiency Goals Objective: Develop a set of qualitative and quantitative water efficiency goals that are appropriate for the provider’s water supply system and designed to achieve the water efficiency benefits illustrated in Template Section 3.1. These goals will be used in the screening and evaluation processes outlined in Step 4 and development of the goals can be an iterative process between Steps 3 and 4. 4.0 Selection of Water Efficiency Activities This section presents the water efficiency activities selected for implementation and describes the processes used to identify, screen, and evaluate each of these activities. As discussed in Guidance Document Section 4.4, the water efficiency activities are organized into the SWSI Levels Framework to assist providers in prioritizing individual activities. 4.1 Summary of Selection Process The following subsections include the elements/activities required to be fully considered and evaluated for implementation per C.R.S. 37-60-126 (4). 4.2 Demand Management Activities Objective: Present the demand management activities selected for implementation. This section focuses on the screening and evaluation results; not the process. 4.2.1 Foundational Activities Metering Description of current and planned metering programs. Modifications and/or new metering programs selected as a result of this water efficiency planning effort. Municipal Water Efficiency Plan Guidance Document 3 | P a g e Demand Data Collection and Billing Systems According to C.R.S. 37-60-126 (4), billing systems designed to encourage water efficiency in a fiscally responsible manner shall be fully evaluated. This may include improvements/upgrades to the existing billing system to improve data collection. Water Efficiency Oriented Rates and Tap Fees Detailed description of the proposed or existing water rate structure and frequency of billing (e.g. inclining block rate structure on a monthly basis). Description of proposed adjustments to water rate structure and/or rates. This may include changes to the water rate structure, frequency of billing and/or a qualitative discussion on anticipated rate increases. Specific rate adjustments may also be provided. System Water Loss Management and Control Description of current and planned system water loss management and control programs. Examples of system water loss management and control programs include: system-wide water audits; investigation of apparent losses; leak detection and repair programs; and water line replacement programs. 4.2.2 Targeted Technical Assistance and Incentives Objective: Detail the Targeted Technical Assistance and Incentive activities selected for implementation. Targeted Technical Assistance and Incentives cover various actions providers and customers can do to improve water efficiency. This can include the installation of water efficient fixtures and appliances, low water use landscapes, water efficient commercial and industrial water using processes, water efficiency incentives and re-use systems. 4.2.3 Ordinances and Regulations Objective: Detail the regulatory activities selected for implementation. Ordinances and Regulations consist of locally adopted policies that encourage water efficiency. Common ordinances and regulations include water wasting policies and water restrictions. 4.2.4 Education Activities Objective: Detail the education and outreach programs selected for implementation. Education activities primarily educate the public on the benefits of water efficiency, inform customers on how they can reduce water usage, and publicize water efficiency activities the provider is implementing. Municipal Water Efficiency Plan Guidance Document 4 | P a g e 5.0 Implementation and Monitoring Plan This section addresses the activities and coordination necessary to implement the water efficiency plan and monitor the overall effectiveness of the water efficiency plan. 5.1 Implementation Plan Objective: Discuss the actions, timeline and coordination necessary to implement the selected water efficiency activities. 5.2 Monitoring Plan Objective: Describe the data collection and assessment activities necessary to monitor the effectiveness of the water efficiency plan. See Guidance Document Section 4.5.2 for additional information. 6.0 Adoption of New Policy, Public Review and Formal Approval This section addresses the public review and formal adoption process. See Guidance Document Section 4.6 for information on the general procedures necessary for State approval. Information is also provided on the maintenance and anticipated update of the Plan. 6.1 Adoption of New Policy Objective: This section identifies proposed policy as a result of the new water efficiency plan. This may include new ordinances and regulations as well as the mechanism of enforcement. If a plan does not include the development of any new policy, this section does not need to be included in the plan. 6.2 Public Review Process Objective: This section summarizes the public’s role in development of the Plan. A public review process is required for all State approved plans per C.R.S. 37-60-126 (5). 6.3 Local Adoption and State Approval Processes Objective: Briefly summarize the formal process for Plan adoption. 6.4 Periodic Review and Update Objective: Summarize the processes that will occur to facilitate the update of the Plan and the anticipated timing of Plan updates. May 4, 2020 Colorado Water Conservation Board ATTN: Mr. Kevin Reidy 1313 Sherman St., Rm 721 Denver, CO 80203 VIA EMAIL kevin.reidy@state.co.us RE: Town of Telluride’s 2020 Water Efficiency Plan Update Dear Mr. Reidy, Please find enclosed Telluride’s final Water Efficiency Plan (2020-2027), which was adopted by Town Council on April 28, 2020, after a 60-day public comment period that opened on January 28 and closed on March 28. This plan was developed over the last year with input and review from Telluride’s Ecology Commission and its Town Council during multiple public meetings. The Ecology Commission is comprised of 7 people from throughout the community. All meetings are open to the public and all agendas a posted no less than 1 week before each meeting online, via email notifications for those who are signed up, and in old-fashioned paper form at Rebekah Hall, the Town’s administrative offices. Mr. Todd Brown, a representative of both the San Miguel Watershed Coalition and EcoAction Partners boards, attended meetings regularly as a member of the public. Mr. Brown is also a member of Town Council. The Town Council also has 7 members, including me as Mayor. Meeting agendas are made public in the same process as stated in the previous paragraph. All meetings were broadcast live on KOTO Radio and in video format with help from Telluride TV. Persons representing San Miguel Valley Corporation, the newspapers, and one of our largest water users—Lone Tree Cemetery—all were in attendance and participated during multiple Town Council work sessions. I believe that this document was updated through a robust and thorough public process and accurately represents the next steps that our Town and service area can take to continue to use our water resources wisely. Please direct any questions you may have about Telluride’s Water Efficiency Plan (2020-2027) to the Plan Administrator, whose information is provided below: Mr. Kevin Reidy May 4, 2020 Page 2 Karen Guglielmone Environmental & Engineering Division Manager Telluride Public Works Department P.O. Box 397 Telluride, CO 81435 Landline: 970-728-0190 Cell: 970-729-1015 Email: kguglielmone@telluride-co.gov Thank you for your time and consideration. Respectfully, DeLanie Young, Mayor Town of Telluride Enclosure Water Efficiency Plan 2020-2027 DRAFT FOR PUBLIC COMMENT A dopted by the Telluride Town Council on April 28, 2020, a fter 60-day Public Comment Period Town of Telluride P.O. Box 397 Telluride, Colorado 81435 Executive Summary The Town of Telluride (Town) is in the southwest corner of the State of Colorado in San Miguel County at the end of a three-mile spur off State Highway 145. It is comprised of roughly fifty square blocks and 1,081 acres of open space and parks. Serving approximately 2,360 full-time residents, its visitor population can be significantly larger than this. Telluride has been planning for and managing its water supplies and their use since the 1980s. It was not until Telluride’s 1994 Water Plan Update (Resource Engineering, 1994) that conservation was formally considered a viable strategy to help decrease or delay the need for new water supply facilities. More recently, the Town integrated water efficiency as essential to its stewardship of water that the community puts to use from its watershed. Simply put, using water wisely is the right thing to do. Like the Colorado Water Conservation Board’s (CWCB) mission in Colorado, a primary goal of the Town of Telluride is to conserve, develop, protect, and manage its water resources for present and future generations. To accomplish this, the Town is working to optimize water use efficiencies in its water diversion, transmission, distribution, and treatment systems to satisfy water supply needs without compromising desired water services. End use efficiencies are also a part of this strategy. To develop this updated Water Efficiency Plan (2020-2027), the Town of Telluride determined to follow the CWCB’s Water Conservation Plan Guidelines, which are used when reviewing and approving Water Efficiency Plans submitted to the Office in accordance with §37-60-126(7). While the Town of Telluride does not meet the criteria for being a “Planning Entity” under the State Statute, the systematic and transparent approach provided in the Guidelines was appealing. Under the State Statute, a “Planning Entity” is defined as any municipality, agency, utility, including any privately owned utility, or other publicly owned entity with a legal obligation to supply, distribute, or otherwise provide water at retail to domestic, commercial, industrial, or public facility customers that has a total demand for such customers of more than two thousand acre-feet. At present, the Town’s total annual water demand is less than 500 acre-feet. Water Efficiency Goals The Town of Telluride currently has no reclaimed water supplies. It does have two (2) non-potable groundwater wells that it uses for irrigation, street cleaning, and periodic dust suppression. In 2020, Telluride’s major existing treated water system components are: • Three (3) water treatment facilities or plants (Pandora, Mill Creek, and Stillwell); • Collection and distribution system piping, valves, fire hydrants, and appurtenances; and • Three (3) water storage reservoirs (Pandora Tank and two tanks at the Stillwell site). Its major wastewater treatment system components are: • One (1) wastewater treatment facility (Telluride Regional Wastewater Treatment Plant); and • Collection system piping and appurtenances. Mill Creek Water Treatment Plant (WTP) has remained Telluride’s primary source of drinking water for the Town of Telluride and the Pandora Water Treatment WTP provides supplemental treated water to ensure sufficient supply during peak demand. The Stillwell WTP is normally off line remaining available for service in an emergency. Developing an ambitious, yet attainable, water efficiency goal for this relatively complex municipal water system has remained a daunting task. The scope was compounded when staff recognized that Telluride’s municipal water system includes all users connected to the public system, as well. Public Works Department staff developed draft goals and objectives, which were presented to the Telluride Ecology Commission and the Telluride Town Council for formal consideration. The final goal and supporting objectives for the next 7 years are as follows: Goal – Optimize water efficiency throughout the water and wastewater system, which includes all water users as well as traditional infrastructure. This will: • Minimize energy use for pumping and treatment and use of chemicals for treatment; thereby minimizing operational costs; • Demonstrate leadership to the community that decreasing waste is the right thing to do. • Provide “insurance” that there will be more water and wastewater capacity available for the local tourist economy, as drought protection, and as in-stream flows to protect or enhance environmental and recreational values that benefit the local economy. Objectives for the Next 7 Years (using 2019 usage as a basis) – 1. Decrease use of potable water for outdoor irrigation by another 5% 2. Reduce wastewater discharges by decreasing indoor residential by 5% 3. Reduce wastewater discharges by decreasing commercial water use by 5% 4. Reduce peak day summer demand by 5% 5. Reduce non-revenue water by 10% by applying appropriate principals and methodologies from AWWA M36. The Town revisited the original 89 water efficiency activities identified during development of the 2014 Water Efficiency Plan and added 20 for a total of 109 potential and existing activities. The 2014 process involved brainstorming by government staff, and at public meetings of the Telluride Ecology Commission and Telluride Town Council. The 2019 process involved reviewing and discussing the original activities and then adding several that were not included in the first round. Worksheets D through H in the appendices provide a detailed list of all water efficiency activities discussed and reviewed during the 2019 process. Staff eliminated 8 activities that were completed over the last 5 years. To help select and prioritize among the universe of identified activities, the community reviewed the selection criteria identified in 2014. One change to the criteria was suggested by Town Council, which was to place less emphasis on activities that can be completed within the 7-year period of implementation and more on activities that will move the community toward its long-term goals. Staff applied these criteria to prioritize 34 water efficiency activities for implementation over the next 7 years. Worksheet I in Appendix 2 details the water efficiency activities that were selected, estimated water savings—when possible, and estimated cost for each activity. Worksheet J in Appendix 2 provides a detailed Implementation Plan for all water efficiency activities identified by the community and staff and prioritized by applying selection criteria. The Environmental & Engineering Division of the Public Works Department will be responsible for monitoring progress on the implementation plan and whether water use does change as anticipated by this Water Efficiency Plan. Worksheets K and L in Appendix 2 provide details of the Monitoring Plan, but overall, monitoring will occur annually when a full year of data are available for analysis from the Water-Wastewater and the Streets & Utilities divisions of the Public Works Department, and from the Finance Department (from the billing files). Table of Contents Executive Summary ....................................................................................................................................... 1 1.0 Profile of Existing Water Supply & Wastewater Treatment System ................................................. 1 1.1 Overview of Existing Water Supply & Wastewater Treatment System ........................................ 1 1.2 Water Supply Reliability ................................................................................................................ 8 1.3 Supply-side Limits and Future Needs .......................................................................................... 10 2.0 Profile of Water Demands and Historical Demand Management .................................................. 12 2.1 Demographics and Key Characteristics of the Service Area ....................................................... 12 2.2 Historic Water Demands ............................................................................................................. 14 2.3 Past and Current Demand Management Activities and Impact to Demands ............................. 20 2.4 Demand Forecasts....................................................................................................................... 21 3.0 Integrated Planning and Water Efficiency Benefits and Goals ....................................................... 25 3.1 Water Efficiency and Water Supply Planning ............................................................................. 25 3.2 Water Efficiency Goals ................................................................................................................ 26 3.3 Integrated Planning and Water Efficiency Benefits and Goals ................................................... 27 Telluride Master Plan (2006), Planning Principles and Values J ................................................................. 27 4.0 Selection of Water Efficiency Activities .......................................................................................... 28 4.1 Summary of Identification & Selection Process .......................................................................... 28 4.2 Demand Management Activities ................................................................................................ 29 4.3 Status of Foundational Activities ................................................................................................ 30 4.3.2 Metering.............................................................................................................................. 30 4.3.2 Demand Data Collection and Billing Systems ..................................................................... 30 4.3.3 Water Efficiency Oriented Rates and Tap Fees ................................................................... 31 4.3.4 System Water Loss Management and Control ................................................................... 31 4.4 Targeted Technical Assistance and Incentives ............................................................................ 31 4.4.1 Level 1: Utility/Municipal Facility Water Efficiency ........................................................... 31 4.4.2 Level 2: Management of Largest Customer Demands ....................................................... 32 4.4.3 Level 3: Management of Remaining Customer Demands ................................................. 32 4.5 Ordinances and Regulations ....................................................................................................... 32 4.5.1 Level 1 Existing Service Area ............................................................................................... 32 4.5.2 Level 2 New Construction Regulations ............................................................................... 33 4.5.3 Level 3 Point of Sales Ordinances on Existing Building Stock ............................................. 33 4.6 Education Activities ..................................................................................................................... 33 4.6.1 Level 1 One-Way Education Activities ................................................................................ 33 4.6.2 Level 2 One-Way Education with Feedback ........................................................................ 33 4.6.3 Level 3 Two-Way Education ................................................................................................ 34 5.0 Implementation and Monitoring Plan ............................................................................................ 35 5.1 Implementation Plan .................................................................................................................. 35 5.2 Monitoring Plan .......................................................................................................................... 35 6.0 Adoption of New Policy, Public Review and Formal Approval........................................................ 36 6.1 Adoption of New Policy............................................................................................................... 36 6.2 Public Review Process ................................................................................................................. 36 6.3 Local Adoption and State Approval Processes ............................................................................ 36 6.4 Periodic Review and Update ....................................................................................................... 36 References .................................................................................................................................................. 37 Glossary & Acronyms .................................................................................................................................. 39 Appendices .................................................................................................................................................. 40 APPENDIX 1 Telluride Municipal Code Section 13 Article 5 Water Conservation Code ......................... 41 APPENDIX 2 Statewide Water Supply Initiative Worksheets .................................................................. 42 Page | 1 1.0 Profile of Existing Water Supply & Wastewater Treatment System 1.1 Overview of Existing Water Supply & Wastewater Treatment System Development of the Town’s municipal water system began in 1886 in Cornet Creek. Sanitary sewer was added around 1913. In 1977, the Town completed a Water System Master Plan to develop a long-range strategy that would “assure the Town of having a high-quality water supply of sufficient capacity” (Wright-McLaughlin Engineers, 1977). The study concluded that it was difficult to accurately estimate historical per capita water consumption for the Town’s service area because there were no meters or flow measuring devices at the diversion points or at the water treatment plant. General observations by the Wright-McLaughlin Engineers at that time indicated the Town appeared to use an unusually large amount of water, likely because of the deteriorated condition of water lines, bleeding of service lines to prevent freezing in winter, and water wasted by overflowing storage tanks. Today, service meters and water and wastewater plant flow monitoring devices are standard. Service lines are no longer bled in winter and the storage tanks do not overflow. In 1994, the Town updated its Water System Master Plan, including guidelines for implementing numerous water conservation measures (Resource Engineering, 1994). While several of the recommended conservation measures were implemented by the Town, there is room to improve existing water efficiency efforts and to consider new activities. The paragraphs below provide a synopsis of Telluride’s municipal water system as it is today. The Town of Telluride currently has no reclaimed water supplies. It does have two (2) non-potable groundwater wells that it uses for irrigation, street cleaning, and periodic dust suppression. In 2020, Telluride’s major existing treated water system components are: • Three (3) water treatment facilities or plants (Pandora, Mill Creek, and Stillwell); • Collection and distribution system piping, valves, fire hydrants, and appurtenances; and • Three (3) water storage reservoirs (Pandora Tank and two tanks at the Stillwell site). Its major wastewater treatment system components are: • One (1) wastewater treatment facility (Telluride Regional Wastewater Treatment Plant); and • Collection system piping and appurtenances. Mill Creek Water Treatment Plant (WTP) has remained Telluride’s primary source of drinking water for the Town of Telluride and the Pandora WTP provides supplemental treated water to ensure sufficient supply during peak demand. The Stillwell WTP is normally offline, remaining available for service in an emergency. Figure 1.1 shows the general arrangement and capacity of these facilities. MILL CREEK WATER TREATMENT PLANT The Mill Creek WTP was completed in 1987. Treatment consists of pre-sedimentation; coagulation; flocculation; clarification; filtration with two 0.5 MGD membrane filter (ultrafiltration); and chlorination disinfection. Water is diverted to the plant from Mill Creek through a diversion structure located on the creek just above the plant. The concrete diversion structure includes a radial gate spanning the creek and a two-level slide gate structure that diverts water into the plant’s pre-sedimentation pond. The radial gate is raised occasionally to flush sediment from the structure. Water treated on site is conveyed in a 10-inch steel pipe to two (2) 250,000-gallon storage tanks located north of Town at the Stillwell WTP. The pipeline, approximately 13,000 feet long, was constructed in 1965 as a raw water flow line to convey untreated Mill Creek water to the Stillwell WTP for treatment. At the time the Mill Creek WTP was constructed, new air and vacuum relief valves were installed in the line. Inspection of the pipeline at that time found the pipe in generally good condition. Page | 2 Figure 1.1 Telluride’s Water Sources and Major Facilities (URS, 2010; modified 2019) The Mill Creek WTP’s current treatment capacity is 1.0 MGD or approximately 1.5 cfs. The WTP was designed to allow the addition of a third 0.5 MGD filtration unit to increase treatment capacity to 1.5 MGD (2.3 cfs). While the plant has been designed to be expanded to a capacity of 1.5 MGD (2.3 cfs), the raw water supply is not reliable. The amount of available water in the creek can drop to approximately 0.7 MGD. In addition, during periods of high turbidity, such as the spring run-off season, the plant capacity reduces to 0.25 MGD. Therefore, expansion of the Mill Creek WTP is considered infeasible. Overall, the Mill Creek WTP is in fair condition and consistently produces water that meets drinking water standards (URS, 2010; Telluride Town Engineer, 2019). STILLWELL WATER TREATMENT PLANT The Stillwell Water Plant has served the Town of Telluride for over 100 years. It consists of the treatment plant itself and two treated water storage tanks. It maintains an important role in water treatment, treated water storage, and water delivery to all of Telluride’s water users. The plant sits at an elevation of 9200 feet on the hillside directly north of town. Prior to the Pandora WTP coming on line, the Stillwell WTP was used approximately 5 months per year during periods of peak water demand. It is now kept available for emergency service only. Nevertheless, the current capacity of the Stillwell WTP is 1.0 MGD, with two (2) 0.5 MGD conventional sand filters and chlorine disinfection. The treatment facility was upgraded over the years. For example, in 2010, Telluride installed an absorptive media filtration system to remove arsenic. The two (2) treated water storage tanks are each 250,000-gallon tanks and these remain full and in use year- round. Treated water from the Mill Creek WTP reaches the tanks via gravity. Treated water from the Pandora WTP reaches the tanks via a Booster Pump Station located just west of Butcher Creek Drive. The tanks provide the hydraulic water grade line for the Town of Telluride’s highest water pressure zone, which then cascades down to Page | 3 the middle and lower pressure zones. The treated water stored in these tanks supplies Telluride with water for domestic use and fire protection. Expansion of the Stillwell WTP capacity was rejected due to a constricted site and the unreliability of the raw water supply, which fluctuates between 0.02 and 1.0 MGD. When temperatures reach freezing, Stillwell’s raw water supply can be zero (URS, 2010). PANDORA WATER TREATMENT PLANT The Pandora WTP currently has a capacity of 1 MGD or 1.55 cubic feet per second (cfs). The facility will be able to be expanded to 2 MGD or 3.0 cfs in the future, if needed. It currently houses a 700 gallons per minute (gpm) membrane filter, with space provided for a second future 700 gpm membrane unit, clean-in-place (CIP) equipment, ultraviolet (UV) and sodium hypochlorite disinfection systems, other chemical systems. The water supply to the Pandora WTP comes from the Bridal Veil Basin, which adds raw water storage to the Town’s water supply through the Blue Lake Reservoir and other associated smaller reservoirs. This new portion of the water system connects to the Pandora Storage Tank, which has capacity to store 750,000 gallons of treated water. Water from the Pandora WTP and Storage Tank can also be pumped to the Stillwell Tanks via a Booster Pump Station. EXISTING TREATMENT & WATER STORAGE SUMMARY The total reliable production of the three existing water treatment plants will vary from 1.75 to 3.0 MGD depending upon the season. As a rule, with the only two plants operating, the seasonal production will total 1.75 MGD during the spring and winter, and 3.0 MGD during the summer. If additional sources of raw water supply are required to meet existing and future water demands, it is physically possible to increase the capacity of the Pandora WTP by an additional 1 MGD (URS, 2010; Telluride Town Engineer, 2019). The Town has a total treated water storage capacity of 1,250,000 gallons as summarized in Table 1.1 below. Table 1.1 Town of Telluride Treated Water Storage Capacity Water System Component Water Type Total Capacity, gallons Pandora Water Storage Tank Treated 750,000 Stillwell Water Storage Tank No. 1 Treated 250,000 Stillwell Water Storage Tank No. 2 Treated 250,000 TOTAL 1,250,000 WATER DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM Telluride retained Farnsworth Group to develop a Capital Asset Maintenance Plan for the existing water and wastewater systems in 2011. The primary purpose of the plan was to prioritize annual infrastructure replacement, keeping in mind the Town’s budget constraints. The assessment was based on an inventory of pipe location, pipe age, and pipe construction material (Farnsworth, 2012). The inventory was created in a geographic information system. In 2019, Telluride Public Works updated this information about the water collection and distribution system and placed it on an interactive geographic information system platform. The updated data are presented in Table 1.2. The Town of Telluride’s water distribution system is summarized in Table 1.2 and described below: • Approximately 109,555 lineal feet (103,654 plus 5,900), or 20.7 miles of pipe with diameters of 4-inch and larger. Page | 4 • Approximately 2101.7 lineal feet of pipe labeled Hydrant Line of unknown material with 6-inch diameter. This is not included in the distribution pipe number. • Nine pressure reducing valves (plus 1 before the Town Park festival use meter). • One booster pump station • Approximately 280 isolation valves • Approximately 139 Hydrants • Three pressure zones, 2 major and 1 minor or small Table 1.2 Telluride’s Water Distribution Pipe Length by Diameter and Material (updated 2019) Diameter (inches) Material Length (ft) 6 AC (Asbestos cement) 2,608.5 8 AC 12.8 4 DIP (Ductile Iron Pipe) 3,399 6 DIP 21,242 8 DIP 24,342.8 10 DIP 25,296.9 12 DIP 4,711.3 4 HDPE (High Density Polyethylene 1,541 6 HDPE 23 4 PVC (Polyvinyl Chloride) 5,128 6 PVC 288 10 PVC 787 10 Spiral Wound Steel 10,646.3 10 Unknown 3,628 12 DIP (Pandora TWL) 5,900 TOTAL 109,555 Source: Town of Telluride Public Works Utility GIS, 2019 WATER COLLECTION SYSTEM (BRIDAL VEIL BASIN) The Pandora WTP and its associated collection system are considered a reliable water supply now and into the future. The Town divides the collection system for the Pandora WTP into two sections: (1) the Bridal Veil Water System; and (2) the Pandora Raw Water Pipeline, which originates below a Concrete Junction Box located immediately downstream from the Bridal Veil Power House tailrace. The raw water pipeline consists of 12-inch diameter steel and ductile iron pipe extending 10,200 feet and ranging in elevation from 10,295 feet at the power house to an elevation of 9,222.5 feet at the Pandora WTP. A Constant Head Box is located downstream of the Concrete Junction Box. Its function is to prevent air from entering the raw water pipeline and to allow trapped air to escape, if needed, away from the historic Bridal Veil Powerhouse. Bridal Veil Water System The Bridal Veil Water System is situated in the watershed above the Concrete Junction Box upstream of the Bridal Veil Power House tailrace. Effective January 8, 2013, Idarado Mining Company and the Town entered into a Comprehensive Settlement Agreement regarding the Bridal Veil Water System, which was recorded September 16, 2013, at Reception No. 429773 of the records of the San Miguel County Clerk and Recorder. The provisions of the Comprehensive Settlement Agreement contemplate and govern the shared operation and maintenance activities of the Bridal Veil Water System, with the Town owning 15/39ths of the system and Idarado Mining Company owning 24/39ths of the system. The Bridal Veil Water System includes, but is not limited to, the following components: Page | 5 1. Blue Lake Reservoir Nos. 1 and 2 (together referred to as “Blue Lake”). 2. Blue Lake Pipeline. Beginning at the outlet of Blue Lake Reservoir and terminating at the Bridal Veil Power Station. 3. Mud Lake Creek Pipeline. From the head gate on Mud Lake Creek approximately 1,500 feet upstream from its confluence with Bridal Veil Creek. 4. Blue Lake Supply Pipeline, Bridal Veil Branch (a/k/a “Lewis Pipeline”). 5. Head of Bridal Veil Reservoir (a/k/a “Lewis Lake”). 6. Bridal Veil Powerhouse (BVPH) Bypass. This conduit is used to divert water in the Blue lake Pipeline around the Bridal Veil Power Station. 7. Falls Crest Diversion Point (a/k/a “Bridal Veil Pipeline and Water Right”). Telluride owns a total of 1,500 acre feet of relatively senior storage rights in the Bridal Veil Basin as follows: • 920 acre feet in Blue Lake under 8-25-1899 appropriation; • 413 acre feet in Blue Lake under 7-15-1903 appropriation; • 67 acre feet in Lewis Lake (Head of Bridal Veil reservoir) under appropriation 7-2-1916. Telluride also owns 6,198.7 acre feet of junior conditional water storage rights in the basin. All storage rights owned by the Town in Bridal Veil Basin are subject to limits contained in various water rights decrees, as well as the 2013 Comprehensive Settlement Agreement with Idarado Mining Company. BVPH Bypass Water from Blue Lake flows into the Blue Lake Pipeline and travels towards the BVPH. Before entering the BVPH, the water flows through a valve and pipe manifold system that allows water to be directed into the BVPH or around the building and into the Town’s bypass line. Standard/normal operation directs water through a valve, which is open during normal operations, and into the BVPH for electricity production before it leaves the building and flows into the Town and Idarado’s respective water lines. If the BVPH needs maintenance and water must bypass the building, the normally open valve is closed and the bypass valve (normally closed) is open so all water entering the Blue Lake pipeline is directed into the bypass line. The bypass line is composed of 10-inch carbon steel and connects to the Pandora Raw Water Pipeline upstream of the Constant Head Box. The bypass line allows the Town to continue receiving raw water at Pandora WTP despite regardless of circumstances at the BVPH. Constant Head Box The Constant Head Box was designed and installed to prevent air accumulation in the Pandora Raw Water Pipeline. The steep slope of the pipe down the cliff face and along County Road K69 to the Pandora Water Treatment Plant (Pandora WTP) can create air pockets that can result in aggressive, high pressure releases that may create violent back blasts when they exit the pipe. The Constant Head Box allows water from either the Concrete Box (i.e., water exiting the BVPH) or the Town’s bypass line to enter the raw water pipeline without air entrapment issues. Water travels into the box and fills the upstream chamber. A perforated baffle calms turbulent influent flow before water travels downstream to a channel where most of the entrained air bubbles leave the water column. The box becomes deeper downstream to prevent remaining air bubbles from reaching the vertical stainless-steel outlet pipe. Water collected from the box through the vertical pipe is directed to the Pandora WTP. A small quantity of water overflows from the constant head box to provide a visual check for operators that sufficient flows are entering and exiting the box for the system to work as designed. Page | 6 Pandora Raw Water Pipeline The Pandora Raw Water Pipeline starts at a location identified as the Concrete Junction Box, which is situated just downstream from the Bridal Veil Power Station tailrace. It includes 119 feet of 16-inch ductile iron pipe and 10,081 feet of 12-inch steel and ductile iron pipe, which drops from an elevation of 10,295 feet at the Concrete Box to an elevation of 9,222.5 feet at the Pandora Water Treatment Plant. TOWN PARK GROUNDWATER WELLS Telluride owns and operates two (2) non-potable groundwater wells located in the Town Park adjacent to the San Miguel River. The wells are developed in alluvial materials consisting of interbedded rock, sand, and gravel. They are recharged by Bear Creek and the San Miguel River (Resource Engineering, 1994). During periods of prolonged pumping, the wells are hydraulically connected to San Miguel River streamflow. These water supplies are considered reliable from a quantity perspective. Telluride’s Parks and Recreation Department uses water from these wells in spring, summer, and fall for non- potable water uses such as parkland irrigation and for periodic street cleaning, and dust suppression on construction sites and roadways. Telluride Well TH-1 is metered and has been read manually on a regular basis since 2003. Telluride Well TH-2 is metered and has been read manually on a regular basis since 2000. Figure 1.2 presents the recorded water usage for these wells over time. Telluride Well TH-1 production is shown in light blue, and Telluride Well TH-2 production is shown in dark blue. Telluride Well TH-1 is located approximately 400 feet south of the San Miguel River and 1,200 feet down the San Miguel River from its confluence with Bear Creek. Drill Date – started August 3, 1977 and ended on October 7, 1977. Total depth – 90.5 feet. Diameter – varies from 19 inches down to 20 feet, to 12 inches down to 90.5 feet. Volume capacity – 250 – 500 gpm (WWE, 1977). Long term pumping tests indicated a sustainable yield of 230 gpm (0.33 MGD) (Resource Engineering, 1994). Telluride Well TH-2 is located approximately 150 south of the San Miguel River and 1200 feet down the San Miguel River from its confluence with Bear Creek. Drill Date – started on September 21, 1977 and ended on October 7, 1977. Total depth – 116 feet. Diameter – 10 inches for entire depth. Volume capacity – 1,000 gpm (WWE, 1977). Long term pumping tests indicated a sustainable yield of 640 gpm (0.9 MGD) (Resource Engineering, 1994). It is unlikely that these water sources will be used for potable water needs in the future. The ground water in the vicinity of the wells was contaminated by mining and milling activities shortly after their construction. Water quality analyses found hexavalent chromium in excess of safe drinking water standards, as well as measurable amounts of lead. Water quality analyses in 2012 indicated that the groundwater from the wells is no longer contaminated; however, the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment has historically advised Town that the wells do not represent a safe drinking water source (Resource Engineering, 1994). TELLURIDE REGIONAL WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT The Town of Telluride operates and maintains the Telluride Regional Wastewater Treatment Plant (Telluride WWTP), collecting and treating wastewater from the Town of Telluride, the Town of Mountain Village, Aldasoro Ranch, Lawson Hill, Hillside Subdivision, Sunset Ridge Subdivision, and Eider Creek Subdivision. It is an aerobic secondary treatment facility that has a rated capacity of 2.1 MGD. The Town of Mountain village contributes 35 percent of capital and operating expenses in exchange for 35 percent of the plant’s treatment capacity. The treatment plant operates under standards of the National Pollution Discharge Permit System administered by the State of Colorado. Page | 7 Figure 1.2 Town Park Wells Usage Over Time Historically, biosolids (i.e., solids that remain after treatment) from the Telluride WWTP were transported 65 miles west to a land application site and incorporated into the soil as a fertilizer at an agronomic rate for beneficial use. In 2012, this rate was approximately 0.53 tons biosolids per acre or 4.5 percent solids. This equated to approximately 40 pounds of nitrogen per acre based on the Guide to Fertilizer Recommendation in Colorado, 1985 Co-op Extension Service, C.S.U. Publication No. XCM-37. In fall 2019, the land application site reached its limit and will remain fallow for approximately 2 years. A new dewatering system was installed and began operating at this time. The dewatered biosolids (at approximately 15% solids) are transported 65 miles to the Broad Canyon Landfill for disposal until land application is once again possible or a biosolids composting facility is determined to be viable. Biosolids composting is considered a better solution as it will enable full circle beneficial reuse of this resource. WASTEWATER COLLECTION SYSTEM Farnsworth Group developed a Capital Asset Maintenance Plan for Telluride’s existing water and wastewater collection and distribution systems in 2011. The primary purpose of the plan was to prioritize annual infrastructure replacement within the Town’s budget constraints. The assessment was based on an inventory of pipe location, pipe age, and pipe construction material was created in a geographic information system (Farnsworth, 2012). In 2019, Telluride Public Works placed this information, and updated information about the wastewater collection system, on an interactive geographic information system platform. The updated data are presented in Table 1.3. The Town of Telluride’s wastewater collection system is made of up the following components: • Approximately 129,071 lineal feet or 24.4 miles with pipe diameters of 3-inches and larger; • Five (5) sewer lift stations (one was abandoned in fall 2019); and • Approximately 659 manholes. A more detailed inventory list of the Town’s wastewater collection system is shown in Table 1.3 below. 0 1,000,000 2,000,000 3,000,000 4,000,000 5,000,000 6,000,000 7,000,000 8,000,000 20 0 0 20 0 1 20 0 2 20 0 3 20 0 4 20 0 5 20 0 6 20 0 7 20 0 8 20 0 9 20 1 0 20 1 1 20 1 2 20 1 3 20 1 4 20 1 5 20 1 6 20 1 7 20 1 8 20 1 9 Ga l l o n s P e r Y e a r TH-2 Usage (gallons) TH-1 Usage (gallons) Page | 8 Table 1.3 Telluride’s Wastewater Collection Pipe Length by Diameter and Material (2019) Diameter (inches) Material Length (ft) 3 Steel FM 216.5 4 Clay 722 4 DIP (Ductile Iron Pipe) 280 4 PVC (Polyvinyl Chloride 808 4 Yelomine PVC 1,559 6 AC (Asbestos Concrete) 1,873 6 Clay 1,385 6 PVC 3,697 8 Clay 15515.4 8 DIP 104 8 PVC 72,749 10 Clay 582.3 10 PVC 3513.8 12 Clay 546 12 PVC 4,211 14 DIP 278 18 Clay 10,211 18 DIP 1,734 18 PVC 7,720 21 PVC 346 24 PVC 1,020 TOTAL 129,071 Source: Town of Telluride Public Works Utility GIS, 2019 1.2 Water Supply Reliability Telluride is located within the Colorado and San Juan/Dolores River Basin, which falls within the Colorado Statewide Water Supply Initiative’s (SWSI) Southwest Basin. The 2007 SWSI report (CDM, 2007) estimated water shortfalls in the range of 5,100 -16,000 acres feet per year by 2050 for the Southwest Basin as a whole, depending on what projects are completed. However, based on SWSI 1 analyses, existing supplies and water rights are anticipated to be adequate to meet future needs in Montrose, San Juan, and San Miguel counties (CDM, 2007). Telluride began to formally plan for its future water needs with its first Water System Master Plan Report (Wright- McLaughlin, 1977). Since that time, the Town has adhered to the idea that using multiple water sources can optimize the Town’s water rights and area water resources, thereby increasing system reliability while also protecting the overall ecosystem (Wright-McLaughlin, 1977). Telluride has historically determined water supply reliability through real-time analysis of water demand versus water source volumes and treatment capacity. As a resort community, Town staff conducts limited projections of water supply reliability for high-tourist volume periods, such as the Annual Bluegrass Festival toward the end of June and during the winter holidays. These projections/predictions include no safety factors in the calculations. Telluride uses water conservation to improve overall water supply reliability, but to date has not relied on conservation to use saved water to support future population growth. To date, the Town of Telluride has not included potential changes to water availability from climate change as a factor in its water supply planning. Page | 9 When Telluride’s water supply is adversely impacted by source water reliability or drought, specific criteria that trigger water conservation measures are identified in the Town’s Municipal Code at §13-5-40 Water shortages and conservation, which is provided in the text box on the next page. MILL CREEK Mill Creek remains the primary water source for the Town of Telluride. Mill Creek water is generally good, but quality decreases due to turbidity seasonally with spring runoff. This increase in turbidity results in a necessary temporary reduction of Mill Creek WTP capacity in order to maintain treatment standards and backwash demands. The quantity of water in Mill Creek also varies seasonably and at times does not provide enough raw water to meet the capacity of the Mill Creek WTP and the Town water demand (URS, 2010). As there is no method to store water within the Mill Creek system, excess Mill Creek flows continue downstream into the watershed supplementing flows in-stream. CORNET CREEK WATER TREATMENT PLANT (FORMERLY, STILLWELL TUNNEL) Prior to 2015, the Cornet Creek WTP was Telluride’s secondary source of treated water. The Cornet Creek WTP is fed from groundwater accumulated in the Stillwell Tunnel. This water supply is influenced by historic mining activities and at times has elevated levels of arsenic. Water from the Cornet Creek WTP must be blended with water from the Mill Creek plant to meet standards (URS, 2010). When the Pandora WTP began operating, Cornet Creek WTP was turned off and transition to emergency water service only. There is 0.5 million gallons of storage capacity within the Cornet Creek WTP system (i.e., 500,000 gallons in storage tanks). Any excess flows from the Stillwell tunnel that are not or cannot be stored continue downstream into Cornet Creek and then into the San Miguel River, supplementing in-stream flows. Firm yield is the amount of water that can be diverted and beneficially used each year including during drought periods and the driest years of record. Data have indicated that the reliable production of the Mill Creek and Cornet Creek WTPs in a dry year is 0.86 MGD (1.3 cfs) in summer and 0.92 MGD (1.4 cfs) in winter (Resource Engineering, 1994). The Resource Engineering Water Plan Update (1994) noted that an additional winter supply of 1.15 MGD (1.8 cfs) was needed to supply the projected winter peak day demand and an additional summer supply of 1.75 MGD (2.7cfs) was needed to supply the projected summer peak day demand. For this reason, the Town moved forward to develop the Bridal Veil Water System to provide for this shortfall through production at the Pandora Water Treatment Plant. PANDORA WATER TREATMENT PLANT & THE BRIDAL VEIL WATER SYSTEM Due to the inability of the raw water supplies in Mill Creek and the Stillwell Tunnel to meet the quality and quantity demands of the Town, additional raw water sources were developed in the Bridal Veil Basin. Water from the Bridal Veil Basin, which currently includes Mud Lake, Blue Lake, and Lewis Lake, will provide a high quality, more reliable supply to the Town of Telluride (URS, 2010). Water from Bridal Veil Basin supplies the Pandora WTP, rectifying problems with the Mill Creek and Cornet Creek (formerly, Stillwell) water system components that were identified in previous water system master plans and evaluations. These problems were primarily associated with a lack of a reliable raw water supply, but water quality limitations also played a role. Page | 10 The Idarado Mining Company also owns water rights and diversion and storage facilities in the Bridal Veil Basin. Many of the facilities are jointly owned with the Town and the two entities coordinate their water supply activities. Historically, the Town has estimated that the firm yield of the Bridal Veil Basin is approximately 2,000 to 2,250 acre-feet annually. However, these estimates are based upon hydrologic modeling of the basin, not upon actual operations within the basin. As a result, the Town of Telluride and Idarado Mining Company share data and other information relating to the firm annual yield of the Bridal Veil Water System and periodically update their estimates of firm yield through analysis of multiple years of operations and water supply. The Town plans to store excess water supplies in the Bridal Veil Water System as drought reserves. TOWN PARK GROUNDWATER WELLS As described earlier, the Town uses untreated water from groundwater wells TH-1 and TH-2 for irrigating its playing fields at the Town Park. The wells have been developed in alluvial sands and gravels adjacent to the San Miguel River and production from these wells is considered very reliable even during drought years when surface streams are low. 1.3 Supply-side Limits and Future Needs Supply-side limits and the future water needs of Telluride’s water service area are summarized in the paragraphs below. As well, Worksheet A in Appendix 3 provides a summarized tabulation of these water supply limits and future water needs. FACILITY ENHANCEMENTS The Town last updated its Water Supply Master Plan in 2010. This update substantiated conclusions outlined in the Town’s 1994 and 2002 Water Master Plan updates—without the development of additional water supplies, the Telluride Municipal Code Section 13-5-40 Water shortages and conservation (a)Water shortage defined. A water shortage is declared to existing if one (1) or more of the following circumstances exist: (1)When the Town’s total water treatment capacity and potable water consumption are approaching or at eighty percent (80%) for voluntary conservation and ninety percent (90%) for mandatory conservation; or the Town Manager otherwise determines that the Town’s raw water supply or water treatment system is insufficient to satisfy the daily water use demands for the applicable time period. Total water treatment capacity shall be determined by the Public Works Director utilizing the total combined treated water available from the Town’s Mill Creek Plant, the Stillwell Tunnel Plant and such other potable water supply systems as may be developed by the Town. (2)When the Town is unable to treat sufficient water to maintain its treated water storage reservoirs at Stillwell, the Falls at Telluride or any other raw or treated water storage reservoirs developed by the Town, at their maximum capacity. (3)When an emergency condition arises such as a mechanical breakdown or reduced treatment capacity due to high stream turbidity, insufficient raw water supply or fire flow requirements. (4)When any or all of the above is anticipated to occur in the near future and it is determined that immediate imposition of the conservation measures is necessary to ensure adequate time for public awareness and education to ensure the level of compliance required. (5)When implementation of water conservation measures is required by reason of any water court decree or stipulation. Page | 11 Town could experience water shortages in the foreseeable future. These findings supported Telluride’s work to complete the Pandora WTP and its associated water collection and distribution system components. The Pandora WTP is designed to house future capacity increase of 1.0 MGD, if demand requires. Specifically, the Pandora WTP, since it began operations in November 2014, is sized for 700 GPM. A Phase 2 future expansion could add another 700 GPM, which would result in a total capacity of 1,400 GPM or 2 MGD. However, the Comprehensive Settlement Agreement with Idarado Mining Company at Section XIII.3 (page 19 of 108) states “that in the event Telluride determines it is necessary to increase the capacity of the PWTP, it will give Idarado one year of notice prior to operating the PWTP at a capacity greater than 1.0 MGD.” WATER ACQUISITION The Town owns an extensive water rights portfolio that supports various direct flow and storage diversion sites located throughout the valley. The Town does not have plans to acquire additional water rights at this time. As well, with the completion of the Pandora WTP and associated water supplies available from the Bridal Veil Creek Basin, the Town believes that it will have an adequate water supply to meet current and future needs. No future water acquisitions are planned. During the term of the Comprehensive Settlement Agreement with Idarado Mining Company, which started January 2012 and will continue for 20 years, pursuant to Section XIX.6 (page 25 of 108) Telluride and Idarado have both agreed not to appropriate additional water rights in the upper San Miguel River basin without advance written consent of the other Party. WATER EFFICIENCY It remains unclear whether water efficiency measures might quantitatively help address water supply limits and future needs of Telluride. Page | 12 2.0 Profile of Water Demands and Historical Demand Management Telluride’s treated water supply is used by residents for domestic in-house purposes and lawn irrigation and by commercial enterprises within the Town’s water service area. The Town’s geographic water service area remains as described in the 1993 Master Plan (Resource Engineering, 1993). Generally, it includes those areas that can be logically serviced through a gravity distribution system including the downtown core, the Falls Subdivision, Brown Homestead, Hillside/Eider Creek, Sunset Ridge Subdivision, the valley floor (north of Highway 145), and Lawson Hill (Resource Engineering, 2010). It is important to note that a large