Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOUNCIL - AGENDA ITEM - 07/12/2022 - WATER ADEQUACY DETERMINATION REVIEW PROCESSDATE: STAFF: July 12, 2022 Jenny Axmacher, Senior City Planner Rebecca Everette, Development Review Manager Brad Yatabe, Legal Eric Potyondy, Legal WORK SESSION ITEM City Council SUBJECT FOR DISCUSSION Water Adequacy Determination Review Process. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The purpose of this item is to provide Council with an update on the creation of a water adequacy determination review process. Staff is seeking input on specific aspects of the process creation, including the approach for evaluating new water providers, impacts to existing water providers, and identifying the decision maker for determining water adequacy. Water is a crucial and constrained resource, and the City strives to ensure that development meets the community’s vision and expectations for responsible resource management. City Plan includes policies to ensure water is used wisely and our community is prepared for a changing climate. Cur rently, development within the City only occurs within the boundaries of existing City (Fort Collins Utilities) and Special District water providers, such as Fort Collins-Loveland Water District and East Larimer County Water District. A project is determin ed to have an adequate water supply through the issuance of a “will serve” letter from the established water provider at the time of development plan or building permit approval. The necessity for an updated water adequacy review program stems from the li mited supply and high cost of water resources, which have resulted in developers pursuing more creative ways to provide water to their proposed developments, particularly projects striving to provide affordable housing or the denser development patterns called for in City Plan. To establish a more comprehensive water adequacy review process, staff is considering the best practices from other jurisdictions, authority/review by other agencies, and creating a city review process specifically for new providers. The water adequacy determination review process for new providers will look at evaluation criteria, review timing and decision -making authority. GENERAL DIRECTION SOUGHT AND SPECIFIC QUESTIONS TO BE ANSWERED 1. Does Council have feedback on the evaluation approach for new water providers? 2. Does Council support different standards for established providers and new providers? 3. Does Council have feedback on who the decision maker should be for water adequacy determinations for new providers? BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION Relevant Past Council Discussions • Northeast Fort Collins Planning and Projects Overview - August 31, 2021 o Work Session Summary: <https://citydocs.fcgov.com/?cmd=convert&vid=218&docid=3524914&dt=MAIL+PACKET> • Montava Development: Overview of Proposed Potable Water Supply Relying on Groundwater - February 9, 2021 July 12, 2022 Page 2 o Work Session Summary: <https://citydocs.fcgov.com/?cmd=convert&vid=218&docid=3519208&dt=MAIL+PACKET> • Approval of Montava PUD Overlay and Master Plan - February 18, 2020 o Agenda Item Summary: <https://citydocs.fcgov.com/?cmd=convert&vid=72&docid=3434279&dt=&doc_download_date=FEB -18- 2020&ITEM_NUMBER=> • Northeast Fort Collins Planning and Projects Overview - September 24, 2019 o Work Session Summary: <https://citydocs.fcgov.com/?cmd=convert&vid=218&docid=3392244&dt=MAIL+PACKET> • Rural Scenario Assessment and reconfirmation of the Mountain Vista subarea framework plan - June 12, 2015. o<https://citydocs.fcgov.com/?cmd=convert&vid=218&docid=2504540&dt=MAIL+PACKET> Water is a crucial and constrained resource, and the City strives to ensure that development meets the community’s vision and expectations for responsible resource management. City Plan includes policies to ensure water is used wisely and our community is prepared for a changing climate. The plan also supports managing water resources in a manner that enhances and protects long -term water quality, supply, and reliability for current and future residents. The necessity for an updated water adequacy review progra m stems from the limited supply and high cost of water resources, which have resulted in developers pursuing more creative ways to provide water to their proposed developments, particularly projects striving to provide affordable housing or the denser deve lopment patterns called for in City Plan. One development contemplating a more unique and potentially innovative approach to supplying water resources is the Montava Planned Unit Development (PUD), which proposes a groundwater-based water supply for both potable and non-potable water service. The developer believes this system will improve the overall resiliency of the water supply for the area while also reducing the cost. Because the City does not currently have a review process or criteria for “non -standard” water service models, including groundwater systems, new policy and code are needed to confirm that future residents are adequately served. While the Montava project has generated the immediate need for this type of review, staff believes a comprehensive program could have benefits for reviewing all new developments moving forward, regardless of the water source. Requirement for Water Adequacy Review This review process is being proposed to further effectuate a Colorado state statute (Section 29 -20-301, et seq., C.R.S.), which states: A local government shall not approve an application for a development permit unless it determines in its sole discretion, after considering the application and all of the information provided, that the applicant has satisfactorily demonstrated that the proposed water supply will be adequate. A local government shall make such determination only once during the development permit approval process unless the water demands