portion of the valley floor area north of Highway 145 was approved for development and will be providing its own water. Figure 2.1 presents a map of the Town of Telluride’s water service area. Figure 2.1 Map of the Town of Telluride’s Water Service Area (URS, 2010) 2.1 Demographics and Key Characteristics of the Service Area WATER CUSTOMER CATEGORIES As of January 1, 2020, the Town of Telluride has the following eleven (11) customer categories: 1. In-Town Residential 2. In-Town Commercial 3. Construction Discount 4. Out-of-Town Residential 5. Out-of-Town Commercial 6. Commercial – Hillside 7. Hillside (residential) 8. Lawson (residential) 9. Size & Deed Restricted Residential 10. Irrigation Only 11. Elderly Very Low Income Residential Page | 13 SERVICE AREA POPULATION Interpolation using the Colorado Department of Local Affairs Census information places the Telluride Service Area Population at approximately 3,670 individuals. Because the Town of Telluride service area is part of a resort economy, the sample population for State of Colorado permits is 9,600 individuals. This higher number is an attempt to incorporate the seasonal swings in water use created by tourists and second homeowners. AGE OF HOUSING STOCK The Town of Telluride relies on data from the San Miguel County Assessor’s Office to determine the age of the housing stock in its water service area. However, there is no certain way to determine the age of indoor appliances and fixtures. Table 2.1 lists the number of buildings in a variety of building age ranges. Older buildings that have been remodeled are listed in the age range of the remodel. Table 2.1 Housing Stock Age Within Town of Telluride Water Service Area BUILDING AGE RANGE NUMBER OF UNITS 1883 – 1969 76 1970 – 1979 223 1980 – 1989 457 1990 – 1999 289 2000 – 2009 287 2010 - 2020 261 UNKNOWN 25 TOTAL 2,218 Source: San Miguel County Assessor’s Office, May 2019 AGE OF WATER DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM INFRASTRUCTURE Pipe age and pipe material were the two main factors used to assess the water system for the Water/Wastewater Capital Asset Maintenance Plan (Farnsworth Group, 2012). Based on as-built records, the Farnsworth Group created layer attribute data tables for use in a Geographic Information System that include pipe material, pipe diameter, and date of construction. These data are regularly updated by the Public Works Department. Figure 2.1 depicts the age of the pipe that makes up Telluride’s water distribution system. In general, it ranges from less than 1 year old to over 60 years old (sections of pipe associated with the Mill Creek Water Treatment Plant). Figure 2.1 Water Distribution Pipe Quality Based on Age (Source: Town of Telluride Public Works Utility GIS, 2019) Page | 14 2.2 Historic Water Demands Table 2.2 presents 31 years of maximum (MDD) and average daily demand (ADD) in gallons per day for each year, for the winter season (October through March), and for the summer season, (April through September). Figure 2.2 and Figure 2.3 compare 5-year averages for the yearly, winter, and summer ADDs and MDDs, respectively. Winter • The average demand (i.e., ADD) for winter decreased by 5.7% between 1989 and 2018. • The peak demand (i.e., MDD) for winter increased by 2.6% between 1989 and 2018. • Winter use peaked in the period between 1994 and 1998 Summer • The average demand (i.e., ADD) for summer increased by 4.5% between 1989 and 2018. • The peak demand (i.e., MDD) for summer decreased by 0.2% between 1989 and 2018. • Summer use peaked in the period between 1999 and 2003. LIMITS ASSOCIATED WITH THE AVAILABILITY OF THE DEMAND DATA Table 2.3 summarizes the Town’s total treated water volume and allocates the distributed water into billed and non-billed categories for the period 1989 through 2018. The Telluride Parks and Recreation Department uses raw water from the Town’s wells TH-1 and TH-2 to irrigate the playing fields in the park. This usage is metered. Both Lawson Hill and the Hillside subdivision use raw water sources, which are completely independent from the Towns water service, for landscaping irrigation. The Town of Telluride has no data regarding water volumes used. There is currently no reclaimed water use within the Telluride Water Service Area. WATER DEMAND BY CUSTOMER CATEGORIES Prior to January 1, 2014, the Town divided its customers into 8 categories. Two additional categories – “irrigation only” and “small deed-restricted” – were added starting in 2014 for billing purposes. An “Elderly, Fixed Income” category was created in 2019. The few “irrigation only”, “small deed-restricted” and “elderly, fixed income” are included in the residential usage category based on location for all analyses. Table 2.4 shows annual treated metered water use by customer category from 2001 through 2018. These data can be divided into bi-monthly usage. Continuing to maintain these data facilitates robust long-term data analysis of water use trends by customer type. The Telluride Parks and Recreation Department is the only raw water/reclaimed metered water user within the Town’s Service Area. The Parks and Recreation Department irrigates the park playing fields with raw water from the Town’s wells TH-1 and TH-2. These annual data are presented in Table 2.3, but are not included in Table 2.2 or Table 2.4. Both Lawson Hill HOA and the entire Hillside Subdivision use raw water to irrigate. Lawson Hill uses its water rights from Skunk Creek, diverting approximately 0.25 cfs to irrigate landscaping on common areas of the Property Owners’ Association. Hillside uses Telluride’s right to Eider Creek, when it is not being used by the Town to irrigate the Valley Floor. They also make use of a spring that goes to a tank and into a water system used by the Subdivision prior to it being connected to Telluride’s treated water system. It is estimated that the subdivision uses between 6,000 and 7,000 gallons per day during the irrigation season. Figures 2.4 and 2.5 present data for residential and commercial water users over time by billing period. Not surprisingly, the July-August use/billing period is highest for all user groups. This summer period is when summer irrigation is greatest and only a small proportion of irrigation usage is metered separately. The commercial users’ secondary peak usage is during the peak holiday season. Page | 15 TABLE 2.2 Average Day Demand (ADD) and Estimated Maximum Day Demand (MDD) in gallons per day Year Total MDD1 Total ADD2 Winter MDD3 Winter ADD4 Summer MDD5 Summer ADD6 1988 440,518 696,600 883,700 1989 508,017 461,833 508,017 461,833 969,850 554,254 1990 464,467 422,243 646,567 368,428 886,710 480,837 1991 465,556 423,233 592,526 403,689 888,790 442,375 1992 530,030 481,845 674,583 445,536 1,011,875 518,200 1993 410,332 373,029 522,240 398,981 783,360 347,656 1994 534,366 485,788 680,103 425,734 1,020,154 545,443 1995 535,504 486,821 681,550 434,864 1,022,325 537,798 1996 612,242 556,584 779,217 467,368 1,168,825 645,298 1997 629,541 572,310 801,234 486,549 1,201,851 655,948 1998 645,216 586,560 821,184 497,607 1,231,775 674,239 1999 675,158 613,780 859,292 520,826 1,288,937 707,191 2000 598,813 544,375 762,125 462,185 1,143,188 625,565 2001 587,232 533,848 747,387 429,850 1,121,080 637,058 2002 556,177 505,615 707,861 428,717 1,061,792 581,520 2003 548,212 498,374 697,724 411,348 1,046,586 585,219 2004 570,907 519,006 726,608 403,468 1,089,913 656,997 2005 588,300 534,819 748,746 426,661 1,123,119 642,410 2006 486,183 441,984 618,778 365,290 928,167 519,450 2007 500,269 454,790 636,707 395,055 955,060 514,565 2008 522,208 474,735 664,629 375,312 996,943 573,569 2009 482,318 438,471 613,859 347,458 920,788 528,506 2010 526,357 478,506 669,909 364,490 1,004,863 590,871 2011 527,521 479,564 671,390 366,541 1,007,085 592,105 2012 507,819 461,654 646,315 339,597 969,473 582,390 2013 509,239 462,945 648,123 358,815 972,184 565,780 2014 509,239 462,945 648,123 358,815 972,184 565,780 2015 548,125 498,295 697,613 427,836 1,046,420 573,354 2016 437,983 398,166 557,433 347,143 836,149 448,753 2017 445,625 405,114 567,159 353,176 850,739 456,608 2018 468,145 425,587 595,821 356,497 893,732 494,134 AVERAGE 529,844 481,677 671,576 405,208 1,011,521 558,483 Source: Water production data provided by the Telluride Water-Wastewater Division (2019) Column Explanations: Column 1 – Estimated total maximum day demand is calculated as the sum of the measured maximum day demands for each month, divided by 365 days and then multiplied by 1.1. Column 2 – Total average day demand is calculated as the sum of the measured annual water production, divided by 365 days. Column 3 – Estimated winter maximum day demand is calculated as the sum of the measured maximum day demands for each month, divided by 365 days and then multiplied by 1.4. Column 4 – Estimated winter average day demand is calculated as the average of the measured water production from October through March. Column 5 – Estimated summer maximum day demand is calculated as the sum of the measured maximum day demands for each month, divided by 365 days and then multiplied by 2.1. Column 6 – Estimated summer average day demand is calculated as the average of the measured water production from April through September. Page | 16 Figure 2.2 Average daily demand for treated water over time (5-year averages) Figure 2.3 Maximum daily demand for treated water over time (5-year averages) 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 1 2 3 4 5 6 Av e r a g e D a i l y D e m a n d ( A D D ) , g p m 1 = 1989-1993, 2=1994-1998, 3=1999-2003, 4=2004-2008, 5=2009-2013, 6=2014-2018 Total Avg ADD Winter Avg ADD Summer Avg ADD 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1 2 3 4 5 6 Ma x i m u m D a i l y D e m a n d ( M D D ) , g p m 1 = 1989-1993, 2=1994-1998, 3=1999-2003, 4=2004-2008, 5=2009-2013, 6=2014-2018 Total Avg MDD Winter Avg MDD Summer Avg MDD Page | 17 TABLE 2.3 Total Annual Accounted for Water Volume and Unaccounted for Volume, millions of gallons, 1989 – 2018 Treated Water Volume Authorized Consumption (Accounted for Treated Water Volume)1 Water Losses (Unaccounted for Water Volume)2 Raw Distributed3 Non-potable Water (used for park irrigation) Year Total Winter (Oct-Mar) Summer (Apr-Sep) Total Winter (Oct-Mar) Summer (Apr-Sep) Total Apparent Losses Real Losses 1989 169 67 102 - - - - - - - 1990 154 66 88 - - - - - - - 1991 154 73 81 - - - - - - - 1992 176 81 95 - - - - - - - 1993 136 72 64 - - - - - - - 1994 177 100 77 - - - - - - - 1995 178 99 79 - - - - - - - 1996 203 85 118 - - - - - - - 1997 209 89 120 67 27 31 142 - - - 1998 214 91 123 - - - - - - - 1999 224 95 129 109 - - 115 84 30.8 - 2000 199 84 115 - - - - - - 2 2001 195 78 117 111 53 57 84 - - 2 2002 185 78 107 125 55 69 60 - - 2 2003 182 75 107 - - - - - - 3 2004 189 73 116 117 53 63 72 61 11.3 8 2005 195 78 117 - - - - - - 4 2006 161 66 95 125 56 67 36 - - 3 2007 166 72 94 144 66 77 22 - - 0 2008 173 68 105 125 60 64 48 - - 5 2009 160 63 97 125 55 69 35 - - 3 2010 175 66 109 120 54 64 55 - - 3 2011 175 67 108 119 54 63 56 - - 2 2012 169 62 107 111 49 61 58 - - 3 2013 169 65 104 115 53 62 54 43 11.3 2 2014 182 77 105 118 55 63 64 63 0.7 2 2015 145 63 82 110 51 59 35 23 11.9 2 2016 148 64 84 117 51 66 31 21 10.3 2 2017 155 65 90 118 51 67 37 24 13.0 3 2018 157 70 87 117 51 64 41 26 14.3 4 AVERAGE (2014- 2018) 157 68 90 116 52 64 42 32 10 3 AVERAGE (1989- 2013) 179 77 103 116 53 62 64 63 18 3 Source: Data provided by the Telluride Water-Wastewater Division, Finance Department, & Parks Department 1 Based on billed water volume sales from metered accounts. 2 Based on treated water data from the water treatment plant 3 Meter readings for Town Park Wells TH-1 and TH2, which are used only to irrigate Town Park playing fields Page | 18 TABLE 2.3 Telluride Water System Historical Demand Volume by Customer Category Thousands of Gallons, 2001 – 2018 Source: Finance Department Billing Records Data LARGEST WATER USER GROUPS The largest water user groups by volume are in-town commercial and in-town residential, respectively. It should be noted that the term “commercial” is applied not only to businesses, but also to hotels and condominium complexes of 8 units or more. Both in-town commercial and in-town residential water users implemented basic water efficiency appliances and devices as required in Telluride’s building codes when the spaces were built or remodeled. No one water user customer category has been targeted for specific water efficiency activities. Therefore, it is not possible to attribute reductions in water use over time to specific activities. Page | 19 Figure 2.4. Residential water usage by billing period, 2001 through 2018. Figure 2.5 Commercial water usage by billing period, 2001 through 2018. 0 50,000 100,000 150,000 200,000 250,000 Jan-Feb Mar-Apr May-Jun Jul-Aug Sep-Oct Nov-Dec Wa t e r v o l u m e u s e d , m i l l i o n g a l l o n s 2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012 2011 2010 2009 2008 2007 2006 2005 2004 2002 2001 0 50,000 100,000 150,000 200,000 250,000 Jan-Feb Mar-Apr May-Jun Jul-Aug Sep-Oct Nov-Dec Wa t e r v o l u m e u s e d , m i l l i o n g a l l o n s 2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012 2011 2010 2009 2008 2007 2006 2005 2004 2002 2001 Page | 20 2.3 Past and Current Demand Management Activities and Impact to Demands In its report on water demand (2010), Resource Engineering noted an observed decline in overall domestic water use. Water demand peaked in 1999 followed by a general decline through 2018. See figures 2.2 and 2.3. Although overall average water demand has declined in recent years, peak day water use patterns, both summer and winter, have remained similar over the last 13 years. CONSERVATION MEASURES Resource Engineering (2010) attributed the decline in domestic water demand to a series of water conservation measures implemented by the Town of Telluride. From a broader perspective, it may be that the Town was also seeing the results of the Energy Policy Act of 1992, which mandated the manufacture of low flow toilets and showerheads. These measures, which are classified as “Foundational Conservation Measures” by the Colorado Water Conservation Board, are detailed below. • Metering. Historically, like many small, mountain towns, Telluride did not meter treated water use. The first attempts to meter potable water use were in the 1970s. The success of this early program was limited, at best. The 1993 Master Plan recommended trying metering again. This last round was completed between 2003 and 2006, over 10 years later. According to the available data, only a few water users remained unmetered in 2014, due to the difficulty of meter installation. As opportunities arose over the last 5 years, these accounts were metered. • Water Conservation Ordinance. Telluride developed and implemented a Water Conservation Ordinance within its Municipal Code in 2002-2003 in response to the 2002 drought and concerns that the Town’s existing water supplies would not meet demand in times of drought. The Ordinance is broken into three parts: (1) Installation of high-efficiency fixtures; (2) Landscaping; and (3) Water shortages and conservation (i.e., emergency conservation measures). Telluride’s Green Building Code also requires specific high-efficiency standards for plumbing that supplement the Water Conservation Ordinance. • Water Main Replacement. The Town replaced the aging, leaky water main along Colorado Avenue from Willow Street to Davis Street and then down to Pacific Avenue over a period of 5 construction seasons, starting in 2009. Water service lines to individual buildings were updated as part of a coordinated effort during the main line replacement. The water savings that resulted from this major replacement/repair project has not been quantified. • Systematic Leak Detection and Repair. The Public Works Department implemented a leak detection and repair program in the mid-1980s. Currently, a new leak detection survey is conducted every 12 to 18 months. Repairs are then scheduled to occur soon thereafter to minimize system losses due to leaks. When new leaks are detected during the field season (i.e., April 1 through October 31), they are repaired immediately. • Rate Structure. The Town completed a water rate analysis in 2004, which culminated in the adoption of an increasing block rate structure that penalizes excessive water use. The Town updated this study in 2013 (Burns & McDonnell, 2013), creating two new rate categories and making fees for excessive water use steeper. Figure 2.6 presents the relative changes in cost for increasing water use under the previous billing system and the current billing system and compares these rates with the rates charged by other jurisdictions. Rate studies conducted in 2018 and 2019 did not alter this basic block rate structure. • Green Building Code. Telluride developed and implemented a Green Building Ordinance within its Municipal Code in 2006. The Ordinance requires specific low-flow appliances for new construction and significant remodels. Updates to this Code were adopted as part of the 2018 International Building Code in early 2020. Page | 21 • Land Use Planning. Telluride’s Development Review Team—in place since the 1990s—includes staff from the Public Works Department (i.e., responsible for water treatment and supply), the Planning & Building Department, and the Legal Department. Every development proposal is reviewed and evaluated by staff, for consistency with the Telluride Land Use and Municipal codes (LUC and MUC). Applicable sections for water conservation include but are not limited to the following: MUC Chapter 13 Municipal Utilities (i.e., service line and shut off specifications, metering, rates, Water Conservation Code); MUC Chapter 15 Building Regulations (i.e., low flow plumbing specifications); Streetscapes Manual of Standards (i.e., irrigation and planting standards). The above-described improvements and conservation measures appear to have had a noticeable impact on average day demand (ADD), decreasing ADD overall by approximately 25 percent, winter ADD by approximately 31 percent, and summer ADD by approximately 20 percent since demand peaked in 1999. Figure 2.6. The increasing block rate structure proposed to the Telluride Town Council (the red line) as part of water service rate adjustment discussions in fall 2013 was adopted and put into effect starting January 1, 2014. It remains in place. 2.4 Demand Forecasts The planning horizon for this Water Efficiency Plan is 7 years (i.e., through 2027). The Town has updated its Water Supply Master Plan and associated demand forecasts on three occasions: 1993, 2002, and 2010. Each demand forecast was based upon the most recent water use records, existing and projected populations, and limits associated with the Town’s water service area. As noted earlier, the studies have documented a decline in per capita water use due to a variety of factors including leak detection and repair and water conservation. In addition, current growth projections have not changed from the 1.5% per year predicted in the 2010 study. The future demand forecast for each of the referenced studies is summarized in Table 2.5. As shown Table 2.5, it is projected that the Town will need to divert approximately 2.0 mgd (3.0 cfs) of water during peak day summer demands at build-out conditions. Public Works has determined that there have been no significant changes between 2010 and 2019 to require revising these projections. The assumptions regarding population, residential and commercial uses and associated water demands that were used in the Town’s 2010 Master Plan update are summarized in Table 2.6. Page | 22 TABLE 2.5 Telluride’s Projected Water Demand at Build-Out Within its Service Area and Current Demand Levels Winter Summer Avg. Day Peak Day Avg. Day Peak Day mgd cfs mgd cfs mgd cfs mgd cfs 1993 Master Plan 1.49 2.31 2.08 3.22 1.80 2.79 2.61 4.05 March 2002 Update 1.15 1.78 1.61 2.49 1.43 2.22 2.08 3.22 April 2010 Update 1.08 1.67 1.52 2.34 1.34 2.07 1.96 3.02 Current Actual Demand (2018) 0.38 0.59 0.60 0.93 0.48 0.74 0.90 1.40 Sources: Resource Engineering, 1993, 2002 and 2010; and actual demand data for the comparison. TABLE 2.6 Population and Water Demand Projections for Town of Telluride Geographical Water Service Area (Resource Engineering, 2010) (In-House and Irrigation Demand Reduced by 10.6% from 2/12/2002 Update to Reflect Town Conservation Measures) LOCATION Use Type PROJECTED POPULATION PROJECTED IN-HOUSE DEMAND PROJECTED IRRIGATION DEMAND PROJECTED MAXIMUM DEMAND (In- House + Irrigation) No. of Units or Sq. Ft. Persons per Unit Projected Population Gal/Day per Unit Units Avg. Day (gal) Peak Day (gal) Area (acres) Avg. Day (gal) Peak Day (gal) Avg. Day (gal) Peak Day (gal) Town of Telluride Single/Multi Family 2,658 2 6,087 98 Person 598,578 838,009 Comm. / Public 680,000 0 Sq. Ft. 91,188 127,663 Lodging 545 3 1,690 98 Person 166,145 232,604 13.1 153,437 260,843 1,009,348 1,459,119 The Falls Single Family 5 3 13 98 Person 1,229 1,721 0.275 3,221 5,476 4,450 7,197 S.M.V.C. Society Turn Comm. 98,800 3 0 Sq. Ft. 13,249 18,549 4 46,851 79,647 Employee Housing 49 123 98 Person 12,047 16,865 0 - - 72,147 115,061 Brown Homestead Single Family 21 3 53 98 Person 5,163 7,228 0.25 2,928 4,978 8,091 12,206 Eider Creek (formerly Goldking) Condominium 58 3 145 98 Person 14,259 19,963 0.67 7,848 13,341 22,107 33,304 Hillside Single Family 50 3 125 98 Person 12,293 17,210 1.06 12,416 21,106 24,708 38,316 Lawson Hill Single / Multi Family 277 3 693 98 Person 68,100 95,341 1.74 20,380 34,646 133,136 192,504 Public/Lt. Industrial 33,000 0 Sq. Ft. 44,655 62,517 Total 8,929 1,026,907 1,437,669 21 247,081 420,037 1,273,987 1,857,707 Total, cfs 2 2.22 1.97 2.87 Note: The projected population and projected in-house demand data were verified in February 2014 by Michelle Haynes, Telluride Planning Director, using the following resources: 2003 Commercial and Accommodations Land Use Study; 1995 Telluride Regional Growth Study, Building Permit Data Page | 24 Column Explanations: Column 1 – Unit projections per CPAC and Lawson Hill Agreement with updated square footage projections per Steve Ferris, Telluride Planning Director. S.M.V.C development level per Chase Appraisal. Column 2 – Residential densities per 2000 Housing Needs Assessment. Lodging per CPAC. Both provided by Steve Ferris, Telluride Planning Director. Column 3 – Col 1 X Col 2 Column 4 – Unit average daily water demand rates from 1993 Draft Water Master Plan and March 2002 Update reduced by 10.85% to reflect observed per capita usage reduction. Column 5 – Units, in persons or square footage, associated with the daily water demand. Column 6 – Average winter day demand. Col. 3 X Col. 4 for population and Col. 1 X Col. 4 for commercial / public / industrial. Column 7 – Projected peak winter day demand. Col. 6 X 1.4. This is the minimum projected winter water supply requirement. Column 8 – Projected irrigated area based on existing acreage plus future acreage with future area established as follows: Single/Multi Family: 1,000 Sq. Ft. per unit (Except in Town where total irrigated acreage is expected to be no more than 13.1 acres.) Column 9 – Average daily irrigation demand assuming a 6-inch July application requirement and 40% application efficiency or 0.484-inch daily application then reduced by 10.85% to reflect observed per capita usage reduction. Column 10 – Peak day irrigation demand. Col 9 X 1.7 Column 11 – Projected average summer day demand. Col. 6 + Col. 9 Column 12 – Projected peak summer day demand. Col. 7 + Col 10 Page | 25 3.0 Integrated Planning and Water Efficiency Benefits and Goals 3.1 Water Efficiency and Water Supply Planning C.R.S. 37-60-126 (4) requires a description of how long-term water savings garnered through water efficiency activities are incorporated into water supply planning and decision making. At this time, the Town has indicated it has no plans to secure additional water supplies. This increases the importance of ensuring existing water supplies are used as efficiently as possible. The Town of Telluride has identified the following five (5) benefits to implementing an effective water efficiency program: 1. Keeps more water in the ecosystem, providing habitat benefits for the local biome. 2. Decreases energy use per capita to supply water needs and to manage the resulting wastewater. This is important for reaching the greenhouse gas emissions reduction goals set by the Town Government for its facilities and operations, as well as for the broader community. 3. Decreases operating costs for the water and wastewater facilities due to lower energy bills, fewer needed chemicals, etc. This in turn will help to moderate water and wastewater service rates increases over time. 4. Tangibly demonstrates the community’s commitment to sustainability. 5. Assists with meeting contractual obligations and agreements with neighbors (i.e., Idarado Mining Company Comprehensive Settlement Agreement, 2013; Water Case No. 96CW313.) The primary benefit associated with increased water efficiency by Telluride Water Service Area users is protection of the visual and aquatic values associated with stream flows within the San Miguel River and its headwater tributaries. There is an extended distance between the Town’s points of diversion and the point of return flow to the river at its wastewater treatment plant at Society Turn. Within this reach, the Town’s in-house diversions are entirely consumptive to the river. Any water savings gained through conservation efforts directly benefit the river ecosystem, which is an amenity that attracts thousands of visitors annually. The use to which saved water will be put depends on which Town of Telluride water source is affected. Water that is not used from Blue Lake maintains or improves the stored raw water reserves for the Town and Idarado Mining Company, ensuring water in times of drought and ensuring water to create energy at the Bridal Veil Power House and the Pandora Hydroelectric Generation Facility. Water that is not used from the Bridal Veil Basin at Lewis Lake, Mud Lake, and Bridal Veil Creek at The Falls Diversion remains in the San Miguel River, sustaining the ecosystem and benefiting all associated natural and recreational uses in and near the river. Water that is not used from Stillwell Tunnel will maintain/enhance flows in Cornet Creek, benefiting the creek and its ecosystem throughout the Town. Water that is not diverted for treatment at the Mill Creek Water Treatment Plant will maintain/enhance flows downstream along the Mill Creek corridor, benefiting wetlands and riparian areas until its confluence with the San Miguel River. As well, water not used also ensures that the two Stillwell Tanks remains full and available for use when needed for fire protection, drought, and peak demands for festivals. Land use planning efforts affecting water conservation are not anticipated to modify currently planned water infrastructure improvements at this time or in the future. Infrastructure improvements are focused on minimizing leaks and maximizing the transmission and storage efficiencies of an aged system. As stated in the first paragraph of this section, the Town has indicated it has no plans to secure additional water supplies. Water conservation efforts, including those through land use planning, will help ensure that current water supplies will be sufficient into the future. Page | 26 3.2 Water Efficiency Goals Public Works Department personnel worked collaboratively to develop a single, achievable goal for the water and wastewater system that serves the Telluride community. This water and wastewater system includes not only the water and wastewater treatment plants and their associated distribution and collection piping, but all of the users connected to the public system. The original 2014 goal and objectives were presented to the staff Water Efficiency Task Force for review and comment, and then the Telluride Ecology Commission and the Telluride Town Council for consideration. For this 2020 Plan, the original goal and objectives were reviewed with staff, the Telluride Ecology Commission, and the Telluride Town Council. These groups determined that some changes were warranted. The final 2020 goal and objectives for moving toward the goal are as follows: Goal – Optimize water efficiency throughout the water and wastewater system, which includes all water users as well as traditional infrastructure. This will: • Minimize energy use for pumping and treatment and use of chemicals for treatment, thereby minimizing operational costs. • Demonstrate leadership to the community that using water wisely is the right thing to do. • Provide “insurance” that there will be more water and wastewater capacity available for the local tourist economy, as drought protection, and as in-stream flows to protect or enhance environmental and recreational values that benefit the local economy. Objectives for the Next 7 Years 1. Decrease use of potable water for outdoor irrigation by another 5% f 2. Reduce wastewater discharges by decreasing indoor residential by 5% 3. Reduce wastewater discharges by decreasing commercial water use by 5% 4. Reduce peak day summer demand by 5% 5. Reduce non-revenue water by 10% by applying appropriate principals and methodologies from AWWA M36. The success of Objective 1 will be assessed based on analysis of the various irrigation accounts and on metered use at the Lone Tree Cemetery. The success of Objectives 2 and 3 will be measured by analyzing billing data for specific user classes. The success of Objective 4 will be measured using calculated peak day summer demand for water production. The success of Objective 5 will be measured by applying appropriate principals and methodologies from AWWA M36 that quantify non-revenue water. Page | 27 3.3 Integrated Planning and Water Efficiency Benefits and Goals The Town of Telluride has pursued an integrated planning model through its Development Review Team (DRT) since the 1990s. DRT meets weekly to discuss each proposed development within the Town, and when warranted, within the water service area, which includes parts of unincorporated San Miguel County. The team includes the Public Works Director, the Town Engineer, the Environmental & Engineering Division Manager, the Planning Director and all Planning Technicians, the Historic Planning Director, the Building Official, the Legal Assistant, and at times, the Town Manager. Every development proposal is reviewed and evaluated by staff, as required by the Telluride Land Use and Municipal codes (LUC and MUC). Applicable sections for water conservation include but are not limited to the following: MUC Chapter 13 Municipal Utilities (i.e., service line and shut off specifications, metering, rates, Water Conservation Code); MUC Chapter 15 Building Regulations (i.e., low flow plumbing specifications); Streetscapes Manual of Standards (i.e., irrigation and planting standards); and LUC Division 3 Street and Utility Requirements; Telluride Master Plan (2006) Planning Principles and Values J. Telluride Master Plan (2006), Planning Principles and Values J Optimization of existing infrastructure will be considered as a condition of any significant expansion of built facilities. The overriding principle is to ensure that the Town will make maximum use of existing public services and facilities such as water, wastewater, parks, and recreation facilities before undertaking significant expansion projects. Telluride will pursue the optimization of community resources through encouraging collaboration and synergy between community groups. In addition, the Town will consider infrastructure and capacity issues in marketing and events planning. Page | 28 4.0 Selection of Water Efficiency Activities 4.1 Summary of Identification & Selection Process The Original 2014 Process In 2014, the original process of identifying and selecting potential water efficiency activities for this report began with the collection of general information on Telluride’s current water conservation efforts and other aspects of the water supply system and service area. The next step involved educating Town staff and the general public through Ecology Commission and Town Council meetings about these water system basics. Agendas for all public meetings were posted at Rebekah Hall and on the Town’s website no less than one (1) week prior to the meeting. As well, Town Council meetings are televised and broadcast over the local television and radio station so those who could not attend in person could listen. Therefore, it is reasonable to assume that a good portion of the community was educated. Next, the identification of potential new water efficiency activities and selection criteria was undertaken at four levels: (1) informal staff discussions using the Colorado Water Conservation Board guidance worksheets as a template; (2) staff Water Efficiency Plan Task Force meetings; (3) public work sessions with Telluride’s Ecology Commission at their regularly scheduled meetings; and (4) public work sessions with Telluride’s Town Council at their regularly scheduled meetings. The universe of potential activities that were identified was provided in worksheets D through G in the appendices of the original Water Efficiency Plan (2014). Staff qualitatively screened the universe of potential activities that were identified using the following four primary or qualitative criteria (QC). QC1 – Under the Town’s direct control QC2 – Likely to measurably decrease water use QC3 – Builds on an ongoing activity QC4 – Provides positive reinforcement to conserve Worksheet D in Appendix 3 of the original Water Efficiency Plan (2014) showed how various activities compared to each other when these four selection criteria were applied. The final phase of activity selection required staff to use the evaluative criteria and then the additional qualitative criteria listed below to prioritize potential activities. The additional qualitative criteria corresponded directly to the 5-year objectives identified to help meet the original Water Efficiency Plan (2014) goal. EC1 – Can be accomplished with current staffing EC2 – Technically feasible EC3 – Relatively low cost EC4 – Will help meet long-term goals QC5 – Decrease outdoor irrigation QC6 – Reduce wastewater discharge by reducing indoor water use QC7 – Reduce peak day summer demand QC8 – Decrease non-revenue water For this final sorting, the Water Efficiency Plan Task Force applied a final polishing of potential activities by discussing each activity in detail to make sure that the results of the identification, evaluation, and prioritization process made sense and were in line with the goals and objectives for the water efficiency program. Page | 29 The Process for the 2020 Plan The process of identifying and selecting potential water efficiency activities for the Water Efficiency Plan (2020- 2027) began with a review of the universe of potential activities that were identified during original Water Efficiency Plan (2014) development. Staff presented and led a discussion of these activities with the Telluride Ecology Commission and the Telluride Town Council in June and August 2019. Each of these entities was asked to propose new activities. Commissioners and Council Persons were also asked to review the selection criteria for their current relevance. The Council determined to replace EC4 – “Can be completed within the 7-year window of Water Efficiency Plan”, with “Essential for achieving long-term goals”. As a result of these discussions, staff kept the original universe of potential activities that were identified in 2014 (provided in worksheets D through G in Appendix 3 of this plan), noted which activities were completed over the last 5 years, added the new activities identified for this update, and then proceeded through the selection and prioritization process. Once again, for the 2020-2027 Plan, staff applied a final polishing of potential activities by discussing each activity in detail to make sure that the results of the identification, evaluation, and prioritization process made sense and were in line with the goals and objectives for the water efficiency program. 4.2 Demand Management Activities It is important to note that this subsection presents the demand management activities selected for implementation. It focuses on the screening and evaluation results; not the process. Documentation on the screening and evaluation process for each water efficiency activity is included in tabular format in worksheets D through H in Appendix 2. A summary list of the selected water efficiency activities that will be continued, expanded, and/or initiated by the Town of Telluride during the next 7-year period of this updated Water Efficiency Plan is provided below. 1. Continue Unchanged a. Meter reading and bimonthly billing b. Meter upgrades c. Leak Detection & Repair Program d. Water efficiency-oriented water service rates; tiered increasing block rates composed of a base rate and volume used. e. Water Conservation Ordinance landscaping and irrigation system requirements f. During TRWWTP upgrades implementation, decrease potable water usage where possible. g. Toilet retrofits/rebates h. Work with the cemetery as a Large Water User to improve irrigation efficiency, install a more drought tolerant landscape, and/or find a different source of water. i. Water Wise Outreach Program (KOTO Radio Access, newspaper PSAs, webpage information, water bill inserts, Daily Planet articles, Facebook information, etc.) 2. Expanded a. Meter Testing - Investigate the potential range of inaccuracy of existing “typical” meters used throughout the water system to refine quantification of “non-revenue” water. b. Change the Water Conservation Ordinance (Municipal Code §13-5-30(6)) to require limited water times throughout the season, not just during identified water shortages. c. Replace the Mill Creek High Pressure Water Line 3. Initiated a. Commercial equipment replacement grants through Green Grant Program Page | 30 4.3 Status of Foundational Activities 4.3.2 Metering C.R.S. 37-60-126 (4) requires a description of current and planned metering programs. Historically, like many small, mountain towns, Telluride did not meter treated water use. The first attempts to meter potable water use were in the 1970s. The success of this early program was limited, at best. The 1993 Master Plan recommended installing automatic read (AMR) meters. This program was completed between 1995 and 2006, over 10 years later. In 2016, the Town determined to institute a meter replacement program, targeting replacement of 125 meters each year. At the end of 2019, there were approximately 1775 metered water accounts. In addition, approximately 4 water lines are metered, but not read as part of the regular meter reading schedule. The Environmental & Engineering Division and the Finance Department (i.e., Utility Billing) are responsible for getting data from these meters at each billing cycle and at the end of each year to include in the annual Water Audit. C.R.S. 37-60-126 (4) requires that modifications and/or new metering programs selected as a result of the water efficiency planning effort include anticipated implementation costs, estimated water savings, and any additional information beneficial to refer to during implementation. In 2014, the benefits of replacing existing meters throughout town with new meters that would read more accurately were unclear. A subsequent analysis indicated that the benefits would be large. To date, meter testing indicates that older meters can under-read water use by 3% to 50% when compared to new meters. As a result, a new meter technology was selected and since 2016 approximately 130 meters are replaced each year. The meter replacement program is included as a permanent line item within the Water Fund Operations & Maintenance budget. The Meter Testing Program will be expanded for the next 7-year cycle to further refine estimates of apparent water losses The most significant unmetered uses of potable water over the past several years have been process uses of potable water at the Telluride Regional Wastewater Treatment Plant (TRWWTP) and irrigation for the regional cemetery. In mid-2013, a meter was installed and is being read monthly at the wastewater plant. A manual-read meter was installed at the cemetery in fall of 2013. This cemetery meter is typically put in place in early May and removed at the end of the irrigation season in mid-October. The cemetery meter is read at the beginning and the end of each irrigation season. 4.3.2 Demand Data Collection and Billing Systems C.R.S. 37-60-126 (4) requires a description of the demand data that is available through the billing system, including, water usage by customer category and billing frequency. Subsection Water Demand by Customer Category under Section 2.2 Historical Water Demand in this Water Efficiency Plan provides this information and use data in detail. Telluride currently reads meters every other month and aggregates these data to bill every two (2) months for 11 different customer categories. Prior to 2014, the number of customer categories was 8. In fall 2013, the number of customer categories was increased to 10. In 2019, this was increased once again to 11. During the 2014 Water Efficiency Plan implementation period, staff investigated the costs and benefits of moving to a monthly billing cycle from the current bi-monthly cycle. Staff concluded that the costs outweighed the benefits and this conclusion will not be re-evaluated during the next 7-year cycle. The Billing System that is currently in place dictates the type of water use data that can be collected over time. Finance Department staff send the billing report to the Environmental & Engineering Division Manager immediately after utility bills are sent out. This eliminates the potential of losing these detailed user-specific data. However, it is possible to retrieve all data related to general user categories per billing cycle (every two (2) months) for a given year for up to three (3) years after it is generated. C.R.S. 37-60-126 (4) requires a description of any planning modifications to the data collection and billing system that results from the water efficiency planning effort. During 2014 Water Efficiency Plan development staff discovered that metered users that were not billed, such as Town-owned facilities and the Historical Museum, were not included in the meter read report. This was changed with a request to the meter reader to read and down load these data, submit them to the Finance Department, and then to have the Finance Department include Page | 31 them in the detailed water user data download each billing period will allow Public Works to account for this water use and further refine its estimate of “non-revenue” water. There are plans during Water Efficiency Plan (2020- 2027) implementation to capture revenues from at least some of the “non-revenue” water. 4.3.3 Water Efficiency Oriented Rates and Tap Fees C.R.S. 37-60-126 (4) requires billing systems designed to encourage water efficiency in a fiscally responsible manner to be fully evaluated. The Town of Telluride instituted an increasing block rate structure in 2004 for water use in its service area according to multiple customer categories. A Water Services Rate Study (Burns & McDonnell, 2013) recommended water service rate increases over a 5-year period, which the Town Council approved. These rate increases made the increasing block rate structure even steeper than the previous rates. See Figure 2.6 for an illustrated comparison of Telluride’s increasing block rate structure compared to similar communities in the region. The Town conducted water rate analyses in 2018 and 2019, which resulted in increased water rates each of those years. Staff anticipates conducting a financial analysis of the water system at least every 2 years to ensure that rates accurately reflect the cost of service. The current Tap Fee structure does not reward or incentivize water efficiency. It is widely held that Tap Fees pay for the existing infrastructure, which is not impacted by water efficiency and that incentives or rewards for installing water efficient appliances will be seen through lowered water usage and therefore in lower water service rates. 4.3.4 System Water Loss Management and Control C.R.S. 37-60-126 (4) requires that a distribution system leak identification and repair system designed to encourage water efficiency in a fiscally responsible manner be fully evaluated and requires a description of current and planned system water loss management and control programs. Examples of system water loss management and control programs include annual system-wide water audits, investigation of apparent losses, leak detection and repair programs, and water line replacement programs. The Telluride Public Works Department distribution system leak identification and repair system has been in place since 1998. Each year the entire water distribution system is inspected using audible detection to develop a list of required repairs. The Town of Telluride Water/Wastewater Capital Asset Maintenance Plan (Farnsworth Group, 2012) identified pipes that require replacement due to age. This report continues to inform Public Works Department capital planning for water line replacement. In more recent years, Public Works has been coordinating closely with the Finance Department when a meter reading for a specific customer is significantly different than previous readings, which sometimes indicates that there is a leak in either the distribution or service line to that specific meter or perhaps in an appliance within the structure. 4.4 Targeted Technical Assistance and Incentives 4.4.1 Level 1: Utility/Municipal Facility Water Efficiency Town facility water efficiency improvements will continue to be a focus over the next 7-year cycle. Water efficiency activities that staff will continue to pursue, which fall under this categorization, include: • Investigate the potential range of inaccuracy of exiting “typical” meters used throughout the water system to refine quantification of “non-revenue” water. • Assess opportunities to decrease use of treated water at the Telluride Regional Wastewater Treatment Plant as part of the planned upgrades. • Appliance Replacement – incentivize replacement of old-style toilets at large HOA or commercial facilities. The first notable large demand customer is the Telluride Regional Wastewater Treatment Plant (TRWWTP). While potable water use was not historically metered at this Town-managed facility, a meter was installed in mid-2013 Page | 32 and use has been closely tracked by staff ever since. The TRWWTP will be undergoing a series of upgrades over the next 7 years (and longer). As new technologies are investigated, water use efficiency and/or water recycling will be a serious consideration. 4.4.2 Level 2: Management of Largest Customer Demands Staff currently tracks usage by all “large water users”, listing the top 10 users each year in the annual Water Audit. Targeting specific customers within the overall database has proven to be an effective strategy. The 2020 Water Efficiency Plan activities specifically targets continuing to work with the Lone Tree Cemetery board and their irrigation specialist to improve overall irrigation system efficiency and to investigate moving them to an alternative source of water for irrigation. Staff will continue to try to get fewer acres irrigated at the cemetery, changing some areas to native wildflowers from turf, if possible. Finding an alternative source of water will ultimately be the best option for this user and will result in the largest decrease for irrigation demand in summer. 4.4.3 Level 3: Management of Remaining Customer Demands Demand management activities that focus on the customer service area are more difficult to monitor and less cost effective than focusing on the Level 1 and 2 customers. From a business perspective, it makes the most sense for Telluride to focus on Level 1 and 2 customers and then target Level 3 customers within the service area later. 4.5 Ordinances and Regulations 4.5.1 Level 1 Existing Service Area There are several ordinances, regulations, and guidelines in place that apply to Telluride’s existing water service area. These include (1) the Telluride Municipal Code Section 13 Article 1 Municipal Utilities (MUC §13); (2) the Telluride Municipal Code Section 13 Article 5 Water Conservation Code (MUC §13-5); (3) the Telluride Municipal Code Section 15 Building Regulations (MUC §15); (4) the Streetscape Manual of Standards (TOT, 2007) Right of Way Landscaping Guidelines, which were adopted by the Town Council in 2007; and (5) a long-time local landscaping guide entitled, Gardening and Landscaping at High Altitude, An Ecological Approach to Landscaping in the Telluride Region (Gick, 1998). MUC §13, Utilities, was adopted by the Telluride Town Council as part of the original Municipal Code. It applies to all services provided within the water and sewer service areas. While these service areas do overlap, they are not identical. This is the section of the municipal code that specifies water and sewer tap fees, water and sewer rates, and billing protocols; and requires metering for water service. Water efficiency activity identification yielded no immediate changes to this section of the Code. MUC §13-5, Water Conservation Code, was adopted by the Telluride Town Council in 2002. It is provided in its entirety in Appendix 1 of this Plan. Its preface recognizes water as a finite and precious resource and that water waste is to be discouraged and water conservation encouraged. Section 13-5-40 pertains to water conservation measures that are needed when a water shortage is declared by the Town Manager or Town Council. During the Water Efficiency Activity Identification phase of the 2020 Water Efficiency Plan development, the Town Council once again determined that this code be carefully reviewed by staff for potential revisions. Of interest, once again, was changing the restrictions on irrigating to include a year-round ban on irrigation between during the heat of the day (e.g., between 9 am and 9 pm). The goal is to make remembering the watering restrictions easier for the public. MUC §15, Building Regulations is currently being updated to reflect the 2018 International Building Code, which reflects the most progressive requirements for plumbing codes. MUC §15 also incorporates Telluride’s Green Building Code, which further emphasizes water conservation and efficiency for all appliances and fixtures. The Streetscape Manual of Standards Right of Water Landscaping Guidelines applies to green strips in the publicly- owned right of way that are planted and managed by fronting property owners. It re-iterates the landscaping Page | 33 requirements from MUC §13-5 and includes landscaping information that is also available in Gardening and Landscaping at High Altitude, An Ecological Approach to Landscaping in the Telluride Region (Gick, 1998). 4.5.2 Level 2 New Construction Regulations There are several ordinances, regulations, and guidelines in place that apply to new construction within Telluride’s water service area. These include (1) the Telluride Municipal Code Section 13 Article 1 Municipal Utilities (MUC §13-1); (2) the Telluride Municipal Code Section 13 Article 5 Water Conservation Code (MUC §13-5); (3) the Telluride Municipal Code Section 15 Article 9 Energy Codes (MUC §15-9); (4) the Streetscape Manual of Standards (TOT, 2007) Right of Way Landscaping Guidelines; and (5) the local landscaping guide entitled, Gardening and Landscaping at High Altitude, An Ecological Approach to Landscaping in the Telluride Region (Gick, 1998). MUC §13-5, Water Conservation Code, was adopted by the Telluride Town Council in 2002. It is provided in its entirety in Appendix 1 of this Plan. Section 13-5-20 applies to all new construction, requiring the installation of high-efficiency fixtures. Section 13-5-30 requires high efficiency irrigation systems and drought-tolerant plantings if potable water is to be used for watering new landscaping. Finally, the Telluride Town Council adopted MUC §15-9, Energy Code, in 2006 and updated in 2009. Current updates are being incorporated during winter 2020 as part of adopting the 2018 International Building Code. MUC §15-9-f-ii requires specific water efficiencies for showerheads, bathroom faucets, kitchen faucets, and irrigation systems. 4.5.3 Level 3 Point of Sales Ordinances on Existing Building Stock Point of sales ordinances on existing building stock were eliminated from discussions early in the development process for Telluride’s Water Efficiency Plan. Such a program was considered overly burdensome not only on existing staff regarding potential tracking and administration, but also on the local real estate market. Building Department records indicate that a good portion of the existing building stock has been renovated within the last ten (10) to fifteen (15) years, usually after the point of sale. Staff believes that the increasingly limited number of properties that need to be upgraded can be addressed through a targeted audit, grant, and rebate program. 4.6 Education Activities 4.6.1 Level 1 One-Way Education Activities The Town Government and other community resources are currently engaging in several Level 1 One-Way Educational Activities, which are focused on creating water efficient landscapes. These include (1) the native planting demonstration garden; (2) the Streetscape Manual of Standards (TOT, 2007) Right of Way Landscaping Guidelines; and (3) the local landscaping guide entitled, Gardening and Landscaping at High Altitude, An Ecological Approach to Landscaping in the Telluride Region (Gick, 1998). The native planting demonstration garden, which is prominently located in the Town Park along the River Trail, was planted by the regional Cooperative Extension Office several years ago. The native planting demonstration garden, the Streetscape Landscaping Guidelines, and the local landscaping guide all work in concert and are common references when local property owners and local landscapers work with staff on new landscaping. These outreach activities are planned to continue. 