or supply of the specific project for which the development permit is sought are materially changed. A local government shall have the discretion to determine the stage in the development permit approval process at which such determination is made. For this regulation, the Colorado state statute d efines some key terms, including the following. “’Adequate’ means a water supply that will be sufficient for build-out of the proposed development in terms of quality, quantity, dependability, and availability to provide a supply of water for the type of development proposed and may include reasonable conservation measures and water demand management measures to account for hydrologic variability.” “’Water supply entity’ means a municipality, county, special district, water conservancy district, water conservation district, water authority, or other public or private water supply company that supplies, distributes, or otherwise provides water at retail.” July 12, 2022 Page 3 Currently, development within the City only occurs within the boundaries of existing City (Fort Collins Utilities) and Special District water providers, such as Fort Collins-Loveland Water District and East Larimer County Water District, and the adequacy determination is made through the issuance of a “will serve” letter from the established water provider. Pursuant to state statute, ‘will serve’ letters meeting certain requirements may satisfy the water adequacy determination, but staff will soon be faced with a proposal that is outside the bounds of the current system and needs a more robust and transparen t process to evaluate the more complex proposal. It is partly the responsibility of the City to ensure that future residents are well served by an adequate system. Please refer to the chart created by Del Corazon Consulting and included in the Growing Wat er Smart - The Water-Land Use Nexus Guide by the Sonoran Institute and Babbitt Center. (Attachment 2) Best Practices from Other Jurisdictions Staff continues to conduct research on how other jurisdictions handle the water adequacy review process. A summary of the information collected to date is below and will continue to be updated as the process progresses. It is worth noting that many municipalities have not been faced with the challenge of regulating a private water supply system. This is an innovativ e/novel idea and there is not much basis to find comparisons. Most municipalities have their own municipal service or obtain service through one or more special districts. It is more likely a situation that a county jurisdiction might experience. The lead er in code creation on the topic is La Plata County, with additional work being done in El Paso County. The Sonoran Institute is expecting to receive a report about the challenges and opportunities for ensuring an adequate water supply within the next month, which will also include best practice information. Staff will share this information if available prior to the work session. The City has issued both a request for information (RFI) and a request for proposals (RFP) to seek a consultant to assist with this program creation and the City received only one proposal, limited to assistance with application review, as a response to either request. This topic of private water systems and adequacy determinations is clearly an emerging trend, and the City will be a trendsetter on how these issues are handled but may need to do so without significant outside expertise. Jurisdiction Water Provider Mechanism Timing Fort Collins Municipal Utility w/water plan and Special Districts with water plans Will Serve Letters Building Permit Windsor Special Districts w/ water plan Code Requirements Building Permit Loveland Municipal Utility w/water plan Building Permit Denver Denver Water (Special District) w/water plan Lakewood Municipal Utility w/water plan and Special Districts with water plans Water Service Form Building Permit Littleton Denver Water (Special District) w/water plan Will Serve Letters Up to Building Permit Thornton Municipal Utility w/water plan Will Serve Letters Up to Building Permit Commerce City Special District w/ water plan Will Serve Letters Building Permit Westminster Municipal utility w/water plan Colorado Springs Larimer County Special Districts El Paso County La Plata County Has requirements for New Entities Code Requirements Greeley Timnath Special Districts w/ water plan Boulder Arvada Municipal Utility w/water plan and Special Districts with water plans July 12, 2022 Page 4 Other Agency Review The 1996 Amendments to the federal Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) required each state to develop a program to ensure that all new community water systems and new non-transient, non-community (NTNC) water systems beginning operations after October 1, 1999 demonstrate the technical, managerial, and financial (TMF) capacity to comply with the national primary drinking water regulation in effect or likely to be in effect prior to starting operations. The Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment (department) enacted regulations establishing that owners of new community or NTNC public water systems demonstrate adequate capacity to construct, operate and manage the new public waterworks. Any new water supplier must obtain approval from CDPHE to operate, and this will be true of the system the Montava development is proposing. Staff will work with CDPHE to better understand their review and approval process to explore overlaps and efficiencies that can be gained for the City review process. It is anticipated that the water supplier would receive CDPHE approval prior to submitt ing to the City for a water adequacy determination; however, the process timing will be explored further to confirm that assumption. (Attachment 3) It is also important to point out that there likely is a role for Water Court to play in the process to adj udicate claims for water under Colorado Law, such as if a new water supply (e.g., groundwater) is proposed. Staff will continue to investigate which other entities have jurisdiction over these private water systems, which will help to inform the City’s review process creation. CITY REVIEW PROCESS Evaluation Criteria The goal of the water supply evaluation of these systems is to ensure a reliable, high quality water supply for City residents that can be guaranteed into the future. Consistent with the s tatute, staff is proposing to determine water adequacy differently based on the type of water entity. A more streamlined process is recommended if providers have certain types of water supply planning in effect, like how adequacy is determined now with a will serve letter. There is an opportunity to set a minimum bar to hold these entities (primarily existing special districts) accountable, if desired. Staff could continue to accept a will serve letter but would look at ways to make sure the letters provide consistent information across different water entities and ensure all crucial information on the project and supply are included in the letter. In establishing the process to review supplies from new water entities, the City has identified the followi ng characteristics for evaluation criteria: • Water Quality • Quantity of Water • Dependability of Supply and Supplier o Supply Resiliency o System Redundancy o Maintenance and Outages • Availability of Supply • Financial Sustainability of Supplier o Capitalization These criteria would apply to both potable (water for human consumption) and non -potable (raw water primarily for irrigation and not for human consumption) systems. July 12, 2022 Page 5 The City could also consider requiring approval from any existing water entity if a new entity is proposed within their current service area. Timing The state statute leaves the determination timing during the development process up to the purview of the local jurisdiction. However, the determination may only be made once during the process unless something materially changes. This gives the City the option to make the adequacy determination as early in the process as annexation or zoning entitlement, or as late in the process as building permit or certificate of occupancy. Staff continues to evaluate the ideal timing for water adequacy determinations within this new process. Currently, water adequacy is determined with will serve letters at the time of building permit, but adequacy is also generally considered during zoning entitlements, especially for planned unit development overlay districts. Approval Authority There are a variety of potential decision makers for the adequacy determination, and staff is still evaluating options and best practices for the approval authority. Staff is not exploring placing the decision-making authority with a new entity, as there are a variety of potential decision makers already involved in the development review process. Options currently under consideration include: • Option 1: Match water adequacy determination authority with the appropriate decision -maker for the development plan. This option would allow the decision maker for the development plan to also make the determination of water adequacy. The decision maker may vary based on the type of project or the review stage at which the water adequacy determination is made. Depending on the type and stage of review, potential decision makers could include the Community Development and Neighborhood Services (CDNS) Director, Planning & Zoning Commission, and administrative hearing officers. This approach could result in a greater need for training on such a unique subject matter as water adequacy if multiple groups could serve as the final decision maker, however it could streamline the approval process for the applicant, as there would not be a need for an additional step in the process. • Option 2: Grant authority to the Water Commission for water adequacy determinations. This option would grant authority to the Water Commission to make either recommendations or final decisions about water adequacy. The Water Commission is already granted quasi-judicial authority for certain decisions, and their role could be expanded to include these determinations. Alternatively, the Commission could provide formal recommendations to a separate decision-maker. The Commission generally includes members with experience with water, wastewater, and stormwater systems, and this technical expertise may benefit the overall review and determination process. • Option 3: Grant authority to the CDNS Director for water adequacy determinations. This option would place authority for water adequacy determination with the Community Development and Neighborhood Services Director. This generally matches the current decision-making structure, where staff review “will serve” letters from outside utility providers to ensure adequate water supply and service. Because water adequacy determinations require review and application of technical criteria, keeping the decision at the staff level may support more consistent and neutral decision-making than an appointed board or commission. Staff welcomes feedback from Council on these or other options prior to making a final staff recommendation. NEXT STEPS The major milestones for this project are: • Review Existing Service Provider Requirements for New Development • Establish Provider Sustainability Review and Determination • Propose Water Supply Requirements for New Development • Create Review Procedure July 12, 2022 Page 6 • Code Adoption and Implementation Because the City did not receive any viable response to the RFP earlier this year, staff intends to proceed using internal staff resources and will be leading this project, creating the process and writing the updated code language. Staff is currently in conversations with a consultant