4.6.2 Level 2 One-Way Education with Feedback Water efficiency activity identification exercises identified several Level 2 One-Way Education Activities. A K-12 Water Fair was one that the Telluride Ecology Commission thought would be useful and fun. The prioritization process once again eliminated the water fair and K-12 teacher and classroom education programs because it was believed these activities would be difficult to implement (i.e., the Town does not have sufficient personnel) and were not likely to yield significant results compared to other potential new activities. Social networking (i.e., Facebook) capabilities by staff are now available. Staff has therefore added ongoing interactions and reminders about being “water wise” on the town’s Facebook page as a new activity. Page | 34 4.6.3 Level 3 Two-Way Education Focus groups, customer surveys, and citizen advisory boards were discussed during the water efficiency activity identification exercises. The Ecology Commission, the Telluride Town Council, and staff all agreed that these activities would be difficult to implement (i.e., the Town does not have sufficient personnel resources) and were not likely to yield significant results compared to other potential new activities. Page | 35 5.0 Implementation and Monitoring Plan 5.1 Implementation Plan Worksheet J – Implementation Plan – 2020, which is provided toward the end of Appendix 2, details the Water Efficiency Activities that were selected for implementation as a result of brainstorming, applying selection criteria, and troubleshooting the final list. Ultimately, the Water Efficiency Activities are intended to help achieve the adopted goal and objectives shown in the text box. The estimated savings, as shown on Worksheet I of Appendix 2 is approximately 9.7 million gallons annually or 6 percent of the water produced in 2018. 5.2 Monitoring Plan The Environmental & Engineering Division of the Public Works Department is responsible for monitoring implementation plan progress and whether water use does change as anticipated. Monitoring occurs annually during preparation of the Water Audit, when a full year of data are available for analysis from the Water- Wastewater Division of the Public Works Department and from the Finance Department (from the billing files). The Finance Department sends detailed bi-monthly billing data to the Environmental & Engineering Division immediately after each billing cycle. Staff employ the AWWA M36 methodology to assist with this analysis. TELLURIDE’S WATER & WASTEWATER SYSTEM GOAL Optimize water efficiency throughout the water and wastewater system, which includes all water users as well as traditional infrastructure. This will: •Minimize energy use for pumping and treatment and use of chemicals for treatment; thereby minimizing operational costs; •Demonstrate leadership to the community that using water wisely is the right thing to do. •Provide “insurance” that there will be more water and wastewater capacity available for the local tourist economy, as drought protection, and as in-stream flows to protect or enhance environmental and recreational values that benefit the local economy. OBJECTIVES FOR THE NEXT 7 YEARS 1.Decrease use of potable water for outdoor irrigation by another 5% 2.Reduce wastewater discharges by decreasing indoor residential by 5% 3.Reduce wastewater discharges by decreasing commercial water use by 5% 4.Reduce peak day summer demand by 5% 5.Reduce non-revenue water by 10% by applying appropriate principals and methodologies from AWWA M36. Page | 36 6.0 Adoption of New Policy, Public Review and Formal Approval 6.1 Adoption of New Policy Under the Telluride Town Charter, the Telluride Town Council is charged with the creation and adoption of new policies. Seeking to optimize the water and wastewater system throughout the Town’s service areas is not new policy, but it is evolving over time. Such evolution requires periodic discussions about the means of achieving goals identified by the overarching policy of keeping water use as efficient as possible, minimizing water waste, and providing stewardship of the water resources in the Town’s charge. 6.2 Public Review Process Public input was solicited on a three-tier track. The Ecology Commission was an important public venue for obtaining input on the document and for moving through the steps to select and prioritize efficiency activities. The Commission’s monthly meetings are open to the general public. The agenda for each meeting is posted in two locations in the Town and on the Town’s web site, and a notice of the agenda postings are sent via email to those who have signed up for the service. The Water Efficiency Plan (2020-2027) was on the Ecology Commission’s 2019 and 2020 Work Plans and on the Commissions meeting agendas on the following dates: August 7, 2019; September 4, 2019; November 6, 2019; January 8, 2020; and February 5, 2020. The Telluride Town Council at their public, monthly meetings was also an essential element regarding development and local adoption of the plan. The agenda for each Town Council meeting is posted in two locations in the Town and on the Town’s web site, and a notice of the agenda postings are sent via email to those who have signed up for the service. The Water Efficiency Plan (2020-2027) was discussed at Town Council on the following dates: June 4, 2019; August 13, 2019; January 28, 2020; and March 31, 2020. Finally, the public was invited to review the final draft document for a 60-day public comment period within the Town Council Packet published on January 24, 2020, at the Town Council Meeting on January 28, 2020, at 3 pm. Town Council announced at its meeting that the official PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD on the final draft Water Efficiency Plan (2020-2027) starts on January 28, 2020, at 3 pm and ends on March 28, 2020, at 3 pm. The plan was made available online at the Town’s website under “News”, in hard-copy at Rebekah Hall and Old Town Hall, and via email request to kguglielmone@telluride-co.gov. 6.3 Local Adoption and State Approval Processes The Public Works Department coordinated with Colorado Water Conservation Board staff to develop the Water Efficiency Plan early in the development and update process to ensure that the plan contained all required elements and was approvable by the Colorado Water Conservation Board. After the Public Review Process, the Town Council formally adopted the plan by resolution at one of its regularly scheduled meetings. The plan was then submitted to the Colorado Water Conservation Board for formal review and approval at the State level. 6.4 Periodic Review and Update The Public Works Department will schedule a review and update of Telluride’s Water Efficiency Plan every seven (7) years (i.e., 2027, 2034, 2041 etc.) as is required by the CWCB. The Annual Water Audit will serve as an annual assessment of progress. Page | 37 References AMEC. 2012. Municipal Water Efficiency Plan Guidance Document. Prepared by AMEC Environment & Infrastructure, Boulder, Colorado. Prepared for Colorado Water Conservation Board, Denver, Colorado. July 2012. AWWA. 2006. Water Conservation Programs – A Planning Manual. Manual of Water Supply Practices M52. First Edition. American Water Works Association. Burns & McDonnell. 2013a. Report on the Water Services Rate Study. Prepared for the Town of Telluride, CO, by Burns & McDonnell, Kansas City, MO. Project No. 72447. Burns & McDonnell. 2013b. Report on the Wastewater Services Rate Study. Prepared for the Town of Telluride, CO, by Burns & McDonnell, Kansas City, MO. Project No. 72447. Burns & McDonnell. 2018. Water Revenue Sufficiency Analysis and Rate Study. Prepared for the Town of Telluride, CO, by Burns & McDonnell, Kansas City, MO. Project No. 111076. Castle, A.J. and E. Rugland. 2019. Best Practices for implementing Water Conservation and Demand Management through Lan Use Planning Efforts: Addendum to 2012 Guidance Document. Prepared for the Colorado Water Conservation Board. Getches-Wilkinson Center, University of Colorado, and Babbitt Center for Land and Water Policy. CDM. 2004. Statewide Water Supply Initiative Phase I, Colorado Water Conservation Board. Prepared by Camp, Dresser & McKee. CDM. 2007. Statewide Water Supply Initiative Phase II, Colorado Water Conservation Board. Prepared by Camp, Dresser & McKee. Farnsworth Group. 2012. Town of Telluride Water/Wastewater Capital Asset Maintenance Plan. Prepared for the Telluride Public Works Department, Telluride, Colorado, January 30, 2012. FCS Group. 2018. 2018 Wastewater Rate Study. Prepared for the Town of Telluride, CO, by FCS Group, Boulder, CO. Gick, Elizabeth. 1998. Gardening and Landscaping at High Altitude - An Ecological Approach to Landscaping in the Telluride Region. Prepared for the Telluride Region, Telluride, Colorado. Great Western Institute. 2010. SWSI Conservation Levels Analysis Final Report. Prepared for the Colorado Water Conservation Board. June 2010. Wright-McLaughlin Engineers. 1977. Water System Master Plan Report. Town of Telluride, San Miguel County, Colorado. Resource Engineering. 1993. Town of Telluride Water Master Plan Update. Prepared for the Town of Telluride by Resource Engineering, Inc., Glenwood Springs, CO. Resource Engineering. 2002. Letter correspondence to Sandra Stuller, Esq., Updated Projected Water Demand Estimate – Town of Telluride. March 12, 2002. Prepared for the Town of Telluride by Resource Engineering, Inc., Glenwood Springs, CO. Resource Engineering. 2004. Town of Telluride Municipal Water Rate Review Study. Prepared by Resource Engineering, Inc. Glenwood Springs, CO. Resource Engineering. 2010. Letter correspondence to Jay Montgomery, Town of Telluride Projected Water Demand. April 14, 2010. Prepared for the Town of Telluride by Resource Engineering, Inc., Glenwood Springs, CO. Page | 38 TOT. 2007. Town of Telluride Streetscapes Manual of Standards. Prepared by the Town of Telluride Public Works Department and the Town of Telluride Planning & Building Department. TOT. 2012. Town of Telluride NPDES Co-0041840 COG-650100 Biosolids Report for Year 2012. TOT. 2018. Town of Telluride NPDES Co-0041840 COG-650100 Biosolids Report for Year 2018. TOT. 2019. Geographic Information System for Water & Wastewater Systems. URS. 2009. Memorandum to Stan Berryman, Paul Ruud, and Bill Goldsworthy, Telluride Water Treatment and Approximate Available Fire Flow. December 29, 2009. Prepared by Kathy Schlosser and Bill Wemmert, URS, Denver, CO. URS. 2010. Pandora Water Treatment Plant Project Engineering Design Report. Prepared for the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment, Water Quality Control Division, West Slope Regional Office, Grand Junction, CO on behalf of the Town of Telluride. February 22, 2010. URS, Denver, CO, Project No. 22239481. WWE. 1977. Well Completion Report for the Town of Telluride, Colorado, Test Holes TW-1 and TW-2. Prepared by Wright Water Engineers December 13, 1977, for the Town of Telluride, CO. Page | 39 Glossary & Acronyms Active Water Conservation Savings: Water savings from utility-sponsored water conservation programs. Such measures and programs may include education programs, incentives and rebates, fixture replacement programs, audits and conservation rates and surcharges (CDM, 2004) CWCB: Colorado Water Conservation Board Firm Yield: The amount of water that can be diverted and beneficially used each year including during drought periods and the driest years of record. ADD, Average Daily Demand: The potable water produced to meet the demand averaged over a 24-hour period. MDD, Estimated Maximum Daily Demand: The potable water produced to meet the demand. Calculated by averaging the maximum daily demand from winter and the maximum daily demand from summer. Passive (or naturally-occurring) Water Conservation Savings: Water savings that result from the impacts of plumbing codes, ordinances, and standards that improve the efficiency of water use. These conservation savings are called “passive” savings because water utilities do not actively fund or implement programs that produce these savings. (CDM, 2004) SWSI: Statewide Water Supply Initiative Water Conservation: Water use efficiency, wise water use, water transmission and distribution system efficiency, and supply substitution. The objective of water conservation is a long-term increase in the productive use of water supply in order to satisfy water supply needs without compromising desired water services. WEP: Water Efficiency Plan Water Reuse: Use of reclaimed water for a beneficial use constitutes water reuse. Direct water reuse includes treating wastewater and piping it directly into a water system without intervening dilution in natural water bodies. Indirect reuse includes an intermediate step between the generation of reclaimed water and reuse, which may be through discharge, retention, and mixing with another water supply. Water-Saving Measures and Programs: This includes any device, fixture, practice, hardware, or equipment that reduces water demands and a program that uses a combination of measures and incentives that provides for an increase in the productive use of a local water supply. Page | 40 Appendices Appendix 1 Telluride Municipal Code Article 13 Section 5 Water Conservation Code Appendix 2 Statewide Water Supply Initiative Work Sheets APPENDIX 1 Telluride Municipal Code Section 13 Article 5 Water Conservation Code APPENDIX 2 Statewide Water Supply Initiative Worksheets WORKSHEET A – TABULATION OF WATER SUPPLY LIMITATIONS AND FUTURE WATER NEEDS (2020-2027) Limitation and/or Future Need Yes No Comments on Limitation or Future Need How is Limitation or Future Need Being Addressed System is in a designated critical water supply shortage area System experiences frequent water supply shortages and/or emergencies The Town of Telluride enjoys diverse water sources that can be treated by any one of two (2) water treatment plants. A third water treatment plant is on standby for emergencies. The Pandora Water System includes storage elements that make Telluride’s entire water system resilient to drought. System has substantial non-revenue water Table 2.2 suggests that Telluride Water System continues to have substantial (~26%) non-revenue water. For this reason, the Town has identified reducing non-revenue water by 10% as an objective for the 2020 Water Efficiency Plan. Several Water Efficiency Activities were selected because they will help achieve this objective. Experiencing high rates of population and demand growth Planning substantial improvements or additions Increases to water system capacity anticipated If needed, the Pandora WTP’s capacity can be increased to 2 MGD. Need additional drought reserves The Pandora Water System, which supplies water from the Bridal Veil Basin, includes reservoir storage. Drinking water quality issues The Town’s water supply meets drinking water standards. Aging infrastructure in need of repair Telluride’s 2012 Water/Wastewater Capital Asset Maintenance Plan classified the status of nearly 20 miles of water supply piping. The collection system in Bridal Veil Basin has added to this mileage. Capital expenditures to replace aging pipes are incorporated into each new rate study and into the Town’s Capital Implementation Plan. Issues with water pressure in portions of distribution system WORKSHEET B – HISTORICAL AND CURRENT WATER EFFICIENCY ACTIVITIES - (2020-2027) Historical and Current Water Efficiency Activities (1) Period of Implementation (2) Annual Water Savings for Past Five Years (million gallons) Total Five- Year Water Savings (4) Average Annual Savings (5) 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 Foundational Activities (Focus on system operations and water efficiencies within Telluride government) Automatic meter reading installation and operations 2003 - present Change remaining manual read meters (~100) to auto read meters 2015 Identify unmetered/unbilled treated water uses on all Town-owned facilities 2014-2019 Frequency of meter reading – investigate the requirements of moving to monthly billing 2014-2019 Frequency of billing – Bi-monthly 2003 - present Tracking water use by customer type 2003 - present Modify existing billing system to track use by sufficient customer types 2014-2019 Tracking water use for large customers 2014 - present Create a “new” category under the billing program for Town-owned facilities Before 2003 - present Volumetric bill Before 2003 - present Water rate adjustments Before 2003 - present Inclining/tiered rates Before 2003 - present Investigate lowering the 3000 gallon per month cap for base rate to 3000 gallons per month 2015 Control of apparent losses (with metering) [Assumes 5% under-read based on testing. 5% of 100 gal/day * # meters changed] 2014 – present 0.03 0.33 0.27 0.63 0.21 Leak Detection & Repair 1970s – present 0.65 0.61 0.66 2.00 0.72 4.64 0.93 Water line replacement program: Phase 2 & 3 West Colorado Water Line Replacement Project 2015, 2016 0.05 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.35 0.09 Master Plans / water supply plans 2010 Capital Improvement Plans Ongoing Integrated Water Resource Plans Ongoing Targeted Technical Assistance and Incentives Toilet retrofits – Shandoka Affordable Rental Housing 2014 - present 0.62 1.07 1.22 0.74 3.65 0.91 Work with the cemetery on irrigation system 2014 - present Work with the Telluride HS/MS on irrigation system 2014 - present 1.82 1.37 1.36 1.47 6.02 1.51 Water Efficient Washing Machine Rebates ~2010 - present Water Efficient Dishwasher Rebates ~2010 - present Ordinances and Regulations Water Conservation Code (Title 13, Article 5), includes time of day watering restrictions 2002 - present With each building permit require a service line audit from main to meter 2016 - present Rules and regulations for landscape design/installation 2000 – present Irrigation equipment requirements 2000 – present Soil amendment requirements 2000 – present Indoor plumbing requirements 2000 – present Green Building construction (Telluride Municipal Code Title 15, “Building Codes”) 6/2010 - present Education 1 KOTO Radio Access per year about wise use of water 2014 - present PSA newspaper water wise advertisements 2014 - present Water bill insert one time each year 2014 - present Newspaper articles 2014 - present Web pages 2018 - present Native plant/xeriscape demonstration garden 2014 - present Total Savings 0.65 3.10 3.20 5.01 3.30 15.26 3.05 WORKSHEET C – ACTUAL AND POTENTIAL MODIFICATIONS TO CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS AND WATER ACQUISITIONS - (2020-2027) Capital Improvement Projects and Water Acquisitions (1) Estimated or Actual Cost (2) Action as a Result of Reduced Demands (3) Potential Cost Savings (5) El i m i n a t e d Po s t p o n e d Do w n s i z e d Comments (4) Pandora Water Treatment Plant expansion by 1 mgd (for a total capacity of 2 mgd), if water demand warrants. $1,000,000 X Would not expand the Pandora Plant capacity by 1 mgd, if water demand is met by current system. $1,000,000.00 Phase 1 West Colorado Water Line Replacement Project (completed 2009, actual cost) $915,000 None. $0.00 Phase 2 West Colorado Water Line Replacement Project (completed 2015, actual cost) $900,000 None. $0.00 Phase 3 West Colorado Water Line Replacement Project (completed 2016, actual cost) $680,000 None. $0.00 Mill Creek High Pressure Water Line Replacement 2,450,000 None $0.00 BVWS Lewis Line Replacement 1,000,000 None $0.00 BVWS Blue Lake Pipeline Replacement – The Nose 1,087,500 None $0.00 BVWS Blue Lake Pipeline Replacement – Near Blue Lake 1,087,500 None $0.00 Blue Lake Valve House Replacement 215,000 None $0.00 Blue Lake Dam Repair 300,000 None $0.00 WORKSHEET D – IDENTIFICATION AND SCREENING OF FOUNDATIONAL ACTIVITIES - (2020-2027) Water Efficiency Activities for Screening State Statute Requirement (2) Identification Qualitative Screening (5) Additional Pros Carry to Evaluation (6) Reason for Elimination (7) Existing/ Potential Activity (3) Targeted Customer Category (4) Un d e r t h e T o w n s di r e c t c o n t r o l Lik e l y to me a s u r a b l y de c r e a s e w a t e r u s e Bu i l d s o n a n o n g o i n g ac t i v i t y Pr o v i d e s p os i t i v e re i n f o r c e m e n t t o co n s e r v e Metering (BP1) V,VII Automatic meter reading installation and operations E - - - - All existing programs will continue. X Submetering for large users (indoor and outdoor) P Large User X X X X Question whether this will provide improved information. Timing is wrong. Too preliminary. Large water users are identified and prioritized. Meter testing E X - X X All existing programs will continue. X Meter upgrades E X - X X All existing programs will continue X Change remaining manual read meters (~100) to autoread meters Complete 2019 Completed under 2014 Water Efficiency Plan Identify unmetered/unbilled treated water uses on all Town- owned facilities Complete 2019 Completed under 2014 Water Efficiency Plan Data Collection – Monitoring and Verification (BP2) Tracking water use by customer type E - - - - All existing programs will continue. X Modify existing billing system to track use by sufficient customer types E - - - - All existing programs will continue. X Tracking water use for large customers E Large User X X X - Provides information about where to focus activities for potential largest efficiency gains. X Investigate the potential range of inaccuracy of existing “typical” meters used throughout the water system to refine quantification of non-revenue water. E X X X - X Area of irrigated lands in service area (e.g., acres) P X - - - Having these data does not assist with targeting specific large irrigators. Overall, most lots have no or very little landscaped acreage. Frequency of meter reading - investigate the requirements of moving to monthly billing Complete 2019 Completed under 2014 Water Efficiency Plan Create a new category under the billing program for Town-owned facilities to track Complete 2019 Completed under 2014 Water Efficiency Plan Investigate cost and administrative challenges of changing all meters to a new system Complete 2019 Completed under 2014 Water Efficiency Plan Water Use Efficiency Oriented Rates and Tap Fees (BP1) VII,VIII Volumetric bill E X - - - All existing programs will continue. X Water rate adjustments E Large User X - - - All existing programs will continue. X Inclining/tiered rates E Large User X - - - All existing programs will continue. X Water Budgets P Large User - - - - It remains unclear whether significant benefits will result from developing water budgets for customers or the system. Frequency of billing – Investigate bi-monthly to monthly billing Complete 2019 Given current staffing, monthly billing is too intensive. Tap fees with water use efficiency incentives Complete 2019 Water system needs all possible revenues. Water efficient systems in required in regulations. Investigate lowering the 4000 gallon per month cap for base rate to 3000 gallons per month Complete 2019 Penalizes families that may have more persons per household and use less water per capita but are over the base rate. System Water Loss Management and Control (BP3) VI Control of apparent losses (with metering, BP1) E X X X - All existing programs will continue. X Leak detection and repair E X X X - All existing programs will continue. X Water line replacement program E X X X - All existing programs will continue. X Mill Creek High Pressure Line Replacement. Pipelines in the Bridal Veil collection system. Numerous projects to upgrade system in Bridal Veil Basin. System wide water audits E X - - Annual AWWA M36 Audit Water Meter Testing at Mill Creek and Pandora WTPs P X - X - Staff ID’d Staff determined that this activity had already been completed last year and so was no longer necessary. Planning (BP2) Master plans/water supply plans E X - - - All existing programs will continue. X Capital improvement plans E X X X - All existing programs will continue. X Integrated water resources plans E X X X X All existing programs will continue. X This applies to the Comprehensive Settlement Agreement with Idarado Mining Company (January 2013) and several water rights case agreements. Feasibility studies P X - - - There is no need for a Feasibility study as no new projects are envisioned or slated at this time. Staff (BP4) Water Conservation Coordinator E X - X X All existing programs will continue. X The Environmental & Engineering Division Manager acts as Telluride’s Water Conservation Coordinator. WORKSHEET E – IDENTIFICATION AND SCREENING OF TARGETED TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE INCENTIVES - (2020-2027) Water Efficiency Activities for Screening State Statute Requirement (2) Identification Qualitative Screening (6) Additional Pros Carry to Evaluation (7) Reason for Elimination (8) Existing/ Potential Activity (3) SWSI Framework Levels (4) Targeted Customer Category (5) Un d e r th e T o w n ’ s d i r e c t con t r o l Lik e l y t o me a s u r a b l y de c r e a s e w a t e r u s e Bu i l d s o n a n o n g o i n g ac t i v i t y Pr o v i d e s p os i t i v e re i n f o r c e m e n t t o c o n s e r v e Le v e l 1 M u n i c i p a l Us e s Le v e l 2 C u s t o m e r s wi t h t h e L a r g e s t Wa t e r U s e Le v e l 3 C u s t o m e r Ty p e ( s ) i n S e r v i c e Ar e a Installation of Water Efficient Fixtures and Appliances I Free or cost share for indoor water audits E X X X X X X X Have included with Green Grants Program. X Toilet retrofits E - X - Large User X X X X Have included with Green Grants Program. X Urinal retrofits P X - - - - - X Apparent high cost to benefit ratio at this time. Low water fixtures required by Ordinance. Showerhead retrofits P X - - - - - X Apparent high cost to benefit ratio at this time. Low water fixtures required by Ordinance. Faucet retrofits (e.g., aerator installation) P X - - - - - X Apparent high cost to benefit ratio at this time. Low water fixtures required by Ordinance. Water efficient washing machines P X - - - - - X Apparent high cost to benefit ratio at this time. Low water fixtures required by Ordinance. Water efficient dishwashers P X - - - - - X Apparent high cost to benefit ratio at this time. Low water fixtures required by Ordinance. Efficient air conditioning use P X - - - - - X Apparent high cost to benefit ratio at this time. Low water fixtures required by Ordinance. Low Water Use Landscapes Incentives II Investigate installation of gray water systems for irrigation P X X X X X - - Drought resistant/native vegetation P - - X - - X X Apparent high cost to benefit ratio. Required by Ordinance. Irrigation scheduling/timing P - - X - - X X Apparent high cost to benefit ratio. Required by Ordinance. Continue to work with the cemetery on irrigation system E - X - Large User - X - X All ID’d X Removal of phreatophytes n/a - - - - - - X This is not applicable in the Town of Telluride service area. Irrigation efficiency evaluations/outdoor water audits P X X - - X - X Apparent high cost to benefit ratio. Outdoor irrigation controllers E - - X - - - X Required by Ordinance. Occurring during landscaping improvements with property purchases. Rain sensors E - - X - - - X Occurring without incentives as properties are purchased and landscaping changed. Residential irrigation meter installations P - - X - - - X Increasing the number of meters to read would require significant additional staffing to install and read the meters and sort through the additional data for billing and water use. Xeriscape P - - X - - - X Apparent high cost to benefit ratio at this time. Irrigation equipment retrofits E - - X - - - X Occurring without incentives as properties are purchased and landscaping changed. Work with Telluride HS/MS on irrigation system Complete 2019 Installation of artificial turf removed HS/MS from Large User category. Water Efficient Industrial and Commercial Water-Using Processes Incentives III Commercial Indoor Fixture and Appliance Rebates/Retrofits E - X - - - - X X Green Grant funding available for equipment that goes beyond Green Building Code requirements. . Assess potable water usage at the Telluride Regional Wastewater Treatment Plant E X - - Town X X X X Staff ID’d X A non-potable water tank is on site and in use. Research opportunities to use more of this water. Specialized nonresidential surveys, audits and equipment efficiency Improvements P - X - - - - X Apparent high cost to benefit ratio at this time. Cooling equipment efficiency E - X - - - - X X Green Grant funding available for equipment that goes beyond Green Building Code requirements. Restaurant equipment E - X - - - - X X Green Grant funding available for equipment that goes beyond Green Building Code requirements. Rebates X Water Efficient Washing Machine Rebates E - X X - - X X X Currently available through SMPA and Black Hills for energy efficiency purposes. Water Efficient Dishwasher Rebates E - X X - - X X X Currently available through SMPA and Black Hills for energy efficiency purposes. Water conservation rebate/award for best full-time residents P - - X X - - X Town Council ID’d X Toilet Rebates E - - X - - X X X Green Grant funding available for equipment that goes beyond Green Building Code requirements. Urinal Rebates E - - X - - X X Apparent high cost to benefit ratio. Required by Ordinance. Showerhead Rebates E - - X - - X X Apparent high cost to benefit ratio. Required by Ordinance. Water Efficient Faucet or Aerator Rebates E - - X - - X X Apparent high cost to benefit ratio. Required by Ordinance. Efficient Irrigation Equipment Rebates E - X X - - X X Apparent high cost to benefit ratio. Required by Ordinance. Landscape Water Budgets Information and Customer Feedback P - X X - - - X There are a limited number of customers in Telluride that would benefit from this because most lots are quite small with limited landscape area. The likelihood of greatly reducing water use would be small. Turf Replacement Programs/xeriscape Incentives P - X X - - - X Town Council ID’d There are a limited number of customers in Telluride that would benefit from this because most lots are quite small with limited landscape area. The likelihood of greatly reducing water use would be small. Give-aways P - - X - - - X No room to store the “give-aways”. No assurance that “give-away” is actually used or used locally. WORKSHEET F – IDENTIFICATION AND SCREENING OF ORDINANCES AND REGULATIONS - 2020 Water Efficiency Activities for Screening State Statute Requirement (2) Identification Qualitative Screening (6) Additional Pros Carry to Evaluation (7) Reason for Elimination (8) Existing/ Potential Activity (3) SWSI Framework Levels (4) Targeted Customer Category (5) Un d e r t h e T o w n ’ s d i r e c t co n t r o l Ve r y l i k e l y t o me a s u r a b l y de c r e a s e w a t e r u s e Bu i l d s o n a n o n g o i n g ac t i v i t y Pr o v i d e s p os i t i v e re i n f o r c e m e n t t o c o n s e r v e Le v e l 1 Al l Cu s t o m e r s wi t h i n t h e E x i s t i n g Se r v i c e A r e a Le v e l 2 N e w De v e l o p m e n t Le v e l 3 P o i n t o f S a l e s on E x i s t i n g B u i l d i n g St o c k General Water Use Regulations IX Water conservation ordinance implementation E X - X X X - All existing programs will continue. X Time of Day Watering Restriction change to 9 pm – 9 am all season P X - X X X - X Changing the current time restrictions to make it easier to remember could be helpful. With each building permit, require a service line audit from the main to the meter to ensure functionality. E X X X - X - All existing programs will continue. X Day of week watering restriction P X - X - X - Consensus that it is too complex for the public to remember which day of the week. Easier to remember you can only water at night no matter what day. Water Waste Ordinance (BP5) P X - X - - - Consensus that enforcement is difficult to impossible without additional staff. No desire to penalize community in such a way. Water Overspray Limitations P X - X - - - Consensus that enforcement is difficult to impossible without additional staff. No desire to penalize community in such a way. Landscape Design/Installation Rules and Regulations IX Rules and regulations for landscape design/installation (BP9) E X X - - X - All existing programs will continue. X Irrigation equipment requirements E X X - - X - All existing programs will continue. X Soil amendment requirements (BP9) E X X - - - All existing programs will continue. X Restrictions of acreage of irrigation or % of property irrigated P - X - - - - Ecology Commission ID’d Properties typically developed with little room for significant irrigated landscaping. Little likely benefit. Landscaper training and certification (BP8) P X X - - - - New regulations are not politically palatable. There is a problem of enforcement. Questionable noticeable/measurable efficiencies in water use. Irrigation system installer training and certification (BP 8) P X X - - - - New regulations are not politically palatable. There is a problem of enforcement. Questionable noticeable/measurable efficiencies in water use. Turf Restrictions (BP 9) P - X - - - - Given the very small lot sizes within the Town limits, such limitations are somewhat superfluous. Larger lot sizes are in the County and therefore outside of the ability of the Town to insist on limits. Irrigation water pricing is a likely alternative way to move this forward. Outdoor water audits/irrigation efficiency regulation (BP 10) P - X - - - - New regulations are not politically palatable. There is a problem of enforcement. Questionable noticeable/measurable efficiencies in water use. Outdoor green building construction (BP 8, 9) P - X - - - - Indoor and Commercial Regulation IX Indoor plumbing requirements (BP 12) E X X X - - - All existing programs will continue. X Green building construction (BP 12) E X X X - - - All existing programs will continue. X Town facility requirements (BP 12) E - - Town X - - X Will serve as an example to the broader community. X Low efficiency fixture and appliance replacement (BP 12) P X - - - - - New fixtures being put in place as properties turn over and structures are updated. Commercial cooling and process water requirements (BP 14) P X - Commercial - - - - New regulations are not politically palatable. There is a problem of enforcement. Questionable noticeable/measurable efficiencies in water use. Required indoor residential audits (BP 13) P X - - - - - New regulations are not politically palatable. There is a problem of enforcement. Questionable noticeable/measurable efficiencies in water use. Required indoor commercial audits (BP 14) P X - - - - - New regulations are not politically palatable. There is a problem of enforcement. Questionable noticeable/measurable efficiencies in water use. Commercial Water Wise use regulations (car washes, restaurants, etc. P X - Commercial - - - - New regulations are not politically palatable. There is a problem of enforcement. Questionable noticeable/measurable efficiencies in water use. WORKSHEET G – IDENTIFICATION AND SCREENING OF EDUCATION ACTIVITIES - (2020-2027) Water Efficiency Activities for Screening State Statute Requirement (2) Identification Qualitative Screening (6) Additional Pros Carry to Evaluation (7) Reason for elimination (8) Existing/ Potential Activity (3) SWSI Framework Levels (4) Targeted Customer Category (5) Un d e r t h e To w n ’ s di r e c t c o n t r o l Ve r y l i k e l y t o me a s u r a b l y de c r e a s e w a t e r u s e Bu i l d s o n a n o n g o i n g ac t i v i t y Pr o v i d e s p os i t i v e re i n f o r c e m e n t Le v e l 1 O n e -Wa y Le v e l 2 O n e -Wa y wi t h F e e d b a c k Le v e l 3 T w o -wa y Ed u c a t i o n (I n t e r a c t i v e ) Customer Education (BP6) VI 1 KOTO Radio Access discussion per year about wise use of water E - - X X - X X Ecology Commission ID’d X PSA newspaper water wise advertisements E X - X X - X X Staff ID’d X Water bill insert one time each year E X - X X - X X All ID’d X Newsletter P X - - X - - X Staff time and resources expected to be excessive for little anticipated return. Newspaper articles E X - - X - - X Staff ID’d X Mass mailings E X - - X - - X Outreach sent in Utility Bills X Web pages E X - - X - - X Staff ID’d. Use Town web site spotlight for getting info out. X Water fairs P - - X - - - X Ecology Commission ID’d. Of interest to parents/teachers on ECOMM. X K-12 Teacher and Classroom Education Programs P - - X - - - X Ecology Commission ID’d. Of interest to parents/teachers on ECOMM. X Interactive Websites P - - X X - - X Staff time and resources expected to be excessive for little anticipated return. Water savings competition between Telluride and another Mountain Town P - - X - - - X Ecology Commission ID’d Staff time and resources expected to be excessive for little anticipated return. Social Networking (e.g., Facebook) E - - X X - - X X Regular outreach on Town facebook page and website. Customer Surveys P - X - X - - X Would require additional staff. Apparent high cost to benefit ratio at this time. Focus Groups P - X - X - - X Difficulty filling currently available seats on boards and commissions. Citizen Advisory Boards P - - X X - - X Difficulty filling currently available seats on boards and commissions. Technical Assistance VI Native plant/xeriscape demonstration garden E X - - X - X X All existing programs will continue. X Should talk this up more so public knows it is there. Customer water use workshops P - - X X - - X Very low turnout (5 – 10 people) at workshops in Town is typical. Apparent high cost to benefit ratio. Landscape design and maintenance Workshops P - - X X - - X Very low turnout (5 – 10 people) at workshops in Town is typical. Apparent high cost to benefit ratio. Water conservation expert available P - - X X - - X Apparent high cost to benefit ratio at this time. WORKSHEET H – EVALUATION AND SELECTION OF WATER EFFICIENCY ACTIVITIES - (2020-2027) Water Efficiency Activities for Evaluation (1) Existing/ Potential Activity (2) Targeted Customer Category (3) Evaluative Screening Evaluation Final Selection (8) Evaluative Goals (4) Projected Water Savings (5) Projected Implementation Costs ($) to Town (6) Qualitative Goals/Objectives (7) Activities Selected for Imple- menta- tion General notes and if eliminated, reason why. Ca n b e a c c o m p l i s h e d w i t h cu r r e n t s t a f f i n g Te c h n i c a l l y f e a s i b l e Re l a t i v e l y l o w c o s t ($ ) Wi l l h e l p m e e t l o n g t e r m go a l s Total Water Savings over 7- year Planning Window (gallons) Average Annual Water Savings (gallons) De c r e a s e o u t d o o r i r r i g a t i o n Re d u c e w a s t e w a t e r di s c h a r g e s b y r e d u c i n g in d o o r w a t e r us e Re d u c e p e a k d a y s u m m e r de m a n d De c r e a s e n o n -re v e n u e wa t e r Notes on Additional Pros/cons to consider FOUNDATIONAL ACTIVITIES Metering (BP1) Automatic meter reading installation and operations E All X X X X unknown unknown - - - X Existing program to continue. 1 Meter Testing E X X X X 0 0 - - - X 2 Essential work for AWWA M36 Protocol. Meter Upgrades E All - X - - 0 0 - - - X 3 Important to capture more non-revenue water. Data Collection – Monitoring and Verification (BP2) Tracking water use by customer type E All X X X X 0 0 X X X - Existing program to continue. 4 Modify existing billing system to track use by sufficient customer types E All X X X X 0 0 X X X - 11 categories seem sufficient. In 2013, added 2 categories. In 2018, added 1 category. Tracking water use for large customers E Large User X X X X 0 0 X X X - 5 This task is easy with Utility Billing Data and provides staff with tools for outreach. Investigate the potential range of inaccuracy of existing “typical” meters used throughout the water system to refine quantification of non-revenue water. [Same as “Meter Testing” under BP1.] E n/a X X X X 0 0 - - - X Not eliminated, but part of “Meter Testing: under BP1. Water Use Efficiency Oriented Rates and Tap Fees (BP1) Volumetric bill E All X X X X unknown unknown X X X X Existing program to continue. 6 Water rate adjustments E All X X X X unknown unknown X X X - Existing program to continue. 7 Inclining/tiered rates E All X X X X unknown unknown X X X - Existing program to continue. 8 System Water Loss Management and Control (BP3) Control of apparent losses (with metering) E n/a X X X X unknown unknown - - X X Existing program to continue. 9 Leak detection and repair E n/a X X X X unknown unknown - - X X Existing program to continue. 10 Water line replacement program E n/a X X X X unknown unknown - - X X Existing program to continue. 11 Mill Creek High Pressure Waterline slip lining over next 4 years. Planning (BP2) Master plans/water supply plans E n/a X X X 0 0 - - - - Existing program to continue. 12 A Water Master Plan is in place. It will likely be updated in 2020. Capital improvement plans E n/a X X X >100,000 >100,000 - - - - Existing program to continue. 13 A Capital Improvement Plan for the water system is in place through 2020. It will be updated annually. Integrated water resources plan(s) E n/a X X X 0 0 - - - - Existing program to continue. 14 Telluride and Idarado Mining Company are implementing the Comprehensive Settlement Agreement (January 2013) and Staff (BP4) Water Conservation Coordinator E X X X X unknown unknown - - - - Existing program to continue. 15 The Environmental & Engineering Division Manager acts as Telluride’s Water Conservation Coordinator. TARGETED TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE INCENTIVES Installation of Water Efficient Fixtures and Appliances Free indoor water audits E All - - - X 0 0 - X X - While Green Grant Funding is available, contractor availability is lacking. Toilet retrofits E Town X X - X unknown unknown $400 per toilet - X X - 16 Green Grant Funding for projects that go beyond Green Building Code requirements. Low Water Use Landscapes Incentives Continue to work with the cemetery on irrigation system P Large User X X - X 600,000 120,000 ?$10,000 X X X Public perception of waste. 17 Water Efficient Industrial and Commercial Water-Using Processes Incentives Commercial indoor fixture and appliance rebates/retrofits E X X X X - X X - Existing program to continue. 18 Green Grants funding for equipment that goes beyond Building Code requirements. Assess potable water usage at the Telluride Regional Wastewater Treatment Plant E Town X X X X - X X - Existing program to continue. 19 This work is ongoing as the TRWWTP Technical Team works on improvements and upgrades. Cooling equipment efficiency E X X X X X X Existing program to continue. 20 Green Grants funding for equipment that goes beyond IBC 2018 Restaurant equipment E X X X X X X Existing program to continue. 21 Green Grants funding for equipment that goes beyond IBC 2018 Rebates Water Efficiency Activities for Evaluation (1) Existing/ Potential Activity (2) Targeted Customer Category (3) Evaluative Screening Evaluation Final Selection (8) Evaluative Goals (4) Projected Water Savings (5) Projected Implementation Costs ($) to Town (6) Qualitative Goals/Objectives (7) Activities Selected for Imple- menta- tion General notes and if eliminated, reason why. Ca n b e a c c o m p l i s h e d w i t h cu r r e n t s t a f f i n g Te c h n i c a l l y f e a s i b l e Re l a t i v e l y l o w c o s t ($ ) Wi l l h e l p m e e t l o n g t e r m go a l s Total Water Savings over 7- year Planning Window (gallons) Average Annual Water Savings (gallons) De c r e a s e o u t d o o r i r r i g a t i o n Re d u c e w a s t e w a t e r di s c h a r g e s b y r e d u c i n g in d o o r w a t e r us e Re d u c e p e a k d a y s u m m e r de m a n d De c r e a s e n o n -re v e n u e wa t e r Notes on Additional Pros/cons to consider Water Efficient Washing Machine Rebates E All X X X X 1,155,000 – 2,390,000 231,000 – 478,000 $0 - X X - Existing program to continue. Incidental as residents use SMPA and Black Hills rebates when replacing older appliances for newer, energy efficient models. Green Grants funding Water Efficient Dishwasher Rebates E All X X X X 308,000 – 617,000 77,000 – 154,000 $0 - X X - Existing program to continue. Incidental as residents use SMPA and Black Hills rebates when replacing older appliances for newer, energy efficient models. Green Grants funding Water conservation rebate/reward for best full-time residents P All X X X X 0 0 ?$1,000 - X X - 22 This will be a new program that will need some vetting. Could be paid for through the TEMP Fund. Toilet rebates E All X X X X X X Existing program to continue. Staff considers this the same as “Toilet Retrofits” listed above. ORDINANCES AND REGULATIONS General Water Use Regulations Water conservation ordinance implementation E All X X X X Cannot be quantified Cannot be quantified $0 X X X - Existing program to continue. 23 In existing regulations. Time of day watering restriction change to 9 pm – 9 am all season E All X X X X unknown unknown $0 X X X - Existing program to continue. 24 Will require a modification of existing regulations. With each building permit, require a service line audit from the main to the meter to ensure functionality. E Redevelop ment X X X X Cannot be quantified Cannot be quantified $0 X - X - Existing program to continue. 25 All re-development requires inspection of water lines, at least on the private property. Landscape Design/Installation Rules and Regulations Rules and regulations for landscape design/installation (BP9) E New X X X X 0 0 $0 X - X - Existing program to continue. 26 Irrigation equipment requirements E New X X X X 0 0 $0 X - X - Existing program to continue. 27 In existing regulations. Soil amendment requirements (BP9) E New X X X X 0 0 $0 X - X - Existing program to continue. 28 In existing regulations. Indoor and Commercial Regulation Indoor plumbing requirements (BP 12) E New X X X X unknown unknown $0 - X X - Existing program to continue. 29 Includes “Town Facility Requirements” Green building construction (BP 12) E New X X X X unknown unknown $0 - X X - Existing program to continue. 30 Town facility requirements (BP 12) E Town X X X X unknown unknown $0 - X X - This is being accomplished through managerial policy and without a regulation or ordinance. Also, it is included with “Indoor plumbing requirements”, above. EDUCATION Customer Education (BP6) 1 KOTO Radio Access per year about wise use of water E All X X X X 0 0 $0 X X X - Existing program to continue. 31 PSA newspaper water wise advertisements E All X X X X 0 0 $275 each X X X - Existing program to continue. 32 Water bill insert one time each year E All X X X X 0 0 $0 X X X - Existing program to continue. 33 Newspaper articles E All X X X X 0 0 $0 X X X - Existing program to continue. 34 Web pages E All - X X X 0 0 $0 X X X - On Town web page. 35 Water fairs P Kids - X - X 0 0 $4,000 X X X - Implementation must be accomplished through coordination between the Ecology Commission and the schools and/or library. K-12 Teacher and Classroom Education Programs P Kids - X - X 0 0 $2,500 X X X - Implementation would have to be accomplished through coordination between the Ecology Commission and the schools. Social networking (e.g., Facebook) E All X X X X 0 0 $0 X X X - Existing program to continue. 36 Technical Assistance Native plant/xeriscape demonstration garden E All 0 0 $0 X - X - Existing program to continue. The demonstration garden and outreach are conducted by the Colorado Extension Program, not Town staff. WORKSHEET I – SELECTED WATER EFFICIENCY ACTIVITIES AND ESTIMATED WATER SAVINGS - (2020-2027) Selected Water Efficiency Activities (1) Implementation Period of Historical Activities (2) Historical Total Water Savings (MG/Year) (3) Projected Water Savings for Next 7-Yr Planning Period, 2020 - 2027 (5) FOUNDATIONAL ACTIVITIES Automatic meter reading installation and operations ~2000 - present Meter Testing 2019 – present Meter Upgrade [NOTE: Same as Control of apparent losses with metering.] 2016 - present Tracking water use by customer type ~2000 - present Tracking water use for large customers 2014 - present Volumetric bill ~2000 - present Water rate adjustments 2000, 2004, 2014-2019 Inclining/tiered rates 2004 – present; adjusted January 2014; continuing through present Control of apparent losses (with metering) Mid-1970s; 1980s; 1990s - present 0.21 1.47 Leak detection and repair Mid-1970s – present 0.93 6.51 Water line replacement program 2000 - present 0.09 0.63 Master plans/water supply plans 1977, 1993, 2002, 2010 Capital improvement plans 2000 – present Integrated water resources plans 2013 – present Water Conservation Coordinator 2014 - present TARGETED TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE AND INCENTIVES Toilet retrofits 2015 - present 0.91 1.00 Continue to work with the cemetery on irrigation system 2014 - present 0.02 116,600 gallons per year (0.07% of treated water volume). NOTE: manual read meter installed in 2013. Commercial indoor fixture and appliance rebates/retrofits Assess potable water usage at the Telluride Regional WWTP Cooling equipment efficiency Restaurant equipment efficiency Water Efficient Washing Machine Rebates ~2010 – present Water Efficient Dishwasher Rebates ~2010 – present Investigate water conservation rebate reward for full-time residents Toilet rebates ORDINANCES AND REGULATIONS Water Conservation Code (Title 13, Article 5), includes time of day watering restrictions 2004 – present 7.5 Average summer usage is 150,000,000 gallons more than in winter. As evaporation at night is less than at midday, we will assume 5% of total water will be saved using this technique or 7,500,000 gallons annually (0.04%). With each building permit, require a service line audit from the main to the meter to ensure functionality (part of Leak Detection & Repair). 2016 – present Rules and regulations for landscape design/installation (BP9) ~2000 – present Irrigation equipment requirements ~2000 – present Soil amendment requirements (BP9) ~2000 – present Indoor plumbing requirements (BP 12) ~2000 – present Green building construction (BP 12) 2006 – present EDUCATION 1 KOTO Radio Access per year about wise use of water 2014 - present PSA newspaper water wise advertisements 2014 - present Water bill insert one time each year 2014 - present Newspaper articles 2014 - present Web pages 2014 - present Social networking on Facebook 2014 - present 9.7 MG/YR 67.6 MG over next 7 YRS Anticipated Demand Reduction Over Time Year Demand* w/conservation, MG/Yr Demand w/o conservation, MG/Yr Annual Savings w/ conservation** 2015 145 145 3.1 2016 148 151 3.2 2017 155 160 5.0 2018 157 160 3.3 2019 161 164 3.3 2020 163 166 2.9 2021 166 170 3.9 2022 168 173 4.9 2023 171 177 5.8 2024 173 180 6.8 2025 176 184 7.8 2026 179 187 8.7 2027 181 191 9.7 *Actual treated water volume 2015-2019 and projected 1.5% increase thereafter **Actual savings 2015-2019 and projected thereafter. 100 110 120 130 140 150 160 170 180 190 200 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 Wa t e r D e m a n d , m i l l i o n g a l l o n s p e r y e a r Anticipated Demand Reduction Based on Implementation of Conservation Measures in Worksheets B & I Demand* w/conservation, MG/Yr Demand w/o conservation, MG/Yr WORKSHEET J – IMPLEMENTATION PLAN - (2020-2027) Selected Water Efficiency Activities Period of Implementation Implementation Actions Milestone Deadlines (blanks indicate “ongoing”) Budget Entity/Staff Responsible for Implementation Coordination and Public Involvement Additional Comments FOUNDATIONAL ACTIVITIES 1 Automatic meter reading 1996 – present Continue bi-monthly reads and billing WNichols, Water-Wastewater Div KOffutt, Finance Dept 2 Meter Testing 2019 – present Test a minimum of 25 meters that are replaced with upgrades. $35,000 annually Wichols, Water-Wastewater Div 3 Meter Upgrade 2016 – present Continue each year to replace 100-150 Sensus meters with Neptune meters. $30,000 - $40,000 annually WNichols, Water-Wastewater Div KOffutt, Finance Dept 4 Tracking water use by customer type ~1996 - present 1. Finance looks over water use by customer for anomalies to identify potential problems. 2. Contacts property owner if there is a potential problem. 3. Finance provides customer use data each billing period to EEDIv 4. EEDiv maintains records to review annually $0.00 KOffutt, Finance Dept KGuglielmone, EEDiv When anomalies are found, coordination between the Public Works, Finance, and the property owner is required. 5 Tracking water use for large customers 2014-present 1. Finance provides customer use data to EEDiv 2. EEDiv analyzes data Annually $0.00 KOffutt, Finance Dept KGuglielmone, EEDiv Staff contacts the large use customer to work on decreasing/optimizing water usage. 6 Volumetric bill ~2000 - present 1. Read meters 2. Troubleshoot “bad” readings 3. Bill bi-monthly $0.00 KOffutt, Finance Dept 7 Water rate adjustments 2000, 2004, 2014- 2019, 2020 Contract for and oversee a financial analysis and rate study for the Water Fund. Annually in September $0.00 KGuglielmone, EEDiv Town Council approval at a public meeting is required. 8 Inclining/tiered rates 2004 – present; adjusted January 2014; 2024 As part of the 2024 Water Rate Study, consider modifying the inclining/tiered rate structure for usage beyond the Base Rate. Revisit August 2020 $0.00 Town Manager, Public Works, & Finance Depts. Town Council approval at a public meeting required. 9 Control of apparent losses (with metering) Mid-1970s; 1980s; 1990s - present 1. Meter replacement program. 2. ID and troubleshoot odd meter readings. 3. Track “apparent losses” using AWWA M36 annual Water Audit. $0.00 WNichols, Water-Wastewater Div KOffutt, Finance Dept KGuglielmone, EEDiv 10 Leak detection and repair Mid-1970s – present 1. Conduct a Leak Detection survey each year. 2. Quantify volume of losses. 3. Repair leaks identified ASAP. 4. Track & report leak ID and repair and volumes. Est. ~$50,000 REstes, Streets & Utilities Div KGuglielmone, EEDiv 11 Water line replacement program 2000 – present; 2014 West Colorado Project; 2020-2023 Mill Creek High Pressure Line Replacement 1. Engineer entire length 2. Then for each of 3 phases (2021, 2022, 2023): a. Apply for DOLA Grant. b. Issue a request for bid for construction contract c. Secure construction contract d. Start construction e. Substantial completion f. End contract June 30, 2020 a. November b. January c. March d. April e. October f. December Eng, $200,000 Phase 1, $750,000 Phase 2, $750,000 Phase 3, $750,000 JHuang, EEDiv KGuglielmone, EEDiv REstes, Streets & Utilities Div Each project phase is discussed and funded as part of the annual budget process undertaken by the Town Council and staff. Public involvement takes place during construction within specific neighborhoods. Refer to 2020 5-year CIP 12 Master plans/water supply plans 1977, 1993, 2002, 2010 1. Confirm when the master plan / water supply plan will be updated. 