to provide limited advisory support in key areas. Staff will provide updates to Planning and Zoning Commission, Water Commission, and Council as the process progresses. Staff will also be meeting with community members, including existing water providers, developers, and other interested parties, to gather information and seek input. There will be opportunities for the community at-large to review and provide feedback on the proposed process and review criteria, as well. Code adoption is currently targeted for Q1 2023, but exact timing will depend on staff workload and other competing priorities. Once a new process is established, staff still intends to contract with a third -party consultant for the technical review of any Montava or other water adequacy determination applications. ATTACHMENTS 1. Adequate Water Supply Regulation Summary (PDF) 2. CDPHE New System Capacity Planning Manual (PDF) 3. Powerpoint Presentation (PDF) GROWING WATER SMART THE WATER-LAND USE NEXUS 19 Created by Del Corazon Consulting ATTACHMENT 1 WATER QUALITY CONTROL DIVISION SAFE DRINKING WATER PROGRAM POLICY POLICY TITLE: New Public Water System Capacity Planning Manual SDWP policy number: DW-011 Adoption date: June 28, 2016 Effective date: June 28, 2016 Scheduled review date: Revision: Approved by : Ron Falco, P.E. Safe Drinking Water Program Manager ATTACHMENT 2 New Public Water System Capacity Planning Manual (NPWSCPM) 1 Background information ............................................................................................ 4 1.1 Document organization....................................................................................... 4 2 Definitions ............................................................................................................ 4 3 General information and frequently asked questions ......................................................... 5 3.1 Which public water systems must submit a TMF capacity evaluation? .............................. 5 3.2 Why is a TMF capacity assessment required? ............................................................. 6 3.3 Which public water systems must submit a plans and specifications submittal? .................. 7 3.4 Does the department have a visual representation of the work flow and start of operations? . 7 3.5 How should a TMF capacity assessment be prepared? .................................................. 8 3.6 How should the TMF capacity assessment be submitted? .............................................. 8 3.7 When should a TMF capacity assessment be submitted? ............................................... 8 4 Additional resources ................................................................................................ 9 5 TMF capacity assessment form .................................................................................. 10 5.1 General information ........................................................................................ 10 5.2 Executive summary ......................................................................................... 11 5.2.1 Initial and future service area description ....................................................... 11 5.2.2 Initial and future population and demands ....................................................... 11 5.2.3 Proposed facilities .................................................................................... 12 5.3 Technical capacity .......................................................................................... 12 5.3.1 Planning area description ............................................................................ 12 5.3.2 Population and water demand projections ....................................................... 14 5.3.3 Source water planning ............................................................................... 14 5.3.4 Proposed facilities .................................................................................... 15 5.3.5 Staffing.................................................................................................. 17 5.4 Managerial capacity ........................................................................................ 17 5.4.1 Legal ownership of system .......................................................................... 17 5.4.2 Organizational chart .................................................................................. 18 5.4.3 Plans and policies ..................................................................................... 18 5.4.4 Operator in Responsible Charge (ORC) requirements .......................................... 19 5.4.5 Record keeping ........................................................................................ 19 5.5 Financial capacity ........................................................................................... 20 5.5.1 Annual budget ......................................................................................... 20 5.5.2 Financial status ........................................................................................ 20 5.5.3 5-year cash flow projection ......................................................................... 21 5.5.4 Available capital ...................................................................................... 21 5.5.5 Audits ................................................................................................... 21 5.5.6 Insurance ............................................................................................... 22 5.5.7 Capital costs for infrastructure ..................................................................... 22 5.1 General information ........................................................................................ 