2. Contract for update 3. Conduct update with coordinated public meetings Unknown $0.00 KGeiger, Town Attorney PRuud, Public Works Director Coordination among staff, Town Council and the public (in a public process at Town Council meetings). 13 Capital improvement plans (5-year CIP) 2000 – present; 2014 – 2019; 2020-2024 Re-assess annually during budget request cycle: Annually August through October Anticipated total 2020 5-yr CIP expenditures: ~ $2,049,800 JHuang, EEDiv KGuglielmone, EEDiv Water-Wastewater Supervisor When CIP project impact specific neighborhoods, those property owners and business owners are contacted directly. Refer to 2020 5-year CIP 14 Integrated water resources plan(s) 2013 – present Work with Idarado Mining Company, CWCB, Teleski, and other “objectors” to ensure that all goals for water use are complied with. Unknown KGeiger, Town Attorney PRuud, Public Works Director Coordination among stakeholders (Idarado Mining Company, CWCB, “objectors,” State Engineer’s office) 15 Water Conservation Coordinator 2014 – present Coordinator is in place to orchestrate all items of the Implementation Plan. $0.00 KGuglielmone, EEDiv TARGETED TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE AND INCENTIVES 16 Toilet retrofits 2020 - 2027 1. ID opportunities with larger HOAs 2. Define scope of the toilet replacement. 3. Secure grant for replacement project 4. Issue request for bids 5. Select contractor and secure contract for work 6. Begin toilet replacement project 7. Substantial completion Unknown at this time. KGuglielmone, EEDiv Must coordinate with HOAs and hotels to discuss opportunities. Selected Water Efficiency Activities Period of Implementation Implementation Actions Milestone Deadlines (blanks indicate “ongoing”) Budget Entity/Staff Responsible for Implementation Coordination and Public Involvement Additional Comments 8. Contract closed out 17 Continue to work with cemetery on irrigation system 2014 - present 1. Continue dialogue with the Cemetery Board. 2. Continue research of potential alternative water sources 3. Agree on a scope and work plan 4. TBD based on agreed upon scope and work plan Ongoing TBD KGeiger, Town Attorney PRuud, Public Works Director KGuglielmone, EEDiv Must coordinate closely with the Cemetery Board. 18 Commercial indoor fixture and appliance rebates/retrofits 2020 – 2027 1. Conduct outreach on availability of funds. 2. Assist with Green Grant applications Annually TBD KGuglielmone, EEDiv EcoAction Partners as Green Grant Administrators Conduct outreach as part of the Green Grants administration. 19 Assess potable water usage at the Telluride Regional Wastewater Treatment Plant 2020 – 2027 Include the goal of reducing potable water use when identifying TRWWTP upgrade options. Through 2027 upgrade Unknown JHuang, EEDiv Water-Wastewater Div PRuud, Public Works Director TRWWTP Technical Team will have to agree on this goal. 20 Cooling equipment efficiency 2020 – 2027 1. Conduct outreach on availability of funds. 2. Assist with Green Grant applications Annually TBD KGuglielmone, EEDiv EcoAction Partners as Green Grant Administrators Conduct outreach as part of the Green Grants administration. 21 Restaurant equipment 2020 – 2027 1. Conduct outreach on availability of funds. 2. Assist with Green Grant applications Annually TBD KGuglielmone, EEDiv EcoAction Partners as Green Grant Administrators Conduct outreach as part of the Green Grants administration. 22 Water conservation rebate/reward for best full-time resident or business 2023 - 2027 1. Determine what “best conservation” means 2. Develop a set of secondary criteria 3. Monitor use for all users 4. Select a user to award, one each year? 5. Determine type of award and how to provide it (i.e., a check handed over at a Town Council meeting?) 2023 in December TBD KGuglielmone, EEDiv Obtain buy-in from Town Manager and Public Works Director ORDINANCES AND REGULATIONS 23 Water conservation ordinance implementation 2004 – present Management plans to review the ordinance to ensure that it remains relevant $0.00 RHerzog, Town Manager KGeiger, Town Attorney PRuud, Public Works Director All Town Council meetings are public meetings. It is unknown at this time (i.e., prior to the analysis) whether any changes will be necessary to the existing ordinance. 24 Permanent time of day watering restriction, change to 9 pm – 9 am all season 2004 – present Discuss action at Town Council meeting. 1st Reading of an Ordinance change. 2nd Reading of an Ordinance change. February 2020 March 2020 April 2020 $0.00 KGeiger, Town Attorney KGUglielmone, EEDiv All Town Council meetings are public meetings. 25 With each building permit, require a service line audit from the main to the meter to ensure functionality. 2016 - present Ongoing implementation. Triggered as part of the Development Review by Public Works. $0.00 KGuglielmone, EEDiv REstes, Streets & Utilities 26 Rules and regulations for landscape design/installation (BP9) ~2000 – present TBD $0.00 Planning & Building Dept Within existing Ordinance (LUC Division 5; Streetscape Manual of Standards) 27 Irrigation equipment requirements ~2000 – present None needed. $0.00 Planning & Building Dept Within existing Ordinance (LUC Division 5; Streetscape Manual of Standards) 28 Soil amendment requirements (BP9) ~2000 – present None needed. $0.00 Planning & Building Dept Within existing Ordinance (LUC Division 5; Streetscape Manual of Standards) EDUCATION 29 1 KOTO Radio Access per year about wise use of water 2014 – present Each year, schedule with KOTO radio an Access to discuss water efficiency 1st week of June each year $0.00 KGuglielmone, EEDiv Need to schedule the talk spot with KOTO radio 30 PSA newspaper water wise advertisements 2014 – present Develop content for a “water wise” advertisement for the newspaper. Secure one advertisement each quarter Quarterly $275 each KGuglielmone, EEDiv 31 Water bill insert one time each year 2014 – present Review and update content and layout for a “water wise” insert for the utility bill that is mailed closest to the summer festival season. May Billing (and each year thereafter) $0.00 KGuglielmone, EEDiv Coordinate with Finance Director or her designee for the Utility Bill insert 32 Newspaper articles 2014 – present Write an article for the newspapers regarding water efficiency and water wise use. One for each season. December/January each year $0.00 KGuglielmone, EEDiv 33 Web pages 2014 – present Place the “water wise” insert for the water bill onto the Town’s website under the Spotlight. May/June each year $0.00 KGuglielmone, EEDiv Coordinate with web master to insert content. 34 Social Networking (i.e., Facebook) 2018 - present Place “water wise” content on facebook page on a regular basis. Coordinate with web master to insert content or Water Coordinator will place content. WORKSHEET K – SELECTION OF MONITORING DEMAND DATA FOR MONITORING PLAN - (2020-2027) Monitoring Data HB 10-1051 Reporting Requirement Selection Entity/Staff Responsible for Data Collection and Evaluation Schedule Timing of Monitoring Comments An n u a l Mo n t h l y Bi -mo n t h l y Da i l y An n u a l Mo n t h l y Bi -mo n t h l y Da i l y Total Water Use Total treated water produced (metered at WTP discharge) Water-Wastewater (Bill Goldsworthy) / EEDiv (KGuglielmone) Monthly Total treated water delivered (sum of customer meters) Finance Director (KRanta) / EEDiv (KGuglielmone) Bi-monthly Raw non-potable deliveries Parks & Recreation / EEDiv (KGuglielmone) During irrigation season Town Park Wells #1 and #2 Reclaimed water produced (metered at WWTP discharge) Reclaimed water delivered (sum of customer meters) Per capita water use Water-Wastewater (Bill Goldsworthy) / EEDiv (KGuglielmone) December/January Need BOD data from WWTP from BGoldsworthy for service population estimates Indoor and outdoor treated water deliveries Treated water peak day produced Water-Wastewater (BGoldsworthy) December/January Reclaimed water peak day produced Raw water peak day produced/delivered Non-revenue water Parks & Recreation / EEDiv (KGuglielmone) December/January Water Use by Customer Type Treated water delivered (sum of customer meters by type) EEDiv (KGuglielmone), Water-Wastewater (WNichols), Finance (KJewett) Bi-monthly Will use billing register data provided by Finance Department for each billing period (bi-monthly) Raw non-potable deliveries EEDiv (KGuglielmone), Parks December/January Will use billing register data provided by Finance Department for each billing period (bi-monthly) Reclaimed water delivered Residential per capita water use Unit water use (e.g., AF/account or AF/irrigated acre) Indoor and outdoor treated water deliveries Large users EEDiv (KGuglielmone) December/January Will use billing register data provided by Finance Department for each billing period (bi-monthly) Other Demand Related Data Irrigated landscape (e.g., AF/acre or number of irrigated acres) Precipitation Temperature Evapotranspiration Drought index information Economic conditions Population EEDiv (KGuglielmone), Water-Wastewater (BGoldsworthy) December/January Need BOD data from WWTP from BGoldsworthy for service population estimates New taps EEDiv (KGuglielmone), Planning & Building (HSchumack) December/January Need data provided by Helen Schumack at Building Department WORKSHEET L – MONITORING PLAN - (2020-2027) Selected Water Efficiency Activities Customer Demand Monitoring Data Other Monitoring Data Entity/Staff Responsible for Data Schedule or Comments Category Impacted To t a l t r e a t e d w a t e r pr o d u c e d To t a l t r e a t e d w a t e r de l i v e r e d Ra w n o n -po t a b l e d e l i v e r i e s Pe r c a p i t a w a t e r u s e Tr e a t w a t e r p e a k d a y pr o d u c e d Tr e a t e d w a t e r d e l i v e r e d (b y cu s t o m e r t y p e o r t o ea c h c u s t o m e r ) La r g e U s e r s # I r r i g a t e d a c r e s Po p u l a t i o n Ne w t a p s An n u a l c o s t s Le s s o n s L e a r n e d Wa t e r s a v i n g e s t i m a t e s Ad m i n i s t r a t i o n D a t a Re l e v a n t p u b l i c f e e d b a c k Re c o r d s o f s i g n i f i c a n t ch a n g e s # & l o c a t i o n s o f m e t e r s or f a c i l i t i e s rep l a c e d # & l o c a t i o n s o f l e a k s de t e c t e d & r e p a i r e d Collection and Evaluation Timing of Monitoring FOUNDATIONAL ACTIVITIES 1 Automatic meter reading installation and operations All X X X X WNichols, Water-Wastewater Ongoing 2 Meter Testing All X WNichols, Water-Wastewater 3 Meter Upgrades All X X X WNichols, Water-Wastewater 4 Tracking water use by customer type All X KGuglielmone, EEDiv Annually (Dec/Jan) 5 Tracking water use for large customers Varies X KGuglielmone, EEDiv Annually (Dec/Jan) 6 Volumetric bill All X Finance Ongoing 7 Water rate adjustments All X Finance Annually 8 Inclining/tiered rates All X Finance n/a 9 Control of apparent losses (with metering) All X X X X X WNichols, Water-Wastewater, REstes, Streets & Utilities Ongoing 10 Leak detection and repair All X X REstes, Streets & Utilities Ongoing 11 Water line replacement program: Mill Creek Water Main Slip Lining n/a X X X JHuang, EEDiv Ongoing Linear feet of water main line replaced. Condition of line and connections. 12 Master plans/water supply plans n/a X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X KGuglielmone, EEDiv Unknown 13 Capital improvement plans (5-year CIP) n/a X X X X KGuglielmone, EEDiv Annually 14 Integrated water resources plans n/a X X KGuglielmone, EEDiv Ongoing 15 Water Conservation Coordinator All KGuglielmone, EEDiv Ongoing TARGETED TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE AND INCENTIVES 16 Toilet retrofits Large User X X X KGuglielmone, EEDiv Unknown 17 Continue to work with the cemetery on irrigation system Large User X X X KGuglielmone, EEDiv Ongoing 18 Commercial indoor fixture and appliance rebates/retrofits Commercial X X X 19 Assess potable water usage at the Telluride Regional Wastewater Treatment Plant Town 20 Cooling equipment efficiency Commercial X X X 21 Restaurant equipment Commercial X X X 22 Water conservation rebate/reward for best full-time resident or business All X X ORDINANCES AND REGULATIONS 23 Water conservation ordinance implementation All X KGuglielmone, EEDiv Ongoing 24 Time of day watering restriction, emergency - change to 9 pm – 9 am all season All X KGuglielmone, EEDiv 2020 25 With each building permit, require a service line audit from the main to the meter to ensure functionality. All X KGuglielmone, EEDiv Ongoing 26 Rules and regulations for landscape design/installation (BP9) All X KGuglielmone, EEDiv Ongoing 27 Irrigation equipment requirements All X KGuglielmone, EEDiv Ongoing 28 Soil amendment requirements (BP9) All X KGuglielmone, EEDiv Ongoing EDUCATION 29 1 KOTO Radio Access per year about wise use of water All X KGuglielmone, EEDiv Annually (June) 30 PSA newspaper water wise advertisements All X KGuglielmone, EEDiv Annually (June) 31 Water bill insert one time each year All X KGuglielmone, EEDiv Annually (June) 32 Newspaper articles All X KGuglielmone, EEDiv Annually (June) 33 Web pages All X KGuglielmone, EEDiv Annually (June) 34 Social Networking (i.e., Facebook) All X KGuglielmone, EEDiv Ongoing Town of Fraser PO Box 370, Fraser, CO 80442 office 970-726-5491 fax 970-726-5518 www.frasercolorado.com MEMO TO:Chairperson Wolter and Planning Commissioners FROM:Catherine E. Trotter, AICP, Town Planner DATE:October 21, 2021 SUBJECT:Planner Briefing on The Willows Apartments at Grand Park MATTER BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMISSION: Preliminary Plat and Final Plan - The Willows Apartments at Grand Park, Planning Area 2W.1 and 2W.2 ACTION REQUESTED: The applicant, Grand Park Development, LLC., is requesting Preliminary Plat and Final Plan approval of The Willows Apartments at Grand Park. BACKGROUND: This subdivision application is being processed as a Major Subdivision in accordance with Section 17-5-10 of the Fraser Municipal Code. The purpose of a major subdivision plat is to divide one (1) or more lots or parcels of land into a total of five (5) or more lots or five (5) or more dwelling units. Maps below indicates the general vicinity of this proposed development: Town of Fraser PO Box 370, Fraser, CO 80442 office 970-726-5491 fax 970-726-5518 www.frasercolorado.com According to the project narrative, the applicant is proposing a 204 unit for-rent multi-family residential community to be constructed in two phases near Old Victory Road and American Willow Drive. Phase 1 includes 132 for-rent multi-family units and a clubhouse and Phase 2 includes 72 for-rent multi-family units. The development application is located within the Grand Park Planned Development District Plan (PDD). A copy of the PDD is in the packet. This planning area is 2W and the PDD allows for an average density on 7.6 units per acre, 150 detached and 100 attached residential units, 278 lodging units and 30,000 square feet (SF) of commercial on 33.8 acres. This development application would create a total of 259 units on 33.8 acres which equates to an average density of 7.66 units/acre. 9 residential units are being transferred from 5W. The approved land use for Planning Area 5W is 70 detached residential units and 30 detached residential units. The Final Plan for Planning Area 5W allows 70 detached residential units. With this density transfer, a total of 79 units have been allocated, leaving 21 residential units left in Planning Area 5W. The Land Use and Development Notes on sheet 3 of 11 of the PDD state the following: Planning Area 2W comprises of 33.8 acres on an upland on the west side of Cozens Meadow. The area is adjacent to the railroad – served by the Old Victory Road and Grand Park trail system. This area has views of the Meadow and the Divide. A series of ponds and wetland related landscape may be utilized to transition to the pasture condition of the Meadow. The architecture will draw from traditional forms and materials of lodges and residential neighborhoods. The development standards for Planning Area 2W suggest a mixed-use land use, with a 75’ height maximum, 0’ front yard setback, 0’ side yard setback, 0’ rear yard setback and 10% open space requirement. There is also a 15’ improvement and 20’ building setback from Old Victory Road. Town of Fraser PO Box 370, Fraser, CO 80442 office 970-726-5491 fax 970-726-5518 www.frasercolorado.com We have sent this development application to review agencies and utility entities for outside agency review. Agency review comments are in the packet. Applicant must address outside review agency comments from the following entities: Colorado Parks and Wildlife, Xcel Energy, and Mountain Parks Electric. I n c l u d e d i n t h e p a c k e t a r e r e v i e w c o m m e n t s p r o v i d e d b y P u b l i c W o r k s r e l a t i n g t o u t i l i t y a n d c o n s t r u c t i o n s t a n d a r d s . M e r r i c k & C o m p a n y h a s a l s o p r o v i d e d d r a i n a g e a n d u t i l i t y e n g i n e e r i n g c o m m e n t s . PRELIMINARY PLATS: Add land use table to plats. The table shall include: land uses, approximate acreage of each land use and percentage of each land use, total acreage and square footage of property, total numbers of lots, maximum number of each type of dwelling unit proposed, parking and average density per acre. See Checklist. Add Old Victory Road (OVR) building and improvement setbacks to plat in accordance with the Grand Park PDD (Rec.# 2005012709), Sheet 3. For consistency, use similar language that is on Final Plan. Clarify plat note #10. All setbacks are zero. For consistency, use similar language that is on Final Plan. FINAL PLAN: Clarify Note #6 (regarding the density transfer) to indicate that in Planning Area 5W, 79 of the 100 units have been accounted for leaving 21 units to be platted in 5W. On sheet 12 of 14 of the Final Plan, denote bus stops as existing or proposed. OTHER: A letter from US Army Corps of Engineers has been provided approving the realignment of Cozens Ditch. Provide emergency turnaround easement at the end of American Willow Drive per Code Section 14-3-40 Horizontal alignment ( A l l d e a d - e n d s t r e e t s r e q u i r e t u r n a r o u n d s o r c u l - d e - s a c s p e r A t t a c h m e n t A - 1 2 - C u l - D e - S a c a n d T u r n a r o u n d s f o r S t r e e t s . A l l t u r n a r o u n d s s h a l l p r o v i d e t e n ( 1 0 ) f e e t o f l e v e l , t r e e l e s s g r o u n d a r o u n d t h e p e r i m e t e r . S p e c i a l a t t e n t i o n s h o u l d b e g i v e n t o p r o v i d e a d e q u a t e f u n c t i o n a l s n o w s t o r a g e a n d s i g h t d i s t a n c e . A l l t u r n a r o u n d s s h a l l b e s i g n e d " E m e r g e n c y T u r n A r o u n d , N o P a r k i n g A n y t i m e . " ) . The Public Transit Plan included in the FPDP (Sheet 12) must be amended to conform with the Transit Plan approved as part of the FPDP for the Meadows and Planning Area 3Wc (Rec. #2020001835). T h e a p p l i c a n t n e e d s t o confirm the exterior lighting is dark sky compliant. Town of Fraser PO Box 370, Fraser, CO 80442 office 970-726-5491 fax 970-726-5518 www.frasercolorado.com PARKING: https://library.municode.com/co/fraser/codes/municipal_code?nodeId=CH19LADECO_ART4DE ST_DIV2PAST_S19-4-230PASPRE Link to Parking space requirements. It appears the applicant has met and exceeded the parking requirements. There is also some attorney correspondence in the packet. The letter dated October 1, 2021, from The Whitmer Law Firm indicates that staff will recommend denial of this development application unless certain matters are corrected, and the plan resubmitted no later than October 14, 2021. As stated in the same letter, the following deficiencies previously were noted last spring and summer, yet remain unaddressed: 1.The portions of Planning Area 23W included in the development area of the preliminary plat and FPDP must be removed to preserve the Cozens Meadow open space in accordance with the Annexation Agreement and PDD Plan. 2.The areas shown as 2W.3 and 2W.4 on the FPDP must be removed because they are not part of the current development plan and they will not be approved as future development sites until actual development plans, consistent with the PDD, are submitted. 3.Grand Park must agree to provide a dedicated right-of-way for and construct Old Victory Road from the existing terminus at Mountain Willow Drive to Kings Crossing Road as part of the subdivision improvements for this project. The timing for completing certain segments should be addressed in the SIA. 4.Grand Park must agree to construct the Highway 40 sewer crossing to provide the capacity necessary to serve the Willows project, as well as future development. The proposed Willows project will exceed the capacity of the current system. Construction of these sewer improvements must be included in the SIA, or in a separate improvement agreement, and must be completed before any Certificates of Occupancy will be issued for the Willows Apartments. Town of Fraser PO Box 370, Fraser, CO 80442 office 970-726-5491 fax 970-726-5518 www.frasercolorado.com Staff has provided the following materials in the packet: Planner Briefing (THIS MEMO) Draft PC Resolution 2021-10-01 Notice of Public Hearing Public Works & Engineering Comments Agency Review Comments Public comments Grand Park PDD Attorney Correspondence The applicant has provided the following materials in the packet: Preliminary Plat Final Plan Project Narrative Terracina response letters Civil TKE response letters 2004 Rendezvous TIA 2W Trip Generation Letter USACE Correspondence The applicant has also provided the following materials that are not in the packet: Density chart HUD Environmental Assessment Soils and Foundation Investigation Civil Plans and Reports Drainage Report Neighbor list Title Commitment RECOMMENDATION: Staff has the following concerns regarding this application: 1.Improper Inclusion of 23W into Development Plan: a.The portions of Planning Area 23W included in the development area of the preliminary plat and the FPDP were not removed to preserve the Cozens Meadow open space in accordance with the 2003 Annexation Agreement and 2005 PDD Plan, as was previously requested of the Developer by staff. b.Incorporation of portions of Planning Area 23W in the development area is contrary to the terms and intent of the 2003 Annexation Agreement and 2005 PDD and is destructive of the goal of preserving Cozens Meadow. c.The Developer has argued that there are prior “precedents” that justify inclusion of Planning Area 23W tracts into the Willows Apartments development area. However, Town of Fraser PO Box 370, Fraser, CO 80442 office 970-726-5491 fax 970-726-5518 www.frasercolorado.com the prior “precedents” referred to by the Developer do not justify the current proposal. The Planning Area 23W tracts referred to were not incorporated into those development areas and did not detract from the meadow areas intended for a conservation easement. d.Developer’s proposed plan is an apparent attempt to utilize more than the 33.8 acres it is allotted to enhance and expand its development beyond what was contemplated by the 2003 Annexation Agreement and 2005 PDD, all at the expense of Cozen Meadows’s available acreage. e.Accepting Developer’s arguments in favor of inclusion of pieces of 23W into its development plan for the Willows Apartments means abandoning the idea that Planning Areas are to be self-contained. If development areas are not self-contained and located where the PDD says they should be located, then they could be configured any way in the future, and not consistent with the intent of the 2003 Annexation Agreement of 2005 PDD. 2.Improper Inclusion of 2W.3 and 2W.4 into Development Plan: a.The areas shown as 2W.3 and 2W.4 on the FPDP were not removed, also as previously requested by staff. Because these areas are not part of the current development plan, they cannot be approved as future development sites, unless and until actual development plans, consistent with the 2003 Annexation Agreement and 2005 PDD, are submitted to the Town of Fraser for review and approval. 3.Lack of Commitment to Dedicate Right-of-Way: Developer must agree to provide a dedicated right-of way for and construct Old Victory Road from the existing terminus at Mountain Willow Drive to Grand Park Drive as part of the subdivision improvements for this project. The timing for completing certain segments should be addressed in the SIA. To date, Developer has not committed to dedicate said right-of-way. 4.Lack of Commitment to Construct Sewer Crossing and Improvements: Developer must agree to construct the Highway 40 sewer crossing to provide the capacity necessary to serve the Willows project, as well as future development. The proposed Willows project will exceed the capacity of the current system. Construction of these sewer improvements must be included in the SIA, or in a separate improvements agreement, and must be completed before any Certificates of Occupancy will be issued for Willows Apartments. To date, Developer has not committed to construct the sewer crossing and associated improvements. Based on these concerns and those of the Town Attorney, staff recommends that the Planning Commission push up the preliminary plat for review by the Board of Trustees per Code Section 19-1-210 (f) and that the Planning Commission recommend denial of the FPDP and preliminary plat by the Board of Trustees. See PC Resolution 2021-10-01 in packet. Please contact me with questions/concerns. ctrotter@town.fraser.co.us TOWN OF FRASER RESOLUTION NO. 2021-11-01 A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE PRELIMINARY PLAT AND FINAL PLAN AMENDMENT 2 FOR THE WILLOWS AT GRAND PARK (PLANNING AREA 2W.1 & 2W.2). At a regular meeting of the Fraser Planning Commission held on October 27, 2021, a public hearing was held for consideration of a Final Planned Development Plan (FPDP) amendment and Preliminary Plat for The Willows Apartments at Grand Park; and WHEREAS, Grand Park Development, LLC., is the current owner of the property; and WHEREAS, the applicant is requesting development approval which would create 204 residential units on 16.8 acres; and WHEREAS, it was the opinion and finding of the Planning Commission that the application should be “pushed up” pursuant to Section 19-1-210 (f), for final determination on both the Final Planned Development Plan amendment and Preliminary Plat for the Willows Apartment at Grand Park; and WHEREAS, after the Planning Commission hearing, the applicant revised the Final Plan Development Plan (FPDP) to address two of the deficiencies that led to the Town Staff recommending denial of the application; and WHEREAS, those portions of Planning Area 23W and future development areas 2W.3 and 2W.4 previously included in the development area submittal were removed from the development plan. NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE TOWN OF FRASER, COLORADO THAT THE TOWN BOARD HEREBY APPROVES THE PRELIMINARY PLAT AND FINAL PLANNED DEVELOPMENT PLAN AMENDMENT 2 THE WILLOWS AT GRAND PARK WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: 1.Developer must agree to provide a dedicated right-of way for and construct the remaining portion of Old Victory Road as part of the subdivision improvements for this project. The timing for completing certain segments should be addressed in the SIA. 2.Developer must agree to construct the Highway 40 sewer crossing to provide the capacity necessary to serve the Willows project, as well as future development. The proposed Willows project will exceed the capacity of the current system. Construction of these sewer improvements must be included in the SIA, or in a separate improvements agreement, and must be completed before any Certificates of Occupancy will be issued for Willows Apartments. 3.Add land use table to plats. The table shall include: land uses, approximate acreage of each land use and percentage of each land use, total acreage and square footage of property, total numbers of lots, maximum number of each type of dwelling unit proposed, parking and average density per acre. 4.Add Old Victory Road (OVR) building and improvement setbacks to plat in accordance with the Grand Park PDD (Rec.# 2005012709), Sheet 3. For consistency, use similar language that is on Final Plan. 5.Clarify plat note #10. All setbacks are zero. For consistency, use similar language that is on Final Plan. 6 . Provide emergency turnaround easement at the end of American Willow Drive per Code Section 14-3-40 Horizontal alignment ( A l l d e a d - e n d s t r e e t s r e q u i r e t u r n a r o u n d s o r c u l - d e - s a c s p e r A t t a c h m e n t A - 1 2 - C u l - D e - S a c a n d T u r n a r o u n d s f o r S t r e e t s . A l l t u r n a r o u n d s s h a l l p r o v i d e t e n ( 1 0 ) f e e t o f l e v e l , t r e e l e s s g r o u n d a r o u n d t h e p e r i m e t e r . S p e c i a l a t t e n t i o n s h o u l d b e g i v e n t o p r o v i d e a d e q u a t e f u n c t i o n a l s n o w s t o r a g e a n d s i g h t d i s t a n c e . A l l t u r n a r o u n d s s h a l l b e s i g n e d " E m e r g e n c y T u r n A r o u n d , N o P a r k i n g A n y t i m e . " ) . 7.T h e a p p l i c a n t n e e d s t o confirm the exterior lighting is dark sky compliant. 8.Applicant must address outside review agency comments from the following entities: Colorado Parks and Wildlife, Xcel Energy, and Mountain Parks Electric. 9.A d d r e s s r e v i e w c o m m e n t s p r o v i d e d b y P u b l i c W o r k s r e l a t i n g t o u t i l i t y a n d c o n s t r u c t i o n s t a n d a r d s a n d d r a i n a g e a n d u t i l i t y e n g i n e e r i n g c o m m e n t s p r o v i d e d b y M e r r i c k & C o m p a n y . P r o v i d e r e v i s e d C o n s t r u c t i o n D r a w i n g s t o T o w n o f F r a s e r b y e n d o f d a y o f N o v e m b e r 8 , 2 0 2 1 . 10.Applicant shall resubmit for review and approval all final plat and final plan documents changing the land use from apartments to condominiums. A final plat public hearing shall be scheduled before the Planning Commission once a complete packet has been submitted. If such conditions are not satisfied, the approval provided by this resolution is no longer valid. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 17th DAY OF November 2021. Votes in favor: ___BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE Votes opposed: ___TOWN OF FRASER, COLORADO Abstained: ___ Absent:___ BY: Mayor ATTEST: (S E A L) Town Clerk SHEET OF 14 OCTOBER 28, 2021 FINAL PLAN - AMENDMENT 2 LOCATED IN SECTION 29, TOWNSHIP 1 SOUTH, RANGE 75 WEST OF THE 6TH PM COUNTY OF GRAND, STATE OF COLORADO (PLANNING AREA 2W.1 & 2W.2) THE WILLOWS AT GRAND PARK p: \ c o r n e r s t o n e m a s t e r f o l d e r \ g r a n d p a r k \ g r a n d p a r k m e a d o w \ 2 w - w i l l o w s \ _ w i l l o w s a p a r t m e n t s \ c a d \ s u b m i t t a l s \ s u b m i t t a l 1 - f p d p r o u n d 4 \ 1 - c o v e r . d w g GENERAL NOTES 1. THIS FINAL PLAN AMENDMENT IS APPLICABLE TO PLANNING AREA 2W.1 LOT 25, LOTS 56-67 AND PLANNING AREA 2W.2. THE WILLOWS AT GRAND PARK FINAL PLATS FILINGS #1, #2, & #3 LOTS 1-24 & 26-55 ARE NOT IMPACTED BY THIS AMENDMENT. 2. LOCATIONS DEPICTED ON THIS PLAN ARE APPROXIMATE ONLY. 3. GRAND PARK PDDP 2W SETBACKS FRONT SETBACK: 0 FEET SIDE SETBACK: 0 FEET (MINIMUM DISTANCE BETWEEN STRUCTURES: 10 FEET) REAR SETBACK: 0 FEET OLD VICTORY ROAD: 20' BUILDING SETBACK OLD VICTORY ROAD: 15' IMPROVEMENT 4. BUILDING HEIGHT SHALL NOT EXCEED 75'-0" EXCLUDING CHIMNEYS, VENTILATORS, AND PIPES. BUILDING HEIGHTS SHALL BE MEASURED FROM THE AVERAGE FINISHED GRADE OF THE PRIMARY FOUR CORNERS OF THE STRUCTURE. 5. LANDSCAPE SHALL BE ALLOWED AND INSTALLED PER THE TOWN OF FRASER MUNICIPAL CODE AND THE GRAND PARK CC&R'S. 6. PLANNING AREA 2W IS ENTITLED FOR 250 RESIDENTIAL UNITS. DENSITY MAY BE TRANSFERRED ACCORDING TO THE AMENDED ANNEXATION AGREEMENT AND 9 RESIDENTIAL UNITS ARE TRANSFERRED FROM PLANNING AREA 5W BY THIS FINAL PLAN. PLANNING AREA 5W, 79 OF THE 100 UNITS HAVE BEEN ACCOUNTED FOR, LEAVING 21 UNITS TO BE PLATTED IN 5W. 7. TO PROTECT AGAINST WILDFIRES AND ENHANCE FOREST HEALTH THE FOLLOWING WILDFIRE MITIGATION MEASURES ARE REQUIRED: A.) WATER HYDRANTS WILL BE SITED AT APPROPRIATE DISTANCES; AND B.) UTILITIES WILL BE CONSTRUCTED UNDERGROUND. 8. AMERICAN WILLOW DRIVE, MOUNTAIN WILLOW DRIVE, AND OLD VICTORY ROAD SHALL BE PUBLIC. ALL OTHER DRIVES AND PARKING SHALL BE PRIVATE. 9. ALL DRIVEWAYS, PARKING AREAS, OPEN SPACE AND DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS INCLUDING SWALES AND DETENTION FACILITIES SHALL BE PRIVATE AND MAINTAINED BY GRAND PARK DEVELOPMENT, LLC ITS SUCCESSORS OR ASSIGNS. 10. SIGNAGE DETAILS, INCLUDING MATERIALS, DIMENSIONS AND SIGN AREA WILL BE PROVIDED WITH BUILDING PERMIT. SIGNAGE SHALL COMPLY WITH THE GRAND PARK SIGNAGE PLAN. 11. FINAL ENGINEERING DOCUMENTS, CONSTRUCTION DRAWINGS AND A SITE SPECIFIC GEOTECHNICAL REPORT SHALL BE SUBMITTED AND APPROVED PRIOR TO BUILDING PERMIT ISSUANCE. 12. TRACTS A, B, C, D, E AND F ALONG WITH COMMON OPEN SPACE WILL BE OWNED AND MAINTAINED BY GRAND PARK DEVELOPMENT, LLC, ITS SUCCESSORS OR ASSIGNS. 13. THE RECORDED FINAL PLAT SHALL GOVERN IF ANY DISCREPANCIES EXIST BETWEEN THIS FINAL PLAN AND THE FINAL PLAT. 14. REMAINING ENTITLEMENTS WITHIN PLANNING AREA 2W WILL BE DEVELOPED AT A FUTURE TIME. PURSUANT TO SECTION 4.3 OF THE ANNEXATION AGREEMENT, THE ACREAGE OF PLANNING AREAS WILL ADJUST TO ACCOMMODATE THE APPROVED NUMBER OF RESIDENTIAL UNITS AND COMMERCIAL SQUARE FOOTAGE. COVER SHEET 1 COVER SHEET 1 OF 14 LEGAL DESCRIPTION 2 OF 14 EXISTING CONDITIONS 3 OF 14 2W BOUNDARY PLAN 4 OF 14 SITE PLAN 5,6 OF 14 OPEN SPACE PLAN 7 OF 14 LANDSCAPE PLAN 8,9 OF 14 LIGHTING PLAN 10 OF 14 PHASING PLAN 11 OF 14 TRANSIT PLAN 12 OF 14 GRADING AND DRAINAGE PLAN 13 OF 14 UTILITY PLAN 14 OF 14 333231 29 2830 19 20 21 18 17 16 SITE PLANNEROWNER VICINITY MAP SCALE: 1"-2500'-0" SHEET INDEX CERTIFICATE FOR APPROVAL BY THE TOWN BOARD: OWNER CERTIFICATE ENGINEERSURVEYOR MIKE KERVIN CORE CONSULTANTS, INC. 78967 U.S. HWY 40 WINTER PARK, CO 80482 (970) 564-3900 TONY KREMPIN TOPKNOT CIVIL & STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING 129 E BYERS AVE HOT SULPHUR SPRINGS, CO 80451 (970) 725-3310 GRAND PARK DEVELOPMENT, LLCPO BOX 30 WINTER PARK, CO80482 JEFF MARCK TERRACINA DESIGN 10200 EAST GIRARD AVENUE SUITE A-314 DENVER, COLORADO 80231 (303) 632-8867 APPROVED AND ALL PUBLIC DEDICATIONS ACCEPTED THIS________DAY OF__________, __________BY THE FRASER TOWN BOARD. THE TOWN OF FRASER DOES NOT ASSUME ANY RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE CORRECTNESS OR ACCURACY OF ANY INFORMATION DISCLOSED ON THIS PLAN NOR ANY REPRESENTATIONS OR INFORMATION PRESENTED TO THE TOWN OF FRASER WHICH INDUCED THE TOWN TO GIVE THIS CERTIFICATE. BY: ________________________________ MAYOR, TOWN OF FRASER MORTGAGEE'S CONSENT THE UNDERSIGNED, BEING AN AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE OF _______________ , THE HOLDER OF A BENEFICIAL INTEREST IN AND TO THE PROPERTY DESCRIBED ON THIS PLAT, UNDER DEED OF TRUST RECORDED AT RECEPTION NO. ____________________________________OF THE GRAND COUNTY, COLORADO REAL PROPERTY RECORDS, HEREBY CONSENTS TO THIS PLAT AND AGREES THAT THE LIEN OF THE DEED OF TRUST IS HEREBY SUBORDINATED TO THIS PLAT. _______________________ BY:________________________________ NAME:_______________________________ TITLE:________________________________ NOTARY: ACKNOWLEDGED BEFORE ME THIS_________DAY OF___________, 20_____, BY ____________________AS____________________OF _____________________ WITNESS MY HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL. MY COMMISSION EXPIRES:_____________________________________ NOTARY PUBLIC IN WITNESS WHEREOF, GRAND PARK DEVELOPMENT, LLC. HAS CAUSED HIS/HER NAME TO BE HEREUNDER SUBSCRIBED THIS_______DAY OF___________, 20_____. GRAND PARK DEVELOPMENT, LLC. A COLORADO LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, _________________________________________ PRESIDENT STATE OF COLORADO )) )SS. COUNTY OF __________ ) THE FOREGOING INSTRUMENT WAS ACKNOWLEDGED BEFORE ME THIS_______DAY OF_______, 2021, BY__________________AS PRESIDENT ON BEHALF OF GRAND PARK DEVELOPMENT, LLC. A COLORADO LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY. WITNESS MY HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL _________________________________________ NOTARY PUBLIC MY COMMISSION EXPIRES:______________________ A PARCEL OF LAND CONSISTING OF THE FOLLOWING RECORDED PLATS; ALL OF THE WILLOWS AT GRAND PARK, FILING NO. 1 RECORDED JULY 21, 2015 AT RECEPTION NUMBER 2015-004926; ALL OF THE WILLOWS AT GRAND PARK, FILING NO. 2 RECORDED SEPTEMBER 21, 2016 AT RECEPTION NUMBER 2016-006979; ALL OF THE WILLOWS AT GRAND PARK, FILING NO. 3 RECORDED SEPTEMBER 21, 2016 AT RECEPTION NUMBER 2016-006982; ALL OF THE REPLAT OF LOT 25, THE WILLOWS AT GRAND PARK, FILING NO. 2 ACCORDING TO THE RECORDED PLAT THEREOF; LOCATED IN THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 29, TOWNSHIP 1 SOUTH, RANGE 75 WEST OF THE 6TH PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN, TOWN OF FRASER, COUNTY OF GRAND, STATE OF COLORADO, MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBES AS FOLLOWS: COMMENCING AT THE W1/4 CORNER OF SECTION 28, TOWNSHIP 1 SOUTH, RANGE 75 WEST OF THE 6TH PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN, FROM WHICH THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF THE NW1/4 OF THE SW1/4 OF SAID SECTION 28 BEARS S 00° 17' 02" E, (BASIS OF BEARING); THENCE N 55° 31' 18" W, 2,843.64 FEET TO THE NORTHWESTERLY CORNER OF TRACT “A” OF SAID THE WILLOWS AT GRAND PARK, FILING NO. 1, SAID NORTHWESTERLY CORNER BEING THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE THE FOLLOWING (13) THIRTEEN COURSES AND DISTANCES ALONG THE BOUNDARY OF SAID WILLOWS AT GRAND PARK, FILING NO. 1: 1.) THENCE N 55° 46' 36" E, 90.90 FEET; 2.) THENCE N 83° 41' 09" E, 86.86 FEET; 3.) THENCE S 41° 19' 06" E, 61.04 FEET; 4.) THENCE S 26° 54' 21" E, 53.41 FEET; 5.) THENCE S 20° 56' 01" E, 51.67 FEET; 6.) THENCE S 11° 05' 17" E, 50.17 FEET; 7.) THENCE S 17° 30' 20" W, 43.32 FEET; 8.) THENCE S 60° 34' 37" W, 54.67 FEET TO A POINT OF NON-TANGENT CURVATURE; 9.) THENCE ALONG THE ARC OF A NON-TANGENT CURVE TO THE LEFT HAVING A RADIUS OF 576.00 FEET, A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 03° 25' 36" AND AN ARC LENGTH OF 34.45 FEET, THE CHORD OF WHICH BEARS S 30° 23' 49" E, 34.44 FEET; 10.) THENCE N 68° 22' 14" E, 45.20 FEET; 11.) THENCE S 70° 26' 10" E, 63.26 FEET; 12.) THENCE S 56° 07' 33" E, 460.62 FEET; 13.) THENCE S 88° 38' 45" E, 10.23 FEET TO THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF LOT 17, SAID THE WILLOWS AT GRAND PARK, FILING NO. 2; THENCE THE FOLLOWING (3) THREE COURSES AND DISTANCES ALONG THE BOUNDARY OF SAID WILLOWS AT GRAND PARK, FILING NO. 2: 1.) THENCE S 88° 38' 45" E, 181.60 FEET; 2.) THENCE N 04° 16' 46" W, 252.43 FEET; 3.) THENCE N 62° 16' 12" E, 47.80 FEET TO THE WEST BOUNDARY OF SAID REPLAT OF LOT 25, THE WILLOWS AT GRAND PARK, FILING NO. 2; THENCE THE FOLLOWING (3) THREE COURSES AND DISTANCES ALONG THE BOUNDARY OF SAID REPLAT OF LOT 25, THE WILLOWS AT GRAND PARK, FILING NO. 2; 1.) THENCE N 24° 43' 32" W, 51.33 FEET; 2.) THENCE N 67° 41' 29" E, 130.00 FEET; 3.) THENCE S 29° 03' 07" E, 106.24 FEET TO THE NORTH LINE OF LOT 26, SAID WILLOWS AT GRAND PARK, FILING NO. 2: THENCE THE FOLLOWING (9) NINE COURSES AND DISTANCES ALONG THE BOUNDARY OF SAID WILLOWS AT GRAND PARK, FILING NO. 2: 1.) THENCE N 83° 18' 27" E, 36.68 FEET; 2.) THENCE S 49° 30' 17" E, 4.53 FEET; 3.) THENCE S 25° 43' 52" E, 130.96 FEET; 4.) THENCE S 64° 44' 28" W, 134.63 FEET TO A POINT OF NON-TANGENT CURVATURE; 5.) THENCE ALONG THE ARC OF A NON-TANGENT CURVE TO THE RIGHT HAVING A RADIUS OF 278.00 FEET, A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 05° 13' 22" AND AN ARC LENGTH OF 25.34 FEET, THE CHORD OF WHICH BEARS S 18° 55' 15" E, 25.33 FEET; 6.) THENCE N 77° 03' 17" E, 99.57 FEET; 7.) THENCE S 12° 56' 43" E, 70.41 FEET; 8.) THENCE S 01° 51' 48" W, 72.35 FEET; 9.) THENCE S 16° 04' 57" E, 34.86 FEET TO THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF LOT 34, SAID THE WILLOWS AT GRAND PARK, FILING NO. 3; THENCE THE FOLLOWING (24) TWENTY FOUR COURSES AND DISTANCES ALONG THE BOUNDARY OF SAID WILLOWS AT GRAND PARK, FILING NO. 3: 1.) THENCE S 65° 07' 48" E, 46.55 FEET; 2.) THENCE N 27° 58' 03" E, 101.66 FEET; 3.) THENCE S 62° 01' 57" E, 62.05 FEET; 4.) THENCE N 26° 45' 37" E, 114.78 FEET; 5.) THENCE S 62° 57' 00" E, 138.18 FEET; 6.) THENCE S 17° 02' 40" E, 143.76 FEET; 7.) THENCE S 71° 11' 08" W, 112.82 FEET; 8.) THENCE N 64° 46' 22" W, 24.79 FEET TO A POINT OF NON-TANGENT CURVATURE; 9.) THENCE ALONG THE ARC OF A NON-TANGENT CURVE TO THE RIGHT HAVING A RADIUS OF 70.00 FEET, A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 39° 08' 31" AND AN ARC LENGTH OF 47.82 FEET, THE CHORD OF WHICH BEARS S 64° 32' 18" W, 46.80 FEET; 10.) THENCE S 14° 23' 58" E, 46.85 FEET; 11.) THENCE S 16° 13' 22" E, 141.28 FEET; 12.) THENCE S 53° 31' 41" W, 89.91 FEET TO A POINT OF NON-TANGENT CURVATURE; 13.) THENCE ALONG THE ARC OF A NON-TANGENT CURVE TO THE LEFT HAVING A RADIUS OF 272.00 FEET, A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 08° 07' 12" AND AN ARC LENGTH OF 38.55 FEET, THE CHORD OF WHICH BEARS S 48° 08' 29" E, 38.52 FEET; 14.) THENCE N 42° 02' 41" E, 105.03 FEET; 15.) THENCE S 66° 18' 09" E, 53.33 FEET; 16.) THENCE S 87° 44' 13" E, 102.24 FEET; 17.) THENCE S 72° 40' 16" E, 39.43 FEET; LEGAL DESCRIPTION CONTINUED ON PAGE 2 LEGAL DESCRIPTION 2W.1 OWNER CERTIFICATE IN WITNESS WHEREOF, OLHASSO II, JOHN BERNARD TRUST HAS CAUSED HIS/HER NAME TO BE HEREUNDER SUBSCRIBED THIS_______DAY OF___________, 20_____. _________________________________________ OWNER STATE OF COLORADO )) )SS. COUNTY OF __________ ) THE FOREGOING INSTRUMENT WAS ACKNOWLEDGED BEFORE ME THIS_______DAY OF_______, 2021, BY__________________AS OWNER OF OLHASSO II, JOHN BERNARD TRUST. WITNESS MY HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL _________________________________________ NOTARY PUBLIC MY COMMISSION EXPIRES:______________________ SHEET OF 14 OCTOBER 28, 2021 FINAL PLAN - AMENDMENT 2 LOCATED IN SECTION 29, TOWNSHIP 1 SOUTH, RANGE 75 WEST OF THE 6TH PM COUNTY OF GRAND, STATE OF COLORADO (PLANNING AREA 2W.1 & 2W.2) THE WILLOWS AT GRAND PARK p: \ c o r n e r s t o n e m a s t e r f o l d e r \ g r a n d p a r k \ g r a n d p a r k m e a d o w \ 2 w - w i l l o w s \ _ w i l l o w s a p a r t m e n t s \ c a d \ s u b m i t t a l s \ s u b m i t t a l 1 - f p d p r o u n d 4 \ 1 - c o v e r . d w g LEGAL DESCRIPTION 2W.1 (CONTINUED) LEGAL DESCRIPTION 2 18.) THENCE S 15° 44' 16" E, 124.57 FEET; 19.) THENCE S 81° 26' 17" E, 40.44 FEET TO THE NORTHEASTERLY CORNER OF TRACT “J”; 20.) THENCE S 08° 33' 43" W, 56.00 FEET TO THE SOUTHEASTERLY CORNER OF TRACT “M”; 21.) THENCE N 81° 26' 17” W, 208.87 FEET TO A POINT OF CURVATURE; 22.) THENCE ALONG THE ARC OF A CURVE TO THE RIGHT HAVING A RADIUS OF 328.00 FEET, A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 53° 04' 19", AND AN ARC LENGTH OF 303.82 FEET, THE CHORD OF WHICH BEARS N 54° 54' 07" W, 293.07 FEET; 23.) THENCE N 28° 21' 58" W, 93.12 FEET TO A POINT OF CURVATURE; 24.) THENCE ALONG THE ARC OF A CURVE TO THE LEFT HAVING A RADIUS OF 172.00 FEET, A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 49° 54' 09", AND AN ARC LENGTH OF 149.81 FEET, THE CHORD OF WHICH BEARS N 53° 19' 03" W,145.12 FEET TO THE SOUTHWESTERLY CORNER OF TRACT “M” BEING COINCIDENT WITH THE SOUTHEASTERLY CORNER OF TRACT “G” OF SAID THE WILLOWS AT GRAND PARK, FILING NO. 2; THENCE THE FOLLOWING (4) FOUR COURSES AND DISTANCES ALONG THE BOUNDARY OF SAID WILLOWS AT GRAND PARK, FILING NO. 2: 1.) THENCE N 78° 16' 07" W, 211.95 FEET TO A POINT OF CURVATURE; 2.) THENCE ALONG THE ARC OF A CURVE TO THE LEFT HAVING A RADIUS OF 372.00 FEET, A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 12° 55' 26", AND AN ARC LENGTH OF 83.91 FEET, THE CHORD OF WHICH BEARS N 84° 43' 50" W,83.73 FEET; 3.) THENCE S 88° 48' 26" W, 54.99 FEET TO A POINT OF CURVATURE; 4.) THENCE ALONG THE ARC OF A CURVE TO THE RIGHT HAVING A RADIUS OF 328.00 FEET, A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 13° 49' 19", AND AN ARC LENGTH OF 79.13 FEET, THE CHORD OF WHICH BEARS N 84° 16' 54" W, 78.93 FEET TO A POINT OF COMPOUND CURVATURE BEING THE SOUTHWESTERLY CORNER OF TRACT “G” BEING COINCIDENT WITH THE SOUTHEASTERLY CORNER OF TRACT “D” OF SAID THE WILLOWS AT GRAND PARK, FILING NO. 1; THENCE THE FOLLOWING (8) EIGHT COURSES AND DISTANCES ALONG THE BOUNDARY OF SAID WILLOWS AT GRAND PARK, FILING NO. 1: 1.) THENCE ALONG THE ARC OF A CURVE TO THE RIGHT HAVING A RADIUS OF 328.00 FEET, A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 13° 14' 47", AND AN ARC LENGTH OF 75.83 FEET, THE CHORD OF WHICH BEARS N 70° 44' 51" W, 75.66 FEET 2.) THENCE N 64° 07' 28" W, 101.58 FEET TO A POINT OF CURVATURE; 3.) THENCE ALONG THE ARC OF A CURVE TO THE RIGHT HAVING A RADIUS OF 678.00 FEET, A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 12° 48' 11", AND AN ARC LENGTH OF 151.50 FEET, THE CHORD OF WHICH BEARS N 57° 43' 22" W, 151.19 FEET TO A POINT OF NON-TANGENCY; 4.) THENCE S 38° 40' 43” W, 38.80 FEET; 5.) THENCE N 34° 28' 52" W, 210.64 FEET TO A POINT OF CURVATURE; 6.) THENCE ALONG THE ARC OF A CURVE TO THE RIGHT HAVING A RADIUS OF 3464.00 FEET, A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 02° 53' 42", AND AN ARC LENGTH OF 175.02 FEET, THE CHORD OF WHICH BEARS N 33° 02' 01" W,175.00 FEET; 7.) THENCE N 31°35'10” W, 198.76 FEET TO A POINT OF CURVATURE; 8.) THENCE ALONG THE ARC OF A CURVE TO THE LEFT HAVING A RADIUS OF 1674.85 FEET, A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 01° 24' 04", AND AN ARC LENGTH OF 40.96 FEET, THE CHORD OF WHICH BEARS N 30° 29' 47" W, 40.96 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. AREA = 10.713 ACRES, MORE OR LESS. LEGAL DESCRIPTION 2W.2 PHASE 1 A PARCEL OF LAND LOCATED IN A PORTION OF THE EAST HALF OF SECTION 29, TOWNSHIP 1 SOUTH, RANGE 75 WEST OF THE SIXTH PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN, TOWN OF FRASER, COUNTY OF GRAND, STATE OF COLORADO, BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: COMMENCING AT THE EAST QUARTER CORNER OF SECTION 29, TOWNSHIP 1 SOUTH, RANGE 75 WEST OF THE 6TH PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN, FROM WHICH THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF SAID SECTION 29 BEARS S 89°49'44" W (BASIS OF BEARINGS), THENCE S 72°02'19" W, 503.69 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE N 49° 40' 55" W, 228.06 FEET TO A POINT OF CURVATURE; THENCE ALONG THE ARC OF A CURVE TO THE LEFT HAVING A RADIUS OF 2036.00 FEET, A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 05° 59' 18” AND AN ARC LENGTH OF 212.80 FEET, THE CHORD OF WHICH BEARS N 52° 40' 34" W, 212.70 FEET; THENCE N 55° 40' 13" W, 603.11 FEET; THENCE N 59° 28' 19" E, 348.16 FEET TO A POINT OF NON-TANGENT CURVATURE ON THE SOUTHERLY LINE OF THE WILLOWS AT GRAND PARK, FILING NO. 3 RECORDED AT RECEPITON NO. 2016006982, SAID COUNTY OF GRAND RECORDS; THENCE ALONG SAID SOUTHERLY LINE OF SAID THE WILLOWS AT GRAND PARK, FILING NO. 3, THE FOLLOWING TWO (2) COURSES AND DISTANCES: THENCE ALONG THE ARC OF A CURVE TO THE LEFT HAVING A RADIUS OF 328.00 FEET, A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 29° 57' 45" AND AN ARC LENGTH OF 171.53 FEET, THE CHORD OF WHICH BEARS S 66° 27' 24" E, 169.58 FEET; THENCE S 81° 26' 17" E, 208.87 FEET TO THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF SAID THE WILLOWS AT GRAND PARK, FILING NO. 3; THENCE LEAVING SAID SOUTHERLY LINE AND ALONG THE EARSTERLY LINE OF SAID THE WILLOWS AT GRAND PARK, FILING NO. 3, N 08° 33' 43" E, 40.93 FEET TO A POINT OF NON-TANGENT CURVATURE; THENCE LEAVING SAID EARSTERLY LINE OF SAID THE WILLOWS AT GRAND PARK, FILING NO. 3 AND ALONG THE ARC OF A CURVE TO THE RIGHT HAVING A RADIUS OF 128.53 FEET, A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 08° 52' 14" AND AN ARC LENGTH OF 19.90 FEET, THE CHORD OF WHICH BEARS S 61° 02' 06" E, 19.88 FEET; THENCE S 56° 37' 30" E, 14.62 FEET TO A POINT OF CURVATURE; THENCE ALONG THE ARC OF A CURVE TO THE LEFT HAVING A RADIUS OF 25.00 FEET, A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 73° 35' 37" AND AN ARC LENGTH OF 32.11 FEET, THE CHORD OF WHICH BEARS N 86° 34' 42" E, 29.95 FEET TO A POINT OF REVERSE CURVATURE; THENCE ALONG THE ARC OF A CURVE TO THE RIGHT HAVING A RADIUS OF 228.00 FEET, A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 23° 54' 44", AND AN ARC LENGTH OF 95.16 FEET, THE CHORD OF WHICH BEARS N 61° 44' 15" E, 94.47 FEET; THENCE S 44° 41' 17" E, 254.65 FEET; THENCE S 10° 25' 02" W, 32.92 FEET; THENCE S 56° 17' 11" W, 117.36 FEET; THENCE S 00° 22' 54" W, 311.01 FEET; THENCE S 40° 19' 05" W, 282.32 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING. AREA= 10.825 ACRES, MORE OR LESS PHASE 2 A PARCEL OF LAND LOCATED IN A PORTION OF THE EAST HALF OF SECTION 29, TOWNSHIP 1 SOUTH, RANGE 75 WEST OF THE SIXTH PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN, TOWN OF FRASER, COUNTY OF GRAND, STATE OF COLORADO, BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: COMMENCING AT THE EAST QUARTER CORNER OF SECTION 29, TOWNSHIP 1 SOUTH, RANGE 75 WEST OF THE 6TH PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN, FROM WHICH THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF SAID SECTION 29 BEARS S 89°49'44" W (BASIS OF BEARINGS), THENCE S 72°02'19" W, 503.69 FEET TO THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF WILLOWS APARTMENTS AT GRAND PARK SUBDIVISION, FILING NO. 1; THENCE ALONG THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID WILLOWS APARTMENTS AT GRAND PARK SUBDIVISION, FILING NO. 1, THE FOLLOWING THREE (3) COURSES AND DISTANCES: N 49° 40' 55" W, 228.06 FEET TO A POINT OF CURVATURE; THENCE ALONG THE ARC OF A CURVE TO THE LEFT HAVING A RADIUS OF 2036.00 FEET, A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 05° 59' 18” AND AN ARC LENGTH OF 212.80 FEET, THE CHORD OF WHICH BEARS N 52° 40' 34" W, 212.70 FEET; THENCE N 55° 40' 13" W, 603.11 FEET TO TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE N 55° 40' 13" W, 366.45 FEET TO A POINT OF CURVATURE; THENCE ALONG THE ARC OF A CURVE TO THE RIGHT HAVING A RADIUS OF 1164.00 FEET, A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 21° 11' 21" AND AN ARC LENGTH OF 430.47 FEET, THE CHORD OF WHICH BEARS N 45° 04' 32" W, 428.02 FEET; THENCE N 34° 28' 52" W, 139.00 FEET TO THE SOUTHERLY CORNER OF TRACT B, THE WILLOWS AT GRAND PARK, FILING NO. 1 RECORDED AT RECEPTION NO. 2015004926, SAID COUNTY OF GRAND RECORDS; THENCE ALONG THE SOUTHERLY LINES OF SAID THE WILLOWS AT GRAND PARK, FILING NO. 1, THE WILLOWS AT GRAND PARK, FILING NO. 2 RECORDED AT RECEPITON NO. 2016006979, AND THE WILLOWS AT GRAND PARK, FILING NO. 3 RECORDED AT RECEPITON NO. 2016006982, ALL IN SAID COUNTY OF GRAND RECORDS, THE FOLLOWING TEN (10 COURSES AND DISTANCES: THENCE N 38° 40' 43" E, 38.80 FEET TO A POINT OF NON-TANGENT CURVATURE; THENCE ALONG THE ARC OF A CURVE TO THE LEFT HAVING A RADIUS OF 678.00 FEET, A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 12° 48' 11" AND AN ARC LENGTH OF 151.50 FEET, THE CHORD OF WHICH BEARS S 57° 43' 22" E, 151.19 FEET; THENCE S 64° 07' 28" E, 101.58 FEET TO A POINT OF CURVATURE; THENCE ALONG THE ARC OF A CURVE TO THE LEFT HAVING A RADIUS OF 328.00 FEET, A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 27° 04' 06" AND AN ARC LENGTH OF 154.96 FEET, THE CHORD OF WHICH BEARS S 77° 39' 31" E, 153.52 FEET; THENCE N 88° 48' 26" E, 54.99 FEET TO A POINT OF CURVATURE; THENCE ALONG THE ARC OF A CURVE TO THE RIGHT HAVING A RADIUS OF 372.00 FEET, A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 12° 55' 26" AND AN ARC LENGTH OF 83.91 FEET, THE CHORD OF WHICH BEARS S 84° 43' 50" E, 83.73 FEET; THENCE S 78° 16' 07" E, 211.95 FEET TO A POINT OF CURVATURE; THENCE ALONG THE ARC OF A CURVE TO THE RIGHT HAVING A RADIUS OF 172.00 FEET, A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 49° 54' 09" AND AN ARC LENGTH OF 149.81 FEET, THE CHORD OF WHICH BEARS S 53° 19' 03" E, 145.12 FEET; THENCE S 28° 21' 58" E, 93.12 FEET TO A POINT OF CURVATURE; THENCE ALONG THE ARC OF A CURVE TO THE LEFT HAVING A RADIUS OF 328.00 FEET, A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 23° 06' 34" AND AN ARC LENGTH OF 132.29 FEET, THE CHORD OF WHICH BEARS S 39° 55' 15" E, 131.40 FEET TO A POINT OF NON-TANGENCY AND THE NORTHWESTERLY CORNER OF SAID WILLOWS APARTMENTS AT GRAND PARK SUBDIVISION, FILING NO. 1; THENCE LEAVING SAID SOUTHERLY LINE OF THE WILLOWS AT GRAND PARK, FILING NO. 3 AND ALONG THE WESTERLY LINE OF SAID WILLOWS APARTMENTS AT GRAND PARK SUBDIVISION, FILING NO. 1; S 59° 28' 19" W, 348.16 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. AREA= 6.000 ACRES, MORE OR LESS. | | | | | | ||| | | | | | | S S WMWM SSS S S > > > > > > > > > > > >> X X X X > P B A U G P B P B WM FO FO FO FO FO FO FO FO FO FO FO FO FO FO FO FO FO FO FO FO FO FO FO FO FO FO FO FO E500 E500 E500 E500 E500 E500 E500 E500 E500 E500E500E500E500E500E500E500E500E500 E500 E500 E500 E500 E500 E500 E500 E500 E500 GS GS GS ES ES ES ES ES S S WMWM SSS S S > > > > > > > > > > > >> X X X X > P B A U G P B P B WM FO FO FO FO FO FO FO FO FO FO FO FO FO FO FO FO FO FO FO FO FO FO FO FO FO FO FO FO E500 E500 E500 E500 E500 E500 E500 E500 E500 E500E500E500E500E500E500E500E500E500 E500 E500 E500 E500 E500 E500 E500 E500 E500 GS GS GS ES ES ES ES ES 2W.1 2.62 AC UNDEVELOPED FUTURE DEVELOPMENT LOTS 56-67, WILLOW DUPLEXES IN FPDP TO BE REMOVED. PLAT NEVER RECORDED 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 EX. COZEN DITCH 2W.1 10.7 AC UNDEVELOPED FUTURE DEVELOPMENT RAILROAD ROW RAILROAD ROW FLOODPLAIN BOUNDARY EX. COZEN DITCH OLD VICTORY RD. A M E R I C A N W I L L O W D R . MOUNTAIN WILL O W D R . OLD VICTORY R D . MOU N T A I N W I L L O W D R . 