24 Figures 1. Work flow and commencement of operations 2. TMF capacity assessment checklist Attachments 1. Project area map 2. Population projection 3. Water rights 4. Plans and specifications submittal 5. Distribution system schematic 6. Organizational chart 7. Monitoring plan 8. Backflow prevention and cross-connection control plan 9. Water efficiency plan 10. Operation and maintenance manual 11. Public notification policies 12. Ordinance or bylaws 13. Annual and 5-year budget 14. 5-year cash flow projection 15. Liability insurance documentation 1 Background information The 1996 Amendments to the federal Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) required each state to develop a program to ensure all new community water systems and new non-transient, non- community (NTNC) water systems beginning operations after October 1, 1999 to demonstrate the technical, managerial and financial (TMF) capacity to comply with the national primary drinking water regulation in effect or likely to be in effect prior to starting operations. The Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment (department) enacted regulations establishing that owners of new community or NTNC public water systems demonstrate adequate capacity to construct, operate and manage the new public waterworks. This NPWSCPM (manual) is intended to guide new public water systems on the minimum information required by the department to review TMF capacity. This document serves as a tool for both the department and the new public water system to understand, document and review the TMF capacity for the management and operation of the water system. 1.1 Document organization This manual provides general background information on the purpose and objectives of Colorado’s capacity development program and provides a format for submitting required information used by the department to evaluate the TMF capacity of new community and NTNC public water systems. Section 5 of this manual includes a fillable PDF form to help new community water systems and new NTNC water systems document their TMF capacity. Please note, additional resources regarding TMF capacity can be found in Section 4 of this document. 2 Definitions Many definitions used within this manual are defined within Regulation 11, Section 11.3 and also repeated here for convenience. The definitions within Regulation 11 may be updated periodically and take precedence if any differences exist. 1. Begin construction - initiation of the physical effort to construct a project, excluding engineering, architectural, legal, fiscal and economic investigations, studies, and completion of plans and specifications, and surveys. Physical effort includes, but is not limited to, site clearance, excavation, construction, or the establishment of an office or construction building on site (Regulation 11, Section 11.4(1)(b)(i)). 2. Community water system - a public water system that supplies at least 15 service connections used by year-round residents or that regularly supplies at least 25 year-round residents (Regulation 11, Section 11.3(10)). 3. Financial capacity - a water system’s ability to acquire and manage sufficient financial resources to allow the system to achieve and maintain compliance with SDWA requirements (Guidance on Implementing the Capacity Development Provisions of the Safe Drinking Water Act Amendments of 1996). 4. Managerial capacity - the ability of a water system to conduct its affairs in a manner enabling the system to achieve and maintain compliance with SDWA requirements. Managerial capacity refers to the system’s institutional and administrative capabilities (Capacity Development Guidance). 5. New waterworks - a. Any newly constructed public water system; or b. An existing system that becomes, by definition, a public water system by extending its infrastructure through physical expansion by virtue of increasing the number of connections, the number of individuals served, or by extending the number of days of service (Regulation 11, Section 11.4(1)(b)(iii)). 6. Non-transient, non-community water system (NTNC)- a public water system that regularly serves a population of at least 25 of the same people for at least six months per year and is not a community water system (Regulation 11, Section 11.3(48)). 7. Public water system or PWS - a system for the provision to the public of water for human consumption through pipes or other constructed conveyances, if such system has at least fifteen service connections or regularly serves an average of at least 25 individuals daily at least 60 days per year. A public water system is either a community water system or a non- community water system. Such term does not include any special irrigation district. Such term includes: a. Any collection, treatment, storage, and distribution facilities under control of the supplier of such system and used primarily in connection with such system. b. Any collection or pretreatment storage facilities not under such control, which are used primarily in connection with such system (Regulation 11, Section 11.3(57)). 8. Supplier of water or supplier - any person who owns or operates a public water system (Regulation 11, Section 11.3(74)). 9. Technical capacity - the physical and operational ability of a water system to meet SDWA requirements. It refers to the physical components of the water system, including the adequacy of source water and the adequacy of treatment, storage, and distribution infrastructure. The term also refers to the ability of system personnel to adequately operate and maintain the system and use required technical knowledge (Capacity Development Guidance). 10. Transient, non-community water system - a non-community water system that serves a population of at least 25 people per day for at least 60 days per year and is not a non- transient, non-community water system or a community water system (Regulation 11, Section 11.3(77)). 