30% SLOPES 25 WETLANDS p: \ c o r n e r s t o n e m a s t e r f o l d e r \ g r a n d p a r k \ g r a n d p a r k m e a d o w \ 2 w - w i l l o w s \ _ w i l l o w s a p a r t m e n t s \ c a d \ s u b m i t t a l s \ s u b m i t t a l 1 - f p d p r o u n d 4 \ 3 - s i t e p l a n e x . d w g SHEET OF 14 OCTOBER 28, 2021 FINAL PLAN - AMENDMENT 2 LOCATED IN SECTION 29, TOWNSHIP 1 SOUTH, RANGE 75 WEST OF THE 6TH PM COUNTY OF GRAND, STATE OF COLORADO (PLANNING AREA 2W.1 & 2W.2) THE WILLOWS AT GRAND PARK EXISTING CONDITIONS 3 LEGEND EXISTING 2W PLANNING AREA BOUNDARY EXISTING CONDITIONS 10' CONTOURS 2' CONTOURS EXISTING 2W.1 DEVELOPMENT BOUNDARY 0 Scale: 1"= 100'-0" 50 10 0 20 0N Know what's below. before you dig.Call R EXISTING COZEN DITCH 30% OR GREATER SLOPES | | | | | | | ||| | | | | | | 18' 28' 28' S S > > > > > > >P B PB WM GS GS GS GS GS ES ES ES ES ES S S > > > > > > >P B PB WM GS GS GS GS GS ES ES ES ES ES EX. COZEN DITCH 2W.1 10.7 AC EX. COZEN DITCH POTENTIAL FUTURE CONNECTION RAILROAD ROW RAILROAD ROW FRASER REC CENTER FLOODPLAIN BOUNDARY OLD VICTORY RD. A M E R I C A N W I L L O W D R . MOUNTAIN WIL L O W D R . OLD VICTORY R D . MOU N T A I N W I L L O W D R . O.S. 2W.2 16.8 AC p: \ c o r n e r s t o n e m a s t e r f o l d e r \ g r a n d p a r k \ g r a n d p a r k m e a d o w \ 2 w - w i l l o w s \ _ w i l l o w s a p a r t m e n t s \ c a d \ s u b m i t t a l s \ s u b m i t t a l 1 - f p d p r o u n d 4 \ 2 - b o u n d r y . d w g SHEET OF 14 OCTOBER 28, 2021 FINAL PLAN - AMENDMENT 2 LOCATED IN SECTION 29, TOWNSHIP 1 SOUTH, RANGE 75 WEST OF THE 6TH PM COUNTY OF GRAND, STATE OF COLORADO (PLANNING AREA 2W.1 & 2W.2) THE WILLOWS AT GRAND PARK BOUNDARY PLAN 4 LEGEND DEVELOPMENT BOUNDARY 0 Scale: 1"= 100'-0" 50 10 0 20 0N Know what's below. before you dig.Call R EXISTING COZEN DITCH 10' CONTOURS 2' CONTOURS LOT 1 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > WM S S SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS S S S S S S S S S S S S SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SSSSSS SSSS SSSSSS S S S S S S WSWSWS WSWSWS W S W S W S WS WS WS WS WS WS WS WS W S W S W S W S W S W S W S WS WS WS WS WS WS WS W S W S W S W S WS WS W S W S W S W S WS WS WS WS WS WS WS W S W S W S W S W S W S UP UP UP UP UP . O L D V I C T O R Y R D . BOUNDARY LINE ROW FLOODPLAIN BOUNDARY POSSIBLE FUTURE CONNECTION BUS STOP REALIGNED COZEN DITCH > > ST xw s xw s xw s xw s xss xss xs s xs sxs s xs s xssxss xssxss STST E E E E E E E E G G G G G G G XW XW XW XW X W X W XW XW XW OL D V I C T O R Y R D . 10' 20' 10'20' 20' 10' 5' 26' 26' 20' 10' 26' 5' 26' 24' R25' 24' 24' 26' 26' 24' 26' 26'26' 24' 24' 26' 24' 24' 5' R25' R25' R25' R25' R25' R25'24' R25' R25' R25' R25' R25' R25' R25' R25' 51'-6" 24'-8" 24' 60' CLUBHOUSE SKI STORAGE BUILDING A TYPE II BUILDING B TYPE II BUILDING C TYPE I BUILDING F TYPE II BUILDING D TYPE I BUILDING E TYPE I BUILDING G TYPE I GRAND PARK COMMUNITY TRAIL POOL & DECK GARAGE A - 14 GARAGE B -14 GA R A G E D - 7 GA R A G E C - 7 MOUNTAIN WILL O W D R I V E AM E R I C A N W I L L O W D R I V E KITCHEN EXISTING TRAIL GARAGE E - 14 TRASH TRASH TRASH 35'-5" 20'BUILDING SETBACK 15' IMPROVEMENT SETBACK LOT LINE ROW OLD VICTORY ROAD ROW TO BE PLATTED BY SEPARATE DOCUMENT 10'-0" 12'-6" 5' 5' 5' R26' 5' 5' 19'-4 " R38'-0" 40 7 5 10 4 2 7 7 11 15 15 7 7 4 23 812 9 10 3 4 20' STORM EASEMENT BUILDING H TYPE II PLAT BOUNDARY 2W.2 BOUNDARY PLAT BOUNDARY PHASE 2 40'-9" 40'-10" 26'-5" PHASE LINE 5 5 26' 5' R25' R25'7'-4" 7'-3" 8'-3" 7'-3" TURN-AROUND EASEMENT 60' LOT 2 LOT 3 LOT 4 LOT 5 LOT 6 LOT 7 LOT 8 LOT 9 LOT 10 LOT 11 26' p: \ c o r n e r s t o n e m a s t e r f o l d e r \ g r a n d p a r k \ g r a n d p a r k m e a d o w \ 2 w - w i l l o w s \ _ w i l l o w s a p a r t m e n t s \ c a d \ s u b m i t t a l s \ s u b m i t t a l 1 - f p d p r o u n d 4 \ 5 - s i t e p l a n p r . d w g SHEET OF 14 OCTOBER 28, 2021 FINAL PLAN - AMENDMENT 2 LOCATED IN SECTION 29, TOWNSHIP 1 SOUTH, RANGE 75 WEST OF THE 6TH PM COUNTY OF GRAND, STATE OF COLORADO (PLANNING AREA 2W.1 & 2W.2) THE WILLOWS AT GRAND PARK SITE PLAN 5 LEGEND SITE PLAN PHASE 1 0 Scale: 1"= 50'-0" 25 50 10 0N Know what's below. before you dig.Call R 2W.2 BOUNDARY REALIGNED COZEN DITCH ADA ROUTE SNOW STORAGE AREA 30% OR GREATER SLOPES WM SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS S S S S S S S S S S S S SS SS SS SS SS SSSSSS S S S S S S SS SS SS SS SS SS SS WS WS WS WS WS WS WS WS W S W S W S W S WS WS W S W S W S W S WS WS WS WS WS WS WSWSWSWSWSWS WS WS W S W S WS WS WS WS WS WS WS WS WS WS WS W S W S UP UP UP G1 G1 G1 G1 G1 G1 G1 G2 BOUNDARY LINE ROW BUS STOP > ST X W X W X W XS XS XS XS XS XS XS XS X S X S X S ST xw s xws xws xws xw s x w s x w s xw s xw s x w s xws xws xws xws xw s xw s xw s xw s xs s xs s xs s xs s xs s xs s xs s xss xss xs s xs s xss xss x w s xss xss xss xss xs s xs sxs s xs s xssxss xssxss xss xss xss xss xss xss xss xws xws xws STST E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G E E E E EE E G G G G G G G G G G XS XW XW XW XW XW XW XW XW XW XW XW XW XW XW XW XW XW XW XW XW XW XW XW XW XW XW XW XW XW XW XW XW XW XW XW XW XW XW XW XW XW X W X W X W X W X W X W X W X W X W XW XW XW XSXSXSXSXSXSXSXSXSXS XS xss xss W W W W xws W W W W W XW XW XW xssxssxss xss xss xs s xs s x s s XW XW x w s x w s xw s xs s xs s xs s xs s xs s xss xss xss xss OL D V I C T O R Y R D . 10' 20' 26' 26' 20' 10' R25' 24' 24' 26' 26' 24' 24' 24' R25' R25' R25' R25' R25' R25'24' R25' R25' 24' BUILDING F TYPE II BUILDING E BUILDING G TYPE I GA R A G E D - 7 GA R A G E C - 7 MOUNTAIN WILL O W D R I V E GARAGE E - 14 TRASH TRASH 15' IMPROVEMENT SETBACK 10'-0" 5' 5' 19'-4 " 40 7 5 10 4 2 7 7 11 20' STORM EASEMENT BUILDING H TYPE II BUILDING I TYPE II BUILDING J TYPE I BUILDING K TYPE II BUILDING L TYPE II GA R A G E G - 7 GA R A G E F - 7 GA R A G E H-7 GA R A G E I-7 PHASE 2 MO U N T A I N W I L L O W D R . PHASE LINE 4 5 7 9 9 16 10 6 12 2 8 5 5 26' 26' 24' 26' 10' 20' 10' 20' 10' 20' 10'20' 10' 20' 8' 5' 5' 5' 5' R25' R25' R25' R25' R25' R25' R25' R25' R25' R25' R25' 7'-4" 7'-3" 10'-9" 7'-4" 8'-3" 9'-3"9'-4" 7'-4" 8'-3" 7'-3" LOT 6 LOT 7 LOT 9 LOT 10 LOT 11 LOT 12 LOT 13 LOT 15 LOT 14 LOT 16 26' p: \ c o r n e r s t o n e m a s t e r f o l d e r \ g r a n d p a r k \ g r a n d p a r k m e a d o w \ 2 w - w i l l o w s \ _ w i l l o w s a p a r t m e n t s \ c a d \ s u b m i t t a l s \ s u b m i t t a l 1 - f p d p r o u n d 4 \ 5 - s i t e p l a n p r . d w g SHEET OF 14 OCTOBER 28, 2021 FINAL PLAN - AMENDMENT 2 LOCATED IN SECTION 29, TOWNSHIP 1 SOUTH, RANGE 75 WEST OF THE 6TH PM COUNTY OF GRAND, STATE OF COLORADO (PLANNING AREA 2W.1 & 2W.2) THE WILLOWS AT GRAND PARK SITE PLAN 6 LEGEND SITE PLAN PHASE 2 0 Scale: 1"= 50'-0" 25 50 10 0N Know what's below. before you dig.Call R 2W.2 BOUNDARY REALIGNED COZEN DITCH ADA ROUTE SNOW STORAGE AREA 30% OR GREATER SLOPES S T S T BOUNDARY LINE ROW 10' UTILITY AND SNOW STORAGE EASEMENT BOUNDARY LINE ROW POSSIBLE FUTURE CONNECTION OLD VICTORY ROAD ROW TO BE INCLUDED INTO FINAL PLAT BUS STOP POTENTIAL PROPOSED CONNECTIONS FOR WATER, SEWER AND STORMWATER M O U N T A I N W I L L O W D R . OL D V I C T O R Y R D . REALIGNED COZEN DITCH > > > > > > > > > > > > UP UP UP UP UP . G1 G1 G1 G1 G1 G1 G1 G2 GARAGE TYP TRASH ENCLOSURE TYP. TRASH ENCLOSURE TYP. GARAGE TYP BUILDING G BUILDING F BUILDING E BUILDING D CLUBHOUSE BUILDING A BUILDING B BUILDING C MOUNTAIN WIL L O W D R . AM E R I C A N W I L L O W D R . OL D V I C T O R Y R D . POOL AMENITY MOUNTAI N W I L L O W D R . BUILDING H BUILDING I BUILDING J BUILDING K BUILDING L TRACT A TRACT A TRACT A TRACT B 2W.1 OPEN SPACE 2W.1 OPEN SPACE OPEN SPACE 10' UTILITY & SNOW STORAGE EASEMENT 10' UTILITY & SNOW STORAGE EASEMENT LOT 1 LOT 2 LOT 3 LOT 4 LOT 5 LOT 7 LOT 8 LOT 9 LOT 11 LOT 12 LOT 13 LOT 15 LOT 14 LOT 16 LOT 1 LOT 2 LOT 3 LOT 4 LOT 5 LOT 7 LOT 8 LOT 9 LOT 11 LOT 12 LOT 13 LOT 15 LOT 14 LOT 16 POOL BANQUETTE SEATING WALL & 8' FIREPIT SPA SPA 4' FIREPIT 4' FIREPIT POOL EQUIPMENTBUILDING CLUBHOUSE POOL FENCE p: \ c o r n e r s t o n e m a s t e r f o l d e r \ g r a n d p a r k \ g r a n d p a r k m e a d o w \ 2 w - w i l l o w s \ _ w i l l o w s a p a r t m e n t s \ c a d \ s u b m i t t a l s \ s u b m i t t a l 1 - f p d p r o u n d 4 \ 4 - l a n d s c a p e . d w g SHEET OF 14 OCTOBER 28, 2021 FINAL PLAN - AMENDMENT 2 LOCATED IN SECTION 29, TOWNSHIP 1 SOUTH, RANGE 75 WEST OF THE 6TH PM COUNTY OF GRAND, STATE OF COLORADO (PLANNING AREA 2W.1 & 2W.2) THE WILLOWS AT GRAND PARK OPEN SPACE PLAN 70 Scale: 1"= 100'-0" 50 10 0 20 0N Know what's below. before you dig.Call R LEGEND DEVELOPMENT BOUNDARY COMMON OPEN SPACE > > ST STST E E E E E E E E > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > WM S S SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS S S S S S S S S S S S S SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SSSSSS SSSS SSSSSS S S S S S S W6W6W6 W6W6W6W6 W 6 W 6 W 6 W6 W6 W6 W6 W6 W6 W6 W6 W 6 W 6 W 6 W 6 W 6 W 6 W 6 W 6 W6 W6 W6 W6 W6 W6 W6 W 6 W 6 W 6 W 6 W6 W6 W 6 W 6 W 6 W 6 W6 W6 W6 W6 W6 W6 W6 W6 W 6 W 6 W 6 W 6 W 6 W 6 W 6 UP UP UP UP UP . BUILDING G BUILDING F BUILDING E BUILDING D CLUBHOUSE BUILDING A BUILDING B BUILDING C MOUNTAIN WI L L O W D R . AM E R I C A N W I L L O W D R . OL D V I C T O R Y R D . * * POOL AMENITY BUILDING H TRACT A TRACT A TRACT A TRACT B POOL BANQUETTE SEATING WALL & 8' FIREPIT SPA SPA 4' FIREPIT 4' FIREPIT POOL EQUIPMENT BUILDING CLUBHOUSE POOL FENCE p: \ c o r n e r s t o n e m a s t e r f o l d e r \ g r a n d p a r k \ g r a n d p a r k m e a d o w \ 2 w - w i l l o w s \ _ w i l l o w s a p a r t m e n t s \ c a d \ s u b m i t t a l s \ s u b m i t t a l 1 - f p d p r o u n d 4 \ 4 - l a n d s c a p e . d w g SHEET OF 14 OCTOBER 28, 2021 FINAL PLAN - AMENDMENT 2 LOCATED IN SECTION 29, TOWNSHIP 1 SOUTH, RANGE 75 WEST OF THE 6TH PM COUNTY OF GRAND, STATE OF COLORADO (PLANNING AREA 2W.1 & 2W.2) THE WILLOWS AT GRAND PARK LANDSCAPE PLAN 80 Scale: 1"= 50'-0" 25 50 10 0N Know what's below. before you dig.Call R COMMON NAME BOTANICAL NAME % OF MIX APPLICATION RATE 1. SEED APPLICATION: DRILL SEED 0.25"-0.5" INTO THE SOIL. IN AREAS NOT ACCESSIBLE TO A DRILL HAND BROADCAST AT DOUBLE THE ABOVE RATE AND RAKE 0.25"-0.5" INTO THE SOIL. ON SLOPES STEEPER THAT 2:1 HYDROSEED AT DOUBLE THE RATE. 2. SOIL AMENDMENTS: PREPARE SOIL WITH SAND BASED GRANULAR HUMATE AT THE RATE OF 435 LBS. PER ACRE. 3. FERTILIZATION APPLICATION: APPLY BIOSOL ALL NATURAL ORGANIC FERTILIZER AT THE RATE OF 1800 LBS. PER ACRE IN ALL SEEDING AREAS. 4. HYDROMULCH APPLICATION: HYDROMULCH SHALL CONSIST OF CELLULOSE FIBER MULCH AND MULCH TACKIFIER AND SHALL BE APPLIED AT THE RATES OF 2.000 LBS. PER ACRE AND 100 LBS. PER ACRE CONSECUTIVELY. MANCHAR SMOOTH BROME BROMUS INERMIS LEYSS 20%10.0 POTOMAC ORCHARD DACTYLIS GLOMERATA L.20%10.0 PUBESCENT WHEATGRASS AGROPYRON TRICHOPHORUM 20%10.0 PERENNIAL RYE LOLIUM PERENNE L. 11%5.5 REUBENS CANADA BLUE POA COMPRESSA 10%5.0 ANNUAL RYE LOLIUM MULTIFLORUM LAM.10%5.0 TIMOTHY PHLEUM PRATENSE 5%2.5 CICER MILKVETCH ASTRAGALUS CICER L.2%1.0 ALSIKE CLOVER TRIFOLIUM HYBRIDUM 2%1.0 TOTAL 50.0 LBS/PLS/ACRE NATIVE GRASS MIX PLANT SCHEDULE LANDSCAPE NOTE: A LANDSCAPE CONCEPT HAS BEEN DEVELOPED TO REINFORCE AND ENHANCE THE NATURAL CHARACTER OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD. THE NEIGHBORHOOD IS NESTLED WITHIN THE UPLANDS OF THE MEADOWS. THE NATIVE VEGETATION INCLUDES ASPENS, WILLOWS, AND OTHER RIPARIAN PLANTS. THE INTENT OF THE LANDSCAPE CONCEPT IS TO INTEGRATE THE RIPARIAN ZONE INTO THE NEIGHBORHOOD. THE LANDSCAPE PALETTE WILL INCLUDE NATIVE GRASS WITH LOW GROWING RIPARIAN PLANTS AS THE UNDERSTORY AND GROUPINGS OF PINES AND ASPENS. EROSION CONTROL BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES WILL BE INSTALLED AND MAINTAINED THROUGHOUT THE DURATION OF CONSTRUCTION. LEGEND DEVELOPMENT BOUNDARY SHRUB BEDS NATIVE SEED POOL AMENITY AREA11'=20'-0" *POSSIBLE MONUMENT SIGN LOCATION MATC H L I N E S H E E T 9 OL D V I C T O R Y R D . SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS S S S S S S S S S S S S SS SS SS SS SS SS SS W 6 W 6 W 6 W 6 W 6 W 6 W6 W6 W6 W6 W6 W6 W6W6W6W6W6W6W6 W6 W6 W6 W 6 W 6 W6 W6 W6 W6 W6 W6 W6 W6 W6 W6 W6 W6 W6 WAT E R WAT E R TOP : 6 7 . 3 UP UP G1 G1 G1 G1 G1 G1 G1 G2 BUILDING G MOUNTAIN WI L L O W D R . MOUNTAI N W I L L O W D R .* BUILDING H BUILDING I BUILDING J BUILDING K BUILDING L p: \ c o r n e r s t o n e m a s t e r f o l d e r \ g r a n d p a r k \ g r a n d p a r k m e a d o w \ 2 w - w i l l o w s \ _ w i l l o w s a p a r t m e n t s \ c a d \ s u b m i t t a l s \ s u b m i t t a l 1 - f p d p r o u n d 4 \ 4 - l a n d s c a p e . d w g SHEET OF 14 OCTOBER 28, 2021 FINAL PLAN - AMENDMENT 2 LOCATED IN SECTION 29, TOWNSHIP 1 SOUTH, RANGE 75 WEST OF THE 6TH PM COUNTY OF GRAND, STATE OF COLORADO (PLANNING AREA 2W.1 & 2W.2) THE WILLOWS AT GRAND PARK LANDSCAPE PLAN 90 Scale: 1"= 50'-0" 25 50 10 0N Know what's below. before you dig.Call R COMMON NAME BOTANICAL NAME % OF MIX APPLICATION RATE 1. SEED APPLICATION: DRILL SEED 0.25"-0.5" INTO THE SOIL. IN AREAS NOT ACCESSIBLE TO A DRILL HAND BROADCAST AT DOUBLE THE ABOVE RATE AND RAKE 0.25"-0.5" INTO THE SOIL. ON SLOPES STEEPER THAT 2:1 HYDROSEED AT DOUBLE THE RATE. 2. SOIL AMENDMENTS: PREPARE SOIL WITH SAND BASED GRANULAR HUMATE AT THE RATE OF 435 LBS. PER ACRE. 3. FERTILIZATION APPLICATION: APPLY BIOSOL ALL NATURAL ORGANIC FERTILIZER AT THE RATE OF 1800 LBS. PER ACRE IN ALL SEEDING AREAS. 4. HYDROMULCH APPLICATION: HYDROMULCH SHALL CONSIST OF CELLULOSE FIBER MULCH AND MULCH TACKIFIER AND SHALL BE APPLIED AT THE RATES OF 2.000 LBS. PER ACRE AND 100 LBS. PER ACRE CONSECUTIVELY. MANCHAR SMOOTH BROME BROMUS INERMIS LEYSS 20%10.0 POTOMAC ORCHARD DACTYLIS GLOMERATA L.20%10.0 PUBESCENT WHEATGRASS AGROPYRON TRICHOPHORUM 20%10.0 PERENNIAL RYE LOLIUM PERENNE L. 11%5.5 REUBENS CANADA BLUE POA COMPRESSA 10%5.0 ANNUAL RYE LOLIUM MULTIFLORUM LAM.10%5.0 TIMOTHY PHLEUM PRATENSE 5%2.5 CICER MILKVETCH ASTRAGALUS CICER L.2%1.0 ALSIKE CLOVER TRIFOLIUM HYBRIDUM 2%1.0 TOTAL 50.0 LBS/PLS/ACRE NATIVE GRASS MIX PLANT SCHEDULE LANDSCAPE NOTE: A LANDSCAPE CONCEPT HAS BEEN DEVELOPED TO REINFORCE AND ENHANCE THE NATURAL CHARACTER OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD. THE NEIGHBORHOOD IS NESTLED WITHIN THE UPLANDS OF THE MEADOWS. THE NATIVE VEGETATION INCLUDES ASPENS, WILLOWS, AND OTHER RIPARIAN PLANTS. THE INTENT OF THE LANDSCAPE CONCEPT IS TO INTEGRATE THE RIPARIAN ZONE INTO THE NEIGHBORHOOD. THE LANDSCAPE PALETTE WILL INCLUDE NATIVE GRASS WITH LOW GROWING RIPARIAN PLANTS AS THE UNDERSTORY AND GROUPINGS OF PINES AND ASPENS. EROSION CONTROL BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES WILL BE INSTALLED AND MAINTAINED THROUGHOUT THE DURATION OF CONSTRUCTION. LEGEND DEVELOPMENT BOUNDARY SHRUB BEDS NATIVE SEED*MONUMENT SIGN LOCATION MATC H L I N E S H E E T 8 WM UP UP UP UP UP . G1 G1 G1 G1 G1 G1 G1 G2 > > ST STST OL D V I C T O R Y R D . CLUBHOUSE SKI STORAGE BUILDING A TYPE II BUILDING B TYPE II BUILDING C TYPE I BUILDING F TYPE II BUILDING D TYPE I BUILDING E TYPE I BUILDING G TYPE I POOL & DECK GARAGE A - 14 GARAGE B -14 GA R A G E D - 7 GA R A G E C - 7 MOUNTAIN WILL O W D R I V E AM E R I C A N W I L L O W D R I V E KITCHEN GARAGE E - 14 TRASH TRASH TRASH BUILDING H TYPE II BUILDING I TYPE II BUILDING J TYPE I BUILDING K TYPE II BUILDING L TYPE II GA R A G E G - 7 GA R A G E F - 7 GA R A G E H-7 GA R A G E I-7 STREET LIGHT TYP. STREET LIGHT TYP. p: \ c o r n e r s t o n e m a s t e r f o l d e r \ g r a n d p a r k \ g r a n d p a r k m e a d o w \ 2 w - w i l l o w s \ _ w i l l o w s a p a r t m e n t s \ c a d \ s u b m i t t a l s \ s u b m i t t a l 1 - f p d p r o u n d 4 \ 6 - l i g h t i n g p l a n . d w g SHEET OF 14 OCTOBER 28, 2021 FINAL PLAN - AMENDMENT 2 LOCATED IN SECTION 29, TOWNSHIP 1 SOUTH, RANGE 75 WEST OF THE 6TH PM COUNTY OF GRAND, STATE OF COLORADO (PLANNING AREA 2W.1 & 2W.2) THE WILLOWS AT GRAND PARK 10 LEGEND SITE PLAN 0 Scale: 1"= 60'-0" 30 60 12 0N Know what's below. before you dig.Call R DEVELOPMENT BOUNDARY LIGHTING PLAN LEGEND LIGHT POLE LIGHT POLE 1. LIGHT POLE SHALL MATCH EXISTING LIGHTPOLES WITHIN THE GRAND PARK DEVELOPMENT OR APPROVED EQUAL BY OWNER. LIGHTING SCHEDULE QTY ITEM SPECIFICATION 7 LIGHT POLE LIGHT POLE SHALL MATCH MODEL AND STYLE OF EXISTING LIGHT POLES WITHIN THE GRAND PARK DEVELOPMENT. SEE DETAIL ABOVE. LIGHT WM UP UP UP UP UP . G1 G1 G1 G1 G1 G1 G1 G2 BOUNDARY LINE ROW POSSIBLE FUTURE CONNECTION BUS STOP > > ST STST OL D V I C T O R Y R D . CLUBHOUSE SKI STORAGE BUILDING A TYPE II BUILDING B TYPE II BUILDING C TYPE I BUILDING F TYPE II BUILDING D TYPE I BUILDING E TYPE I BUILDING G TYPE I POOL & DECK GARAGE A - 14 GARAGE B -14 GA R A G E D - 7 GA R A G E C - 7 MOUNTAIN WILL O W D R I V E AM E R I C A N W I L L O W D R I V E KITCHEN GARAGE E - 14 TRASH TRASH TRASH BOUNDARY LINE ROW 10' UTILITY AND SNOW STORAGE EASEMENT OLD VICTORY ROAD ROW TO BE PLATTED BY SEPARATE DOCUMENT BUILDING H TYPE II BUILDING I TYPE II BUILDING J TYPE I BUILDING K TYPE II BUILDING L TYPE II GA R A G E G - 7 GA R A G E F - 7 GA R A G E H-7 GA R A G E I-7 PHASE 2 PHASE 1 PHASE 1 STREET LIGHT TYP. STREET LIGHT TYP. LOT 1 LOT 2 LOT 3 LOT 4 LOT 5 LOT 6 LOT 7 LOT 8 LOT 9 LOT 11 LOT 12 LOT 13 LOT 15 LOT 14 LOT 16 p: \ c o r n e r s t o n e m a s t e r f o l d e r \ g r a n d p a r k \ g r a n d p a r k m e a d o w \ 2 w - w i l l o w s \ _ w i l l o w s a p a r t m e n t s \ c a d \ s u b m i t t a l s \ s u b m i t t a l 1 - f p d p r o u n d 4 \ 6 - l i g h t i n g p l a n . d w g SHEET OF 14 OCTOBER 28, 2021 FINAL PLAN - AMENDMENT 2 LOCATED IN SECTION 29, TOWNSHIP 1 SOUTH, RANGE 75 WEST OF THE 6TH PM COUNTY OF GRAND, STATE OF COLORADO (PLANNING AREA 2W.1 & 2W.2) THE WILLOWS AT GRAND PARK 11 LEGEND SITE PLAN 0 Scale: 1"= 60'-0" 30 60 12 0N Know what's below. before you dig.Call R DEVELOPMENT BOUNDARY PHASING PLAN PHASE 1 PHASE 2 OL D V I C T O R Y R O A D US H W Y 4 0 * HWY 4 0 H W Y 4 0 H W Y 4 0 BLOCK 1 FOREST MEADOWS SOLAR COMMUNITY ZONED: BUSINESS 3Wc 4W U N I O N P A C I F I C R A I L R O A D 6W 7W 13Wa 10W 9Wb * OLD VICTORY ROAD * * * EXISTING STOP EXISTING STOP EXISTING STOP PROPOSED STOP 23W EXISTING PONDCOZENS MEADOW AT GRAND PARK MARY & STEVEN SUMRALL EXCEPTION PARCEL (BK. 442 PG. 607) ZONED B-BUSINESS (FRASER) COZENS POINTE POND POND MEYER PARCEL, LOT 2, BLOCK 1 ZONED: BUSINESS ELK CREEK AT GRAND PARK HOTEL SITE THE VILLAGE 2W.2 p: \ c o r n e r s t o n e m a s t e r f o l d e r \ g r a n d p a r k \ g r a n d p a r k m e a d o w \ 2 w - w i l l o w s \ _ w i l l o w s a p a r t m e n t s \ c a d \ s u b m i t t a l s \ s u b m i t t a l 1 - f p d p r o u n d 4 \ 6 - t r a n s p o p l a n s . d w g PUBLIC TRANSIT PLAN 12 LEGEND Scale: 1"= 300' 0 15 0 30 0 60 0N CURRENT BUS ROUTE SHEET OF 14 OCTOBER 28, 2021 FINAL PLAN - AMENDMENT 2 LOCATED IN SECTION 29, TOWNSHIP 1 SOUTH, RANGE 75 WEST OF THE 6TH PM COUNTY OF GRAND, STATE OF COLORADO (PLANNING AREA 2W.1 & 2W.2) THE WILLOWS AT GRAND PARK NOTE: BUS ROUTES AND STOPS MAY VARY FROM THAT SHOWN AT THE DISCRETION OF THE TRANSIT ADVISORY COMMITTEE. > > > >> > > > > >>>> > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > STSTST > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > >>>>> >> > > > > DRAIN A G E \ D E T E N T I O N POND E A S E M E N T CLUBHOUSE SKI STORAGE BUILDING A TYPE II GARAGE B GARAGE D GARAGE C MOUNTA I N W I L L O W D R AM E R I C A N W I L L O W D R I V E GARAGE A GARAGE E BUILDING B TYPE II BUILDING F TYPE II BUILDING G TYPE I BUILDING D TYPE I BUILDING E TYPE I BUILDING C TYPE I FFE 95.86 FFE 94.36 FFE 93.89 FFE 92.39 FFE 93.24 FFE 90.71 FFE 85.0 FFE 86.25 FFE 89.61 FFE 88.11FFE 87.24 FFE 85.74 FFE 86.0 869 5 86958694 87028703 8700 8 7 0 0 8715 8725 8710 8705 8700 8695 86908689 8685 86 7 5 8675 8 6 8 0 86808679 86 7 5 8675 8660 86 5 1 8669 8665 86 6 4 8675 8 6 8 5 8 6 9 0 86 9 0 868 3 8685 868 3 86 8 3 8688 86 8 9 869 0 8686 86 9 0 8 6 9 4 8693 8693 8691 86 9 2 8692 86 9 1 86 8 9 86 8 8 8685 8695 8690 8705 8687 8687 8686 868 6 8 6 8 4 86 9 2 EX. 18" RAILROAD CULVERT EX. 3-24" RCP RELOCATED INLET & 24" STORM FROM OVR OVERTOPS MWD & TRAVELS DOWN CULDESAC BUILDING J 18" RCP EAST SIDE DRAINS HERE PROP. 2-24" COZEN'S DITCH CULVERTS RELOCATED COZEN'S DITCH EX. 18" RAILROAD CULVERT BYPASSES SITE RAILROAD DO W N G R A D E T O W E S T RAILROAD DOWNGRADE TO WEST RAIL R O A D D O W N G R A D E T O W E S T EXISTING WILLOWS DEVELOPMENT EXISTING WILLOWS DEVELOPMENT TRASH TRASH TRASH TRASH ACCESSIBLE PARKING/RAMP TYPICAL ACCESSIBLE PARKING/RAMP TYPICAL RELOCATED COZEN'S DITCH EX. COZEN'S DITCH EX. MEADOW TRAIL EX. COZEN'S DITCH EX. COZEN'S DITCHEX. COZEN'S DITCH UNFINISHED FEATURE POND FUTURE DEVELOPMENT FUTURE DEVELOPMENT FUTURE DEVELOPMENT SIDE WALKS TYPICAL BUILDING J TYPE I BUILDING H TYPE II BUILDING I TYPE II BUILDING K TYPE II BUILDING L TYPE II G A R A G E G GARAGE I GARAGE H GARAGE F FUTURE AMENITY (PLAYGROUND) OLD VICTORY R D . MOUN T A I N W I L L O W D R N A R R O W L E A F C T . BL U E S T E M C T . TRACT D TRACT E TRACT E 8685 8680 8690 8703 8710 8699 86938694 8695 8 6 9 5 8 6 8 0 86 8 1 86 8 0 8678 86808678 8676 8682 86858680867 9 8 6 7 8 8677 8676 8 6 7 8 86 7 7 8678 8 6 8 0 8690 8695 8695 8685 8690 POND 1 DETENTION WATER QUALITY FEATURE POND 1 DETENTION WATER QUALITY POND 3 WATER QUALITY POND 2 WATER QUALITY COZEN'S DITCH STORMWATER DIVERSION INTO POND 4 86 8 5 8668 8 6 7 8 8 6 7 2 SHEET 13 OF 14 JUNE 9, 2021 GRADING & DRAINAGE PLAN80' SCALE 1:80 0 DRAINAGE FLOW DIRECTION TYPICAL FINAL PLAN - AMENDMENT 2 LOCATED IN SECTION 29, TOWNSHIP 1 SOUTH, RANGE 75 WEST OF THE 6TH PM COUNTY OF GRAND, STATE OF COLORADO (PLANNING AREA 2W.1 & 2W.2) THE WILLOWS AT GRAND PARK P: \ 2 0 1 9 \ 1 9 0 0 8 G P W i l l o w s M F \ C o n s t r u c t i o n D o c u m e n t s \ 5 - F P D P \ 1 9 0 0 8 G P W A F P D P . d w g , 6 / 9 / 2 0 2 1 5 : 0 9 : 4 1 P M , P r e v i o u s p a p e r s i z e ( 3 6 . 0 0 x 2 4 . 0 0 I n c h e s ) , 1 : 1 , T K X W X W X W X W X W XS XS XS XS XS XS XS XS XS ST xws xws xws xws xws x w s x w s xw s x w s xws xws x s s x s s x s s x s s x s s x s s x s s x s s xs s xss xws x s s xss xss x s s x s s x s s x s s x s s xss xss xs s x s s x s s x s s x s s xws xws STST E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G E E E E E E G G G G G G G G G G xss xss X S X S X S xss xss xss xss xss xw s x w s X W X W X W XW XW XW XW XW XW XW XW XW XW XW XW XW XW XW XW XW XW XW XW XW XW XW XW XW XW XW XW XW XW XW XW XW XW XW XW XW XW XW XW XW XW XW XW XS XS XS XS XS XS XS XS XSXSXSXSXSXS xss xss W W W W xws W W W W W XW XW xss xss xss xssxss xs s XW XW xws xws xss xss xss xss xssxssxssxss XS XS XS XS XS XS X S S S S S S S S X S X S X S XS XS XS XS XS XS XS XS XS XS XS XS XS XS XS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS S S S S S S S XW XW XW XW WM WM WM WM X W X W X W XW XW XW XW XW XW XW XW XW XW XW XW XW XW XW XW XW XW XW W M WM WM W M W M W M WM WM WM W M W M W M WMWM W M WM WMWM WM WM WM WM WM W M W M WMWMWMWMWM WM WMWMWM WM WM WM WM WM WM WM WM WM WM WM WM WM WM WM W M WM WM WM WM WM WM W M W M WM WM WM WM S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S DRAIN A G E \ D E T E N T I O N POND E A S E M E N T CLUBHOUSE SKI STORAGE BUILDING A TYPE II GARAGE B GARAGE D GARAGE C MOUNT A I N W I L L O W D R AM E R I C A N W I L L O W D R I V E GARAGE A GARAGE E BUILDING B TYPE II BUILDING F TYPE II BUILDING G TYPE I BUILDING D TYPE I BUILDING E TYPE I BUILDING C TYPE I 869 5 86958694 87028703 8700 8 7 0 0 8715 8725 8710 8705 8700 8695 86908689 8685 86 7 5 8675 8 6 8 0 86808679 86 7 5 8675 8660 86 5 1 8669 8665 86 6 4 8675 BUILDING J TYPE I BUILDING H TYPE II BUILDING I TYPE II BUILDING K TYPE II BUILDING L TYPE II G A R A G E G GARAGE I GARAGE H GARAGE F FUTURE AMENITY (PLAYGROUND) OLD VICTORY R D . MOUN T A I N W I L L O W D R N A R R O W L E A F C T . BL U E S T E M C T . TRACT D TRACT E TRACT E 8685 8680 8690 8703 8710 8699 86938694 8695 8 6 9 5 80' SCALE 1:80 0 SHEET 14 OF 14 JUNE 9, 2021 UTILITY PLAN EX. FIRE HYDRANTEX. FIRE HYDRANT EX. FIRE HYDRANT EX. FIRE HYDRANT EX. FIRE HYDRANT PROP. FIRE HYDRANT PROP. FIRE HYDRANT PROP. FIRE HYDRANT PROP. FIRE HYDRANT PROP. FIRE HYDRANT PROP. FIRE HYDRANT PROP. FIRE HYDRANT PROP. STORM TYPICAL TRIPLE COZEN'S DITCH CULVERTS 12" WATER MAIN MWD / MWD ON-SITE 8" WATER MAINS TYPICAL ON-SITE 8" WATER MAINS TYPICAL ON-SITE 8" SANITARY SEWER MAIN TYPICAL ON-SITE 8" SANITARY SEWER MAIN TYPICAL ALL BLDGS 6" SANITARY SERVICES 6" WATER SERVICES TYPICAL ALL BLDGS 6" SANITARY SERVICES 6" WATER SERVICES TYPICAL PROP. FIRE HYDRANT ON-SITE 8" SANITARY SEWER MAIN TYPICAL PROP. STORM TYPICAL PROP. FIRE HYDRANT PROP. FIRE HYDRANT ON-SITE 8" WATER MAINS TYPICAL FINAL PLAN - AMENDMENT 2 LOCATED IN SECTION 29, TOWNSHIP 1 SOUTH, RANGE 75 WEST OF THE 6TH PM COUNTY OF GRAND, STATE OF COLORADO (PLANNING AREA 2W.1 & 2W.2) THE WILLOWS AT GRAND PARK P: \ 2 0 1 9 \ 1 9 0 0 8 G P W i l l o w s M F \ C o n s t r u c t i o n D o c u m e n t s \ 5 - F P D P \ 1 9 0 0 8 G P W A F P D P . d w g , 6 / 9 / 2 0 2 1 5 : 0 9 : 5 2 P M , P r e v i o u s p a p e r s i z e ( 3 6 . 0 0 x 2 4 . 0 0 I n c h e s ) , 1 : 1 , T K FRASER PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2021-10-01 A RESOLUTION CONCERNING THE APPLICATION OF GRAND PARK DEVELOPMENT LLC (“DEVELOPER”)FOR APPROVAL OF A FPDP AMENDMENT AND PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR THE WILLOWS APARTMENTS AT GRAND PARK. At the regular meeting of the Fraser Planning Commission held on October 27,2021,a hearing was held for consideration of a Final Planned Development Plan (FPDP)amendment and Preliminary Plat for the Willows Apartments at Grand Park; and WHEREAS,the Planning Commission conducted a Public Hearing on the matter in accordance with the procedures set forth in Chapter 19,Article 1,Division 2 of the Municipal code of the Town of Fraser and other provisions thereof; and WHEREAS, for the following reasons, staff recommended denial of the application: 1.Improper Inclusion of 23W into Development Plan: a.The portions of Planning Area 23W included in the development area of the preliminary plat and the FPDP were not removed to preserve the Cozens Meadow open space in accordance with the 2003 Annexation Agreement and 2005 PDD Plan, as was previously requested of the Developer by staff. b.Incorporation of portions of Planning Area 23W in the development area is contrary to the terms and intent of the 2003 Annexation Agreement and 2005 PDD and is destructive of the goal of preserving Cozens Meadow. c.The Developer has argued that there are prior “precedents” that justify inclusion of Planning Area 23W tracts into the Willows Apartments development area. However, the prior “precedents” referred to by the Developer do not justify the current proposal. The Planning Area 23W tracts referred to were not incorporated into those development areas and did not detract from the meadow areas intended for a conservation easement. d.Developer’s proposed plan is an apparent attempt to utilize more than the 33.8 acres it is allotted to enhance and expand its development beyond what was contemplated by the 2003 Annexation Agreement and 2005 PDD, all at the expense of Cozens Meadow’s available acreage. e.Accepting Developer’s arguments in favor of inclusion of pieces of 23W into its development plan for the Willows Apartments means abandoning the idea that Planning Areas are to be self-contained. If development areas are not self-contained and located where the PDD says they should be located, then they could be configured any way imaginable in the future, and not consistent with the intent of the 2003 Annexation Agreement or 2005 PDD. 2.Improper Inclusion of 2W.3 and 2W.4 into Development Plan: a.The areas shown as 2W.3 and 2W.4 on the FPDP were not removed, also as previously requested by staff. Because these areas are not a part of the current development plan, they cannot be approved as future development sites, unless and until actual development plans, consistent with the 2003 Annexation Agreement and 2005 PDD, are submitted to the Town for review and approval. 3.Lack of Commitment to Dedicate Right-of-Way: Developer must agree to provide a dedicated right-of way for and construct Old Victory Road from the existing terminus at Mountain Willow Drive to Grand Park Drive as part of the subdivision improvements for this project. The timing for completing certain segments should be addressed in the SIA. To date, Developer has not committed to dedicate said right-of-way. 4.Lack of Commitment to Construct Sewer Crossing and Improvements: Developer must agree to construct the Highway 40 sewer crossing to provide the capacity necessary to serve the Willows project, as well as future development. The proposed Willows project will exceed the capacity of the current system. Construction of these sewer improvements must be included in the SIA, or in a separate improvements agreement, and must be completed before any Certificates of Occupancy will be issued for Willows Apartments. To date, Developer has not committed to construct the sewer crossing and associated improvements. WHEREAS,it is the opinion and finding of the Planning Commission that the application should be “pushed-up,”pursuant to Section 19-1-210(f),for final determination by the Fraser Board of Trustees on both the Final Planned Development Plan (FPDP)amendment and Preliminary Plat for the Willows Apartments at Grand Park. NOW THEREFORE,BE IT RESOLVED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE TOWN OF FRASER, COLORADO: RESOLVED,that pursuant to the provisions of said Section 19-1-210(f)of the Fraser Municipal Code,the Planning Commission hereby pushes-up for final determination by the Fraser Board of Trustees both the Final Planned Development Plan (FPDP)amendment and Preliminary Plat for the Willows Apartments at Grand Park. FURTHER RESOLVED,that staffs’recommendations set forth above are incorporated into the decision of the Planning Commission to push this matter up and are to be forwarded to Fraser Board of Trustees for consideration in connection with their consideration of the Final Planned Development Plan (FPDP)amendment and Preliminary Plat for the Willows Apartments at Grand Park application. INTRODUCED,READ,AND ADOPTED BY THE FRASER PLANNING COMMISSION on this 27th day of October 2021. TOWN OF FRASER PLANNING COMMISSION ______________________________________ Vice Chairman ATTEST: Town Clerk Willows Apartments Filing #1 (PA 2W.2) Preliminary Plat & FPDP 1 a. Plan Intent and Goals The submitted Preliminary Plat & FPDP of the Willows Apartments Filing #1and Filing #2 (2w.2) at Grand Park is for the development of a 204 unit for-rent HUD multi-family residential community planned to be constructed in two phases. The primary purpose of which is to address the badly needed long- term rental housing shortage for the area in a superior central location close to amenities. Phase one includes 132 units for-rent multi-family residential community and a clubhouse. Phase 2 includes 72 units for-rent multi-family units within the existing Willows (2w) neighborhood. The plan is designed to complement and integrate with the existing 55 residences located in the Willows at Grand Park. Phase one of the project is located at the corner of Old Victory Road and American Willow Dr. separated into two lots by American Willow Dr. Phase 2 is lot 3 adjacent to Lot 2 and located between Mountain Willow Dr. and Old Victory Rd. Phase 2 will immediately follow construction of phase 2 so the project will be generally completed in a consistent time frame from the start of phase 1 through completion of phase 2 with a goal to complete the entire 204 units by 2023. The planning area 2W.2 Phase 1(Lots 1 and 2) is 8.25 acres, consisting of seven 3-story garden-style apartment buildings that are no more than 47’ feet in height with 132 total apartment units, (5) garage buildings, (4) trash enclosures, (1) ski storage building, and (1) clubhouse. The plan offers surface and garage parking, with some tandem parking spaces. The project gross density is 16 du/ac providing 2.10 acres of open space - 25.5%. The planning area 2W.2 Phase 2 (Lot 3) is 3.56 acres, consists of (5) 3-story garden-style apartment buildings that are less than 47 feet in height with 72 total apartment units, (4) garage buildings, and (2) trash enclosures. This phase also offers surface and garage parking. Phase two’s project gross density is 20 du/ac providing 0.90 acres of open space – 25.2%. The site amenities include the clubhouse, with an outdoor pool and spa, firepit, and outdoor kitchen area. The ski storage building which allows residents to store ski equipment in individual lockers. It will also house an automated package delivery system, pet spa, and bike and ski tuning rooms as well as gathering places for the residents. An on-site bus stop will give residents access to the surrounding areas. The apartment buildings and clubhouse are both oriented to take advantage of the views of James Peak and the Divide and not loom over the existing 55 residents. b. Integration The parcel is surrounded by Planning Area 23W with connections to Old Victory Road, Mountain Willow Dr. and American Willow Dr. and a future development parcel to the south, southeast. The existing neighborhood of The Willows at Grand Park duplexes are across Mountain Willow Drive to the northeast. The existing Willows duplexes are a simple and clean mountain cottage architectural style with an approximate height of 34’ with a wooded area to the east largely screening the duplexes from US Hwy 40. The Willows Apartments are architecturally design ed to integrate seamlessly with the existing architecture of the area. The apartments will be no more than 47’ in height creating a slight step up between the Willows Apartments Filing #1 (PA 2W.2) Preliminary Plat & FPDP 2 duplexes and the mountain hillside to the west, but far less in height than the allowed 75’ in this location. The open layout of the site plan is complimentary to the duplex site plans across the street. c. Impacts to Neighboring Properties The neighborhood is surrounded by planning area 23W undeveloped land on all sides. Planning Area 2W, the neighborhood, using the 30% density transfer allowance is entitled for 325 residences, 361 lodging units, and 39,000 sf of commercial space. The neighborhood currently has 55 residences constructed. The no more than 47’ high apartment buildings that are spread out on the site with architecture similar to that of the existing residences integrates seamlessly in the neighborhood. The apartment buildings have been oriented so that the building sides face the existing duplexes with a great amount of open space spread throughout the site as opposed to a wall of apartments rising high above the existing duplex buildings with little or no space between buildings. At the closest location, the proposed apartment buildings are 36’ from the Mountain Willow Dr. ROW, allowing for a significant landscape buffer. The apartment community primary access points are on American Willow Dr. and Old Victory Road Not Mountain Willow Dr. Construction staging is planned to take place from the future Old Victory Road right of way area adjacent to the future development parcel and construction traffic will be asked to utilize just the access points off American Willow Drive and Old Victory Road. Upon completion of phase two Old Victory Road will be finished and paved. d. Natural Systems The design of the neighborhood is responsive to site features including natural topography to minimize disturbance to the land while maximizing views. A wetlands buffer exists adjacent to the site. The wetlands will not be disturbed. The existing Cozen ditch currently runs through the site. It will be realigned as depicted in the site plan design and incorporated as a landscape feature. This relocation of the Cozens Ditch has been approved by the Army Corps of Engineers. As part of the HUD submittal an additional environmental study was performed on the site and included in this submittal set. This study is not standard for Grand Park submittals and has been included as supplemental information in addition to the already existing master studies associated with the Grand Park PDDP on file with the Town of Fraser. e. Code Conformance The proposed FPDP Amendment 2 for Planning Areas 2w and Preliminary Plat for Willows Apartments conforms to the approved PDDP and meets the requirements for FPDP and Preliminary Plat submittal. The following identifies conformance to the Town of Fraser PDDP, annexation agreement, and subdivision ordinance. 1. Land Use. Planning Area 2w currently provides for 250 residential units, 278 lodging units, and 30,000 sf of commercial all of which can be increased by 30% using the density transfer allowed for a maximum of 325 residential units, 361 lodging units, and 39,000 sf of commercial space with a 75’ height limit. Currently, there are 9 single family homes and 46 existing duplexes in The Willows neighborhood leaving 270 residential units, 361 lodging units, and 39,000 sf of commercial space to be developed in Planning Area 2W with a maximum height of 75’. Willows Apartments Filing #1 (PA 2W.2) Preliminary Plat & FPDP 3 In order to achieve completion of both phases 9 residential units will be transferred to Planning Area 2w to address the density increase. This is less than the 75 units that may be transferred to Planning Area 2w. The 2w.2 Plan proposes 204 multi-family for-rent apartment units including 9 density transfers in to Planning Area 2w. The maximum height of the apartment buildings will be 45’ far less than the allowed 75’ height. The maximum remaining 66 residential units 361 lodging units, and 39,000 sf of commercial is reserved for and may be used for future development on 2w.3, 2w.4, and 2w.5. 2. Open Space. The PDDP requires 10% open space for the 2w parcel. The required open space total is 3.38 acres for all of planning area 2W. The existing Planning Area 2W.1 includes 3.4 acres of open spaces which satisfies all of the open space requirements for planning area 2W; however, Parcel 2w.2 includes 3.0 acres of open space far exceeding the planning area 2W open space requirement. Town of Fraser Code Section 19-4-165 establishing the following criteria for open space: “Avoidance of concentrating open space into large areas with the subsequent ‘packing’ of residential areas” and “Open space and/or landscaping accompanies all types of developments.” is met by the design of this plan. 3. Roadway Standard. The plan complies with the Town’s roadway standards: 36’ right of way with 10’ snow storage and utility easements and a collector road right of way for American Willow Drive 60’ in width all with two 10’ travel lanes with 2’ shoulders/mountable curbs. 4. Building Setback. The setbacks comply with the Grand Park PDDP. 5. Building Height. The multi-family apartment buildings will have a maximum height that is no more than 45’ in height far less than the allowed 75’ for this location, The clubhouse, garages, and dumpster enclosures will be less than the allowed 75’ max building height requirement. f. Utilities 1. Utility locations for this site have been included in the Final Planned Development Plan for this subdivision and final civil engineering drawings will be coordinated with the Town of Fraser engineers and completed prior to the Final Plat recordation. Willows Apartments Filing #1 (PA 2W.2) Preliminary Plat & FPDP 4 Town of Fraser PO Box 370, Fraser, CO 80442 office 970-726-5491 fax 970-726-5518 www.frasercolorado.com September 23, 2021 Catherine E. Trotter, AICP Fraser Town Planner Town of Fraser 153 Fraser Avenue Fraser, Colorado 80442 RE: Willows Apartments – Public Works 2nd Review Comments Dear Ms. Trotter: Public Works along with their engineering consultants have reviewed the second engineering submittal for the Willows Apartments. Below is a summary of the comments and additional comments. The consultant’s comment letters are attached. American Willow Drive The proposed extension of American Willow Drive will not be allowed to connect to the intersection of US 40 and Rendezvous Road at this time. This potentially will bisect the Town of Fraser’s Conservation Easement that is required by the Annexation Agreement. This connection will have to be reevaluated at a later date and what requirements will be required. Old Victory Road As stated in the first review comments, the right of way for all of Old Victory Road between Mountain Willow Drive and the intersection at Kings Crossing Road is required to be dedicated to the Town of Fraser as part of this project. It shall also be constructed and paved with Filing 1. A proposed phasing plan can be presented but a gap in the roadway shall not be left unpaved after Filing 1 is constructed. The right of way dedication shall be included as part of this project and the roadway construction plans shall be included within the construction plans for this project. Offsite Utilities As stated in the first review comments, with this development or any other new development within Grand Park that drains to the Forest Meadows sewer basin, the Town’s downstream collection system capacity will exceed the Town’s design criteria. As part of this project, a new sewer crossing of US 40 shall be designed and constructed with Filing 1. The construction plans for the sewer line shall be included in the construction plans for this project. Once Town of Fraser PO Box 370, Fraser, CO 80442 office 970-726-5491 fax 970-726-5518 www.frasercolorado.com constructed, the Grand Park subdivision shall be disconnected from the Forest Meadows sewer system and will connect onto this new US 40 crossing. Stormwater There are still comments and questions from the town’s engineering consultant regarding stormwater. Utilities There are still comments from the town’s engineering consultant regarding the utilities. Sincerely, Russell W. Pennington, P.E. Public Works Director 2480 W. 26th Avenue, Unit B225 Denver, Colorado 80211 Tel: +1 303-964-3333 Fax: +1 303-964-3355 www.merrick.com 1 July 7, 2021 Russell Pennington, P.E., Public Works Director Town of Fraser P.O. Box 370 153 Fraser Avenue Fraser, Colorado 80442 RE: GRAND PARK, THE WILLOWS APARTMENTS 90% CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS Dear Mr. Pennington: We have reviewed The Willows Apartments submittal, including the 90% Construction Plans, dated June 11, 2021 by TKE Civil & Structural Engineering. We have the following comments related to the proposed water and sewer systems: Offsite Utilities With this development, the Town's downstream collection system capacity will exceed the Town's design criteria. Recent analysis, per our email of June 1st, showed that 3 downstream reaches currently exceed 50 percent capacity. The addition of the Willows Apartments will overload an additional 5 reaches of the FM sewer shed and 2 reaches of the CM sewer shed. Prior to adding this project, the new sewer crossing of US 40 should be designed and constructed. Once constructed, the CM sewers would be disconnected from the Forest Meadows sewer system and diverted to this new US 40 crossing. It is noted that the Willows Apartments as proposed plans for 258 EQR, approximately twice the original master plan for this area. American Willow Drive As required for a collector roadway, the ROW for American Willow Drive has been increased from 36 feet to 60 feet. It is noted that this has significantly decreased setbacks to the proposed buildings; for example, the Ski Storage building has a setback of less than 5 feet. See the enclosed excerpt from Sheet 13, Site Plan-Phase 1. Old Victory Road While it is not clear due to the shading/hatch patterns used not being consistent, the paving (and right of way if not already dedicated) for Old Victory Road should be completed to the southeast limits of the property. Construction Plans While most of the review comments for the 80 percent submittal have been addressed, the following issues remain (see enclosed Sheets 39 and 40 from previous review): 2 1. Sheet 39 i. Straighten pipe runs to minimize deflections in fittings. Good design and construction practice should minimize the number of bends required, typically resulting in less future maintenance. ii. Show all pipe/utility crossings. iii. Overlapping text – difficult to read. 2. Sheet 40 i. As for Sheet 39, iii above, straighten pipe runs to minimize deflections in fittings. Please advise if you have any questions. Sincerely, MERRICK & COMPANY Jody Allen Terrence P. Kenyon, P.E. cc: Adam Cwiklin, CWP, Town of Fraser Water and Wastewater Superintendent 2480 W. 26th Avenue, Unit B225 Denver, Colorado 80211 Tel: +1 303-964-3333 Fax: +1 303-964-3355 www.merrick.com 1 July 7, 2021 Russell Pennington, P.E., Public Works Director Town of Fraser P.O. Box 370 153 Fraser Avenue Fraser, Colorado 80442 RE: GRAND PARK, THE WILLOWS APARTMENTS 90% CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS DRAINAGE REVIEW Dear Mr. Pennington: We have reviewed The Grand Park - Willows Apartments submittal received June 11, 2021. The submittal included the Grand Park – Willows Filing 1-3 & Willows Apartments Phase III Drainage Report (90% version) and 90% Construction Plans for Grand Park – The Willows Apartments, dated June 10, 2021 by TKE Civil & Structural Engineering. We also received a response letter dated June 10, 2021 by TKE Engineering. We have the following comments to offer related to the drainage improvements. Drainage Report Text 1. At the bottom of Page 3 in Section III, it states that this site “is located within drainage basin E7” and that “this basin is to drain to the northwest to Design Point 7”. Provide excerpts and the Drainage Map from the 2006 High Country Engineering report to show the proposed drainage route and where these features are located. 2. At the top of Page 4, it states that this development is located within the Carrol & Lange drainage Basin H and will be combined with runoff from the No Name channel and directed to DP7 located adjacent to Old Victory Road north of the Cozens Meadow detention pond. Provide excerpts and the Drainage Map from the 2005 Carrol & Lange report to show the proposed drainage route and where these features are located. 3. On Page 5, for Design Point 5, it states that the tributary area will drain into the meadow without water quality treatment until the roadway is extended in the future. We have the following comments: a. On the Drainage Map, fix the major contour labels in these basins. b. On the Drainage Map, the basin boundary between DA-W09 and DA-W10 is not drawn correctly per the contours. It appears that the basin divide is located through the center of the large building and that at least half of the building and the circular driveway area flows to American Willows Drive. Fix the basin divide as defined by the proposed contours. c. Per CDPHE criteria, a maximum of 1 acre of impervious area is allowed to runoff from a site without water quality treatment. The drainage area for Basins DA-W09 and DA-W10 2 is about 2 acres which exceeds the maximum allowable area, therefore, water quality treatment must be provided. d. With the basin boundary correction per Comment 3b, Basin DA-W09 will be reduced to less than 1 acre so this basin could drain to the meadow without water quality treatment. e. For the remaining area that flows to Design Point 5, a permanent water quality pond must be provided. Upon approval of a variance by the Town, a temporary sediment trap could be provided for the interim condition until the future water quality pond is constructed with the roadway extension. 4. On Page 5, for Design Point 8, it states that Cozen’s Ditch crosses Mountain Willow Drive, but it appears to cross American Willow Drive per the Drainage Map. Revise as needed. 5. On Page 5, from the drainage map it appears that runoff from DA-W14 and DA-W15 flow to a low point in the driveway/parking lot, which then spills over the curb and is routed overland to a swale. At the swale, the runoff is combined with the Design Point 2 runoff, then routed to Design Point 3. Describe this in the text. Also, erosion protection for these curb overflows must be provided on the relatively steep slope. 6. On Page 5, for Water Quality Pond 2, providing water quality storage for DP-OS runoff in lieu of treating the DP-2 runoff is proposed. This is not acceptable. Water quality storage must be sized for all of the runoff routed through a pond, regardless if the runoff is from offsite or onsite, otherwise the pond will not operate properly. In addition, runoff to DP-OS cannot be treated in lieu of the runoff to DP-2. Water quality storage must be provided for the runoff to DP-2 which includes buildings, roadways, and parking lot areas. We recommend locating the water quality storage control at Design Point 3 (upstream end of the proposed culvert) to provide water quality treatment for the runoff to DP-2. 7. On Page 5, for Design Point 9, it indicates that 10 cfs in the 100-year storm event will be allowed to bypass Feature Pond 4, which exceeds the Ditch decreed flow of 5 cfs. Only 5 cfs should bypass this pond and the remaining runoff should be detained in the pond to reduce the 100-year peak flow to the historic flow rate. 8. On Page 6, discuss the proposed culvert that outfalls near Design Point 1A 9. From the response letter we understand that the amenity “ponds were previously approved”. Clarify who previously approved the ponds. Also, if these ponds are still planned to permanently store stormwater, provide documentation that the State Engineers Office has approved the amenity ponds and an augmentation plan has been established since these ponds will not meet the requirements of Colorado Revised Statute (CRS) 37-92-602(8) that requires all stormwater for the 5 and 100-year storm events to be released within a maximum time period. Drainage Map 10. Include copies of the Drainage Map Overall and Drainage Map (Sheets 3 and 4) in Appendix D. 11. On Sheet 3 (Drainage Map Overall), label the “No Name” channel, Cozen’s Ditch, and the existing wetland/detention ponds. Also label the “northern” wetland mitigation/detention ponds if these are not the same as the “existing” wetland/detention ponds. 3 12. On Sheet 4, just north of the Mountain Willow Drive and Old Victory Road intersection, revise the existing culvert label to indicate 6-24” RCP’s instead of 5 to match the report text and number of culverts shown. 13. On Sheet 4, label all of the proposed storm pipe and culvert sizes. 14. Show and label the existing Cozen’s ditch culverts across the Bluestem Ct. cul-de-sac and across the trail near the Feature Pond (No Stormwater). 15. The tributary area for Basins DA-J, DA-K, and DA-L are all labeled to be 0.11 acres which does not appear to be correct. Correct these areas as needed. 16. Subdivide Basin DA-J to correctly account for runoff that must be directed to Feature Pond 4 at the diversion structure. Update the HEC-HMS analysis to account for this revision. 17. It appears that this project has the potential for disturbing existing wetlands areas/Waters of the U.S. Show the wetlands/Waters of the U.S. areas on the Drainage Map. If so, the proposed fill within the wetlands/Waters of the U.S. areas must be approved by the US Army Corp of Engineers (USACE) by obtaining a 404 wetlands permit. Provide documentation that a permit has been obtained or that it is not required. Calculations 18. For the Detention Pond analyses, we have the following comments: a. The NOAA Atlas 60-minute (1 hour) rainfall duration was used to for the MHFD-Detention analysis, but per the Grand County Storm Drainage Design and Technical Criteria Manual, the 2-hour rainfall duration must be used. Revise the pond sizing analyses to use the 2- hour rainfall duration. b. The first page of the pond sizing analysis uses the MHFD-Detention Detention Basin Stage-Storage Table Builder spreadsheet. Instead of switching to use a TKE developed spreadsheet, continue to use the MHFD-Detention spreadsheet to size the pond outlets. In addition, the MHFD-Detention spreadsheet must be used for the pond sizing analysis since it provides the 95% and 99% drain times for each storm event which is needed to verify that the Colorado Revised Statute (CRS) 37-92-602(8) criteria is met. c. Provide the Detention Basin Stage-Storage Table Builder page for Ponds 2 and 3, not just Ponds 1 and 4. d. For Ponds 1, 2, and 3, the WQCV drain times are all less than 40 hours. Revise the orifice sizing to increase the drain times to at least 40 hours. e. For Pond 1, the 100-year drain time is only a few hours more than the WQCV drain time which is not reasonable. Revise the analysis as needed to determine reasonable results. f. For both Pond 1 and Pond 4, the Pond Release rates (from HEC-HMS) indicate that the developed release rates and much higher than the historic release rates. Revise the pond outlets to reduce the 10-year and 100-year peak flows to the 100-year historic flow rates. 19. For the channel capacity calculations, also provide calculations for the swale located in Basins DA-W01 and DA-W19, at the outfall of the DP-2 culvert to Design Point 3, and at the outfall of the DP-3 culvert to Design Point 9. 20. Provide inlet and storm sewer sizing calculations for all of the proposed storm sewers, such as at DP-OS and for the Building J 18” RCP. We understand that these will be provided with the next submittal. 4 21. Provide culvert sizing calculations for all of the proposed culverts, not just for the triple 24” under Mountain Willow Drive. Also include calculations for the existing trail, roadway, and cul-de-sac crossings to verify they have adequate capacity. We understand that these will be provided with the next submittal. 22. Provide riprap sizing calculations. We understand that these will be provided with the next submittal. 23. At all storm sewer sump locations, provide emergency overflow calculations to determine the depth of overtopping assuming the inlets are plugged. Verify that the overflows will be contained within drainage easements and that there is at least 1 foot of freeboard to the finished grade for adjacent structures. Construction Plans 24. Update Sheets 3 and 4 Drainage Maps per the above comments. 25. There are several sheets that do not show the north end of the site at the intersection of Mountain Willow Drive and Old Victory Road. Adjust the view port or add another sheet to show this area for the Existing Conditions & Demolition, Site Plans, Horizontal Control Plan, Stormwater Management Plan, Grading Plans, Roadway Alignment Map, Signage & Striping Plan, and Utility Plans. 