11. Water system capacity - the ability to plan for, achieve, and maintain compliance with applicable drinking water standards. Capacity has three components: technical, managerial, and financial. Adequate capability in all three areas is necessary for a system to have “capacity (Capacity Development Guidance). 3 General information and frequently asked questions 3.1 Which public water systems must submit a TMF capacity evaluation? To ensure new public water systems have adequate TMF capacity to build, manage and operate a new waterworks, the department reviews the TMF capacity of the new public water system’s against the requirements within this manual. This evaluation is required for all new public water systems that are classified: • New community water systems commencing operations after October 1, 1999. • New non-transient, non-community (NTNC) water systems commencing operation after October 1, 1999. There are several scenarios that trigger the requirement to submit a TMF capacity assessment. For example: 1. A new prospective water system may be constructed that will meet the definition of a public water system on the first day of operations (e.g. office building, school, etc.). For this scenario, the system can begin operations after: • the water system has demonstrated TMF capacity, • the department has issued design approval in accordance with the State of Colorado Design Criteria for Potable Water Systems, • and the project engineer certified the system has been constructed according to the design approval and final plans and specifications. Prior to beginning construction of a new community or NTNC, all requirements of the capacity review must be in place. The department expects that the prospective system will submit a TMF capacity assessment six months prior to the date the system anticipates meeting the definition of a public water system. 2. An existing water system may not initially meet the definition of a public water system, but may eventually meet the definition through expansion of population or taps (e.g. housing development). For this scenario, the department must approve of the TMF capacity assessment and the plans and specifications for any existing waterworks and any proposed improvements or modifications in use at the time the system meets the definition of a public water system. At the time the system meets the definition of a public water system, the design review must be approved and all requirements of the capacity review must be in place. The department expects the prospective system will submit a TMF capacity assessment six months prior to the date the system anticipates meeting the definition of a public water system. 3. An existing water system can be a “found” water system, meaning that the water system currently meets the definition of a public water system, but did not meet the definition prior to October 1, 1999 and has not previously received approval of the TMF capacity assessment. For this scenario, the system must work with the department and submit a TMF capacity assessment in a timely manner to comply with Regulation 11. For the purposes of this manual, new water systems and prospective new water systems that expect to become public systems within the next six months will be collectively referenced as new water systems. Colorado requires all new water systems to meet the capacity requirements contained within this manual. Approval of a TMF capacity assessment by the department does not relieve the responsibility of the design engineer and/or water supplier for successful implementation of the project nor does it relieve the supplier of water from the responsibility of proper operation of the water system and compliance with Regulation 11. Please refer to Section 4 for links to Regulation 11 and additional resources referenced in this manual. 3.2 Why is a TMF capacity assessment required? The requirements for demonstrating TMF capacity are established within the Safe Drinking Water Act amendments of 1996. Based on the regulatory authority granted via the Safe Drinking Water Act and implemented by the State of Colorado in Regulation 11, Section 11.4(1)(a), prior to beginning construction, new community and NTNC water systems must submit a complete capacity assessment and receive department approval. Specific authority to review TMF capacity assessments is given under Regulation 11, Section 11.4(1)(a), which states: For new community or non-transient, non-community water systems, the supplier must not begin construction of the new water system until the supplier completes and receives department approval of a capacity (technical, managerial, and financial) assessment using the criteria found in the New Public Water System Capacity Planning Manual. In addition to the requirements contained within this manual, Regulation 11, Section 11.4(1)(b) specifies approval for plans and specifications for construction or use of waterworks. Section 11.4(1)(b) states: For all public water systems, the supplier must not begin construction of any new waterworks, make improvements to or modify existing waterworks, or begin using a new source until the supplier submits and receives department approval of plans and specifications for such construction, improvements, modifications, or use. Further, Sections 11.4(1)(b)(v) and 11.4(1)(b)(vi) state: 11.4(1)(b)(v) Decisions regarding the review and approval of plans and specifications for new waterworks or improvements or modifications to existing waterworks shall be based on conformance to the design criteria developed by the department specified in Policy DW- 005, State of Colorado Design Criteria for Potable Water Systems. 11.4(1)(b)(vi) The department shall grant approval upon finding that the proposed facilities conform to the design criteria specified in Policy DW-005, State of Colorado Design Criteria for Potable Water Systems, and are capable of continuously complying with all applicable laws, standards, rules and regulations. 