26. For all of the detention ponds, we have the following comments: a. For all of the detailed detention pond grading drawings, label the existing and proposed contours. b. Provide forebays at all storm sewer and culvert outfalls into the ponds. c. Provide trickle channels. Include spot elevations to define the trickle channel inverts. Note that at the micropools, the trickle channel inverts must be at least 4 inches above the micropool water surface elevation. d. Provide minimum 2% cross slopes to the trickle channels in the pond bottoms. Grading the bottoms flat, such as shown for Pond 4, is not acceptable. e. At Pond 1 address the following: i. Revise the embankment alignment on the east end to allow sufficient space for runoff from Narrowleaf Ct. to drain properly into the pond instead of directing flow at the pond embankment. ii. It appears that some grading will be required at the western end of the pond to provide positive drainage to the outlet structure and eliminate potential sump areas in the pond bottom. Revise the grading as needed. iii. Verify that a minimum of 1 foot of freeboard is available above the emergency spillway flow elevation to the existing structures, especially at the western end of the pond where the structures are at a lower elevation. f. At Pond 4, for the diversion structure, extend the proposed riprap down to the toe of slope. g. On Sheet 10, in Generic Section – Pond 1-3, the micropool must be shown to be 2.5’ deep, not 1’ deep. 5 h. Provide trash racks/well screen to protect the orifice holes from plugging with debris. i. For Pond 1, provide a control to reduce the 100-year flow to the historic rate. 27. On Sheet 11, update the existing conditions to only reflect the improvements that have already been constructed at the site. Do not show the new trails at Pond 1 and Pond 2 and proposed Ponds 3 and 4. 28. On Sheet 18 Grading Plan Overall, per the contours it appears that the available flow depth at the following structures is minimal. Verify that the finished floor elevations (including any proposed basements) for all structures are above the proposed 100-year water surface plus at least 1 foot of freeboard. Backwater at culverts must also be considered. a. Based on the existing condition contours, there appears to only be about 2 feet of depth (or less) from the existing Cozen Ditch invert to the existing structures along the east side of Mountain Willow Drive between Bluestem Ct. and American Willow Drive. Please let us know if you have any questions. Sincerely, MERRICK & COMPANY Jeanne M. Boyle, P.E., CFM From:Antoinette McVeigh To:Sarah Wieck Subject:Fw: Post-Planning-Commission follow-up from Christina Tennican received via my LinkedIn account Date:Tuesday, November 2, 2021 8:03:45 AM Antoinette McVeigh Town Clerk Town of Fraser 153 Fraser Avenue, P.O. Box 370 Fraser, CO 80442 Phone: 970-726-5491 x201 Fax: 970-726-5518 www.frasercolorado.com fraser_email_logo Confidentiality Warning: This message and any attachments are intended only for the use of the intended recipient(s), are confidential, and may be privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any review, retransmission, conversion to hard copy, copying, circulation or other use of this message and any attachments is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately by return e-mail, and delete this message and any attachments from your system. From: Sam Brewer <sam.b@frasercg.com> Sent: Thursday, October 28, 2021 11:40 AM To: Antoinette McVeigh <amcveigh@town.fraser.co.us> Subject: Post-Planning-Commission follow-up from Christina Tennican received via my LinkedIn account Antoinette, I received this correspondence from Christina Tennican via my LinkedIn messaging after the 10/27 Planning Commission meeting. Just providing the exchange in the interest of maintaining openness. ~ Sam ------------ BEGIN Message thread via LinkedIn ------------ Christina Tennican out of network · 3rd+ Senior Director, Global HR Operations at PayPal Wednesday Christina Tennican sent the following message 10/27/2021 at 9:10 PM Christina Tennican 9:10 PM Winter Park Meeting Sam, I tried to get off mute during the final decision of today’s 10/27 meeting, but was unable to do so. I’m not sure it people voting understood the specifics of what you were requesting for the vote related to including the recommendation to include the note of denial or not. While it was clear that all members wanted to push to Board your point was not clear for the actual vote (my opinion). I’ll figure out how to also send that directly to Fraser council but wanted to make sure it was noted with person that made recommendation. Thanks, Christina Tennican (Homeowner in grand park) Samuel Brewer sent the following message 10/27/2021 at 10:52 PM Hello Christina, First off, thank you for attending tonight's Planning Commission meeting. It is always gratifying to have interested residents attend, and your time listening and participating is both important and much appreciated! I think the reason you were unable to get off mute was that after public comments are closed Antoinette disables the remote unmute for non-Commission members. The structure of the meeting is sort of rigid that way for legal reasons, in that participation by the Public is only allowed during specific times in the meeting. Having said that, I do appreciate that you understood what I was trying to communicate to the rest of the Planning Commission. My opinion that the Resolution needed to include a recommended action (Deny, in this case) was apparently not shared by the rest of the Planning Commission and thus the vote result as you observed. I hope that you are able to attend future Planning Commission and Town Board meetings! Participation by concerned residents on the issues that come before the Town is absolutely necessary to insure all views are presented. Thank you again for being part of tonight's meeting, and I hope to see you at future meetings! Best regards, Sam Brewer Today Christina Tennican sent the following message 10/28/2021 at 4:50 AM Christina Tennican 4:50 AM Thanks for the quick reply, Sam. That makes sense. I appreciated what you were proposing, even if not approved. Have a great day! Christina ------------ END Message thread via LinkedIn ------------ From:Antoinette McVeigh To:Sarah Wieck Subject:Fw: 204 Units ? Date:Tuesday, November 2, 2021 8:04:03 AM Antoinette McVeigh Town Clerk Town of Fraser 153 Fraser Avenue, P.O. Box 370 Fraser, CO 80442 Phone: 970-726-5491 x201 Fax: 970-726-5518 www.frasercolorado.com fraser_email_logo Confidentiality Warning: This message and any attachments are intended only for the use of the intended recipient(s), are confidential, and may be privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any review, retransmission, conversion to hard copy, copying, circulation or other use of this message and any attachments is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately by return e-mail, and delete this message and any attachments from your system. From: Philip Vandernail <pvandernail@town.fraser.co.us> Sent: Monday, November 1, 2021 11:30 AM To: Antoinette McVeigh <amcveigh@town.fraser.co.us> Subject: Fw: 204 Units ? Here's an email I believe is for public comment for the willows, he didn't cc you so I'm forwarding. Thanks, Philip Vandernail Mayor Town of Fraser 75487 U.S. Highway 40, P.O. Box 89 Fraser. CO. 80442 www.frasercolorado.com Confidentiality Warning: This message and any attachments are intended only for the use of the intended recipient(s), are confidential, and may be privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any review, retransmission, conversion to hard copy, copying, circulation or other use of this message and any attachments is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately by return e-mail, and delete this message and any attachments from your system. From: Mark Wanning <mwanning@outlook.com> Sent: Monday, November 1, 2021 8:32 AM To: Philip Vandernail <pvandernail@town.fraser.co.us> Subject: 204 Units ? I wish you were more concerned about the community than you are about hurting Clark’s feelings. After that humiliating day in court where you admitted you didn’t do justice to your constituents, I’m actually surprised you haven’t stepped down from office yet. It appears you could get a job fairly easily. Could you just one time do the right thing and not the Clark thing? I, and more than 2 or 3, disagree with Clark and his non stop developing. I have only been in Fraser 3 years but still don’t understand how you are still in office. I have never heard any thing good you have done for us- for Clark, you can’t seem to do enough. I hope you reconsider the 204 units; they are not the best thing for the meadow. Though the Meadow, (which I pay an annual fee to use now I can only watch it fill up with houses and cows) seems beyond repair. There is no Meadow any more only cows, houses, and cow poop. Do the right thing for once. Put a stop to his unstoppable thirst. Mark Wanning Cozens Pointe Cir Fraser Sent from my iPhone RENDEzVOUS FRASER, COLORADO TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS Prepared for: Koelbel and Company 78622 Winter Park Drive P.O. Box 149 Winter Park, Colorado 80482 Cornerstone Winter Park Holdings, LLC P.O. Box 30 Winter Park, Colorado 80482 Prepared by: Felsburg Holt and Ullevig 6300 South Syracuse Way, Suite 600 Centennial, Colorado 80111 303/721-1440 Principal -In -Charge: Robert W. Felsburg, P.E., C.C.E. Project Engineer: Lyle E. DeVries, P.E. FHU Reference No. 04-086 December 2004 Rendezvous Traffic Impact Analysis TABLE OF CONTENTS Page EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1. INTRODUCTION-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1 A. Project Background------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1 B. Study Objectives----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1 C. Previous Studies----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 4 11. EXISTING CONDITIONS--------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 5 A. Existing Roadway Network--------------------------------------------------------------------- 5 B. Existing Travel Patterns------------------------------------------------------------------------- 5 C. Existing Traffic Volumes------------------------------------------------------------------------- 5 Ill. SITE TRAVEL CHARACTERISTICS ------------------------------------------------------------------- 8 A. Site Roadways / Access------------------------------------------------------------------------- 8 B. Trip Generation-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------10 C. Trip Distribution / Assignment-----------------------------------------------------------------12 IV. LONG TERM FUTURE ANALYSIS--------------------------------------------------------------------14 A. Background Traffic Volumes------------------------------------------------------------------14 B. Total Traffic Volumes----------------------------------------------------------------------------14 C. Future Roadway Laneage----------------- ----------------------------------------------------- 17 D. US 40 Traffic Control----------------------------------------------------------------------------18 E. Auxiliary Lane Requirements------------------------------------------------------------------18 F. Long Range Future Traffic Operations ------------------------------------------------------20 V. US HIGHWAY 40 IMPROVEMENTS-----------------------------------------------------------------23 VI. SUMMARY / SIGNIFICANT FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS -----------------------25 APPENDIX A TRIP GENERATION RATE DOCUMENTATION APPENDIX B LOS WORKSHEETS —LONG RANGE FUTURE TRAFFIC APPENDIX C US HIGHWAY 40 PROGRESSION DIAGRAMS FELSBURU HOLT & l ULLEVIG Rendezvous LIST OF FIGURES Traffic Impact Analysis r u Paqe 1 Figure1. Vicinity Map----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2 Figure 2. Proposed Site Plan------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 3 Figure 3. Existing Traffic Volumes, Lane Geometry, and Levels of Service -------------------- 7 Figure 4. Rendezvous Access Plan on US 40---------------------------------------------------------- 9 Figure 5. Site Generated Buildout Traffic Volumes ---------------------------------------------------13 Figure 6. Year 2025 Background Traffic Volumes ----------------------------------------------------15 Figure 7. Year 2025 Total Traffic Volumes -------------------------------------------------------------16 Figure 8. Year 2025 Recommended Lane Geometry, Traffic Control, and Levelsof Service---------------------------------------------------------------------------------21 Figure 9. US 40 Traffic Growth----------------------------------------------------------------------------24 LIST OF TABLES Table 1. US 40 Traffic Volume Comparison------------------------------------------------------------ 6 Table 2. Proposed US 40 Site Access------------------------------------------------------------------- 8 Table 3. Trip Generation Rates---------------------------------------------------------------------------10 Table 4. Trip Generation Estimates---------------------------------------------------------------------11 Table 5. Distribution of Internal Commercial Vehicle -Trips ----------------------------------------12 Table 6. Auxiliary Lane Requirements - US 40 Intersections -------------------------------------19 Table 7. US 40 Progression Results--------------------------------------------------------------------22 Table 8. Proposed US 40 Site Access------------------------------------------------------------------26 I I 1 11 I I C 7 11 I I C FELSi3URG C4 HOLT ilLLEVIG , TrafficRendezvousis AnalysiszffImpactPAnaY EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Rendezvous is an 1800 -acre multi -use development proposed for the Upper Fraser Valley of Colorado. Annexed into the Town of Fraser, it is intended to become a year-round destination resort community which will include a variety of types of residential units, recreational facilities, and commercial uses. The project site is located along U.S. Highway 40 (US 40) on the south side of the Town of Fraser, north of the Town of Winter Park. The traffic impact analysis of the proposed Rendezvous development in Fraser, Colorado has been developed based on a land use plan that includes residential, commercial, and recreational properties. Development proposed for the west side of US 40 (i.e. "West Mountain") is estimated to generate approximately 27,525 daily vehicle -trips, and the East Mountain is estimated to generate approximately 6,760 vpd at full buildout. It is estimated that the East and West Mountains combined will generate approximately 34,285 vehicle -trips per day. Of these trips, approximately 2,10Q.are anticipated to occur during a typical weekday AM peak hour, and approximately 3,100 vehicle -trips are expected to occur during a typical PM peak hour. Background (unrelated to Rendezvous) traffic projections were developed for the Year 2025 based on US 40 growth rates developed and documented by the Colorado Department of Transportation. The estimated daily and peak hour traffic volumes to be generated by the Rendezvous development were added to the background traffic, and operational analyses were performed to identify lane geometry and traffic control enhancements necessary to accommodate the total future traffic volumes. The following roadway improvements are recommended. US Highway 40 Based on growth in traffic volumes along US 40, it is estimated that the roadway should be widened from 2 to 4 lanes between the Towns of Winter Park and Fraser between the Years 2015 and 2020. The 4 -lane section is expected to be adequate to accommodate the estimated growth in traffic volumes that will occur with the completion of Rendezvous. Because of the many elements comprising traffic on US 40 and causing the need for widening of the highway, it will be important for discussions to be held in the near future between the affected parties to determine responsibility for this improvement. Rendezvous Road Rendezvous Road is proposed to function as the primary east -west connection to both the East Mountain and West Mountain sections of the Rendezvous development. To accommodate site traffic, it is recommended that Rendezvous Road be constructed as a two-lane roadway east and west of US 40. Fraser Valley Parkway Fraser Valley Parkway is proposed to be constructed parallel to US Highway 40 within the West Mountain area of Rendezvous, providing for site circulation as well as regional relief to US 40. Based on projected Year 2025 total traffic volumes, it is recommended that Fraser Valley Parkway be constructed as a 2 -lane roadway throughout the site. FELSBU RG HOLT & ULLE V IG Page i Rendezvous Traffic Impact Analysis US Highway 40 / King's Crossing Road Intersection Signalization is expected to be warranted with background traffic volume growth and the addition of traffic volumes related to the Rendezvous development. It is recommended that the US 40 / King's Crossing Road intersection be signalized when warranted. In addition, it is recommended that the eastbound approach to the intersection be widened and striped to accommodate exclusive left -turn, through, and right -turn lanes. US Highway 40 / County Road 72/804 Intersection It is recommended that the ultimate cross-section of US 40 at this intersection include left -turn and right -turn deceleration lanes to accommodate traffic entering CR 72 from US 40. US 40 Site Access Plan To provide sufficient access to the site, the US 40 access plan developed for the Fraser — Winter Park Roadway Planning study was adapted to the proposed development. The proposed plan for site accesses to US 40 is depicted on Figure S-1 and is summarized in Table S-1. As shown in Table S-1, a total of 6 US 40 accesses are proposed along an approximate 1.8 mile length of US 40 to accommodate the Rendezvous development. Access types include Right -In / Right -out and full -movement accesses. The full -movement accesses at Community First Bank (1), Rendezvous Road (4) and Planning Area 1 Wa (6) are anticipated to be signalized when warrants are met. Table S-1. Proposed US 40 Site Access Access' Location' Access Type Comments Point Access to West Mountain and 1 West side of US 40 Full -movement, signalized' Community First Bank, will be aligned opposite Safeway access on east side of US 40 2 West side of US 40 Right -in / Right -out Access to Planning Area 3Wc 3 East side of US 40 Full -movement, unsi nalized Access to Planning Area 14E 4 Both sides of US 40 Full -movement, signalized' US 40 / Rendezvous Road Intersection 5 East side of US 40 Right -In / Right -Out, Access to Planning Area 12Eunsinalized 6 West side of US 40 Full -movement, signalized' Access to Planning Area 1 Wa These accesses would be signalized when warrants are met FELSBURG HOLT & l JLLEVIG 1 r 11 r Page ii I MFELSBURG rI HOLT & ULLEVIG 0 potentia% - O PFulllho Area 14IF E D 09 ; FAuccass Onsignalizey f I Ful! Move Signal m BD Fire Statiortnt Mo FullQ , munity pirs%I 2O Planning Area 3W° PRight-In/Right-Out) 4 °eftn?nt ew ( Oentf S 40 ®Existing Signal O corn full Si9pei) ® Slgnal a/ potential 2350' re i 9a 1200 1725, gh lie 1790' hr oart ASO O• /A°q' nr a ip9 Q r°f s'Sjg' 8' LEGEND OUS 40 Rendezvous Access Number Traffic Signal Figure S-1 NOT TO SCALE Rendezvous Access Plan on US 40 North Rendezvous Update 04-086 10/28/04 IRendezvous Traffic Impact Analysis I. INTRODUCTION A. Project Background Rendezvous is an 1800 -acre multi -use development proposed for the Upper Fraser Valley of Colorado. Annexed into the Town of Fraser, it is intended to become a year-round destination resort community which will include a variety of types of residential units, recreational facilities, and commercial uses. As shown on Figure 1, the project site is located along U.S. Highway 40 US 40) on the south side of the Town of Fraser, north of the Town of Winter Park. The development is intended to reinforce the economic base of the area by providing services for tourists and other transient users. The skiing, tourism and vacation home industries are the primary economic activity in the region, and the uses planned for the Rendezvous development will support this economic base. These industries have grown with the population in the Denver Metropolitan area, and this growth has translated into an increased demand for residences such as those proposed to be provided at Rendezvous. The proposed development plan is depicted on Figure 2. U.S. Highway 40 divides Rendezvous into two sections, East Mountain and West Mountain. Both sections will include a mix of single and multi -family residential development and commercial properties. An 18 -hole golf course will be constructed within the West Mountain area. B. Study Objectives This analysis is intended to provide an assessment of the impact of the Rendezvous development on the operation of the Upper Fraser Valley transportation network. The analysis includes the following items: A description of existing conditions in the area, including the roadway network, traffic volumes, and traffic operations. An assessment of site travel characteristics, including the proposed internal roadway network and an estimate of the number of vehicle -trips to be generated by the development. Year 2025 background traffic volume projections and an assessment of traffic operations at project build -out. Recommendations for network enhancements based on the evaluation. Recommended improvements resulting from this analysis may include roadway widening to accommodate auxiliary and / or through travel lanes and intersection traffic control improvements such as signalization. This information will serve as a basis for future discussions to be held between the affected parties to determine responsibilities for these improvements. FELSBURG HOLT & ll ULLEVIG Page I M = = = = = = M = iiia = = M = = = = = MFELSBURG rI HOLT & ULLEVIG FN North Eisenhower Memorial Tunnel Rendezvous Update 04-086 9/20/04 ER Figure 1 Vicinity Map M M M M r M M M M M M M M r i M M M M MFELSBURG rl HOLT & ULLEVIG FILING 1 FILING 2 W14W°'GtOW 2iiK t 18wb ', LEGEND Residential Commercial Retail & Residential Open Space 17W r/ Figure 2 Q --- -- Rendezvous Conceptual Plan North Rendezvous Update 04-086 10/28/04 Rendezvous Traffic Impact Analysis C. Previous Studies The traffic impacts of Rendezvous, previously known as the Maryvale property, have been assessed in two previous studies. The first assessment was completed in 1986 by Felsburg Holt & Ullevig as a part of the Fraser -Winter Park Roadway Network Planning Study. A subsequent assessment occurred with the completion of the Maryvale Traffic Impact Analysis by Leigh Scott & Cleary in March of 1998. The Grand County Engineering Department completed the Fraser Valley Master Road Plan in May 1999. Changes to the Rendezvous Master Plan since the preparation of these reports necessitate the current reassessment of Rendezvous traffic impacts. However, information included in these reports was used as a basis for the current analysis. In addition to these studies, on behalf of the Town of Winter Park, Felsburg Holt & Ullevig has conducted several signal warrant analyses along US 40 in the vicinity of the project. Traffic 1 volume data collected in accordance with these efforts were used for the evaluation of existing conditions along US 40. The data are summarized in four separate letter reports addressed to Winter Park Town Engineer Charles Swanson regarding the analyses. The letters are dated March 4, 1999, February 18, 2000, February 20, 2001 and February 15, 2002. C it Rd FELSBURG HOLT & l ULLE\SIG Page 4 Rendezvous Trak Impact Analysis IL EXISTING CONDITIONS A. Existing Roadway Network The roadway facilities in the vicinity of the project are described as follows: U.S. Highway 40 — Although it runs north and south within the Valley, US 40 serves as the primary east -west connection from the Upper Fraser Valley to the rest of the state. Highway 40 provides access to Interstate 70 via Berthoud Pass. The highway exerts a strong linear effect within the Upper Fraser Valley since all roads lead onto the highway and because travel from one part of the region to another is not possible without some use of US 40. Currently, US 40 is classified by CDOT as a Non -Rural Arterial (NR -B) facility in the vicinity of the site. The posted speed along US 40 at the south and north ends of the Rendezvous development site is 35 miles per hour (MPH) and reaches a maximum of 55 MPH at the center of the site. King's Crossing Road - King's Crossing Road is a two-lane east -west, access roadway serving existing development south of the project site. County Road 72 (CR 72) - CR 72 serves as a connection from US 40 west of the Town of Fraser and into the Vasquez Mountains. It is currently a gravel road with the exception of a two-lane paved length of approximately 500 feet west from US 40. The intersection of CR 72 with US 40 is currently signalized. County Road 804 (CR 804) - CR 804 is a two-lane road aligned opposite CR 72 at its signalized intersection with US 40. It serves several developments located east of US 40. B. Existing Travel Patterns As noted earlier, US 40 is the primary connection between the Valley and the rest of Colorado. It serves as a north -south spine in the Valley, and the majority of east -west roadways (e.g. CR 72 and CR 108) serve as local access roads. Currently, the majority of vehicle -trips along US 40 occur to and from the south, between the Towns of Fraser and Winter Park and the Denver metropolitan area. C. Existing Traffic Volumes Traffic volumes in the vicinity of the site are depicted on Figure 3. Traffic volume data were collected by CounterMeasures, Inc. on a weekday during February of the Year 2000. Analysis of continuous traffic counts gathered in the Year 2000 along US 40 at Berthoud Pass (south of the Town of Winter Park) indicated that, on average, daily traffic volumes on a Winter weekday exceeded Summer weekday ADT by approximately 20 percent. To maintain a conservative approach, a February (Winter) weekday was selected as the basis for traffic analysis of the Rendezvous Development. Though the weekday condition was selected as the basis for this analysis, it is important to note that Year 2000 Winter weekend traffic volumes along Berthoud Pass exceeded Winter weekday traffic volumes by approximately 40 percent. Table 1 depicts the recorded Year 2000 daily traffic volumes along US 40 south of the Berthoud Pass summit. FELSBURG HOLT & ULLEVIG Page 5 Rendezvous Traffic Impact Analysis Table 1. US 40 Traffic Volume Comparison Location Year 2000 Weekday ADT Year 2000 Weekend ADT Winter Summer Winter Summer US 40 at 6,730 5,550 9,520 9,330 Berthoud Pass ADT = Average Daily Traffic Volume(2-way) Turning movement counts were recorded manually at the intersection of US 40 and King's Crossing Road over a 10 -hour time period, between 8:00 am and 6:00 pm. Information included in the Maryvale Traffic Impact Analysis was used as the basis for the peak hour movements shown at the US 40 / CR 72/804 intersection. The existing Average Daily Traffic Volume of between 11,800 and 13,000 vehicles per day (vpd) along US Highway 40 is based traffic count information published on the Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) website www. dot. state. co. us). FELSBURG CHOLT & ULLEVIG Page 6 MFELSBURG rIHOLT & ULLEVIG y LEGEND XXX(XXX) = AM(PM) Peak -Hour Traffic Volumes XXXX = Average Daily Traffic Volumes u. 14(49) 00 N CD Figure 3 Q Year 2000 Winter Season Traffic Volumes North Rendezvous Update 04-086 9/20/04 IRendezvous IJ Traffic Impact Analysis III. SITE TRAVEL CHARACTERISTICS A. Site Roadways /Access As illustrated on Figure 2, Rendezvous Road, the primary access to US 40, will serve both the East Mountain and the West Mountain areas. To the west, it will also provide a connection to County Road 72. In the west portion of the development, the Fraser Valley Parkway would provide north -south flow on the site. As part of the Fraser -Winter Park Roadway Network Planning Study, the Fraser Valley Parkway (FVP) was shown as an alternative north -south route in the Valley to provide relief for US 40 through Winter Park and Fraser. The intent of this proposal is to construct the Fraser Valley Parkway as a 2 -lane roadway through the West Mountain parallel to US 40. This roadway would provide an additional linkage between King's Crossing Road and CR 72 in relief of US 40. The plan for Rendezvous access to US 40 is summarized by Figure 4 and by Table 2. In developing this plan, every attempt was made to be consistent with the US 40 Conceptual Access Plan prepared as part of the Fraser -Winter Park Roadway Network Planning Study. Table 2. Proposed US 40 Site Access Access Point? Location Access Type Comments . Access to West Mountain and 1 West side of US 40 Full -movement, signalized' Community First Bank, will be aligned opposite Safeway access on east side of US 40 2 West side of US 40 Right -in / Right -out Access to Planning Area 3Wc 3 East side of US 40 Full -movement, unsi nalized Access to Planning Area 14E 4 Both sides of US 40 Full -movement, signalized' US 40 / Rendezvous Road Intersection 5 East side of US 40 Right -In / Right -Out, Access to Planning Area 12Eunsinalized 6 Westside of US 40 Full -movement, signalized' Access to Planning Area 1Wa These accesses would be signalized when warrants are met In addition to the already mentioned ability of Rendezvous traffic to access CR 72 on the north and King's Crossing .Road on the south (both of which provide access to US 40), the Rendezvous plan calls for six accesses on US 40. The primary access will, of course, be Rendezvous Road, located in the middle of the project. This access is anticipated to be a full - movement, signalized intersection. As shown on Figure 4 and in Table 1, the other accesses are planned to directly serve development Planning Areas. It is important to note that access 6, which provides access to the commercial development in Planning Area 1 Wa, is proposed to be a full -movement access. In the original access plan, this access was shown as providing right-in/right-out movements only. The purpose of this change is to provide relief to the US Highway 40 / Rendezvous Road intersection. FELSBU RG HOLT &. ULLEyIG Page 8 FELSBURGIHOLT ULLEVIG a Q 0 PlannIngArea y potentia O Fu11 MoVeme 4E Exner a Futtif Unsignalizea t , FullMa cY signal p t pxcess W = Fire Stat,nnt Q MoOPlanningArea3WcFull unity First l 2 ( Right-in/RveMight-Out) O (Pote t -WCOmmiewav en signal'), i ntial US 40 Existing Signal O FuSMov SSig 9nal ) potential 2350' 5 172s, 1790' 4t SoO6 p,d s0NOe` e s/9Qot a a/ 950 sro LEGEND O= US 40 Rendezvous Access Number Traffic Signal Figure 4 NOT To SCALE Rendezvous Access Plan on US 40 North Rendezvous Update 04-086 10/21/04 IRendezvous 1 B. Trip Generation Traffic Impact Analysis Table 3 summarizes the trip generation rates used in this analysis. Daily trips to be generated by single and multi -family residences within Rendezvous were estimated based on standard trip generation rates published by Grand County. Information included in the Marvvale Traffic Impact Analysis was used as the basis for the Lodging trip generation rates. The rate of 30 vehicle -trips per day per 1,000 square feet of commercial space was based on information from Pitkin County research. Documentation of these trip generation rates is included in Appendix A. The AM and PM peak hour rates for the single and multi -family residential properties were calculated based on peak hour percentages determined at Snowmass Village, a mountain area with many similarities to the Fraser Valley. The peak hour rates for other uses were extracted from earlier Maryvale analyses. Table 3. Trip Generation Rates The estimated number of trips to be generated by the Rendezvous development was calculated based on the rates shown in Table 3; the results are depicted in Table 4. FELSBURG HOLT ULLEViG Page 10 Residential Rates Trips per Dwelling Unit)Commercial Rates,', Single -Family Multi -Family Lodging Trips per 1,Q00 SF) Residences Residences Daily 81 4 2 30 AM Peak Hour 0.68 8.5% 0.33 6.6% 3 0.31 (7.75%)20.66 PM Peak Hour 0.70 8.75% 0.43 8.6% 0.43 10.75% 2.85 From Grand County Trip Generation Rates 2 From Maryvale Traffic Impact Analysis, by Leigh, Scott & Cleary 3 Peak Hour Percentages determined in Snowmass Village Roadway System study 4 From Pitkin County Retail Shop Trip Generation Rate - "No Transit System" scenario The estimated number of trips to be generated by the Rendezvous development was calculated based on the rates shown in Table 3; the results are depicted in Table 4. FELSBURG HOLT ULLEViG Page 10 Rendezvous Traffic Impact Analysis I Table 4. Trip Generation Estimates P 1 11 As shown in the table, the East Mountain portion of Rendezvous is expected to generate approximately 6,760 daily trips while the West Mountain would generate approximately 27,525 trips. A total of approximately 34,285 daily trips are expected to be generated by the development. Of these trips, approximately 2,100 are expected to occur during the AM peak hour, and about 3,100 are expected to occur during the PM peak hour. Based on the mix of , land uses proposed for the development and the typical composition of trip types for uses of this sort, it was estimated that 33 percent of trips generated by the proposed commercial land uses would be attributable to residential uses internal to the site. It should be noted that these estimates do not reflect the factor of "passby" trips. Passby trips are vehicle -trips already traveling along the roadway network adjacent to a development usually a commercial development) that divert into the development to complete an errand, etc. Though passby trips contribute to traffic volumes entering and exiting a site, they do not add traffic to the adjacent roadway network. In the case of Rendezvous, information included in the ITE's Trip Generation suggests that passby trips.could comprise approximately 30 percent of the commercial site generated traffic volumes. Thus, the total trip generation for the Rendezvous development could be reduced by about 10 percent to account for the passby effect. However, in order to maintain a conservative approach to this analysis, no reduction was made to account for passby trips. CMV., ELSBURGIOLT & ULLEVIG Page 11 1 Total Trips Generated Section Size Daily AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Enter Exit Total Enter Exit Total East Mountain 914 Units Residential 342 SFDU, 4,970 110 310 420 320 170 490 442 MFDU, 130 Lodge) Commercial 64.2 KSF 1,790 20 10 30 65 65 130 Sub -Total 6,760 130 320 450 385 235 620 West Mountain 3,821 Units (686 Residential SFDU, 17,785 375 1070 1,445 1,175 625 1,800 1857 MFDU, 1278 Lodge Commercial 395.8 KSF 9,740 115 65 180 380 380 760 Sub -Total 1 27,525 490 1 1,135 1,625 1,555 1,005 2,560 TOTALS 1 34,285 - 620 1 1,455 2,075 1,895 1,215 3,110 P 1 11 As shown in the table, the East Mountain portion of Rendezvous is expected to generate approximately 6,760 daily trips while the West Mountain would generate approximately 27,525 trips. A total of approximately 34,285 daily trips are expected to be generated by the development. Of these trips, approximately 2,100 are expected to occur during the AM peak hour, and about 3,100 are expected to occur during the PM peak hour. Based on the mix of , land uses proposed for the development and the typical composition of trip types for uses of this sort, it was estimated that 33 percent of trips generated by the proposed commercial land uses would be attributable to residential uses internal to the site. It should be noted that these estimates do not reflect the factor of "passby" trips. Passby trips are vehicle -trips already traveling along the roadway network adjacent to a development usually a commercial development) that divert into the development to complete an errand, etc. Though passby trips contribute to traffic volumes entering and exiting a site, they do not add traffic to the adjacent roadway network. In the case of Rendezvous, information included in the ITE's Trip Generation suggests that passby trips.could comprise approximately 30 percent of the commercial site generated traffic volumes. Thus, the total trip generation for the Rendezvous development could be reduced by about 10 percent to account for the passby effect. However, in order to maintain a conservative approach to this analysis, no reduction was made to account for passby trips. CMV., ELSBURGIOLT & ULLEVIG Page 11 1 IRendezvous 0 r C. Trip Distribution /Assignment Traffic Impact Analysis Of the external trips generated by the proposed development, it was estimated that approximately 60 percent would travel to and from the south along US 40 or Lion's Gate Road and the remaining 40 percent would travel along US 40 north of the site by the Year 2025. This distribution was formulated based on existing travel patterns in the area and future growth potential. A similar assumption formed the basis for traffic estimates included in the Fraser Valley Master Road Plan, completed by Grand County in May of 1999. The internal trips were distributed to commercial properties within Rendezvous in proportion to the estimated trip generation of each commercial use. As shown in Table 5, planning area 1 Wa is expected to attract the greatest share of the internal trips due to its high concentration of commercial activity, while planning area 13E is expected to attract the lowest share of internal trips. Table 5. Distribution of Internal Commercial Vehicle -Trips Area Planned for Commercial Development Percent Internal Trip Ends Attributable To This Zone 12E 6% 13E 3% 14E 4% 1Wa 41% 2W 28% 3Wc 7% 9W 4% 10W 7% Using all of these assumptions, the estimated external and internal vehicle -trips were assigned to the roadway network. As shown on Figure 5, the buildout of Rendezvous is expected to account for a range of 9,700 to 13,475 vehicles per day along US 40 through the site. Approximately 11,900 vehicle -trips per day are expected to be added north of the site, and approximately 16,750 vehicles are assigned south of the site along US 40. It is estimated that, approximately 11,800 vehicles per day (vpd) will traverse Rendezvous Road west of US 40 and 5,750 vpd will travel along the same facility east of US 40. Ma FELSBURU HOLT &. ULLEVIG Page 12 FELSBURGP4HOLT ULLEVIG n r y900co k/S2 ( Ss1 R 4(73430) i 11 304 r o w 400 700 Fraser Valley Parkway Nnr}h 50 1 QN\,o1 57?;,9 Lo rno 9 h lbo Q 5,750 Ar00 s s° 00 12,900 0 ' 222 % 1 J J C" j 00 OO 5 W Ns, 5 650 950 King's Qa Crossing Rd. J a0 - 4 5 X96° tk, - Ln rp / S. 33 150(154)Lp Nom' J LEGEND XXX(XXX) = AM(PM) Peak Hour Traffic Volumes XXXX = Average Daily Traffic Volumes i Figure 5 ' Site Generated Buildout Traffic Volumes a Rendezvous Update 04-086 9/23/04 ' ' Rendezvous Traffic Impact Analysis IV. LONG TERM FUTURE ANALYSIS A. Background Traffic Volumes Background traffic is that traffic which would be expected on the roadway system even without the development of the Rendezvous project. Background traffic volume projections were completed based on information included in the Traffic Volume Report published by CDOT. According to this source, traffic along US 40 is anticipated to grow at an annual rate of approximately 1.5 percent over a 20 -year period. By CDOT requirement, future traffic analyses must be completed for a 20 -year time horizon. Accordingly, background traffic projections were developed for a Year 2025 scenario. The 1.5 percent growth rate was applied to the existing daily traffic volumes along US 40 to estimate the projected Year 2025 background Average Daily Traffic (ADT) along US 40 in the vicinity of the site. It is anticipated that US 40 will become increasingly congested as traffic volumes continue to grow. With this increased traffic congestion, the peak period of traffic flow along US 40 will likely "spread out" over a longer period. The peak hour will thus effectively decrease as a percentage of the ADT along US 40. Therefore, a growth rate of approximately 1.0 percent per year was applied to the existing peak hour turning movements to estimate Year 2025 peak hour background traffic. To account for Fraser Valley Parkway serving trips related to Fraser Valley development beyond Rendezvous when completed as a continuous route, background traffic volumes were assigned to FVP based on information contained in the Fraser Valley Master Road Plan. The road plan projected that the construction of a continuous FVP through the site would divert approximately 3,950 vpd away from US 40 through the project area. It was assumed that this diverted traffic would travel along a completed FVP through the site. The projected Year 2025 background traffic volumes are depicted on Figure 6. B. Total Traffic Volumes The site generated buildout traffic volumes shown on Figure 5 were added to the projected Year 2025 background traffic shown on Figure 6 to arrive at the projected total Year 2025 traffic volumes shown on Figure 7. It is important to note that these total traffic volumes are based on the assumption that Rendezvous will be developed based on a 20 -year buildout schedule, placing completion of development at the Year 2025. This represents a particularly aggressive construction schedule. It is likely that Rendezvous will be constructed based on a buildout schedule of approximately 30 years. However, to be conservative and to be consistent with CDOT's 20 -year planning horizon requirement, intersection operations were analyzed based on a 20 -year buildout. Thus, the analysis is likely to show a need for improvements in a timeframe sooner than maybe necessary. 0 FELSBURC, HOLT ULLEViG Page 14 MFELSBURG rIHOLT ULLEVIG L r; sso 8 s yob 1 o r Fraser Val _ _ e.Y,od '9 0 5,500 o ro rS6", - 80(190)` so o. j` r0 V? 540 y ` c 3,950 LEGEND XXX(XXX) = AM(PM) Peak Hour Traffic Volumes XXXX = Average Daily Traffic Volumes Proposed Roadways den deZJ° us `` 0 cs i 10(15) 10(5) cw0 0 y-10(15) 5(30) cry o ter'LO King's Crossing Rd. o Figure 6 Projected Year 2025 Background Traffic Volumes North Rendezvous Update 04/086 10/28/04 M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M P NFELSBURGiHOLT & 6(is99s U L L E V I G`°o .off CnN A 2 ' may !!, AO 7 v/ •f0 / 7 %'moi% 000 C. 9200 ` °jo- 640 so js s j 3SJ 30, 00y v sr 94s y ti 00 ;4o,(g S s 22 ` 2 J 0) 4506 J J0 i 5,900 her Fraser Valley Parkway V 1 ' 6' "S8 O 95 ° JAr 5,750 d/ t O 1 y 31,300 0 N W 1 O W N3y o 1 9,600 H 4,430. King's Q` a Crossing Rd. 0 Co 12,525 1 c 5,625°ss / 6°°0`° o• tJ lLQ Cn I, l rn Cn J R yjo Ngoo 10(15) 5(5) (D 10(15) Q 1 N rk2o5l` _ 20545) 1 1!) N 160(160)I cs v w 00 LEGEND q0 XXX(XXX) = AM(PM) Peak Hour Traffic Volumes 1 XXXX = -Average Daily Traffic Volumes Volumes estimated for analysis purposes, not shown here. 1 Figure 7 1 Year 202& Total Traffic Volumes 1 North Rendezvous Update 04/086 10/21/04 NA EELSBURG HOLT & ULLEVIG J C Page 17 LI J Rendezvous Traffic Impact Analysis As an additional consideration, adding the site -generated traffic to the long-term future projections results in a conservative estimate of the total traffic because it assumes that Rendezvous was not considered at all in the CDOT growth rates. Based on this approach, the vehicle -trips generated by Rendezvous are expected to increase the US 40 ADT to approximately 29,800 vpd north of the site, approximately 30,200 vpd through the site, and approximately 34,000 vpd south of the site. C. Future Roadway Laneage Based on projected Year 2025 total traffic volumes, roadways in the vicinity of the site should be classified as follows: Rendezvous Road west of US 40 is anticipated to carry as many as 13,550 vpd with buildout of Rendezvous. General planning guidelines in the Fraser -Winter Park Roadway Planning Study outline laneage requirements based on daily traffic volumes. According to these guidelines, 2- lane arterial roadways should be widened to 4 lanes when daily traffic volumes exceed 12,000 vpd. Though Rendezvous Road is projected to exceed 12,000 vpd in daily volume, there will be few or no accesses along the critical section west of US 40. Therefore, operational analyses were performed which indicate acceptable AM and PM peak hour traffic operations along a 2- lane Rendezvous Road. Based on this evaluation, it is recommended that Rendezvous Road west of Fraser Valley Parkway be constructed as a 2 -lane facility. Rendezvous Road is anticipated to carry approximately 5,750 vpd east of US 40, which implies classification as a 2 -lane collector roadway. It is, therefore, recommended that Rendezvous Road be constructed as a 2 -lane roadway east of US 40. Fraser Valley Parkway is projected to carry between 4,650 vpd and 6,000 vpd at buildout of Rendezvous. It is recommended that Fraser Valley,Parkway be constructed as a 2 -lane roadway throughout the site. As discussed earlier, background traffic volume estimates for FVP through the site were based on information in the Fraser Valley Master Road Plan. NA EELSBURG HOLT & ULLEVIG J C Page 17 LI J u C r. 11 r 11 L Rendezvous Traffic Impact Analysis D. US 40 Traffic Control The intersections of US 40 with Rendezvous Road, King's Crossing Road and the access to Planning Area 3Wc are projected to warrant signalization prior to or by the Year 2025 based on signal warrant criteria included in the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD). A more detailed warrant analysis of the US 40 / Rendezvous Road intersection was performed to determine the time at which signalization will be needed. It was found that the intersection would likely need signalization by the Year 2009 based on a 20 -year Rendezvous buildout and the Year 2013 based on a 30 -year Rendezvous buildout. To adequately serve future travel demand associated with Planning Area 1 Wa, a signal may be desirable in the future. As will be discussed in section F of this chapter, a signal could be installed at this location without adversely affecting operations on US 40. Therefore, when warrants are met, a signal may be implemented at the 1 Wa access. This traffic control is generally consistent with the US 40 traffic control proposed in the Fraser - Winter Park Roadway Planning Study, which anticipated signalization of the US 40 / Rendezvous Road intersection and the US 40 / King's Crossing Road intersection. That study also anticipated potential signalization of access #1, the access to Planning Area 3Wc. E. Auxiliary Lane Requirements According to CDOT, the access category for US 40 in the vicinity of the site is NR -B, Non -Rural Arterial. Its posted speed limit varies between 35 MPH and 55 MPH. The State Highway Access Code specifies the following regarding the need for turn lanes on such a roadway: A left -turn deceleration lane and taper is required for any access with a projected peak hour left ingress turning volume greater than 10 vph. A right turn deceleration lane and taper is required for any access with a projected peak hour right ingress turning volume greater than 25 vph. Acceleration lanes may be required when, among other criteria, the posted speed along a facility is greater than 40 MPH. By comparing the traffic volumes shown on Figure 7 with the criteria in the Access Code, the auxiliary lane requirements at each of the US 40 accesses can be determined. For the purpose of this determination, the US 40 posted speed was assumed to exceed 40 MPH north of Rendezvous Road and to be 35 MPH south of Rendezvous Road. The resulting auxiliary lane requirements are depicted in Table 6. PO—A FELSBURG l HOLT & ULLEViG Page 18 Rendezvous Traffic Impact Analysis Table 6. Auxiliary Lane Requirements - US 40 Intersections Intersection Auxiliary Lane Requirements 1 — Safeway / Community First Left -turn and right -turn deceleration lanes along both US 40 access approaches to the intersection.' Left -turn deceleration lane along southbound US 40. 2 - Access to Planning Area Right -turn deceleration lane and acceleration lane northbound 14E along east side of US 40. Left -turn acceleration lane along middle of southbound US 40 for westbound left -turn. 3 - US 40 / Rendezvous Road Left -turn and right -turn deceleration lanes along both US 40 approaches to the intersection. 4 - Access to Planning Area Right -turn deceleration lane northbound along east side of US 40. 12E If unsignalized: Northbound left -turn deceleration lane in the middle of US 40. Southbound right -turn deceleration lane on the west side of US 40. 5 - Access to Planning Area Left -turn acceleration lane along middle of northbound US 40 for 1 Wa eastbound left -turn. If signalized: Northbound left -turn deceleration lane in the middle of US 40. Southbound right -turn deceleration lane on the west side of US 40. US 40 / CR 72/804 Left -turn and right -turn deceleration lanes along both US 40 a proaches to the intersection. US 40 / King's Crossing Road Left -turn and right -turn deceleration lanes along both US 40 approaches to the intersection. Auxiliary lanes recommended based on estimated traffic volumes entering and exiting the commercial access aligned opposite Planning Area 3Wc. May be adjusted based on more detailed information regarding the configuration and purpose of this particular access. As shown in the table, deceleration lanes are recommended for all movements entering the site accesses. Acceleration lanes are recommended for turning movements exiting the site at access #2, and a left -turn acceleration lane is recommended for access #5 (if unsignalized). r-ELSSURO HOLT l ULLEvit, Page 19 Rendezvous Traffic Impact Analysis F. Long Range Future Traffic Operations Intersection Operations Analysis of traffic operations at key intersections was performed based on the projected Year 2025 total traffic volumes depicted on Figure 7. Level of service worksheets are included in Appendix B. The results are depicted on Figure 9. As shown, the four signalized intersections along US 40 CR 72/804, Planning Area 3Wc access, Rendezvous Road, and King's Crossing Road) are projected to operate at LOS C or better during the AM and PM peak hours based on 2025 total traffic volumes and the lane geometry shown on Figure 9. The left -turn movements entering US 40 from the unsignalized accesses are projected to operate at LOS D or better during each of the two peak hours by the Year 2025. The access to PA 1 Wa was analyzed both as a signalized intersection and as an unsignalized intersection. As outlined in Table 5, unsignalized traffic control would require the installation of an acceleration lane along US 40 to maintain LOS D operations. Signalization of the access would result in LOS A intersection operations. Operational analysis of the unsignalized intersection of Rendezvous Road with Fraser Valley Parkway indicates LOS F conditions for northbound and southbound Fraser Valley Parkway left - turn movements. The provision of exclusive left -turn lanes for these movements is recommended to prevent left -turn queues from blocking through and right -turning vehicles along these approaches. It is also recommended that traffic volumes at this intersection be monitored closely to determine whether future conditions require signalization. Signal Progression State Highway Access Code standards relative to this segment of US 40 (NR -B) indicate'that one access will be granted to each parcel, if it does not create safety or operational problems. In addition, the Code states that full -movement access shall be granted at one-half mile spacing, or where a signal progression analysis indicates good progression of 30 percent efficiency or better, or does not degrade the existing signal progression. As shown on Figure 4, the intersections of US 40 with Rendezvous Road and King's Crossing Road are approximately z mile apart and are both proposed to be signalized. The US 40 access to PA 1 Wa is located between these two intersections, approximately 1,500 feet south of Rendezvous Road. A signal progression analysis was performed to evaluate signal coordination along US 40 from the north end of the project (CR 72) south through the Town of Winter Park. Two signal progression scenarios were tested based on either 6 or 7 signalized intersections along this section of US 40, spanning approximately 2.5 miles between CR 72 and Vasquez Road. Signalizing the intersection of US 40 with the access to Planning Area 1 Wa would add a seventh signalized intersection to this section. The results of the progression analysis are summarized in Table 7. FELSBURG4BOLT & ULLE\SIC, Page 20 FELSBURGiHOLT & ULLEVIG 3 A/B N `Q LEGEND cr d`S r d 1 Bis 1 \v f; = Movement Provided with Acceleration Lane along US 40 / X/X = AM/PM Peak Hour Signalized Traffic Volumes Pd. X/X = AM/PM Peak Hour Unsignalized Traffic Volumes G oes t\q 0 US 40 Site Access Figure 8 x`04 Year 2025 Stop Sign Traffic signal Recommended Lane Geometry, O Traffic Control and Level of Service North Rendezvous Update 04-086 10/28/04 f J 7 I IU r U U I 1 Rendezvous Traffic Impact Analysis Table 7. US 40 Progression Results As shown in the table, AM and PM peak hour progression efficiency would not be degraded with the addition of a traffic signal to thel Wa access. Therefore, the potential signalization of the PA 1 Wa access to US 40 could be implemented within the guidelines of the Access Code. Additional analysis was performed to identify a "window" within which the 1 Wa access could be located without degrading progression along US 40 or lying too close to adjacent accesses. The currently proposed location of this access is approximately 950 feet north of King's Crossing Road. It was determined that the access could be located anywhere between 660 and 1,075 feet north of King's Crossing Road without affecting the progression. Progression diagrams are included in Appendix C. Nd FEISBURG HOLT & l ULLEVIv Page 22 Progression Factor percent Analyzed Condition Northbound US 40 Southbound US 40 AM Peak PM Peak AM Peak PM Peak 6 signalized 29 29 28 29intersections 7 signalized 29 29 28 29intersections As shown in the table, AM and PM peak hour progression efficiency would not be degraded with the addition of a traffic signal to thel Wa access. Therefore, the potential signalization of the PA 1 Wa access to US 40 could be implemented within the guidelines of the Access Code. Additional analysis was performed to identify a "window" within which the 1 Wa access could be located without degrading progression along US 40 or lying too close to adjacent accesses. The currently proposed location of this access is approximately 950 feet north of King's Crossing Road. It was determined that the access could be located anywhere between 660 and 1,075 feet north of King's Crossing Road without affecting the progression. Progression diagrams are included in Appendix C. Nd FEISBURG HOLT & l ULLEVIv Page 22 Rendezvous Traffic Impact Analysis V. US HIGHWAY 40 IMPROVEMENTS Traffic volume growth along US 40 was analyzed to evaluate the need for widening the roadway from 2 to 4 lanes and the timing of such an improvement. US Highway 40 south of, through, and north of the site is projected to carry at least 17,200 vpd by the Year 2025 based on growth in background traffic volumes. The addition of vehicle -trips attributable to the Rendezvous development is expected to increase the US 40 ADT to at least 28,600 vpd. Based on a conversation with CDOT Region 3 Staff held in August of 2004, enhanced two lane roadways auxiliary lanes and good shoulders) are expected to accommodate up to 22,500 vpd. Widening to four lanes is desirable when traffic volumes exceed this threshold. By CDOT requirement, future traffic analyses must be completed for a 20 -year time horizon. As noted earlier, total traffic projections and capacity analyses were thus developed for a 20 - year Rendezvous buildout scenario. This assumption is conservative, as a 30 -year buildout is more likely to occur. To account for the possible longer buildout time frame, both the 20 -year and 30 -year buildout scenarios were analyzed to evaluate the potential need for future widening of US 40. It was assumed that both Rendezvous and US 40 traffic growth would follow a straight-line pattern into the future. Figure 9 depicts the straight-line growth in US 40 traffic volumes to the Year 2025, including background traffic growth and traffic generated by proposed development within Rendezvous. As shown on this plot, US 40 traffic volumes north of King's Crossing Road are expected to exceed 22,500 vpd by the Year 2020 based on a 30 -year buildout scenario and by the Year 2015 based on a 20 -year buildout. Therefore, it is estimated that US Highway 40 should be widened from two to four lanes within this time period. Because of the many elements comprising traffic on US 40, it would be appropriate for discussions to be held in the near future between the affected parties to determine responsibility for this improvement. FELSIiURG0 -09 I -I d L T ULLEVIt 0 I 0 C' r 11 l J Page 23 1 FELSBURG rIHOLT ULLEVIG r Figure 9 US Highway 40 Traffic Growth 0 North of King s Crossing Road) North Rendezvous Update 04/086 10/28/04 Rendezvous Traffic Impact Analysis VI. SUMMARY/ SIGNIFICANT FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS The traffic impact analysis of the proposed Rendezvous development in Fraser, Colorado is based on a land use plan that includes residential, commercial, and recreational properties. Development proposed for the west side of US 40 (i.e. "West Mountain") is estimated to generate approximately 27,525 daily vehicle -trips and the East Mountain is estimated to generate approximately 6,760 vpd at full buildout. It is estimated -that the East and West Mountains combined will generate approximately 34,285 vehicle -trips per day. Of these trips, 1 approximately 2,100 are anticipated to occur during a typical weekday AM peak hour, and approximately 3,100 vehicle -trips are expected to occur during a typical PM peak hour. 1 To accommodate the vehicle -trips expected to be generated by the proposed Rendezvous Development, the following roadway improvements are recommended: US Highway 40 Based on growth in traffic volumes along US 40, it is estimated that the roadway should be widened from 2 to 4 lanes between the Towns of Winter Park and Fraser between the Years 2015 and 2020. The 4 -lane section is expected to be adequate to accommodate the estimated growth in traffic volumes that will occur with the completion of Rendezvous. Because of the many elements comprising traffic on US 40 and causing the need for widening of the highway, it will be important for discussions to be held in the near future between the affected parties to determine responsibility for this improvement. Rendezvous Road Rendezvous Road is proposed to function as the primary east -west connection to both the East Mountain and West Mountain sections of the Rendezvous development. To accommodate site traffic, it is recommended that Rendezvous Road be constructed as a two-lane roadway east and west of US 40. Fraser Valley Parkway G' r J Fraser Valley Parkway is proposed to be constructed parallel to US Highway 40 within the West Mountain area of Rendezvous, providing for site circulation as well as regional relief to US 40. Based on projected Year 2025 total traffic volumes, it is recommended that Fraser Valley Parkway be constructed as a 2 -lane roadway throughout the site. US Highway 40 / King's Crossing Road Intersection Signalization is expected to be warranted with background traffic volume growth and the addition of traffic volumes related to the Rendezvous development. It is recommended that the US 40 / King's Crossing Road intersection be signalized when warranted. In addition, it is recommended that the eastbound approach to the intersection be widened and striped to accommodate exclusive left -turn, through, and right -turn lanes. FELSBURG r HOLT & l ULLEVIG Page 25 Rendezvous Traffic Impact Analysis US Highway 40 / County Road 72/804 Intersection It is recommended that the ultimate cross-section of US 40 at this intersection include left -turn and right -turn deceleration lanes to accommodate traffic entering CR 72 from US 40. US 40 Site Access Plan To provide sufficient access to the site, the US 40 access plan developed for the Fraser — Winter Park Roadway Planning study was adapted to the proposed development. The proposed plan for site accesses to US 40 is depicted on Table 8. As shown, a total of 6 US 40 accesses are proposed along an approximate 1.8 mile length of US 40 to accommodate the Rendezvous development. Access types include Right -In / Right -out and full -movement accesses. The full -movement accesses at Community First Bank (1), Rendezvous Road (4) and Planning Area 1 Wa (6) are anticipated to be signalized when warrants are met. Table 8. Proposed US 40 Site Access Access Location Access Type Comments Point Access to West Mountain and 1 West side of US 40 Full -movement, signalized' Community First Bank, will be aligned opposite Safeway access on east side of US 40 2 West side of US 40 Right -in / Right -out Access to Planning Area 3Wc 3 East side of US 40 Full -movement, unsi nalized Access to Planning Area 14E 4 Both sides of US 40 Full -movement, signalized' US 40 / Rendezvous Road Intersection 5 East side of US 40 Right -In / Right -Out, Access to Planning Area 12Eunsinalized 6 West side of US 40 Full -movement, signalized' Access to Planning Area 1 Wa These accesses would be signalized when warrants are met PFELSBURG4HOLT & ULLEVIG Page 26 7 I I I I n C I I 7 I I I I I I Rendezvous Traffic Impact Analysis APPENDIX A TRIP GENERATION RATE DOCUMENTATION 0-04 FELSBURG HOLT & ULLEVIG Appendix A tit.t - r '• •- - f '- - _ '. - 'syr, - _{-•i,-: -.- _;;7 1 1 - - 1 . . ' ii : Zvi=,3'' • —s, J "'+: 1, . - w - ,' ..s - %,-?•°.' 2C . r:: t ,LC. - - ' , :'_..= 1-` r J: /- `' -'STS • , '.i, ' -' ' ' t. _. +: y. 7 ,' _ , :,- r. :. :;y. .. _ . .. . y .fir. fY., ?t: J i. X-`:.: •, - - , . ..<i<vj ; ; T -•. i. - } 7.\-iti-..i.:' .:r l~ ~-r- , :1 r jam .. :(: - - -., . i ;"- •.0 - .. 1: yam_ S \ S: '. j.• +•: . .- .r- i, :/•' -.yr; 1. •, %.''>%s;'.:.'.` '.- , h:_'.t.• J :,.,-,-. •=! -•- 'i,i i<- - : a.. Y:J, ,:j • s .., T•+''w.. .wt . T•, .. '.' ::1:•.. I..\ 7 "f::. 'y _ .'v .i ,}, . \ ' er g• j--7. f y.-w. /'I• ' J r: rya:: . -: r ti3r.,%£ lig•.` ' .. jt\ _ J•:y •` -~./: '.i_'',•,'J•. 7 • '"?.'."',, .:• l -I M•:,,. --. _ 2•?a-: •• ..1... P' : .—I. , i j :.'• :('. Nis _ s'..- {iJ'1,: yn}• ,T .,yT a: 14/.E.. i"' .. 'ri"" ... ari..`{ s S..:2'i'..`:i•" ';, v:- e. Aa ,yk A- A,LA6ter r. .,. : t`• . s '':y i ''', : S.'V.:.'.^y...•-= .-7:: • -;.L •".f-" Vii:^ 'ry? L:" 1.-• ` y.• `r'fa' S/.' '.r.'• ll C.., :• - 7a. ... I+•' : j1 : v.,: ...Z . ''j<.' 'itl ",N -6: .<'%i-;`. ,• j '...• . Y:: ll:•.• 3 •' ti• <':'T,' '-••y7t ''Ci:•A-• - ...,s=: :ti r1• :r •;J e,..'y'.}. .,iQ•ts _y : .:. -:I t `.1:>•'• '''L^ `.;. ::+`>:: ,.- q-, \ r'/'. :.,, _ w1:' ',r .\[•r, s:•,••.k,';t• s5.- :1y Y r,:..e,,+• r :J•'• •`.ri•'y':' r • u:. Y: `:..f-. • J;,. i', r.. .'• ,l +, y :-,.3. .ti.•' •. •+a,- ^_ti , .: F. .- .. ,.-, ':• - 'x, •ice., '.' 1:'+'..•i J _.'y.1. , T• r..1 ;,.',:.•.3 _ ;, ,. %*:_ f. j- _ =''-g' ::+a..t...,_ ";r,. _•%".. .: •,;°lr:l^ . .,r • z,v•• rr?... _. . . ' a .,:.: ? 4. - :. -%. _ ,t. ',_, .-..,- i'h} *r:ti ..f r5y••t; :yy r•, f..,,, _:.::,". ,' , . OF_ : RRASER -CC 7 BRAD . `'',..,. <: % 4: ,-, _': j, a YI''= •1 ' _ = '--1)':::K,. • .: ,.i-;`..1.• -C* •ea,'a __ .J:-.;%.:5-ti'---•'^v -w;' Z!,. :?1 4 t.- z •'y';_r .t ._ ,1 .• ,f~ .3 .:: : 'r c... _ .,.• _ :}r..:;-.':, ..tom :'•• '•'' i."••.' .'! ^'y-.. ;T., 9y _.•,l' ^.''• l. r. _ 'L'•i'• - -_ 'ri {_ T. _'y •".•=••e. ''',:4.`: l,p. _.-`•:; \,ru; , T.• j i -: •. •;yC•_ .,p::..,,:r •.. .. `• ..' _ .,,. c:j ".; _ .ha.S". .:'' ..'-1 -.., 4•>;,1 1 .:. 1-:-.• :.% C. lam`<': _.\':_'i;> - y.?`_'`'_1 .'"`/' M'% e7'^i=--'c•+a '•J :'''',+.:.'. i'• .4- .ifi. T !% - - :: ? ''"'%-' :. •, ~`tom-! :! .X..~c y . _t_? > .'-.... (S•' ,,•_r f t. . rte 'i' -r' - -': :} ,. _.,:v;.,.', .: 1 " w { C.L•. :tel,_:: .r., :it.. ..e- .:,:`.'rlr,• •r.' ..i.t L ':, - - stir:., '.-.r . _( ,.'i,:: ;':..7 .. • t ., ,i.' .\. t.` ,:, f:.+ , :-:.' %:; yj';'_t.. f ;-;.r:. '• r^r:•t'-1' !•••'.:.i.•-_'.7.,-.,-%•;1%.,..a-,:_ p- ,ii .a}x..N ,1 iy4.:-'i. :. ,',u, \y::-„'ya•. "?•T.'1- a{ r'.Y t .>:•':a :w,•' i,.: .w.. .-: . ;i ..-,•" - ,% ix; `-_, ,^, ;>'i"- .- .fit' '.-..p.,ti 'i'h r' •'•l' ./•;Y,b`;'.:•::rii...) r .` .... ..•` ' t:, - i,il..-k 1:.•,•..+, .{:< :::t,!`} ..'h' %...,.F^"(;,:+_-; y—.Y - : • :' _ ;• : ... ti.y y .mss:•. s _ _ _ :.. .,z Vii. ?Y': +`tc. L '..,... G.:r ..•'; yv - ..\: / .•_ .) w\__, _" .:i'c,_j• ;. a, ti -, - . tiI: --x -•.. - \,..;,L'.:t!w -.\•: _ ; M:, _ . ..w: f',• ... 1C::%. .a;.tiy 1r,}. S: t_4':.'••ss a ~ - 'i' a1:'• "!t' +:r:. •' r: .%..-. 'J '.ice .:.i. -.7rc-'..h:- ,1V _`. - x)'e.,•i's•;.. :'%. 4p, ':?:i i•t •i :1 ti ... i:.:• /-'.': .•... ' '.:!,'• t' +mss[ ••'< _ „.\ ' . iY= i_t . ,'r a Vie.. r ^.. s. _.TL.. `. _,: . F ... f - i ..1b'y_ :\',:i, \./.:.{-: . .I.- ::r!C.' ". /.. "'t.:'w. V__:,_.: +r!.f . t, _ 1.1•S., - p ' ~?,..- .,W;'. 7.-'Y':I''. :'i-: .•cysY!.l{:: a- ..Yt',••'• 1, .+ :i'"..c- t'.;' '^'' St.'.•:.. i..: ..C.-++ . f.: - - :.i -'' f .w . ty ,'`-:S_ yjZ. _j'3'r , I :,.4,_+.K fc... f•il., ''%-"'..A .., 1 _ ".-:" :..'i t.:l'•.,-,..=.4-b'.i:-, 1, ._. '7.3„"J'.'. r, :.._t;,D r.?r, '•` .,!''.•: ;.t¢L`Y'7f ''iii ;..n': r'a t• '+'a 7;1',' . _ i. ^::• _t,., '_'1:^• •. , .1's ':r. ::,: . r.. ..::'•' :ice -. + '•..: i fes;_. ;:y" !; .i'fi,• 'J,. , . ,ter 1I•: _:r;r• .'•. 'Z;••:\' _ 'x.7711 ,r..r..-...'..•,:• t,r. .ii.. i -..Z;.,;,, .y •'• 'i. :_s - ..rr•5^.r -. 1.-'>,. k.,. •>_I,, 1i.='.\`T: . '^'T'E'S= int-.•.:.,.. •_?_ :"'••^:.,.. •C^ _ : Yj^r • a' ( t '' y" -~ v. c "i:` -:• I - Irl., r* .,j: :: + ...J1 >f.. 4r:aL , _ .n y:!Y•::_ M.: }i'•' _ •; -":, . 1: .. 1. .-:. T?t+Y: ;1=T.l;:;J'-.,y: r!}:%,.7• ty,•• %` moi: _. r : .Yr s-:.. '•,y -t-=: '•' • '[ may' .i• '-S Tom:.` ;' ':=r '.;j• 7..'._, .:*, .'-fq• J ..'\• ... ta:•.'.•, •-.(: t. rr .L. -;'.. :.:., I t: -:t'. ,' : ; ., - , •r : • . ' r . _ . r :•: _. I.i/.v a, ' . J Y ':1 .-• ' i .- •:' _,K . .r_,,,y _ '•, v s'>:. ''-•Y_ :yf . j:_..: .,5'!-., , C OF I' :la. 1. Z :.•. '•ti ;/ '•::ti `: -S' : Y : , _ i -:i ;Gv M,,--./ .j j f: ,,a:, h"''+ .•%"J, f, 1.'...:' '. Y`:,: Y . Yr':.. ;.a!•b. =:r;1 .11,1-"r. ) ' -!i> `r„- i :.,{-a iw: >.:' :T:! : 'ice1-, _•y ., i'v. . i'• ;Y 3. ,'._ . ._;, •., _ .;., 1:. _ % %, ,i.''_''.\ tea:/., s% .'•`:.- y`ry. .`ta!.. :'S yam , tis=,: 'Y. ..• i}.. - _ _,:' ,^ ;:'•I. , " .T: _ •i -. 1 -• ,,.,5 7.• . . . ` .1-\` of ;i { :.' • . .. . r : . ..ci' J, \` . •+_ ' 1. r/ ,M •- ''a' :• -:, -',-. .,,. f :1' ?t.— .. °!,y' _: .i.,•-1 .::fes ..Jy'v a< —'.: i/:.:Y:, 1; V im : S ' .tom t.:.?; -%; : a_ +.. ,' _ Y. i . .. .::"i!'- -- .,,.,.r. ;ly: - '4 .+: -'. .:.. -.7 j;: t:t t_. :` - .?. ;iy...` LFr'J.r.,.•t` .y:•<Yt,-_,', _>` 1 +i lta: 1 J ?./.•(_- :r.r: v- rte. ' _ , ' 7 y ff 4-.`i'_'•.•'• , 1• - ' 1 < ,^- L.', •. b•: Y-. 71•_'r•'.' .fr if i•\..• T- •.I4+1•`-• ,• '' _ ry}• }.`_ ..`fes ,'Y, f '.\K.: :..7." '` .% yt'- • ''wI ir'. ,. . _1 •...,,' `, '. .,•.moi'_ - ',.. :-'.t1= r` ^s- ir: _ t ° ,.r.`t - k ;:. •A. .A.'..:... - r' ',`•..{. __. _ y "'`!,•.r _ :. [ T=t_.;C:,;;,,,',.J,,l i:'. i.v`... .,. .,+;. .[F=i. _;,.;. :.);''.: ':: '. 1' yi•{... fir: f moi•--^ 1':•'-•' :1-.-.. -.. I. .:,. r. _ _ ' :- :' .5.= off~ , ; ,S` Sl`'; '" = . -.:: c :` . _, •x., L. - •i. Y / .: • T,- ,.t. .r.'' . c` _ ,=.. 1 'r •' _ .F•:. /,/? S : "`. _ _ r '.• t•"• Z .ti : /.'l. -Z::: .\ . - ri J.. :6+•. •}_,-`' `'J` ^ T• •', .r-•._; • ,'. _ . T i - 7. t -_ . :: i .. f ..: •; - .'.\' -;.- gid.; C) W Number Land Use of Units Unit Muhlple-Family Permanent (30%) Tourist (70%) Singla-Family Permanent (60%) Tourist (40%) Hotel Commercial Use Table 2 TRAFFIC GENERATION Maryvale Fraser, Colorado Generatlon Rates Per Unit Avera aMorning Vehicle - Trips Weekday Peak Hour Evening Averaga Morning EveninPeakhourWeekdayPeak -Hour gTrafficAMInAMOutPMInPMOut - Peak -HourTrafficAMInAMOutPMInPM Out 711 1,659 D.U. (1) D.U. (1) 6.25 0.12 0.36 0.43 1.225 0.000 4.13 (2) 0.08 0.24 0.29 96 64 D.U. (1) D.U. (1) 6.25 0.12 0.36 0.43 964 964 4.75 0.09 0.27 0.33 1,180 Room 4.13 (2) 0.08 0.24 0.29 510 x 1000 sq. h. 40 0.55 0.32 1.89 Number of Units Mulliple-Family 2,370 Permanent (30%) Tourist (70%) Single-Famliy 160 Permanent (60%) Tourist (40%) Hotel 1,180 Commercial 510 Generation Rates per Unit Average Weeday Traffic Ski Work Other Total Trips Trips Trips Trips 0.074. 1.454 1.064 0.000 0.074 1.454 1.225 0.000 1.064 0.000 4.725 3.064 4.725 3.528 3.064 40.00 Source; "I rip Generation' Institute or Transportation Engineers, 5th Edition, 1991Fraser -Winter Park Network Planning", Felsburg, Holt d Ullevig,Oclober, 1986- 1) D.U. =Dwelling Unit 2) Hotel rate used in 1986 FHU Study a 6.253 4.128 6.253 4.753 4.128 40.00 0.23 4,446 85 256 306 1640.15 6,848 133 398 481 249 0.23 600 12 35 41 220.17 304 6 17 21 11 0.15 4,871 94 283 342 177 1.89 20,400 281 W 163 964 964 37,470 610 1,152 2,155 1,586 1,173 33,138 Vehicle -Trips WAverage eeday Traffic Ski Work , Other Total Trips Tris Trips Trips 53 1,034 3,359 4,446 1,765 0 5,083 6,848 7 140 454 600 78 0 226 304 1,256 0 3,616 4,871 20,400 20,400 3,159 1,173 33,138 37,470 SNOWMASS VILLAGE ROADWAY SYSTEM ANALYSIS JUNE 1990 Prepared for: The Town of Snowmass Village Prepared by: MATTHEW J. DELICH, P.E. 3413 Banyan Avenue Loveland, CO 80538 Phone: 303-669-2061 In association with KRAGER & ASSOCIATES 2418 west 32nd Avenue Denver, CO 80211-3322 Phone: 303-477-6316 J were calculated.. There are 117 single family dwelling units above counter A.and 287 multi -family dwelling units between counter A and counter B. The calculated trip generation rates are presented below. Single Family Area Daily 810/117 6.9 Vehicle trips/D.U. 8-9 AM 69/117 = 0.59 Vehicle trips/D.U. 4-5 PM 71/117 = 0.61 Vehicle trips/D.U. Multi -Family Area Daily 1233/287 = 4.3 Vehicle trips/D.U. 8-9 AM 80/287 = 0.28 Vehicle trips/D.U. 4-5 PM 106/287 = 0.37 Vehicle trips/D.U. The calculated trip generation rates appear to be reasonable when compared to trip generation rates developed by Pitkin County. A copy of the Pitkin County trip generation rates are in Appendix A. The rates are also similar, in a proportional sense, with single family and multi -family rates shown in Trip Generation, 4th Edition, ITE. Information from the Snowmass Resort Association indicates that the dwelling unit occupancy was down 17.1 percent during that same week. If it is assumed that the 1988-89 ski year was average to good, then the traffic counts collected on March 26 and 27,' 1990, should be increased by a factor of 1.17. This would change the trip generation rates as shown below. Single Family Area Daily 948/117 = 8.1 Vehicle trips/D.U. 8-9 AM 81/117 = 0.69 Vehicle tri.ps/D.U. 4-5 PM 83/117 = 0.71 Vehicle trips/D.U. Multi -Family Area Daily 1443/287 = 5.0 Vehicle trips/D.U. 8-9 AM 94/287 = 0.33 Vehicle trips/D.U. 4-5 PM 124/287 = 0.43 Vehicle trips/D.U. 13 pitkin county 506 east main street aspen, colorado B 161 1 PITKIN COUNTY ROAD STANDARDS SPECIFICATIONS PREPARED BY PITKIN COUNTY ENGINEERING 1985 Vehicle Trap Generation Strong Weak No Total Transit Transit Transit Unit Person Trins System ,Eyster System dwelling 15/d. u. 4/d. u. 6/d. u. 7/d. u. d.u. 12/d.u. 3/d.u. 5/d.u. Land Use unit 1. Residential 2/d.u. 4/d.u. 4/d.u. floor area Ia. Single Family b. Apartments sq.ft.) Condominiums I c. Lodges a. 2. Commercial Retail Shop 60/1000 15/1000b. Eat & Drink c. Business Office sq. ft. sq. ft. sq. ft. 3. Schools 20/1000 4. Ski Areas 12/1000 15/1000 sq.ft. sq.ft. 5. Other Public/ sq.ft. Recreational 2/student 200/1000 Vehicle Trap Generation Strong Weak No Total Transit Transit Transit Unit Person Trins System ,Eyster System dwelling 15/d. u. 4/d. u. 6/d. u. 7/d. u. d.u. 12/d.u. 3/d.u. 5/d.u. 6/d.u. unit 8/unit 2/d.u. 4/d.u. 4/d.u. floor area 40/1000 10/1000 20/1000 30/1000 sq.ft.) sq. ft. sq.ft. sq. ft. sq.ft. sq.ft.) 60/1000 15/1000 25/1000 30/1000 sq.ft. sq. ft. sq. ft. sq. ft. sq.ft.) 20/1000 8/1000 12/1000 15/1000 sq.ft. sq.ft. sq.ft. sq.ft. student 2/student 200/1000 250/1000 250/1000 Stu.. Stu. Stu. ski lift 600/1000 100/1000 150/1000 200/1000 capacity skiers per cap. cap. cap. skiers hour of cap. per hour) varies 10/1000 4/1000 5/1000 5/1000 s.f.(bldgs) s.f. s.f. s.f. 5/acre(land) 2/acre 2.5/acre 2.5/acre GRAND COUNTY ROAD AND BRIDGE STANDARDS J BASIC DESIGN POLICIES Roadway design shall be based on the projected traffic needs twenty (20) years after construction and shall encompass the needs from existing development, future development, and the proposed development. Trip generations from future development over the design period shall be based on zoning, existing land use, proximity to developed areas, historic growth, and other factors expected to influence development. Trip generations for proposed development should be based on the type of occupancy for which the development is designed and shall be formulated from the following: DEVELOPMENT TYPE TRIPS GENERATED Single Family 8 ADT/Unit Multifamily 5 ADT/.Unit Other uses not listed above shall use trip generation values verified by other acceptable data sources. 3.2 ROAD CLASSIFICATIONS County roads are classified according to function. Functional classifications shall be established by the Engineering Department and they have the authority to determine which classification applies to any given road. The minimum road design standards are based on the following road classifications and can be found in TABLE 1. Typical cross-sections for unpaved local and collector roads can be found in FIGURE 4. 3.2.1 ARTERIAL SYSTEM The rural minor arterial road system, in conjunction with the rural principal arterial system, forms a network with the following service characteristics: a. Linkage of cities, larger towns, and other traffic generators (such as major resort areas) that are capable of attracting travel over similarly long distances. b. Integrated interstate and intercounty service. C. Internal spacing consistent with population density, so that all developed areas of the State are within reasonable distances of arterial highway. d. Corridor movements consistent with items (1) through (3) with trip lengths and travel densities greater than those predominantly served by rural collector or Z t 1 1 1 1 1 1 g xrpuaddd IA3110 19 110H 01,11flS"I33 oizuvmi 32inin=i 3ONVN JNO-I - S133HSNMOM SOI 8 xiaN3ddV gs,fjvuy1,?vdurlo# viL snoazapuad 1 a6%, 1 Vl L Rights Reserved Copyright © 2003 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved Version 4.1d file://C:\Documents%20and%20Settings\Lyle\Local%20Settings\Temp\u2k16.tmp 9/18/2004 TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General Information Site Information Analyst Agency/Co. Date Performed nal sis Time Period LED FHU 8/15/02 AM peak Intersection Jurisdiction Analysis Year 14E Access & US 40 2025 Total Project Description Rendezvous TIA East/West Street: 14E Access North/South Street: US 40 Intersection Orientation: North-South IStudy Period hrs : 0.25 ehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street Northbound Southbound Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R Volume 0 615 15 5 775 0 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 1.00 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 1.00 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 0 668 1 16 5 842 1 0 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 2 Median Type Raised curb RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 2 0 1 2 0 Configuration T TR L T Upstream Signal 1 0 Minor Street Westbound Eastbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R Volume 15 0 10 0 0 0 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.92 1.00 0.92 1.00 1.00 1.00 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 16 0 10 0 0 0 Percent Heavy Vehicles 2 0 2 0 0 0 Percent Grade (%) 0 0 Flared Approach N N Storage 0 0 RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 1 0 1 0 0 0 Configuration L R Delay, Queue Len th, and Level of Service Approach NB SB Westbound Eastbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration L L R v (vph) 5 16 10 C (m) (vph) 905 333 654 v/c 0.01 0.05 0.02 95% queue length 0.02 0.15 0.05 Control Delay 9.0 16.4 10.6 LOS A C B Approach Delay 14.1 Approach LOS B Rights Reserved Copyright © 2003 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved Version 4.1d file://C:\Documents%20and%20Settings\Lyle\Local%20Settings\Temp\u2k16.tmp 9/18/2004 i vv v— vv Uy vLvp `. Ilui 1 1 Gls%, J. V1 /- Rights Reserved Copyright m 2003 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved file://C :\Documents%20and%20S ettings\Lyle\Local%20Settings\Temp\u2k19.tmp Version 4.1d 9/18/2004 TWO-WAYTWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General Information Site Information Analyst Agency/Co. Date Performed Analysis Time Period LED FHU 8/15/02 PM peak Intersection Jurisdiction Analysis Year 14E Access & US 40 2025 Total Project Description Rendezvous TIA East/West Street: 14E Access North/South Street: US 40 Intersection Orientation: North-South IStudy Period hrs : 0.25 Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street Northbound Southbound Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R Volume 0 1225 30 15 985 0 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 1.00 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 1.00 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 0 1331 1 32 16 1070 0 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 2 Median Type Raised curb RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 2 0 1 2 0 Configuration T TR L T U stream Signal 1 0 Minor Street Westbound Eastbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R Volume 25 0 15 0 0 0 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.92 1.00 0.92 1.00 1.00 1.00 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 27 1 0 1 16 0 0 1 0 Percent Heavy Vehicles 2 0 2 0 0 0 Percent Grade (%) 0 0 Flared Approach N N Storage 0 0 RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 1 0 1 0 0 0 Configuration I L R Delay, Queue Len th, and Level of Service Approach NB SB Westbound Eastbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration L L R v (vph) 16 27 16 C (m) (vph) 581 196 792 v/c 0.03 0.14 0.02 95% queue length 0.08 0.47 0.06 Control Delay 11.4 26.3 9.6 LOS B D A Approach Delay 20.1 pproach LOS C Rights Reserved Copyright m 2003 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved file://C :\Documents%20and%20S ettings\Lyle\Local%20Settings\Temp\u2k19.tmp Version 4.1d 9/18/2004 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2: CR 72&US 40 i CA 2025 Total PM Peak Hour PA Ma I otal Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Frt 1.00 0.94 1.00 0.92 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 Satd. Flow (prot) 1719 1699 1719 1656 1719 3438 1538 1719 3438 1538 Ffiy EPermFrffied x 01 1 x0I t 9, 67 u. 04 F4 1 'OOr `$r1Q0 19 z 1 00 1k0x r Satd. Flow (perm) 1280 1699 1211 1656 258 3438 1538 351 3438 1538 30 40 '. ' 5 145 45 1 P 1(i5 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 v., ...21 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 492653371... 1 4' Lane Group Flow (vph) 228 120 0 65 76 0 54 1060 158 49 1234 114. i -rel Turn Type Perm Perm Perm Perm Perm Perm Pr`atcfied Phases 2 6 4 8 Permitted Phases 2 6 4 4 8 8 Actuated Green, G (s)'36 0 w s' ai0 5.6 0 56 56:0 56:0Q 56:Q Effective Green, g (s) 36.0 36.0 36.0 36.0 56.0 56.0 56.0 56.0 56.0 56.0 Actuated g/C Ratlo' ` ' ' 0:36 0 36 . b 36 p 36 O S%; Q 5 QI 0 5 0,56 0 6, Clearance Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.00 46 IpE`(pX44`1"9'1 9f7wr 195" 8G1 v/s Ratio Prot 0.07 0.05 0.31 c0.36 s RatloPerr i ' c0.18 0:05 < 0'21 : 0 10 014 , 0,0,7 v/c Ratio 0.49 0.20 0.15 0.13 0.38 0.55 0.18 0.25 0.64 0.13 11 form°17eay,'d1 24.9 22:0 21 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.48 0.44 0.66 Increiiet[ delay, cf2 :3.0:7. 0 7 Delay (s) 28.7 22.8 22.4 21.9 19.6 15.1 11.3 8.1 8.1 7.2 Level of ervlce, C C C C n f3 A A4s Approach Delay (s) 26.6 22.1 14.8 8.0 HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.58 100 0 Intersection Capacitv Utilization 60.1% ICU Level of Service 3 Baseline Synchro 5 Report Page 1 FELSBUENGL-FF51 M HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2025 Total AM Peak Hour 3: US 40 & Safeway / Community First PA Ma v/c Ratio 0.06 0.31 Lane Configurations tt r tt r I, Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.87 1.00 0.86 Ef?rot fec($ , .. d 5. Uq 1,0 F ` 0 55 1 f 0 1r 00 , °0 Satd. Flow (prot) 1719 3438 1538 1719 3438 1538 1719 1566 1719 1563 Satd. Flow (perm) 717 3438 1538 599 3438 1538 1306 1566 1313 1563 Peak hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 o 92 d.92 M Lane Group Flow (vph) 33 804 22 33 647 43 43 48 0 76 54 0 Turn Type Perm Perm Perm Perm Perm Perm Permitted Phases 4 4 8 8 2 6 Actuated Gte riyaG (s} ;__ 0 75 0 7t? 75 Q X6 0 75 0 17 0 . , 17 0 17 Q' 17:0 , . Effective Green, g (s) 75.0 75.0 75.0 75.0 75.0 75.0 17.0 17.0 17.0 17.0 Clearance Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 s) 3.5 2.6 37.3 39.3 f ee Ht%F AYeage Co itoDelay r 7 "'C, -I Ser"vicer. . HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.32 11 1 I I 1 1 11 0i06 v/c Ratio 0.06 0.31 0.02 0.07 0.25 0.04 0.19 0.18 0.34 0.20 llniprQelay_, d1 3 41 32 3 3 3 8 3 2 356 ' 35 5 36 6` 35 7 Progression Factor 0.78 0.79 0.59 0.44 0.64 0.36 s.r s..-,........., - 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Delay (s) 2.8 3.5 1.9 1.8 2.7 1.2 37.6 37.0 40.7 37.4 s) 3.5 2.6 37.3 39.3 f ee Ht%F AYeage Co itoDelay r 7 "'C, -I Ser"vicer. . HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.32 11 1 I I 1 1 11 1 1 1 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2025 Total PM Peak Hour 3: US 40 & Safeway / Community First PA 1 W Access Lane Confiaurations Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 0.38 0.03 0.04 Frt 1.00 0.85 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.87 1.00 0 86 Ftt?roteeed W.w... x_......,.. Satd. Flow (prot) e a.. , , ,, 1719 x......s,.s.,.. 2707 1538 1719 3335 1538 1719 1566 s ...._ , ; 1719 1559 Satd. Flow (perm) 346 2707 1538 397 3335 1538 1293 1566 1313 1559 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Lane Group Flow (vph) 136 1054 65 76 1272 76 60 48 0 98 65 0 Turn Type Perm Perm Perm Perm Perm Perm Protected Phases 4 8 2,i6 Permitted Phases 4 4 8 8 2: 6, Actuafed Green, 0-, 74:0 74 0 74,0 74 0 {:74`0 x 18 Oa 18 0 ` 18 18 0 Effective Green, g (s) 74.0 74.0 74.0 74.0 74.0 74.0 18.0 18.0 18.0 18.0 v/s Ratio Prot 0.39 0.38 0.03 0.04 v(s Rfio Rerm' c0,39 0.04 0 19 0 0 0 c0 07 v/c Ratio 0. 53 0.53 r 0.06 0.26 0.52 0.07 0.26 0.17 0.42 0.23 Progression Factor 2.92 3.02 4.86 0.62 0.58 0.38 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Iremerta[ Delay, d2: tit9 F 0,.1 Delay (s) 23.1 17.6 17.2 4.3 3.8 1.5 37.9 36.0 41.6 37.0 f Approach Delay (s) 18.2 3.7 37.1. - 39.8 Approacr LQS BAr D R. HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.51 Intersection Capacity Utilization 95.3% ICU Level of Service E e , Gf if cal Dane it . rt AM Baseline Synchro 5 Report FELSBUENGL-FF51 Page 1 HCS2000: Unsignalized Intersections Release 4.1d TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY Analyst: LED Agency/Co.: FHU Date Performed: 10/2/02 Analysis Time Period: AM peak Intersection: 3Wc access & US 40 Analysis Year: 2025 Total Project ID: Rendezvous TIA East/West Street: 3Wc Access North/South Street: US 40 Intersection Orientation: NS Study period (hrs): 0.25 Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street: Approach Northbound Southbound Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R I L T R Volume 775 5 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 842 5 Percent Heavy Vehicles -- -- Median Type/Storage Undivided / RT Channelized? Lanes 2 0 Configuration T TR Upstream Signal? Yes Yes Minor Street: Approach Westbound Eastbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R I L T R Volume 5 Peak Hour Factor, PHF 0.92 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 5 Percent Heavy Vehicles 5 Percent Grade M 0 0 Flared Approach: Exists?/Storage Lanes 1 Configuration R Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service Approach NB SB Westbound Eastbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Config I R v (vph) 5 C(m) (vph) 699 v/c 0.01 95% queue length 0.02 Control Delay 10.2 LOS B Approach Delay 10.2 Approach LOS B HCS2000: Unsignalized Intersections Release 4.1d TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY Analyst: LED Agency/Co.: FHU Date Performed: 10/2/02 Analysis Time Period: PM peak Intersection: 3Wc access & US 40 Analysis Year: 2025 Total Project ID: Rendezvous TIA East/West Street: 3Wc Access North/South Street: US 40 Intersection Orientation: NS Study period (hrs): 0.25 Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street: Approach Northbound Southbound Movement 1 2 3 14 5 6 L T R L T R Volume 995 15 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 1081 16 Percent Heavy Vehicles Median Type/Storage Undivided RT Channelized? Lanes 2 0 Configuration T TR Upstream Signal? Yes Yes Minor Street: Approach Westbound Eastbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R Volume 15 Peak Hour Factor, PHF 0.92 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 16 Percent Heavy Vehicles 5 Percent Grade (%) 0 0 Flared Approach: Exists?/Storage Lanes 1 Configuration R Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service Approach NB SB westbound Eastbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Config I I R v (vph) C (m) (vph) v/c 95% queue length Control Delay LOS Approach Delay Approach LOS 11.3 B 16 590 0.03 0.08 11.3 B HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2: CR 72&US 40 2025 Total AM Peak Hour PA1Wa Perm Perm Perm Perm Perm Protected Phasesx Intersection Capacity Utilization 41.3% ICU Level of Service Lane Configurations Permitted Phases 2 6 Ideal Floru{uphpt) y 10001900 19p0 k 100 ` 1QO 190 1QQ 19001910 19btw 1900 19Q0ry TotalLost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 42 0 Lane Ut l Factor 1 00 1 d0 00 T QQ 0@ Q 951 QQ 1 00 Q 95 1 00: N". 0.89Frt1.00 0.91 1.0b, 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 42.0 FI.tProtected 50.0 Satd. Flow (prot) 1719 1639 1719 1611 1719 3438 1538 1719 3438 1538 0.42 Ftf Perrri tted x470 4)073 fr 1 Ot} 0 32(Tp ` 1 006 1 0(3 1 00 0:50 Satd. Flow (perm) 1273 1639 1319 1611 577 3438 1538 653 3438 1538 4.0 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adt 5 0 6 6 ,. Flow:-vp.L`r ' . ., . 16 •fix 18. 6Q .. 4 614 }" s , 98 k Lane Group Flow (vph) 82 430 158 82 0 49 614 98 16 696 16 Turn Type Perm 0.35 Perm Perm Perm Perm Perm Protected Phasesx Intersection Capacity Utilization 41.3% ICU Level of Service A Permitted Phases 2 6 uw , 4 4 8 8 Actuted<reen„G (s) 42:0 4.0`` 42 42 0 50 0 N. 5Q 0 50:0 50 0 5Q..t) 5Q0 Effective Green, g (s) 42.0 42.0 42.0 42.0 50.0 50.0 50.0 50:0 50.0 50.0 AetuatedglC Ratio , , 0 42 0 42 0; 42 0.42 0 50 0'50 r 0 50; ! 0 50 0.50 0:50 Clearance Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4 0 4.0 4.6 4.0 4.0 4.0 LarrelGrp Cap 535 6$8" X5'4 677 r 289 1719 769 327 ,:1" 9 ; vph} X69 v/s Ratio Prot 0.03 0.05 0.18 c0.20 vfsio Perm = 0 06 c012 059F$ 0 Ota Q 02 v/c Ratio 0.15 0.06 0.29 0.12 0.17 0.36 0.13 0.05 0.40 0.02 tJOirrielaji; d1 t8 0 17,3 9 C..... 17-- Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.14 1.07 1.33 Irt er tenial Delay, d2 0.z6 0 2 1 3 4 y r 0 3 Q 3 0 7 0:0 Delay (s) 18.6 17.4 20.4 18.1 14.9 15.8 13.7 14.9 17.5 16.8 B Approach Delay (s) 18 2 19.6 15.5 17.4 Aplaroch LOS .. B HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.35 Cycte,Length (s)',, . m...p< F00 0 Sun.of lostttrne (s 8 Q Intersection Capacity Utilization 41.3% ICU Level of Service A c ` Critical Lar Gaup' uw , Baseline Synchro 5 Report Page 1 FELSBUENGL-FF51 Rights Reserved Copyright 0 2003 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved Version 4.1d iile://C:\Documents%20and%20Settings\Lyle\Local%20Settings\Temp\u2k3F.tmp 9/16/2004 TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General Information Site Information Analyst Agency/Co. Date Performed Analysis Time Period LED FHU 10/2102 AM peak Intersection Jurisdiction Analysis Year 1 Wa access & US 40 2025 Total Project Description Rendezvous TIA East/West Street: 1Wa Access North/South Street: US 40 Intersection Orientation: North-South IStudy Period (hrs): 0.25 ehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street Northbound Southbound Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R Volume 40 425 0 0 1035 40 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 1.00 .1.00 0.92 0.92 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 43 461 0 0 1124 1 43 Percent Heavy Vehicles 5 0 Median Type Two Way Left Turn Lane RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 1 2 0 0 2 1 Configuration L T T, R Upstream Signal 1 1 Minor Street Westbound Eastbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R Volume 0 0 0 40 0 60 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.92 1.00 0.92 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 0 0 1 0 43 10 65 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 0 0 5 1 0 5 Percent Grade (%) 0 0 Flared Approach N N Storage 0 0 RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 0 0 1 0 1 Configuration I L R Delay, Queue Len th, and Level of Service Approach NB SB Westbound Eastbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration L L R v (vph) 43 43 65 C (m) (vph) 607 270 566 vlc 0.07 0.16 0.11- 95% queue length 0.23 0.56 0.39 Control Delay 11.4 20.8 1 12.2 LOS 8 C 8 Approach Delay 15.6 pproach LOS C Rights Reserved Copyright 0 2003 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved Version 4.1d iile://C:\Documents%20and%20Settings\Lyle\Local%20Settings\Temp\u2k3F.tmp 9/16/2004 Rights Reserved Copyright m 2003 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved Version 4.Id file://C:\Documents%20and%20Settings\Lyle\Local%20Settings\Temp\u2k42.tmp 9/16/2004 TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General Information Site Information Analyst Agency/Co. Date Performed nal sis Time Period LED FHU 10/2/02 PM peak Intersection Jurisdiction Analysis Year 1Wa access & US 40 2025 Total Project Description Rendezvous TlA East/West Street: 1Wa Access North/South Street: US 40 Intersection Orientation: North-South Stud Period (hrs): 0.25 ehicle Voiumes and Adjustments Major Street Northbound Southbound Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R Volume 125 1445 0 0 825 90 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 1.00 1.00 0.92 0.92 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 135 1 1570 1 0 0 896 97 Percent Heavy Vehicles 5 0 Median Type Raised curb RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 1 2 0 0 2 1 Configuration L T T R Upstream Signal 1 1 Minor Street Westbound Eastbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R Volume 0 0 0 90 0 110 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.92 1.00 0.92 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 0 1 0 1 0 97 1 0 1 119 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 0 1 0 5 0 5 Percent Grade (%) 0 0 Flared Approach N N Storage 0 0 RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes i 0 0 0 1 0 1 Configuration L R Delay, Queue Len th, and Level of Service Approach NB SB Westbound Eastbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration L L R v (vph) 135 97 119 C (m) (vph) 689 247 595 v/c 0.20 0.39 0.20 95% queue length 0.72 1.77 0.74 Control Delay 11.5 28,7 12.6 LOS B D B pproach Delay 19,8 pproach LOS C Rights Reserved Copyright m 2003 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved Version 4.Id file://C:\Documents%20and%20Settings\Lyle\Local%20Settings\Temp\u2k42.tmp 9/16/2004 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2025 Total AM Peak Hour 13: 1 Wa access & US 40 PA 1 Wa Access Lane Configurations tt t+ Icleaka lo r(uphp?h;"k", 19Q0 190QA 1900 419 0 1900 1900" s x "¢ E Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0.4.0 4.0 4.0 Frt 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85 FCRrotec<tc,; . ' ;;..0 95 1 00 05ry ` moor Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 1583 1770 3539 3539 1583 iltperrff s ?095 Fr 1s00 0>23,r InQOfi0...1 00. Satd. Flow (perm) 1770 1583 437 , 3 » p .., ... . 3 539 3539 1583 .. . .. ... ; , Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 1`1%2 Lane Group Flow (vph) 43 65 43 462 1125 43 yxe,m, TcrrrTYpett Perm f Permy P Protected Phases 4 2.6_.. Permrtto(Pk es4 .:' 2 , 4 .... .. ,.. u... :.. s Actuated Green, G (s) 12.0 12.0 80.0 80.0 80.0 80.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 212 190 350 2831 2831 1266 v/s Ratio Perm c0.04 0.10 0.03 Uniform Delay, d1 " 39.7 40.4 2.2 2.3 2.9 2.1 Incremental Delay, d2 2.1 4.8 0.7 0.1 0.3 0.0 Level of Service D D B B A A A rdch C 43`9 s "11`6{ 3"0 L ; x,'.a4,w_,...,..x";..;,.r,.. Approach LOS D BA " HCM Average Control Delay 7.9 HCM Level of Service A HCN"4!o(rrre tkC city Cycle Length (s) 100.0 Sum of lost time (s) 8.0 c Critical Lane Group Baseline Synchro 5 Report Page 1 FELSBUENGL-FF51 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2025 Total PM Peak Hour 13: 1 Wa access & US 40 PA Ma Access Lane Configurations IdealF)aw (vhpi) ..< Total Lost time (s) Frt 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85 Yrs.:, o. .. Satd Flow (Prot) 1770 1583 1770 r r ,. 3,.L.. .. .. >.. 3.n .,` L:. ,. ':. .. : ..?': r, x ` y-. ` ,. .`. ..,, ', •. 3539 3539 1583 Satd. Flow (perm) 1770 1583 568 3539 3539 zf 1583 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Lane Group Flow (vph) 87 120 136 1571 897 98 4 2 6 Actuated Green, G (s) 12.0 12.0 80.0 80.0 80.0 80.0 E fecttue Grein;; (s) 12ssd# 12 `0' 80.0 ,; 84 Q 80 0 80 Q Actuated g/C Ratio 0.12 0.12 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 212 190 454 2831 2831 1266 v/I dP oiO 05,; O a k; cOk4 0 25 v` 4 r. t v/s Ratio Perm c0.08 0.24 0.06 Uniform Delay, d1 40.7 41.9 2.6 3.6 2.7 2.1 Incremental Delay, d2 5.8 14.9 1.0 0.5 0.2 0.1 OR, r., Level of Service' ( Dip, E A A A A Approach LOS D A A HCM Average Control Delay 4.6 HCM Level of Service A HCCyIVwolumetto w.; Cycle Length (s) 100.0 Sum of lost time (s) 8.0 c Critical Lane Group Baseline FELSBUENGL-FF51 MW Synchro 5 Report Page 1 1 u HC82000TM Copyright ® 2003 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved Version 4.1d TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General Information Site Information Analyst LED Intersection Agency/Co. FHU Jurisdiction Date Performed 4/5/2001 Analysis Year Analysis Time Period 2025 Total AM eak hour Project Description Rendezvous TIA Rendezvous Road/FVP 2025 East/West Street: Rendezvous Road North/South Street: Fraser Valley Pkwy Intersection Orientation: East-West IStudy Period hrs : 0.25 Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street Eastbound Westbound Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R olume (veh/h) 70 440 205 15 180 60 Peak -hour factor, PHF 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Hourly Flow Rate veh/h) 70 440 205 15 180 60 Proportion of heavy vehicles, PHv 2 Median type Undivided RT Channelized? 0 0 Lanes 1 1 0 1 1 0 Configuration L TR L TR U stream Signal 0 0 Minor Street Northbound Southbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R Volume veh/h) 75 110 10 85 195 25 Peak -hour factor, PHF 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Hourly Flow Rate veh/h) 75 110 10 85 195 25 Proportion of heavy vehicles, PHv 2 2 2 2 2 2 Percent grade (%) 0 0 Flared approach N N Storage 0 0 RT Channelized? 0 0 Lanes 1 1 0 1 1 00 Configuration L TR L Control Delay, Queue Length, Level of Service Approach EB WB Northbound Southbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration L L L TR L TR Volume, v (vph) 70 15 75 120 85 220 Capacity, cm (vph) 1327 940 46 253 137 239 c ratio 0.05 0.02 1.63 0.47 0.62 0.92 Queue Queue length (95%) 0.17 0.05 7.42 2.37 3.26 7.97 Control Delay (s/veh) 7.9 8.9 503.6 31.4 66.8 83.2 LOS A A F D F F pproach delay 213.0 78.6 pproach LOS F F HC82000TM Copyright ® 2003 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved Version 4.1d TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General Information Site Information Analyst LED Agency/Co. FHU Date Performed 4/5/2001 Analysis Time Period 2025 Total PM pg,ak hour Intersection _ Re_ndezvou Jurisdiction Analysis Year 2025 Project Description Rendezvous TIA East/West Street: Rendezvous Road North/South Street: Fraser Valley Pkw Intersection Orientation: East-West IStudly Period (hrs): 0.25 Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street Eastbound Westbound Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R Volume veh/h) 40 310 125 20 500 180 Peak -hour factor, PHF 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Hourly Flow Rate 40veh/h 310 125 20 500 180 Proportion of heavy vehicles, PH v 2 0 229 c ratio 2 0.02 1.51 Median type Undivided RT Channelized? 0 0 Lanes 1 1 0 1 1 0 Configuration L TR L TR Ups tream Signal 0 0 Minor Street Northbound Southbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R Volume veh/h) 230 265 25 150 190 75 Peak -hour factor, PHF 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Hourly Flow Rate 230 veh/h) 265 25 150 190 75 Proportion of heavy h' 1 P 2 2 2 2 2 2eICes, HV Percent grade (%) 0 0 Flared approach N N Storage 0 0 RT Channelized? 0 0 Lanes 1 1 0 1 1 0 Configuration L TR L TR Control Delay, Queue Length, Level of Service Approach EB WB Northbound Southbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration L L L TR L TR Volume, v (vph) 40 20 230 290 150 265 Capacity, cm (vph) 912 1125 0 192 0 229 c ratio 0.04 0.02 1.51 1.16 Queue length (95%) 0.14 0.05 18.22 12.47 Control Delay (s/veh) 9.1 8.3 299.6 153.2 LOS A A F F F F Approach delay s/veh) pproach LOS HCS2000TM Copyright © 2003 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved Version 4.1 d HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2025 Total AM Peak Hour 5: Rendezvous Road & US 40 PA 1wa Lane Configurations , Total Lost fime (s) 4 0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 0 FrtA 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 F(fPrpteced.;r':,r,,,;,'.""00....1 00,tt9 .?0. r00f,..05'U4dS. Satd Flow (prot) 1719 1810 1538 1719 1810 1538 1719 3438 1538 1719 3438 1538 Satd. Flow (perm) 1331 1810 1538 1338 1810 1538 332 3438 1538 1014 .3438 1538 Peak hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Lane Group Flow (vph) 261 27 293 179 33 109 125 315 60 43 696 120 Turn Type pm+pt Perm pm+pt Perm pm+pt Perm pm+pt Perm Permitted Phases 4 4 8 8 2 2 6 6 Actuated green,;G.() ; 4.t;. 26z,Q 2.4",<32"0' 2 Effective Green, g (s) 42.0 26.0 26.0 32.0 20.0 20.0 50.0 36.0 36.0 40.0 30.0 30.0 Actuafied/C Rato r{, y,0*2tf` 0#266` Q6'031 OOf D 20 Q 50' " 0"6, 0 3 0,4f 00 Q Clearance Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 LaneGr4Gap ph) 4'01k46 v/s Ra fio Prot c0 07 0 01 OA5 0.02 c0.05 0.09 0.01 c0.20 v/c Ratio 0 41 0 06 0 73 0 38 0 09 0 35 0 32 0 25 0 11 0 09 0 68 0.26 Progression Factor 1 00 1 00 1 00 1 00 1 00 1 00 0 41 0 58 0 59 0 93 0 88 1 04 Delay (s) 22.9 28.0 45.1 29.0 33.1 37.6 8.4 13.6 12.9 17.4 30.6 28 9 fi Approach Delay (s)34.3 32.3 12.2 29.7 HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.57 Cyl'e Le¢gt`) '4xf sy 1'g'0 " n Su)1i`*of cosi fim (ski Intersection Capacity Utilization 57.3%° ICU Level of Service 1 Baseline Synchro 5 Report Page 3 FELSBUENGL-FF51 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2025 Total PM Peak Hour 5: Rendezvous Road & US 40 PA 1wa Lane Configurations r I ft r tt r Ideal Flow (uphpl) 1900 1- 01,011,11114 19WOW'0 901900f 90 `I 900 190 s 1900` A19QQ 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 ' 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Mane CJfi(¢ Fath' 1 OWb 1r0 100°1`00, QO 1Q0.,'OOw 095 1 Q"11 OQ "Y 05 1 00 4 8 8 2 2 6 6 Actuated Green,FG (s) b 33,0.., Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt FC itected 9 r..1, 0 1 OQ r 5 A X1 t3 b*9 O M 1 f Q 0 90% 1 OOPS <00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1719 1810 1538 1719 1810 1538 1719 3438 1538 1719 3438 1538 FIt Per'mttted < x 0 74 1§t10 `` 1M100dr. r Qtt1usO t I OQ'` x`25 1 00 rt 1;00 Satd. Flow (perm) 1331 1810 1538 1319 1810 1538 298 3438 1538 457 3438 1538 ea our factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92.. .. . k,. 3 Lane Group Flow (vph) 234 43 250 120 33 54 391 1076 179 130 641 337 Turn Type pm+pt Perm pm+pt Perm pm+pt Perm pm+pt Perm Protected; Phases v/c Ratio 0.48 0.10 Permitted Phases 4 4 8 8 2 2 6 6 Actuated Green,FG (s) b 33,0.., 23 0 ` 23,b L'2 ()` 1,C%RV 101$ 45 C)z Q` 35y0 25;0' 2;:0 Effective Green, g (s) 33.0 23.0 23.0 22.0 16.0 16.0 59.0 45.0 45.0 35.0 25.0 25.0 46.7 37.0 36.7 38.6 17.8 10.8 6.2 29.9 24.1 28.9 Clearance Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 v s Ratio Prot c0.06 0.02 0.02 0.02 c0.19 0.31 0.05 0.19 v/s Rano Perm ,: 0 Of $ kcOkt6r v/c Ratio 0.48 0.10 0.71 0.38 0.11 0.22 0.65 0.70 0.26 0.45 0.75 0.88 Ur'iforma belay,. d1 2 35:4 ; , 3 3 38s 75;L2.0.., 1 ' 224 6 r6 Q Progression Factor 4' 1.00 1.00 1 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.81 0.41 0.32 1.10 0.54 0.19 Delay (s) 30.5 30.9 46.7 37.0 36.7 38.6 17.8 10.8 6.2 29.9 24.1 28.9 Approach Delay (s) 38.2 37.4 12.0 26.3 HCM Volume to Ca Cycle`Length (s} Intersection Capaci Baseline FELSBUENGL-FF51 icity ratio 0.70 Utilization 69.0% ICU Level of Service Synchro 5 Report Page 3 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2025 Total AM Peak Hour 17: King's Crossing Road & US 40 PA 1wa Lane Configurations 1@01' Flo i Grp l Y 4' 19(?0 ,1900A 19(?OF h; 1 0 190Q i 19(10, x' 1900 19 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4 0 4.0 4.0 4 0 4'0 4.0 4.0 4 0 4.0 Irie2tifFtorrz p 1-0yQ0 1 00 z 1 00,3,..,E„00$ AOR 9;5,0 OfiO.QFrt1.00 1.00 0.85 0.94 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Pr'octd0 95100 1 a0Q$ t ., 0 9&4" x 0 95 >1Q''1 rOha05 5 (r00 x:00 Satd Flow (prot) 1719 1810 1538 1676 1719 3438 1538 1719 3438 1538 FI'ermfe' Satd Flow (perm) 1338 1810 1538 1594 216 3438 1538 871 3438 1538 W! . >`h g10 g;"gsg 11€ Peak hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0 92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0 92 0 92 0 92 0.92 Adj jFlt3w (ipti)x2' 5 174 11 5 3 11 R ; X62 " ,a f 4`T W 1 =5 S Lane Group Flow (vph) 22 5 174 0 27 0 82 473 11 5 1158 27 Turn Type Perm mPermPermm+ t P p P p p m+ tp Perm tOtecteC Ph S25 f 8 y z 1011 Permitted Phases 4 4 8 2 2 6 Actt,ted Green;; Vis) 24 0„ 24 4, Q= Effective Green, g (s) 24.0 24.0 24.0 24.0 68.0 53.0 53.0 59.0 48.0 48.0 AtedC F tio 0 24 0 24 Ou24 0 24,....,, Q°6805k 0;0 48ClearanceTime (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.6 4.0 4.0 v s Ratio Prot 0.00 c0.03 0.14 0.00 c0.34 vCstr Perm v f? v/c Ratio 0.07 0.01 0.47 0.07 0.21 0.26 0.01 0.01 0.70 0.04 0 : 32 6 Progression Factor 1.0 1.0 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.46 0.45 0.06 M2IncretN-ea[fi"C,a,d2v.9 qp` Delay (s) 29.8 29.6 36.8 29.7 11.0 132 11.2 3.9 11.4 0.9 h Approach Delay (s) 35 9 29 7 12 g HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0//55 rn Intersection Capacity Utilizafion 56.1 % ICU Level of Service A Baseline Synchro 5 Report Page 4 FELSBUENGL-FF51 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2025 Total PM Peak Hour 17: King's Crossing Road & US 40 PA Ma Lane Total Lost time s 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Lane Group Flow (vph) 49 5 174 0 37 0 250 1641 33 11 967 27 Turn Type Perm Perm Perm pm+pt Perm pm+pt Perm Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 0.94 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 FIf;Proecied bxg5 ',1d 1=Qb 098 x ` 0.95y.... a...., . Satd. Flow (prot) 1719 1810 1538 Q_.. 1668 1719 3438 1538 1719 3438 1538 4s92FRIPkwh(x , 0 7 1 0(,..41ztf 5s-AI 01( 1;Ok X100 Satd. Flow (perm) 1326 1810 1538 z0 200 .. 1562 270 3438 1538 175 3438 1538 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Lane Group Flow (vph) 49 5 174 0 37 0 250 1641 33 11 967 27 Turn Type Perm Perm Perm pm+pt Perm pm+pt Perm Permitted Phases 4 4. 8 2 2 6 6 Q v Effective Green, g (s) 22.0 22.0 22.0 22.0 70.0 60.0 60.0 48.0 42.0 42.0 nr 0 60oF8 0 42 02 Clearance Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 , 4.0 4.0 4.0 v/s Ratio Prot 0.00 c0.11 c0.48 0 00 0.28 u/s- do Perm _ ... z.t%04 v/c Ratio 0.17 0.01 0.51 0.11 0.47 0.80 0.04 0.06 0.67 0.04 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.37 0.37 0.03 Delay (s) 32.8 30.6 39.8 31.8 13.1 18.6 8.2 6.1 10.7 0.7 Bi. Approach Delay (s) 38.1 31.8 17.7 10.3 HCM Volume to Intersection Baseline FELSBUENGL-FF51 ratio 0.71 Utilization 62.0% ICU Level of Service 0 Synchro 5 Report Page 4 Rendezvous Traffic Impact Analysis APPENDIX C US HIGHWAY 40 PROGRESSION DIAGRAMS 1 FELSBURG CHOLT & U L L E V I G Appendix C Time -Space Diagram - US 40 AM Peak Progression Chart -2025 Arterial ana UnK-UnK manawiains, maximum careen i Imes NO 7 Wa signai 7Ma,nt et Approach 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240ititIIIIIIIIIIIItIit11111ItitIItitIIitI] 1111111 till I it I It $Id I I 1111111111111111111111] till1111111111111111]tillI 11111iiin11111111iuIII US 40 mlr @ CR 804Link US 40 // SE LN"and 39 sN @ Safeway/ Communi NW Ink and 35 s 96 US 40 @ 14E Access • 4e US 40 8Link Ba 34 s @ Rendezvous Road t,. Link40B40s US 40 8@12EAccess US 40 e@1Waaccess .j. US 40 rc 777 / SBLink Bandt4p, @ King's Crossing Ro E 7LinkB 83 US 40 8 t' @ E. Midtown Drive /X\/ NBVLIB7nd s99 40 n _SB 7 @ Vasquez Road 19 Baseline K:k04086\updated submitta119.04 2025 Total AMprog.sy6 Time -Space Diagram - US 40 Arterial and Link -Link Bandwidths, Maximum Green Times AM Peak Progression Chart -2025 With 1Wa Sicinal Main Street Cross Street Approach 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240Offsetlitiilliilliiulini1111111111111111111111pillin1111111111111111111it [III IIIII I I II I I I till 111111111111 US 40 e@CR804 I I ' 87 Link BVO s W e al Band 32 s US 40 8 7EBVAand36 Arteria and 32 @ 3Wc Access NW ink and 32 s Arterials. nd s 97 US 40 @ 14E Access US 40 Link B 34s S erial Band 32 s @ Rendezvous Road Lin k B 32 5 N erial Band 32 s 38 US 40 8@12EAccess. US 40 SB ink and 32 s Arterial and VS @ Ma access 8 inkd 41 I N rteri i- 13 US 40 + B Link Ban s SB Ar ial nd s @ King's Crossing Ro I NB Link B d i, NBA rte and 3 81 US 40 +Link B 9 s SB rial Band 3 s NB@E. Midtown Drive j. I" I ink an s A I ark 32 s US 40 SBLAB d7 B rteri nd @ Vasquez Road 31 17 Baseline K:1040861updated submitta119.04 2025 Total AMprogx.sy Time -Space Diagram - US 40 PM Peak Progression Chart -2025 Arterial ana unK-UnK Bandwidths, Maximum green Mmes No 1Wa Signal Main Street Cross Street Approach 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240 Offset IIIIIIII iilu n1111111111Iltlllli1IIIIIIItillIIII]ItillIIIII111lllllllllllllllIIIIItillIitI III Iitlitill IIII liiiilitill I US 40 8@CR804 WB i nd 5 Art i Ba 2 s 14 US 40 ink B n s EB r 113 d 26 s / @ 3Wc Access ( Link an 5 s NVVA rial Ban 25s 83 US 40 @ 14E Access US 40 SB Link d 6 rt is an 26s @ Rendezvous Road NB Li tf and s Art I B d 5s 79 US 40 + @ 12E Access/ A\ V/ 8 US 40 Milli, @ 1Wa access e US 40 SB k nd 30 s S Arterial Band 2 @ King's Crossing Ro * Li d 46 s rterial and 17 US 40 Lin n s r B .6 / @ 8 i d I B r r and 2s US40 S k 62 \ S tri' d 26 s8 69 aseline K:1040861updated submitta1t9.04 2025 Total PMprog.sy6 Time -Space Diagram - US 40 PM Peak Progression Chart -2025 Hrterim ana UnK-UnK Bandwidths, maximum green Times With 1Wa Signal Main Street Cross Street Approach 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 1.80 200 220 240Offsetrrrrlrrrrlrnrlrnrlrurlrrrrinrrlrurlrrrrlrrnlrrrrirrrrlrurlrrrrllrrrirrnurrlrrrrlrrrrlrrrrinrrlrrulrrrrlirrrlrrrrlr US 40 8@CR804 WB n 3 14 Ar ri B 2 s US 40(j ink B n S EB r al B d 26 s @ Safeway / Communi j`, I ` I Link an 45 s Aerial Ba 25s 81 US 40 Nil @ 14E Access US 40 8SB Lin 6 ria a 26s @ Rendezvous Road NB Li and s N Art 'al B 5s 78 US 40 ` @ 12E Access 8 US 408 \ Link and s S Ar"IB26s @ 1 Wa access .}. B L Bad 4 s B t ial Ban s \ 3 US 40 SB in d 44 s rterial Ba 2 @ King's Crossing Ro E+I+1 Li a d 46 s terial n 20 US 40 r S i s rt B 6 / @ 8 L: n ff and s US 40 S k 6 s \ nd 2 6 s @ 69 Baseline KA040861updated submittal\9.04 2025 Total PMprogx.sy May 19, 2021 Ms. Trotter Willows Apartments Preliminary Plats & Final Plan Dear Ms. Trotter, On behalf of Grand Park Development, Holley, Albertson & Polk, P.C, TKE Civil & Structural Engineering, and Terracina Design we request a continuance of the Planning Commission hearing to the first date possible after providing timely public notice. The following is a response to comments. PRELIMINARY PLATS: Add land use table to plats. The table shall include: land uses, approximate acreage of each land use and percentage of each land use, total acreage and square footage of property, total numbers of lots and maximum number of each type of dwelling unit proposed and parking. See attached Checklist. RESPONSE: The final plat will include required land use data and parking. Add OVR building and improvement setbacks to plat in accordance with the Grand Park PDD (Rec.# 2005012709), Sheet 3. For consistency, use similar language that is on Final Plan. RESPONSE: Noted. Language from final plan will be used. Clarify plat note #10.All setbacks are zero.For consistency,use similar language on Final Plan. RESPONSE: Language from final plan will be used. FINAL PLAN: Add density transfer chart/reserve to Final Plan,including which Planning Area density is being transferred from in accordance with Article 4.0 of the 2003 Amended and Restated Annexation Agreement (Rec.#2003-016733).RESPONSE:Note #6 provides an explanation of which planning areas units are transferred from.A separate table showing all of Grand Park will be provided similar to when 3wc was processed. On sheet 12 of 14 of the Final Plan,denote bus stops as existing or proposed. RESPONSE: Plan will be revised OTHER: Provide a letter from USACE approving the realignment of Cozens Ditch prior to construction plan approval and plat recordation. RESPONSE: Noted Provide emergency turnaround easement at the end of American Willow Drive per Code Section 14-3-40 Horizontal alignment (All dead-end streets require turnarounds or cul- de-sacs per Attachment A-12 - Cul-De-Sac and Turnarounds for Streets. All turnarounds shall provide ten (10) feet of level, treeless ground around the perimeter. Special attention should be given to provide adequate functional snow storage and sight distance. All turnarounds shall be signed "Emergency Turn Around, No Parking Anytime."). RESPONSE: A turn around easement will be provided over the clubhouse drop-off area which is at the end of the road and is a 24’ paved surface 130’ in diameter. ROD MCGOWAN COMMENTS: 1.The April 9th FPDP graphics (Sheet 4 etc.) and legal description improperly incorporate parcels labelled “23W” and count those parcels in the open space calculations. Under the Annexation Agreement and PDD, the Planning Area 23W designated open space parcel is separate from the development Planning Areas and cannot be split into small pieces and made a part of a development area. The PDD provides that, in addition to the designated open space parcels like 23W, each development Planning Area is to include additional open space according to the Development Standards, which specify a minimum of 10% open space for Planning Area 2W. The legal descriptions, plans and plats must be revised consistent with this approach (see, e.g., the FPDP included with the 3- 22-21 submittal). The revised plans must be submitted for review prior completion of the staff report to the Planning Commission, or staff will recommend denial of the application. RESPONSE (SCOTT ALBERTSON Holley, Albertson & Polk, P.C.) No provisions in the Amended and Restated Annexation Agreement, as amended by the 2005 PDD contemplates that open space Planning Area 23 W would be a contiguous parcel during the development of Grand Park and remain under single ownership. Similarly, I find nothing that prohibits inclusion of portions of 23W in subdivision plats as development proceeds, as long as PA 23W remains open space. Both the FPDPs and plats for Elk Creek and Meadows include Tracts that are parts of PA 23W; specifically, Tract H1 in Elk Creek Filing 3 (Note 6), Tracts H2 and H3 in Elk Creek Filing 4 (Note 6) and Tract C in the Meadows (Note 16). These properties remain part of PA 23 W, just as the Tracts included within proposed Willows Filings 1 and 2 will remain part of PA 23W and be limited to use as open space. In addition, for the most part, the situation with the PA 23 W open space Tracts in the Willows is identical to that resulting in the creation of 23W Tracts in Elk Creek and Meadows. Each of the Tracts is defined by the roadways adjacent to or within the Willows, i.e. Old Victory Road to the southwest, American Willow Drive at the entry to Willows Apartments Filing 1 from OVR and Mountain Willow Drive as the main access road bisecting PA 2W. Note 16 in the PDD has relevance in recognizing that changes may occur “based on market conditions and other factors that may affect the land use mix, intensity, and design of the planning areas over the projected twenty- five year development period.” Similarly, Section 19-4-165 Of the Municipal Code has relevance in establishing the following criteria for open space: “Avoidance of concentrating open space into large areas with the subsequent ‘packing’ of residential areas” and “Open space and/or landscaping accompanies all types of developments.” The layout of the subdivision as depicted in the Filing 1 and 2 Preliminary Plats and the inclusion of the PA 23W open space Tracts is consistent with the above and in no way violates any provision of the Annexation Agreement, as amended by the 2005 PDD. Further, it is consistent with the precedent established by prior Grand Park subdivisions, a precedent established by Fraser and relied on by Grand Park Development, LLC. 2.The submittal does not include adequate provisions for the dedication and construction of Old Victory Road, from the existing terminus at Mountain Willow Drive to Kings Crossing Road. The “response comments” submitted indicate that that a portion between Mountain Willow Drive and American Willow Drive will remain unpaved. That is not acceptable. Further, the plats must be amended to include and dedicate adjacent portions of OVR and documentation for dedication of off-site portions of OVR must be submitted. The settlement agreement in the underpass litigation allows a permanent easement to be granted for the segment of OVR from Grand Park Drive to Kings Crossing Road, pending development of Planning Area 1Wb. The remaining portion must be dedicated or conveyed to the Town as a public street. These matters must be addressed prior completion of the staff report to the Planning Commission, or staff will recommend denial of the application. RESPONSE: The Old Victory Road ROW will be dedicated via a separate instrument. As discussed with staff, a phasing plan will be provided with the Final Plat submittal that delineates timing of phasing, ROW dedication, and paving. It is important to existing residents that construction traffic and staging be located as far from their homes as possible. To that end, the intention is to use OVR for construction staging while local traffic is routed along Mountain Willow Drive. 3.Since the final plat for Filing 1 will include the OVR right-of-way and encompass all of the area to be included in Filing 2. The Filing 1 preliminary plat must be amended to include all of that area, showing the Filing 2 area as a separate tract for future development. RESPONSE: Filing 1 plat will not include OVR ROW as mentioned in the previous comment, however a parcel for Filing 2 will be created with the Filing 1 Final Plat. 4.The Public Transit Plan included in the FPDP (Sheet 12) must be amended to conform with the Transit Plan approved as part of the FPDP for the Meadows and Planning Area 3Wc (Rec. #2020001835). The Plan included with the April 9th submittal is not consistent with such previously approved Plan. This item must also be addressed prior to completion of staff’s report to the Planning Commission. RESPONSE: Per the meeting with Staff on May 13th, it was determined that the difference in plans was the variation between the proposed private trails that were shown on the 3Wc FPPD and 2w.2 FPDP. The title and purpose of this plan is to demonstrate the latest “Public Transit” routes and stops in place. The proposed 2w.2 Public Transit plan shows the latest Lift routes and bus stops. trails shown on the 3Wc plan was simply a background layer depicting a possible proposed private trail system that is in no way implies a reservation or dedication of transit routes. All trails and pedestrian routes will be removed from the plans to reduce confusion on what the plan is intended to depict. TOWN OF FRASER ORDINANCE NO. 485 Series 2021 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 2 ARTICLE 10 OF THE FRASER MUNICIPAL CODE REGARDING THE WATER AND WASTEWATER COMMITTEE NOW THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE TOWN OF FRASER, COLORADO, THAT: PART 1: AMENDMENT OF MUNICIPAL CODE. Chapter 2 (Water and Wastewater Committee), Article 10 of the Fraser Municipal Code (herein sometimes referred to as the "Municipal Code") is hereby amended as follows [Note: additions are shown in bold underlined print; deletions are shown as strikethrough print]: ARTICLE 10 - Water and Wastewater Advisory Committee Sec. 2-10-10. - Creation. There is hereby created a Water and Wastewater Advisory Committee for the Town composed of seven (7) five (5) members who may perform all functions currently or hereinafter authorized by this Article and future ordinances adopted by the Board of Trustees. Sec. 2-10-20. - Members. The Water and Wastewater Advisory Committee shall consist of four (4) two (2) ex officio members who shall be the Mayor and three (3) members of the Board of Trustees selected by the Board of Trustees. The balance of the Water and Wastewater Advisory Committee shall consist of three (3) members appointed by the Board of Trustees. All members of the Water and Wastewater Advisory Committee may be compensated as established by resolution of the Board of Trustees. Sec. 2-10-30. - Terms. The terms of the ex officio members shall correspond to their respective official tenure. The terms of each of the appointed members shall be two (2) years, or until his or her successor takes office. Terms of the appointed members shall be concurrent with the two-year municipal election cycle. Sec. 2-10-40. - Eligibility. All members of the Water and Wastewater Advisory Committee shall be bona fide residents of the Town, own property within the Town or have at least ten-percent ownership interest in a business that owns property within the Town. If any member ceases to meet these eligibility requirements, his or her membership on the Water and Wastewater Advisory 2 Committee shall immediately terminate. Sec. 2-10-50. - Removal from Water and Wastewater Committee. Members, other than a member currently serving on the Board of Trustees, may be removed by resolution of the Board of Trustees for inefficiency, neglect of duty or malfeasance in office, or if such member has missed three (3) consecutive meetings or three (3) meetings in a fiscal year unless such absences shall be excused by the Committee. The Mayor or the Board of Trustees, as the case may be, shall file a written statement of reasons for such removal for consideration by the Board of Trustees. Due to the nature of matters that may be considered by the Water and Wastewater Advisory Committee, members are expected to serve with discretion and shall be required to enter into confidentiality agreements with the Town. Sec. 2-10-60. - Chairperson. The Water and Wastewater Advisory Committee shall elect a Chairperson from among the members. The term of the Chairperson shall be one (1) year, with eligibility for reelection. Sec. 2-10-70. - Expenditures and employees. The Water and Wastewater Advisory Committee is not authorized to hire any employees or expend any Town funds. The Town Manager will assign staff and make other resources available as he or she deems appropriate. Sec. 2-10-80. - Responsibilities. (a)The Water and Wastewater Advisory Committee shall act in an advisory capacity to the Board of Trustees as requested by the Board of Trustees and/or the Town Manager. (b)The Water and Wastewater Advisory Committee is authorized to explore matters related to water and wastewater and make recommendations to the Board of Trustees and/or the Town Manager. (c)The Water and Wastewater Advisory Committee shall hold at least one (1) regular meeting quarterly. A quorum is not required in order to hold a meeting. Meetings will be held the second Tuesday of January, April, July, and October beginning at 9:00 AM at the Fraser Town Hall. Sec. 2-10-90. - Appeals. (a)The Water and Wastewater Advisory Committee shall hear and decide appeals from and review any order, requirement, decision or determination made by any administrative official or Town staff charged with the administration or enforcement of 3 any provision of Chapter 13 (Municipal Utilities), Article 2 (Water System) and Article 4 (Sanitary Sewer System), except for any decision or determination made by the Board of Trustees pursuant to said Articles, which action shall be final. (b)Notice of such appeal shall be in writing, specifying the grounds thereof, which shall be filed with the administrative officer or official from whom the appeal is taken within ten (10) days after the issuance of the order, decision or other action that is the subject of the appeal. Failure to file a notice of appeal within the prescribed time shall constitute a waiver of the right to appeal. (c)Upon receipt of the notice of appeal, the officer or official from whom the appeal is taken shall transmit to the Town Clerk all documents constituting the record upon which the action appealed from was taken and the Town Clerk shall provide the same to the Committee. (d)The Committee shall fix a reasonable time for the hearing of the appeal and give due notice thereof to the parties. Upon hearing, any party may appear in person or by agent or attorney. The Water and Wastewater Advisory Committee may reverse or affirm, wholly or partly, or may modify the order, requirement, decision or determination appealed from and shall make such order, requirement, decision or determination as in its opinion ought to be made in the premises and to that end has all the powers of the officer or official from whom the appeal is taken, subject, however, to the vote requirements specified in Subsection (e) below. (e)The concurring vote of four (4) three (3) members of the Water and Wastewater Advisory Committee shall be required to overturn or modify decisions made by any Town official or staff upon appeal to the Committee. (f)The Water and Wastewater Advisory Committee shall render its decision on an appeal within a reasonable time, which decision shall be made or confirmed in writing and delivered or mailed to each party to the appeal. Sec. 2-10-100. - Appeals from Water and Wastewater Advisory Committee. Every decision of the Water and Wastewater Advisory Committee shall be subject to review by certiorari by the District Court and as provided by law. Such appeal shall be filed not later than thirty (30) days from the final action taken by the Water and Wastewater Advisory Committee. Such appeal may be taken by any person aggrieved or by an officer, department, board or bureau of the Town. Sec. 2-10-110. - Fees; rules. (a)All appeals to the Water and Wastewater Advisory Committee shall be accompanied by payment of a fee as set forth in Appendix A to this Code for each 4 separate appeal submitted. Said fee shall not be refunded, notwithstanding that the applicant has withdrawn such appeal or that the same is denied by the Water and Wastewater Advisory Committee. (b)The Water and Wastewater Advisory Committee is given the authority to adopt any rules necessary to transact the Committee's business or to expedite its functions or powers so long as they are not inconsistent with the provisions of the applicable state statutes and this Code and, provided further, that such rules and any amendments thereto must be approved by the Board of Trustees before taking effect. PART 2: REPEAL. Any and all existing ordinances or parts of ordinances of the Town of Fraser covering the same matters as embraced in this Ordinance are hereby repealed and all ordinances or parts of ordinances inconsistent with the provisions of this ordinance are hereby repealed; provided, however, that such repeal shall not affect or prevent the prosecution or punishment of any person for any act done or committed in violation of any ordinance hereby repealed prior to the taking effect of this Ordinance. PART 3: SEVERABILITY. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase of this Ordinance is, for any reason, held to be invalid or unconstitutional, such decision shall not affect the validity or constitutionality of the remaining portions of this Ordinance. The Town of Fraser hereby declares that it would have adopted this Ordinance, and each section, subsection, clause or phrase thereof, irrespective of the fact that any one or more sections, subsections, sentences, clauses and phrases thereof be declared invalid or unconstitutional. PART 4: EFFECTIVE DATE. This Ordinance shall take effect thirty (30) days after passage, adoption and publication thereof as provided by law. PART 5: PUBLICATION. This Ordinance shall be published by title only. READ, PASSED, ADOPTED AND ORDERED PUBLISHED BY THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES AND SIGNED THIS _____ DAY OF _____________, 2021. Votes in favor: ____BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE Votes opposed: ____TOWN OF FRASER, COLORADO Votes abstained: ____ BY: ____________________________________ Philip Vandernail, Mayor ( S E A L ) ATTEST: ________________________________ Antoinette McVeigh, Town Clerk 5 Published in the Middle Park Times on _________________. Total Amount Paid $39,434.56 Address 37 Meadow Creek, Fraser 37 Meadow Creek, Fraser 37 Meadow Creek, Fraser 37 Meadow Creek, Fraser 129 Mills Meadow, Fraser 129 Mills Meadow, Fraser 129 Mills Meadow, Fraser 660 Wapiti, Fraser 660 Wapiti, Fraser 660 Wapiti, Fraser 148 Fraser, Fraser 148 Fraser, Fraser 148 Fraser, Fraser 831 Wapiti, Fraser 831 Wapiti, Fraser 831 Wapiti, Fraser 831 Wapiti, Fraser 831 Wapiti, Fraser 831 Wapiti, Fraser 831 Wapiti, Fraser 876 Wapiti, Fraser 876 Wapiti, Fraser 876 Wapiti, Fraser 848 Wapiti, Fraser 848 Wapiti, Fraser 848 Wapiti, Fraser 801 Mink, Fraser 801 Mink, Fraser 801 Mink, Fraser 401 Unknown, 401 Unknown, 401 Unknown, Total Collected in Accela $39,434.56 Fees Paid by Fraser Earliest Payment Found Latest Payment Found 10/4/2021 10/27/2021 Record Type Permit Payment Date Owner Fee Description Amount Assessed Amount Paid Residential Addition BLD21-474 10/27/2021 Grand Park Homes, LLC.Building Permit $684.50 $684.50 10/27/2021 Grand Park Homes, LLC.Plan Review $444.93 $444.93 10/27/2021 Grand Park Homes, LLC.Fraser Use Tax $1,153.30 $1,153.30 10/27/2021 Grand Park Homes, LLC.East Grand Fire $483.00 $483.00 Permit Total $2,765.73 $2,765.73 Record Type Total $2,765.73 $2,765.73 Residential Alteration BLD21-428 10/4/2021 Kenneth D. and Jamie D. Jensen Building Permit $236.00 $236.00 10/4/2021 Kenneth D. and Jamie D. Jensen Plan Review $153.40 $153.40 10/4/2021 Kenneth D. and Jamie D. Jensen Fraser Use Tax $528.00 $528.00 Permit Total $917.40 $917.40 BLD21-436 10/4/2021 Matthew D. and Antoinette M. McVeigh Building Permit $278.00 $278.00 10/4/2021 Matthew D. and Antoinette M. McVeigh Plan Review $180.70 $180.70 10/4/2021 Matthew D. and Antoinette M. McVeigh Fraser Use Tax $635.41 $635.41 Permit Total $1,094.11 $1,094.11 BLD21-490 10/25/2021 Lucinda Young and Gabriel Van Bockern Building Permit $166.00 $166.00 10/25/2021 Lucinda Young and Gabriel Van Bockern Plan Review $107.90 $107.90 10/25/2021 Lucinda Young and Gabriel Van Bockern Fraser Use Tax $2,382.39 $2,382.39 Permit Total $2,656.29 $2,656.29 Record Type Total $4,667.80 $4,667.80 Residential New BLD21-356 10/4/2021 Ransom H. and Thanet Flint Building Permit $1,881.20 $1,881.20 10/4/2021 Ransom H. and Thanet Flint Plan Review $1,222.78 $1,222.78 10/4/2021 Ransom H. and Thanet Flint Fraser Use Tax $5,525.50 $5,525.50 10/4/2021 Ransom H. and Thanet Flint East Grand Fire $483.00 $483.00 10/4/2021 Ransom H. and Thanet Flint Fraser Water PIF $9,625.00 $9,625.00 10/4/2021 Ransom H. and Thanet Flint Fraser Sewer PIF $9,375.00 $9,375.00 10/5/2021 Ransom H. and Thanet Flint Fraser Water Meter 3/4 in $1,060.00 $1,060.00 Permit Total $29,172.48 $29,172.48 Record Type Total $29,172.48 $29,172.48 Residential Other BLD21-450 10/4/2021 Jac Nickoloff Living Trust Building Permit $54.00 $54.00 10/4/2021 Jac Nickoloff Living Trust Plan Review $35.10 $35.10 10/4/2021 Jac Nickoloff Living Trust Fraser Use Tax $324.00 $324.00 Permit Total $413.10 $413.10 BLD21-451 10/14/2021 Jamei Wenger Building Permit $376.00 $376.00 10/14/2021 Jamei Wenger Plan Review $244.40 $244.40 10/6/2021 Jamei Wenger Fraser Use Tax $583.40 $583.40 Permit Total $1,203.80 $1,203.80 BLD21-454 10/4/2021 George Kellogg Building Permit $54.00 $54.00 10/4/2021 George Kellogg Plan Review $35.10 $35.10 10/4/2021 George Kellogg Fraser Use Tax $242.20 $242.20 Permit Total $331.30 $331.30 BLD21-461 10/6/2021 Waldron Building Permit $295.00 $295.00 10/6/2021 Waldron Plan Review $191.75 $191.75 10/6/2021 Waldron Fraser Use Tax $393.60 $393.60 Permit Total $880.35 $880.35 Record Type Total $2,828.55 $2,828.55 Grand Total $39,434.56 $39,434.56 Total Collected in SalesForce $0.00 amount paid Total for Fraser (Use Tax/Water/Sewer)$31,827.80 Grand Total $39,434.56 $4,024.70 Checks Sent to Fraser $31,827.80 Check $0.00 $966.00 Difference $0.00 $9,375.00 Total for East Grand $966.00 $11,767.80 Checks Sent to East Grand $966.00 $1,060.00 Difference $0.00 $9,625.00 Total Building Permit/Plan Review $6,640.76 $2,616.06 Total in Cassele $6,640.76 $39,434.56 Difference $0.00 Fee Item invoice fee Building Permit $4,024.70 East Grand Fire $966.00 Fraser Sewer PIF $9,375.00 Fraser Use Tax $11,767.80 Fraser Water Meter 3/4 $1,060.00 Fraser Water PIF $9,625.00 Plan Review $2,616.06 Total $39,434.56 Reviewed by JRS 11/02/21 Fraser Report October 2021 Generated By: Irene Kilburn Winter Park 11/1/2021 8:16 AM Permit: Issue Date Permit: Type Permit: Work Type Type Amount Fee Paid Date Amount Paid $0.00 $0.00 Filtered By: Show: All fees Date Field: Fee Paid Date equals Custom (10/1/2021 to 11/1/2021) Permit: Current Status equals Cancelled,Closed,Issued,Pending AND Type equals Plan Review,Building Permit,Plan Review (Plan revisions),Change Fee,Fraser Use Tax,Fraser Water PIF,Fraser Sewer PIF,Fraser Water Meter 5/8 in,Fraser Water Meter 3/4 in,Fraser Water Meter 1 in,Fraser Water Meter > 1 in,East Grand Fire AND Permit: Iss Permit No. starts with fr Grand Totals (0 records) Confidential Information - Do Not Distribute Copyright (c) 2000-2021 salesforce.com, inc. All rights reserved. TOWN OF FRASER COMBINED CASH INVESTMENT AUGUST 31, 2021 COMBINED CASH ACCOUNTS 01-10200 GENERAL CHECKING #878-000884 342,573.04 01-10215 XPRESS DEPOSIT ACCOUNT 20,150.85 01-10220 GENERAL CO-01-0160-8001 16,112,658.52 TOTAL COMBINED CASH 16,475,382.41 01-10100 CASH ALLOCATED TO OTHER FUNDS ( 16,475,382.41) TOTAL UNALLOCATED CASH .00 CASH ALLOCATION RECONCILIATION 10 ALLOCATION TO GENERAL FUND 7,311,498.00 12 ALLOCATION TO RESTRICTED REVENUE FUND 679,484.91 20 ALLOCATION TO CONSERVATION TRUST FUND 24,852.29 30 ALLOCATION TO CAPITAL EQUIP REPLACEMENT FUND 277,928.74 32 ALLOCATION TO CAPITAL ASSET FUND 296,526.12 35 ALLOCATION TO CROS FUND 205,564.37 40 ALLOCATION TO DEBT SERVICE FUND 35,533.99 50 ALLOCATION TO WATER FUND 2,258,243.49 55 ALLOCATION TO WASTEWATER FUND 5,385,750.50 TOTAL ALLOCATIONS TO OTHER FUNDS 16,475,382.41 ALLOCATION FROM COMBINED CASH FUND - 01-10100 ( 16,475,382.41) ZERO PROOF IF ALLOCATIONS BALANCE .00 TOWN OF FRASER BALANCE SHEET AUGUST 31, 2021 GENERAL FUND ASSETS 10-10100 CASH - COMBINED FUND 7,311,498.00 10-11100 PROPERTY TAXES RECEIVABLE 352,669.00 10-11550 ACCTS REC - BILLINGS 27,818.92 10-11600 MISCELLANEOUS RECEIVABLES 1,298.78 TOTAL ASSETS 7,693,284.70 LIABILITIES AND EQUITY LIABILITIES 10-20200 ACCOUNTS PAYABLE TRADE 121,053.75 10-21740 UNEMPLOYMENT TAXES PAYABLE 979.60 10-21760 HEALTH INSURANCE PAYABLE 60,871.91 10-21773 DEPENDENT CARE PAYABLE 3,705.06 10-21775 FLEX HEALTH PLAN PAYABLE 98.84 10-21900 ECONOMIC INCENTIVE FEE REBATE 45,038.00 10-22210 DEFERRED TAXES 352,669.00 10-22920 SUBDIVISION IMP SECURITY DEP 74,564.50 10-22950 RENTAL PROPERTY DEPOSITS HELD 500.00 TOTAL LIABILITIES 659,480.66 FUND EQUITY 10-27000 GF COMMITTED RESERVE BALANCE 1,575,500.00 10-27050 GF STRATEGIC RESERVES 1,500,000.00 10-27100 GF RESTRICTED RESERVE BALANCE 258,615.20 UNAPPROPRIATED FUND BALANCE: REVENUE OVER EXPENDITURES - YTD 3,699,688.84 BALANCE - CURRENT DATE 3,699,688.84 TOTAL FUND EQUITY 7,033,804.04 TOTAL LIABILITIES AND EQUITY 7,693,284.70 TOWN OF FRASER REVENUES WITH COMPARISON TO BUDGET FOR THE 8 MONTHS ENDING AUGUST 31, 2021 GENERAL FUND PERIOD ACTUAL YTD ACTUAL BUDGET UNEARNED PCNT TAXES 10-31-100 GENERAL FUND PROPERTY TAX 7,152.20 347,245.34 350,000.00 2,754.66 99.2 10-31-200 SPECIFIC OWNERSHIP TAX 2,218.57 15,349.28 12,000.00 ( 3,349.28)127.9 10-31-300 MOTOR VEHICLE TAX .00 .00 4,500.00 4,500.00 .0 10-31-400 TOWN SALES TAX 357,958.70 1,932,690.64 2,750,000.00 817,309.36 70.3 10-31-410 USE TAX - BUILDING MATERIALS 61,053.52 449,584.73 100,000.00 ( 349,584.73)449.6 10-31-420 USE TAX - MOTOR VEHICLE SALES .00 106,124.06 65,000.00 ( 41,124.06)163.3 10-31-430 STATE CIGARETTE TAX 540.47 1,597.48 3,200.00 1,602.52 49.9 10-31-800 FRANCHISE FEES 13,012.82 71,605.62 55,000.00 ( 16,605.62)130.2 TOTAL TAXES 441,936.28 2,924,197.15 3,339,700.00 415,502.85 87.6 LICENSES & PERMITS 10-32-100 BUSINESS LICENSE FEES 1,420.00 11,740.00 15,000.00 3,260.00 78.3 10-32-110 REGULATED INDUSTRY FEES/TAXES 34,308.35 163,495.69 120,000.00 ( 43,495.69)136.3 TOTAL LICENSES & PERMITS 35,728.35 175,235.69 135,000.00 ( 40,235.69)129.8 INTERGOVERNMENTAL 10-33-100 GRANTS 5,000.00 206,644.89 .00 ( 206,644.89).0 TOTAL INTERGOVERNMENTAL 5,000.00 206,644.89 .00 ( 206,644.89).0 CHARGES FOR SERVICES 10-34-100 ANNEXATION FEES .00 .00 1,000.00 1,000.00 .0 10-34-110 ZONING FEES .00 250.00 1,500.00 1,250.00 16.7 10-34-120 SUBDIVISION FEES 700.00 25,100.00 1,500.00 ( 23,600.00)1673.3 10-34-130 MISCELLANEOUS PLANNING FEES .00 80.00 1,000.00 920.00 8.0 10-34-300 PAYT 9,058.80 54,986.55 35,000.00 ( 19,986.55)157.1 TOTAL CHARGES FOR SERVICES 9,758.80 80,416.55 40,000.00 ( 40,416.55)201.0 MISCELLANEOUS REVENUE 10-36-100 INTEREST EARNINGS 172.36 2,588.58 35,000.00 32,411.42 7.4 10-36-300 RENTAL INCOME 425.00 4,762.00 12,000.00 7,238.00 39.7 10-36-600 COMMUNITY HOUSING 3,450.00 13,650.00 15,000.00 1,350.00 91.0 10-36-610 REIMBURSABLE - PROF SERVICES 1,351.44 37,355.13 50,000.00 12,644.87 74.7 10-36-630 DISPOSABLE BAG FEES 6,475.68 13,612.44 10,000.00 ( 3,612.44)136.1 10-36-900 MISCELLANEOUS REVENUE 2,627.45 35,636.68 30,500.00 ( 5,136.68)116.8 TOTAL MISCELLANEOUS REVENUE 14,501.93 107,604.83 152,500.00 44,895.17 70.6 TOWN OF FRASER REVENUES WITH COMPARISON TO BUDGET FOR THE 8 MONTHS ENDING AUGUST 31, 2021 GENERAL FUND PERIOD ACTUAL YTD ACTUAL BUDGET UNEARNED PCNT OTHER SOURCES & TRANSFERS 10-39-920 TRANSFER IN FROM GF RESERVES .00 .00 6,379.00 6,379.00 .0 10-39-999 UNASSIGNED FUND BALANCE .00 4,172,073.08 2,508,918.15 ( 1,663,154.93)166.3 TOTAL OTHER SOURCES & TRANSFERS .00 4,172,073.08 2,515,297.15 ( 1,656,775.93)165.9 TOTAL FUND REVENUE 506,925.36 7,666,172.19 6,182,497.15 ( 1,483,675.04)124.0 TOWN OF FRASER EXPENDITURES WITH COMPARISON TO BUDGET FOR THE 8 MONTHS ENDING AUGUST 31, 2021 GENERAL FUND PERIOD ACTUAL YTD ACTUAL BUDGET UNEXPENDED PCNT TOWN BOARD 10-41-110 SALARIES .00 16,750.00 35,000.00 18,250.00 47.9 10-41-220 FICA TAX .00 1,143.70 3,825.00 2,681.30 29.9 10-41-280 TRAINING PROGRAMS 980.00 990.00 6,000.00 5,010.00 16.5 10-41-290 TRAVEL, MEALS AND LODGING 479.93 3,070.09 5,500.00 2,429.91 55.8 10-41-295 MEALS AND ENTERTAINMENT 885.72 3,653.51 10,000.00 6,346.49 36.5 10-41-690 MISCELLANEOUS EXPENSE 7,000.00 12,211.66 10,500.00 ( 1,711.66)116.3 10-41-860 GRANTS AND AID TO AGENCIES .00 650.00 5,000.00 4,350.00 13.0 10-41-861 INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENTS .00 .00 5,000.00 5,000.00 .0 10-41-862 FRASER/WINTER PARK POLICE DEPT .00 383,887.00 650,000.00 266,113.00 59.1 10-41-863 STREET LIGHTING AND SIGNALS 1,325.25 9,071.30 22,750.00 13,678.70 39.9 10-41-864 SPECIAL EVENTS 3,035.92 16,984.78 15,000.00 ( 1,984.78)113.2 10-41-870 BUSINESS DIST STREETSCAPE .00 4,000.00 5,000.00 1,000.00 80.0 10-41-871 BUSINESS ENHANCEMENT PROGRAMS .00 100,500.00 82,500.00 ( 18,000.00)121.8 10-41-872 SUSTAINABILITY 1,450.00 1,450.00 15,000.00 13,550.00 9.7 10-41-873 RECYCLE FACILITY 10,321.06 53,379.36 50,000.00 ( 3,379.36)106.8 10-41-874 COMMUNITY HOUSING .00 .00 750,000.00 750,000.00 .0 10-41-875 MARKETING 1,133.38 10,153.42 25,000.00 14,846.58 40.6 TOTAL TOWN BOARD 26,611.26 617,894.82 1,696,075.00 1,078,180.18 36.4 TOWN OF FRASER EXPENDITURES WITH COMPARISON TO BUDGET FOR THE 8 MONTHS ENDING AUGUST 31, 2021 GENERAL FUND PERIOD ACTUAL YTD ACTUAL BUDGET UNEXPENDED PCNT ADMINISTRATION 10-45-110 SALARIES 36,950.68 330,615.96 500,000.00 169,384.04 66.1 10-45-210 HEALTH INSURANCE 7,524.86 52,768.19 90,000.00 37,231.81 58.6 10-45-220 FICA TAX 2,671.68 19,585.46 32,000.00 12,414.54 61.2 10-45-230 RETIREMENT 1,954.74 15,212.96 20,000.00 4,787.04 76.1 10-45-250 UNEMPLOYMENT TAX 110.86 815.16 1,200.00 384.84 67.9 10-45-280 TRAINING PROGRAMS 645.00 2,942.50 8,000.00 5,057.50 36.8 10-45-290 TRAVEL, MEALS AND LODGING .00 12,044.42 10,000.00 ( 2,044.42)120.4 10-45-295 MEALS AND ENTERTAINMENT 269.18 4,454.67 6,000.00 1,545.33 74.2 10-45-310 LEGAL FEES 72,935.16 139,946.56 175,000.00 35,053.44 80.0 10-45-320 AUDIT FEES .00 20,250.00 18,200.00 ( 2,050.00)111.3 10-45-330 ENGINEERING FEES .00 .00 3,500.00 3,500.00 .0 10-45-360 COMPUTERS-NETWORKS AND SUPPORT 5,902.01 60,168.38 90,000.00 29,831.62 66.9 10-45-370 OTHER PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 5,828.17 37,183.77 90,000.00 52,816.23 41.3 10-45-375 REIMBURSABLE PROF SERVICES 461.56 23,511.80 50,000.00 26,488.20 47.0 10-45-380 JANITORIAL SERVICES 1,202.75 8,582.19 15,918.12 7,335.93 53.9 10-45-385 TREASURER'S FEES 143.05 6,946.10 7,725.00 778.90 89.9 10-45-395 RECORDING FEES .00 750.00 1,500.00 750.00 50.0 10-45-410 BANK CHARGES 1,542.12 6,600.18 8,000.00 1,399.82 82.5 10-45-420 ELECTIONS .00 .00 5,000.00 5,000.00 .0 10-45-430 INSURANCE - ALL DEPARTMENTS .00 106,903.57 75,000.00 ( 31,903.57)142.5 10-45-440 ADVERTISING .00 760.03 2,500.00 1,739.97 30.4 10-45-490 PROFESSIONAL MEMBERSHIPS .00 10,190.27 12,000.00 1,809.73 84.9 10-45-500 OPERATING SUPPLIES 1,517.83 8,048.48 15,435.00 7,386.52 52.1 10-45-510 EQUIPMENT PURCHASE AND REPAIR .00 209.99 10,000.00 9,790.01 2.1 10-45-550 POSTAGE .00 1,212.32 2,500.00 1,287.68 48.5 10-45-560 UTILITIES -TELEPHONE 573.18 5,182.52 7,500.00 2,317.48 69.1 10-45-561 UTILITIES - NATURAL GAS 140.17 1,964.66 3,500.00 1,535.34 56.1 10-45-562 UTILITIES - ELECTRICITY 722.19 6,392.85 6,400.00 7.15 99.9 10-45-670 PROP MGMT - 107 EISENHOWER DR 682.36 11,177.97 20,000.00 8,822.03 55.9 10-45-671 PROP MGMT - 105 FRASER AVE 39.81 123.99 500.00 376.01 24.8 10-45-673 PROP MGMT - 153 FRASER AVE 295.80 10,033.74 60,000.00 49,966.26 16.7 10-45-674 PROP MGMT - 200 EISENHOWER DR 80.00 80.00 500.00 420.00 16.0 10-45-690 MISCELLANEOUS EXPENSE 7,128.31 13,178.74 20,000.00 6,821.26 65.9 10-45-740 CAPITAL PURCHASES .00 81.94 .00 ( 81.94).0 10-45-830 LOAN - PRINCIPAL 383.07 37,645.68 .00 ( 37,645.68).0 10-45-840 LOAN - INTEREST 5.31 72.98 .00 ( 72.98).0 TOTAL ADMINISTRATION 149,709.85 955,638.03 1,367,878.12 412,240.09 69.9 TOWN OF FRASER EXPENDITURES WITH COMPARISON TO BUDGET FOR THE 8 MONTHS ENDING AUGUST 31, 2021 GENERAL FUND PERIOD ACTUAL YTD ACTUAL BUDGET UNEXPENDED PCNT PUBLIC WORKS 10-60-110 SALARIES 33,669.95 357,591.23 735,000.00 377,408.77 48.7 10-60-210 HEALTH INSURANCE 10,458.40 98,589.00 215,000.00 116,411.00 45.9 10-60-220 FICA TAX 2,256.94 24,492.42 58,000.00 33,507.58 42.2 10-60-230 RETIREMENT 1,646.95 16,457.96 33,000.00 16,542.04 49.9 10-60-250 UNEMPLOYMENT TAX 101.01 1,079.51 2,350.00 1,270.49 45.9 10-60-280 TRAINING PROGRAMS .00 1,085.00 3,500.00 2,415.00 31.0 10-60-290 TRAVEL, MEALS AND LODGING .00 .00 2,500.00 2,500.00 .0 10-60-295 MEALS AND ENTERTAINMENT 34.50 115.72 1,500.00 1,384.28 7.7 10-60-330 ENGINEERING FEES 1,020.00 1,020.00 50,000.00 48,980.00 2.0 10-60-360 COMPUTER NETWORK SUPPORT 2,656.85 32,638.66 33,075.00 436.34 98.7 10-60-370 OTHER PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 13,293.70 18,855.12 90,000.00 71,144.88 21.0 10-60-480 EQUIPMENT RENTAL .00 2,418.20 2,500.00 81.80 96.7 10-60-490 PROFESSIONAL MEMBERSHIPS .00 1,000.75 1,000.00 ( .75)100.1 10-60-500 OPERATING SUPPLIES 4,377.88 75,665.43 90,000.00 14,334.57 84.1 10-60-506 PLANTS/PLANTER SUPPLIES 134.37 16,869.55 70,000.00 53,130.45 24.1 10-60-510 EQUIPMENT PURCHASE AND REPAIR 1,419.30 41,529.54 75,000.00 33,470.46 55.4 10-60-560 UTILITIES - TELEPHONE 425.61 2,817.92 4,000.00 1,182.08 70.5 10-60-561 UTILITIES - NATURAL GAS 58.93 3,072.17 5,000.00 1,927.83 61.4 10-60-670 PROP MGMT - 125 FRASER AVE 344.63 4,798.47 7,500.00 2,701.53 64.0 10-60-673 PROP MGMT - FRASER RIVER TRAIL .00 1,418.19 10,000.00 8,581.81 14.2 10-60-674 PROP MGMT - HWY 40 PEDESTRIAN .00 .00 6,000.00 6,000.00 .0 10-60-675 PROP MGMT - KOPPERS PARK .00 .00 1,500.00 1,500.00 .0 10-60-676 PROP MGMT - OLD SCHLHOUSE PK .00 216.37 5,000.00 4,783.63 4.3 10-60-679 PROP MGMT - SCHOOL BUS GARAGE 334.22 5,190.22 5,000.00 ( 190.22)103.8 10-60-680 PROP MGMT - GARDNER SHED 130.00 130.00 .00 ( 130.00).0 10-60-681 PROP MGMT - COZENS RANCH PARK 1,453.31 8,677.33 15,000.00 6,322.67 57.9 10-60-684 PROP MGMT - FRODO 450.00 1,257.50 5,000.00 3,742.50 25.2 10-60-685 PROP MGMT - MTN MAN PARK .00 216.36 500.00 283.64 43.3 10-60-686 GORANSON STATION 80.00 80.00 500.00 420.00 16.0 10-60-687 PROP MGMT - 6 W .00 762.80 5,000.00 4,237.20 15.3 10-60-690 MISCELLANEOUS EXPENSE 1,271.00 8,995.77 8,000.00 ( 995.77)112.5 10-60-740 ART IN PUBLIC PLACES 33,818.29 54,328.04 90,000.00 35,671.96 60.4 TOTAL PUBLIC WORKS 109,435.84 781,369.23 1,630,425.00 849,055.77 47.9 120 ZEREX AVENUE 10-65-370 OTHER PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 160.00 160.00 .00 ( 160.00).0 10-65-380 JANITORIAL SERVICES 1,453.31 9,720.41 15,000.00 5,279.59 64.8 10-65-561 UTILITIES - NATURAL GAS 59.55 699.69 1,236.36 536.67 56.6 10-65-562 UTILITIES - ELECTRICITY 103.96 809.89 1,236.36 426.47 65.5 10-65-670 PROP MGMT - 120 ZEREX .00 533.24 5,000.00 4,466.76 10.7 TOTAL 120 ZEREX AVENUE 1,776.82 11,923.23 22,472.72 10,549.49 53.1 TOWN OF FRASER EXPENDITURES WITH COMPARISON TO BUDGET FOR THE 8 MONTHS ENDING AUGUST 31, 2021 GENERAL FUND PERIOD ACTUAL YTD ACTUAL BUDGET UNEXPENDED PCNT TRANSFERS 10-90-920 TRANSFER TO CERF - POLICE DEPT .00 .00 60,000.00 60,000.00 .0 10-90-930 TRANSFER TO CERF - PUBLICWORKS 50,000.00 50,000.00 50,000.00 .00 100.0 10-90-935 TRANSFER TO CAF 550,000.00 550,000.00 550,000.00 .00 100.0 10-90-960 TRANSFER TO CROS .00 .00 326,379.00 326,379.00 .0 10-90-970 TRANSFER TO COMMITTED RESERVES 575,500.00 575,500.00 75,500.00 ( 500,000.00)762.3 10-90-980 TRANSFER TO STRATEGIC RESERVES 400,000.00 400,000.00 400,000.00 .00 100.0 TOTAL TRANSFERS 1,575,500.00 1,575,500.00 1,461,879.00 ( 113,621.00)107.8 FISCAL AGENT 10-95-110 SALARIES 9,288.76 17,748.76 .00 ( 17,748.76).0 10-95-210 HEALTH INSURANCE 2,112.53 4,225.06 .00 ( 4,225.06).0 10-95-220 FICA TAX 647.39 1,227.98 .00 ( 1,227.98).0 10-95-230 RETIREMENT 416.80 808.96 .00 ( 808.96).0 10-95-250 UNEMPLOYMENT TAX 27.87 78.69 .00 ( 78.69).0 10-95-560 TELEPHONE 43.00 43.00 .00 ( 43.00).0 10-95-690 MISC. PAYROLL EXPENSE 8.58 25.59 .00 ( 25.59).0 TOTAL FISCAL AGENT 12,544.93 24,158.04 .00 ( 24,158.04).0 TOTAL FUND EXPENDITURES 1,875,578.70 3,966,483.35 6,178,729.84 2,212,246.49 64.2 NET REVENUE OVER EXPENDITURES ( 1,368,653.34)3,699,688.84 3,767.31 ( 3,695,921.53)98205. TOWN OF FRASER BALANCE SHEET AUGUST 31, 2021 RESTRICTED REVENUE FUND ASSETS 12-10100 CASH COMBINED FUND 679,484.91 TOTAL ASSETS 679,484.91 LIABILITIES AND EQUITY FUND EQUITY 12-27000 RESTRICTED RESERVE - TRANSPORT 210,000.00 UNAPPROPRIATED FUND BALANCE: REVENUE OVER EXPENDITURES - YTD 469,484.91 BALANCE - CURRENT DATE 469,484.91 TOTAL FUND EQUITY 679,484.91 TOTAL LIABILITIES AND EQUITY 679,484.91 TOWN OF FRASER REVENUES WITH COMPARISON TO BUDGET FOR THE 8 MONTHS ENDING AUGUST 31, 2021 RESTRICTED REVENUE FUND PERIOD ACTUAL YTD ACTUAL BUDGET UNEARNED PCNT TAXES 12-31-100 RESTRICTED 1% GF SALES TAX 89,489.68 483,172.67 687,500.00 204,327.33 70.3 12-31-800 INTEREST INCOME 13.02 184.97 500.00 315.03 37.0 TOTAL TAXES 89,502.70 483,357.64 688,000.00 204,642.36 70.3 INTERGOVENMENTAL 12-33-100 GRANTS & AID TO AGENCIES .00 .00 11,000.00 11,000.00 .0 TOTAL INTERGOVENMENTAL .00 .00 11,000.00 11,000.00 .0 OTHER SOURCES 12-39-999 UNASSIGNED FUND BALANCE .00 537,576.89 38,838.25 ( 498,738.64)1384.1 TOTAL OTHER SOURCES .00 537,576.89 38,838.25 ( 498,738.64)1384.1 TOTAL FUND REVENUE 89,502.70 1,020,934.53 737,838.25 ( 283,096.28)138.4 TOWN OF FRASER EXPENDITURES WITH COMPARISON TO BUDGET FOR THE 8 MONTHS ENDING AUGUST 31, 2021 RESTRICTED REVENUE FUND PERIOD ACTUAL YTD ACTUAL BUDGET UNEXPENDED PCNT EXPENDITURES 12-40-610 TRANSPORTATION O&M .00 341,395.56 680,000.00 338,604.44 50.2 12-40-710 TRAILS O&M .00 54.06 20,000.00 19,945.94 .3 12-40-715 TRAILS - CAPITAL EXPENDITURES .00 .00 35,000.00 35,000.00 .0 12-40-900 TRANSFER TO TRANS O&M RESERVE 210,000.00 210,000.00 .00 ( 210,000.00).0 TOTAL EXPENDITURES 210,000.00 551,449.62 735,000.00 183,550.38 75.0 TOTAL FUND EXPENDITURES 210,000.00 551,449.62 735,000.00 183,550.38 75.0 NET REVENUE OVER EXPENDITURES ( 120,497.30)469,484.91 2,838.25 ( 466,646.66)16541. TOWN OF FRASER BALANCE SHEET AUGUST 31, 2021 CONSERVATION TRUST FUND ASSETS 20-10100 CASH - COMBINED FUND 24,852.29 TOTAL ASSETS 24,852.29 LIABILITIES AND EQUITY FUND EQUITY UNAPPROPRIATED FUND BALANCE: REVENUE OVER EXPENDITURES - YTD 24,852.29 BALANCE - CURRENT DATE 24,852.29 TOTAL FUND EQUITY 24,852.29 TOTAL LIABILITIES AND EQUITY 24,852.29 TOWN OF FRASER REVENUES WITH COMPARISON TO BUDGET FOR THE 8 MONTHS ENDING AUGUST 31, 2021 CONSERVATION TRUST FUND PERIOD ACTUAL YTD ACTUAL BUDGET UNEARNED PCNT REVENUE 20-30-100 CONS TRUST (LOTTERY) PROCEEDS .00 4,236.26 6,800.00 2,563.74 62.3 20-30-800 INTEREST EARNINGS .55 8.49 75.00 66.51 11.3 20-30-999 UNASSIGNED FUND BALANCE .00 20,607.54 20,637.32 29.78 99.9 TOTAL REVENUE .55 24,852.29 27,512.32 2,660.03 90.3 TOTAL FUND REVENUE .55 24,852.29 27,512.32 2,660.03 90.3 TOWN OF FRASER EXPENDITURES WITH COMPARISON TO BUDGET FOR THE 8 MONTHS ENDING AUGUST 31, 2021 CONSERVATION TRUST FUND PERIOD ACTUAL YTD ACTUAL BUDGET UNEXPENDED PCNT EXPENDITURES 20-40-920 TRANSFER TO OTHER FUNDS .00 .00 10,000.00 10,000.00 .0 TOTAL EXPENDITURES .00 .00 10,000.00 10,000.00 .0 TOTAL FUND EXPENDITURES .00 .00 10,000.00 10,000.00 .0 NET REVENUE OVER EXPENDITURES .55 24,852.29 17,512.32 ( 7,339.97)141.9 TOWN OF FRASER BALANCE SHEET AUGUST 31, 2021 CAPITAL EQUIP REPLACEMENT FUND ASSETS 30-10100 CASH - COMBINED FUND 277,928.74 TOTAL ASSETS 277,928.74 LIABILITIES AND EQUITY FUND EQUITY UNAPPROPRIATED FUND BALANCE: REVENUE OVER EXPENDITURES - YTD 277,928.74 BALANCE - CURRENT DATE 277,928.74 TOTAL FUND EQUITY 277,928.74 TOTAL LIABILITIES AND EQUITY 277,928.74 TOWN OF FRASER REVENUES WITH COMPARISON TO BUDGET FOR THE 8 MONTHS ENDING AUGUST 31, 2021 CAPITAL EQUIP REPLACEMENT FUND PERIOD ACTUAL YTD ACTUAL BUDGET UNEARNED PCNT REVENUE 30-30-100 HWY USE TAX PROCEEDS 4,549.05 28,552.81 47,393.85 18,841.04 60.3 30-30-800 INTEREST EARNINGS 3.00 68.15 2,500.00 2,431.85 2.7 30-30-900 TRANSFER FROM G/F - POLICEDEPT .00 .00 60,000.00 60,000.00 .0 30-30-910 TRANSFER FROM G/F - PUBLICWORK 50,000.00 50,000.00 50,000.00 .00 100.0 30-30-920 TRANSFER FROM UTILITY FUNDS 90,000.00 90,000.00 90,000.00 .00 100.0 30-30-999 UNASSIGNED FUND BALANCE .00 205,694.78 139,839.39 ( 65,855.39)147.1 TOTAL REVENUE 144,552.05 374,315.74 389,733.24 15,417.50 96.0 TOTAL FUND REVENUE 144,552.05 374,315.74 389,733.24 15,417.50 96.0 TOWN OF FRASER EXPENDITURES WITH COMPARISON TO BUDGET FOR THE 8 MONTHS ENDING AUGUST 31, 2021 CAPITAL EQUIP REPLACEMENT FUND PERIOD ACTUAL YTD ACTUAL BUDGET UNEXPENDED PCNT EXPENDITURES 30-40-745 PUBLIC SAFETY FLEET PURCHASE .00 .00 60,000.00 60,000.00 .0 30-40-755 HEAVY EQUIPMENT PURCHASE .00 .00 200,000.00 200,000.00 .0 30-40-810 LEASE/PURCHASE - PRINCIPAL 2,370.85 87,614.10 100,000.00 12,385.90 87.6 30-40-820 LEASE/PURCHASE - INTEREST 156.50 8,772.90 15,000.00 6,227.10 58.5 TOTAL EXPENDITURES 2,527.35 96,387.00 375,000.00 278,613.00 25.7 TOTAL FUND EXPENDITURES 2,527.35 96,387.00 375,000.00 278,613.00 25.7 NET REVENUE OVER EXPENDITURES 142,024.70 277,928.74 14,733.24 ( 263,195.50)1886.4 TOWN OF FRASER BALANCE SHEET AUGUST 31, 2021 CAPITAL ASSET FUND ASSETS 32-10100 CASH - COMBINED FUND 296,526.12 TOTAL ASSETS 296,526.12 LIABILITIES AND EQUITY FUND EQUITY UNAPPROPRIATED FUND BALANCE: 32-29800 FUND BALANCE - BEGINNING OF YR ( 276,568.37) REVENUE OVER EXPENDITURES - YTD 573,094.49 BALANCE - CURRENT DATE 296,526.12 TOTAL FUND EQUITY 296,526.12 TOTAL LIABILITIES AND EQUITY 296,526.12 TOWN OF FRASER REVENUES WITH COMPARISON TO BUDGET FOR THE 8 MONTHS ENDING AUGUST 31, 2021 CAPITAL ASSET FUND PERIOD ACTUAL YTD ACTUAL BUDGET UNEARNED PCNT CAPITAL ASSET REVENUE 32-30-100 RESERVED FOR FUTURE USE .00 .00 80,000.00 80,000.00 .0 32-30-800 INTEREST EARNINGS ( 5.44)( 88.93).00 88.93 .0 32-30-910 TRANSFER IN FROM GENERAL FUND 550,000.00 550,000.00 550,000.00 .00 100.0 32-30-999 UNASSIGNED FUND BALANCE .00 53,433.57 113,178.62 59,745.05 47.2 TOTAL CAPITAL ASSET REVENUE 549,994.56 603,344.64 743,178.62 139,833.98 81.2 TOTAL FUND REVENUE 549,994.56 603,344.64 743,178.62 139,833.98 81.2 TOWN OF FRASER EXPENDITURES WITH COMPARISON TO BUDGET FOR THE 8 MONTHS ENDING AUGUST 31, 2021 CAPITAL ASSET FUND PERIOD ACTUAL YTD ACTUAL BUDGET UNEXPENDED PCNT CAPITAL ASSET EXPENDITURES 32-40-810 CAPITAL PROJ- STREETS EXISTING 7,009.69 22,699.55 740,000.00 717,300.45 3.1 32-40-820 CAPITAL PROJ - BUILDINGS EXIST .00 7,550.60 .00 ( 7,550.60).0 TOTAL CAPITAL ASSET EXPENDITURES 7,009.69 30,250.15 740,000.00 709,749.85 4.1 TOTAL FUND EXPENDITURES 7,009.69 30,250.15 740,000.00 709,749.85 4.1 NET REVENUE OVER EXPENDITURES 542,984.87 573,094.49 3,178.62 ( 569,915.87)18029. TOWN OF FRASER BALANCE SHEET AUGUST 31, 2021 CROS FUND ASSETS 35-10100 CASH COMBINED FUND 205,564.37 TOTAL ASSETS 205,564.37 LIABILITIES AND EQUITY FUND EQUITY UNAPPROPRIATED FUND BALANCE: REVENUE OVER EXPENDITURES - YTD 205,564.37 BALANCE - CURRENT DATE 205,564.37 TOTAL FUND EQUITY 205,564.37 TOTAL LIABILITIES AND EQUITY 205,564.37 TOWN OF FRASER REVENUES WITH COMPARISON TO BUDGET FOR THE 8 MONTHS ENDING AUGUST 31, 2021 CROS FUND PERIOD ACTUAL YTD ACTUAL BUDGET UNEARNED PCNT INTERGOVERNMENTAL - REVENUE 35-30-100 GRANTS AND AWARDS .00 .00 735,000.00 735,000.00 .0 35-30-130 INTEREST INCOME 4.55 82.50 .00 ( 82.50).0 35-30-910 TRANSFER IN FROM GENERAL FUND .00 .00 326,379.00 326,379.00 .0 35-30-920 TRANSFER IN FROM CTF .00 .00 10,000.00 10,000.00 .0 35-30-999 CARRYOVER BALANCE .00 212,991.87 212,962.79 ( 29.08)100.0 TOTAL INTERGOVERNMENTAL - REVENUE 4.55 213,074.37 1,284,341.79 1,071,267.42 16.6 TOTAL FUND REVENUE 4.55 213,074.37 1,284,341.79 1,071,267.42 16.6 TOWN OF FRASER EXPENDITURES WITH COMPARISON TO BUDGET FOR THE 8 MONTHS ENDING AUGUST 31, 2021 CROS FUND PERIOD ACTUAL YTD ACTUAL BUDGET UNEXPENDED PCNT PROJECT WIDE SCOPE - EXPENSES 35-40-320 LANDSCAPE .00 .00 60,000.00 60,000.00 .0 35-40-330 PLAYGROUND .00 .00 600,000.00 600,000.00 .0 35-40-335 RESTROOMS .00 1,735.00 600,000.00 598,265.00 .3 35-40-340 TRAILS 525.00 5,775.00 .00 ( 5,775.00).0 TOTAL PROJECT WIDE SCOPE - EXPENSES 525.00 7,510.00 1,260,000.00 1,252,490.00 .6 TOTAL FUND EXPENDITURES 525.00 7,510.00 1,260,000.00 1,252,490.00 .6 NET REVENUE OVER EXPENDITURES ( 520.45)205,564.37 24,341.79 ( 181,222.58)844.5 TOWN OF FRASER BALANCE SHEET AUGUST 31, 2021 DEBT SERVICE FUND ASSETS 40-10100 CASH - COMBINED FUND 35,533.99 TOTAL ASSETS 35,533.99 LIABILITIES AND EQUITY FUND EQUITY 40-27100 DSF COMMITTED RESERVE BALANCE 33,693.16 UNAPPROPRIATED FUND BALANCE: REVENUE OVER EXPENDITURES - YTD 1,840.83 BALANCE - CURRENT DATE 1,840.83 TOTAL FUND EQUITY 35,533.99 TOTAL LIABILITIES AND EQUITY 35,533.99 TOWN OF FRASER REVENUES WITH COMPARISON TO BUDGET FOR THE 8 MONTHS ENDING AUGUST 31, 2021 DEBT SERVICE FUND PERIOD ACTUAL YTD ACTUAL BUDGET UNEARNED PCNT REVENUE 40-30-800 INTEREST EARNINGS .78 13.82 1,000.00 986.18 1.4 40-30-999 CARRYOVER BALANCE .00 1,827.01 2,572.53 745.52 71.0 TOTAL REVENUE .78 1,840.83 3,572.53 1,731.70 51.5 TOTAL FUND REVENUE .78 1,840.83 3,572.53 1,731.70 51.5 NET REVENUE OVER EXPENDITURES .78 1,840.83 3,572.53 1,731.70 51.5 TOWN OF FRASER BALANCE SHEET AUGUST 31, 2021 WATER FUND ASSETS 50-10100 CASH - COMBINED FUND 2,258,243.49 50-11500 A/R CUSTOMER SERVICE CHARGES 6,807.43 50-11560 A/R - DEFERRED PIF 467,133.34 50-16100 LAND 100,000.00 50-16200 BUILDINGS 3,040,174.49 50-16203 WELLS SYSTEM 958,079.74 50-16212 WATER DISTRIBUTION/STORAGE 10,159,161.12 50-16213 WELLS 1,083,397.93 50-16400 EQUIPMENT 353,994.02 50-16500 WATER RIGHTS 651,359.86 50-17900 ACCUMULATED DEPRECIATION ( 264,164.67) 50-17901 ACCUMULATED DEPR - BLDGS& IMPR ( 1,363,498.00) 50-17902 ACCUMULATED DEPR - SYSTEM&IMPR ( 5,134,042.00) TOTAL ASSETS 12,316,646.75 LIABILITIES AND EQUITY LIABILITIES 50-20776 DUE TO GRAND PARK - TAPS 377,300.00 50-21100 ACCRUED PTO AND BENEFITS 11,503.00 50-22910 ROAD CUT SURITY FEES 18,955.00 50-22920 BULK WATER SECURITY DEP 20,200.00 TOTAL LIABILITIES 427,958.00 FUND EQUITY 50-27000 WF COMMITTED RESERVE BALANCE 500,000.00 50-27050 WF STRATEGIC RESERVES 194,025.00 UNAPPROPRIATED FUND BALANCE: 50-29800 RETAINED EARNINGS 9,967,527.69 REVENUE OVER EXPENDITURES - YTD 1,227,136.06 BALANCE - CURRENT DATE 11,194,663.75 TOTAL FUND EQUITY 11,888,688.75 TOTAL LIABILITIES AND EQUITY 12,316,646.75 TOWN OF FRASER REVENUES WITH COMPARISON TO BUDGET FOR THE 8 MONTHS ENDING AUGUST 31, 2021 WATER FUND PERIOD ACTUAL YTD ACTUAL BUDGET UNEARNED PCNT LICENSES & PERMITS 50-32-100 EXCAVATION PERMIT FEES 275.00 1,650.00 275.00 ( 1,375.00)600.0 TOTAL LICENSES & PERMITS 275.00 1,650.00 275.00 ( 1,375.00)600.0 CHARGES FOR SERVICES 50-34-100 CUSTOMER SERVICE CHARGES 1,183.60 540,565.74 1,100,000.00 559,434.26 49.1 50-34-150 PENALTIES & INTEREST 73.68 3,660.04 2,000.00 ( 1,660.04)183.0 50-34-200 PLANT INVESTMENT FEES 115,500.00 409,640.00 7,700.00 ( 401,940.00)5320.0 50-34-300 WATER METER SALES 20,220.00 79,736.99 50,000.00 ( 29,736.99)159.5 TOTAL CHARGES FOR SERVICES 136,977.28 1,033,602.77 1,159,700.00 126,097.23 89.1 MISCELLANEOUS REVENUE 50-36-100 INTEREST EARNINGS 50.14 733.66 6,000.00 5,266.34 12.2 50-36-900 MISCELLANEOUS REVENUE 325.00 2,227.00 2,500.00 273.00 89.1 TOTAL MISCELLANEOUS REVENUE 375.14 2,960.66 8,500.00 5,539.34 34.8 OTHER SOURCES & TRANSFERS 50-39-999 UNASSIGNED FUND BALANCE .00 781,538.24 764,123.50 ( 17,414.74)102.3 TOTAL OTHER SOURCES & TRANSFERS .00 781,538.24 764,123.50 ( 17,414.74)102.3 TOTAL FUND REVENUE 137,627.42 1,819,751.67 1,932,598.50 112,846.83 94.2 TOWN OF FRASER EXPENDITURES WITH COMPARISON TO BUDGET FOR THE 8 MONTHS ENDING AUGUST 31, 2021 WATER FUND PERIOD ACTUAL YTD ACTUAL BUDGET UNEXPENDED PCNT EXPENDITURES 50-40-110 SALARIES 22,658.23 193,786.97 310,000.00 116,213.03 62.5 50-40-210 HEALTH INSURANCE 5,246.64 41,771.33 80,000.00 38,228.67 52.2 50-40-220 FICA TAX 1,620.11 13,867.31 25,000.00 11,132.69 55.5 50-40-230 RETIREMENT 1,249.15 11,100.44 15,000.00 3,899.56 74.0 50-40-250 UNEMPLOYMENT TAX 67.98 584.09 1,000.00 415.91 58.4 50-40-280 TRAINING PROGRAMS 1,345.00 2,017.50 3,500.00 1,482.50 57.6 50-40-290 TRAVEL, MEALS AND LODGING .00 79.30 3,500.00 3,420.70 2.3 50-40-295 MEALS AND ENTERTAINMENT .00 .00 2,000.00 2,000.00 .0 50-40-310 LEGAL FEES 4,981.00 36,374.00 65,000.00 28,626.00 56.0 50-40-330 ENGINEERING FEES 23,771.36 74,777.31 100,000.00 25,222.69 74.8 50-40-360 COMPUTERS-NETWORKS AND SUPPORT 1,955.89 14,045.46 7,000.00 ( 7,045.46)200.7 50-40-370 OTHER PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 829.79 3,236.36 60,000.00 56,763.64 5.4 50-40-430 INSURANCE .00 .00 27,000.00 27,000.00 .0 50-40-440 ADVERTISING .00 .00 500.00 500.00 .0 50-40-460 SYSTEM REPAIR AND MAINT - PROD 115.68 9,478.79 160,000.00 150,521.21 5.9 50-40-465 SYSTEM REPAIR AND MAINT - DIST 169.75 8,135.64 265,000.00 256,864.36 3.1 50-40-490 PROFESSIONAL MEMBERSHIPS .00 5,232.12 9,500.00 4,267.88 55.1 50-40-500 OPERATING SUPPLIES-PRODUCTION .00 10,781.60 25,000.00 14,218.40 43.1 50-40-505 OPERATING SUPPLIES-DISTRIB 16,689.10 36,345.92 80,000.00 43,654.08 45.4 50-40-510 EQUIPMENT PURCHASE AND REPAIR .00 .00 15,000.00 15,000.00 .0 50-40-520 TESTING 1,375.04 2,437.14 10,000.00 7,562.86 24.4 50-40-550 POSTAGE & BILLING SUPPLIES .00 989.75 3,000.00 2,010.25 33.0 50-40-560 UTILITIES - TELEPHONE 973.45 7,677.22 10,000.00 2,322.78 76.8 50-40-562 UTILITIES - ELECTRICITY 3,669.40 25,275.68 50,000.00 24,724.32 50.6 50-40-670 PROP MGMT - FRASER WTP 160.00 160.00 60,000.00 59,840.00 .3 50-40-680 PROP MGMT - MARYVALE WTP 160.00 160.00 8,000.00 7,840.00 2.0 50-40-690 MISCELLANEOUS EXPENSE 984.00 1,159.97 1,500.00 340.03 77.3 50-40-715 WATER RIGHTS - DIVERSION & DEV 148.81 9,641.71 45,000.00 35,358.29 21.4 50-40-730 CAPITAL PROJECTS .00 .00 425,000.00 425,000.00 .0 50-40-930 TRANSFER TO CERF 45,000.00 45,000.00 45,000.00 .00 100.0 50-40-980 TRANSFER TO STRATEGIC RESERVES 38,500.00 38,500.00 7,700.00 ( 30,800.00)500.0 TOTAL EXPENDITURES 171,670.38 592,615.61 1,919,200.00 1,326,584.39 30.9 TOTAL FUND EXPENDITURES 171,670.38 592,615.61 1,919,200.00 1,326,584.39 30.9 NET REVENUE OVER EXPENDITURES ( 34,042.96)1,227,136.06 13,398.50 ( 1,213,737.56)9158.8 TOWN OF FRASER BALANCE SHEET AUGUST 31, 2021 WASTEWATER FUND ASSETS 55-10100 CASH - COMBINED FUND 5,385,750.50 55-11500 A/R CUSTOMER SERVICE CHARGES 6,694.46 55-11560 A/R - DEFERRED PIF 455,000.00 55-11900 MISCELLANEOUS RECEIVABLES 8,195.96 55-13090 DUE FROM JFOC ( 4,430.00) 55-15950 CAP REPL RES HELD W/JFOC 920,714.60 55-15955 O&M RESERVE HELD W/JFOC 53,861.22 55-16100 LAND 144,320.40 55-16200 SEWER TREATMENT PLANT 3,399,895.89 55-16210 METER BUILDING & IMPROVEMENTS 8,056.39 55-16220 SEWER COLLECTION SYSTEM 11,179,204.75 55-16250 CONSOLIDATED COLLECTION SYSTEM 279,069.00 55-16400 EQUIPMENT 110,782.16 55-16450 CONSTRUCTION IN PROGRESS 2,826,086.00 55-17900 ACCUMULATED DEPRECIATION ( 1,400,458.64) 55-17901 ACCUMU DEPR - BLDG IMPROVE ( 8,073.00) 55-17905 ACCUM DEPR - PLANT/JFOC ( 69,767.24) 55-17910 ACCUM DEPR - SEWER COLLECT-FSD ( 5,659,734.89) 55-17915 ACCUM DEPR-EQUIPMENT ( 89,903.17) TOTAL ASSETS 17,545,264.39 LIABILITIES AND EQUITY LIABILITIES 55-21100 ACCRUED PTO AND BENEFITS 17,143.00 TOTAL LIABILITIES 17,143.00 FUND EQUITY 55-27000 WWF COMMITTED RESERVE BAL-O&M 500,000.00 55-27010 WWF COMMITTED RESERVE BAL-CAP 221,000.00 55-27020 WWF COMMITTED RESERVE BAL-JFF 330,000.00 55-27030 WWF COMMITTED RESERVE - PLANT 1,050,000.00 55-27050 WWF STRATEGIC RESERVES 2,055,000.00 UNAPPROPRIATED FUND BALANCE: 55-29800 RETAINED EARNINGS 8,061,549.52 55-29810 RETAINED EARNINGS - UNRESTRICT 59,753.00 55-29820 RETAINED EARNINGS - RESTRICTED 701,475.11 REVENUE OVER EXPENDITURES - YTD 4,549,343.76 BALANCE - CURRENT DATE 13,372,121.39 TOTAL FUND EQUITY 17,528,121.39 TOTAL LIABILITIES AND EQUITY 17,545,264.39 TOWN OF FRASER REVENUES WITH COMPARISON TO BUDGET FOR THE 8 MONTHS ENDING AUGUST 31, 2021 WASTEWATER FUND PERIOD ACTUAL YTD ACTUAL BUDGET UNEARNED PCNT CHARGES FOR SERVICES 55-34-100 CUSTOMER SERVICE CHARGES 965.97 442,728.24 990,000.00 547,271.76 44.7 55-34-150 PENALTIES & INTEREST 52.46 3,355.59 1,000.00 ( 2,355.59)335.6 55-34-200 PLANT INVESTMENT FEES 105,000.00 729,000.00 300,000.00 ( 429,000.00)243.0 TOTAL CHARGES FOR SERVICES 106,018.43 1,175,083.83 1,291,000.00 115,916.17 91.0 MISCELLANEOUS REVENUE 55-36-100 INTEREST EARNINGS 119.24 1,975.10 18,500.00 16,524.90 10.7 55-36-500 JFF MANAGEMENT FEE .00 14,500.00 29,000.00 14,500.00 50.0 TOTAL MISCELLANEOUS REVENUE 119.24 16,475.10 47,500.00 31,024.90 34.7 OTHER SOURCES & TRANSFERS 55-39-999 UNASSIGNED FUND BALANCE .00 4,726,398.65 2,953,351.33 ( 1,773,047.32)160.0 TOTAL OTHER SOURCES & TRANSFERS .00 4,726,398.65 2,953,351.33 ( 1,773,047.32)160.0 TOTAL FUND REVENUE 106,137.67 5,917,957.58 4,291,851.33 ( 1,626,106.25)137.9 TOWN OF FRASER EXPENDITURES WITH COMPARISON TO BUDGET FOR THE 8 MONTHS ENDING AUGUST 31, 2021 WASTEWATER FUND PERIOD ACTUAL YTD ACTUAL BUDGET UNEXPENDED PCNT EXPENDITURES 55-40-110 SALARIES 25,155.94 200,188.95 325,000.00 124,811.05 61.6 55-40-210 HEALTH INSURANCE 5,803.08 43,349.39 83,000.00 39,650.61 52.2 55-40-220 FICA TAX 1,799.19 14,314.55 27,000.00 12,685.45 53.0 55-40-230 RETIREMENT 1,375.17 11,431.05 17,000.00 5,568.95 67.2 55-40-250 UNEMPLOYMENT TAX 75.46 602.99 1,000.00 397.01 60.3 55-40-280 TRAINING PROGRAMS .00 192.50 3,000.00 2,807.50 6.4 55-40-290 TRAVEL, MEALS AND LODGING .00 .00 3,000.00 3,000.00 .0 55-40-295 MEALS AND ENTERTAINMENT .00 .00 2,000.00 2,000.00 .0 55-40-310 LEGAL FEES .00 .00 5,000.00 5,000.00 .0 55-40-330 ENGINEERING FEES .00 .00 20,000.00 20,000.00 .0 55-40-360 COMPUTERS-NETWORKS AND SUPPORT 1,955.90 11,059.11 7,000.00 ( 4,059.11)158.0 55-40-370 OTHER PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 829.80 3,236.38 15,000.00 11,763.62 21.6 55-40-410 BANK CHARGES .00 .00 100.00 100.00 .0 55-40-430 INSURANCE .00 .00 7,000.00 7,000.00 .0 55-40-440 ADVERTISING .00 .00 500.00 500.00 .0 55-40-460 SYSTEM REPAIR AND MAINT-COLLEC .00 77,281.80 150,000.00 72,718.20 51.5 55-40-490 PROFESSIONAL MEMBERSHIPS .00 5,314.13 6,000.00 685.87 88.6 55-40-500 OPERATING SUPPLIES-COLLECTIONS .00 247.46 5,500.00 5,252.54 4.5 55-40-510 EQUIPMENT PURCHASE AND REPAIR .00 .00 50,000.00 50,000.00 .0 55-40-520 TESTING .00 .00 1,000.00 1,000.00 .0 55-40-550 POSTAGE & BILLING SUPPLIES .00 957.78 2,500.00 1,542.22 38.3 55-40-560 UTILITIES - TELEPHONE 279.79 2,305.79 2,000.00 ( 305.79)115.3 55-40-650 WW TREATMENT CHARGES/JFOC 37,650.15 152,064.97 290,000.00 137,935.03 52.4 55-40-690 MISCELLANEOUS EXPENSE 891.00 1,066.97 3,000.00 1,933.03 35.6 55-40-730 CAPITAL PROJECTS .00 .00 250,000.00 250,000.00 .0 55-40-930 TRANSFER TO CERF 45,000.00 45,000.00 45,000.00 .00 100.0 55-40-980 TRANSFER TO STRATEGIC RESERVES 800,000.00 800,000.00 800,000.00 .00 100.0 TOTAL EXPENDITURES 920,815.48 1,368,613.82 2,120,600.00 751,986.18 64.5 TOTAL FUND EXPENDITURES 920,815.48 1,368,613.82 2,120,600.00 751,986.18 64.5 NET REVENUE OVER EXPENDITURES ( 814,677.81)4,549,343.76 2,171,251.33 ( 2,378,092.43)209.5 TOWN OF FRASER BALANCE SHEET AUGUST 31, 2021 GENERAL FIXED ASSETS ASSETS 91-16100 LAND 730,630.35 91-16200 ADMINISTRATION BUILDING 208,379.39 91-16203 MAINTENANCE BUILDING 57,722.51 91-16208 HOUSE - 400 DOC SUSIE AVE 54,839.27 91-16209 VISITOR CENTER 183,895.00 91-16211 BUSBARN & 105 FRASER AVE HOUSE 100,000.00 91-16250 CHURCH 267,000.00 91-16306 PARKS 367,800.08 91-16311 STREET IMPROVEMENTS 3,439,840.00 91-16312 HIGHWAY 40 PATH 8,872.00 91-16490 EQUIPMENT - OTHER 872,015.00 91-16500 OFFICE EQUIPMENT 57,261.75 91-17900 ACCUMULATED DEPRECIATION ( 2,260,048.61) TOTAL ASSETS 4,088,206.74 LIABILITIES AND EQUITY FUND EQUITY UNAPPROPRIATED FUND BALANCE: 91-29800 INVESTMENT IN FIXED ASSETS 4,088,206.74 BALANCE - CURRENT DATE 4,088,206.74 TOTAL FUND EQUITY 4,088,206.74 TOTAL LIABILITIES AND EQUITY 4,088,206.74