3.3 Which public water systems must submit a plans and specifications submittal? For all new community and new NTNC water systems, a TMF capacity assessment must be submitted along with the plans and specifications when required. Plans and specifications shall meet the requirements of the design criteria. All new community water systems and NTNC water systems must demonstrate compliance with both this manual and the design criteria prior to receiving department approval. New public water systems that include water treatment and/or potable water storage tanks require submission of a plans and specifications for department review. If the new public water system includes distribution only without treatment or potable water storage, plans and specifications submission is not required. For new community or NTNC water systems where plans and specifications are not required, the department will review the technical capacity of the system through information provided in Section 5.3 of the TMF capacity assessment form. 3.4 Does the department have a visual representation of the work flow and start of operations? Refer to Figure 1 for a flow chart depicting the process for work flow and start of operations for all new public water systems. Figure 2 provides a checklist of the TMF capacity assessment. The checklist can be used along with a supporting report as an alternative means for documenting TMF capacity, in lieu of the TMF capacity assessment form in Section 5. The checklist format may be useful for systems with large amounts of documentation to support their TMF capacity assessment where the form does not provide adequate space to respond to requirements. For systems that chose to use the checklist format, the checklist must be accompanied by a report to provide the required information and all additional required attachments. The report must utilize the same outline as the TMF capacity assessment form. 3.5 How should a TMF capacity assessment be prepared? The TMF capacity assessment must be completed in its entirety, including all applicable attachments. Attachments must be incorporated into the document with their respective cover sheet. If the form does not provide adequate space for needed text, the department will accept TMF capacity assessments that do not utilize the form; however, the TMF capacity assessment must utilize this manual’s outline to provide the information required. If the form is not used, please utilize bookmarks to separate attachments in the electronic document. Please note that the department expects that the TMF capacity assessment and plans and specifications review will be conducted concurrently, when required (see Section 3.3). Thus, the plans and specifications shall be submitted with the TMF capacity assessment as Attachment 4. NTNC water systems with groundwater sources may utilize the Pre-Accepted Non-Community Groundwater Source/Treatment/Storage Drinking Water Design submittal. Links to the applicable design submittal forms are provided on the Attachment 4 cover page. Additional resources regarding TMF capacity can be found in Section 4 of this manual. These resources can be used to help complete the TMF capacity assessment. The department is available for pre-application meetings as requested by the proposed system. Please contact the engineering section at 303-692-6298 to request a pre-application meeting or for other questions regarding submittal preparation. 3.6 How should the TMF capacity assessment be submitted? Please submit your TMF capacity assessment electronically (email, ftp, or CD) to the engineering section. Submittals can be emailed to cdphe.wqengreview@state.co.us 3.7 When should a TMF capacity assessment be submitted? Per Regulation 11, a new public water system is required to receive approval of the TMF capacity assessment (reviewed against the requirements within this manual) and new waterworks plans and specifications (reviewed against the requirements in the design criteria) prior to beginning construction of any new waterworks or improvements. However, Regulation 11 does not apply to water systems until the water system meets the definition of a public water system, as defined by the regulation. This can create a regulatory paradox for prospective systems. To address this, the department expects that prospective systems will submit a TMF capacity assessment six months prior to the date the system anticipates meeting the definition of a public water system. For prospective water systems that anticipate meeting the definition of a public water system more than six months in the future but are seeking comment from the department, please contact the department to discuss available options for review of TMF capacity. The department is also available for a pre-submittal meeting to discuss applicable regulations and expectations. 4 Additional resources 1. Water Quality Control Division website https://cdphe.colorado.gov/water-quality 2. Regulation 11, Colorado Primary Drinking Water Regulations https://www.sos.state.co.us/CCR/GenerateRulePdf.do?ruleVersionId=8999&fileName=5%20CCR %201002-11 3. Design Criteria for Potable Water Systems https://drive.google.com/open?id=1lOVDmKp2qQLr8V-s5Km5LesZTr1Pg8_J 4. Tools for drinking water facilities and managers https://cdphe.colorado.gov/dwtrain 5. Regulation 100, Water and Wastewater Facility Operators Certification Requirements https://drive.google.com/file/d/1w2XtuPrSde4VOiCE2pyMW8Qdinlc6sVu/ 6. Drinking water monitoring plan templates https://cdphe.colorado.gov/monitoringplans 7. Municipal water efficiency plan guidance https://cwcb.colorado.gov/municipal-water-efficiency-plan-guidance-document 8. Policy 7, Backflow Prevention and Cross-connection Control Rule Implementation Policy https://drive.google.com/open?id=1d91ljRFttVALfUGap1gtdfZH0It1G45u 9. Backflow Prevention and Cross-Contamination Control Plan Template https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BwDv77AW5PLkYjc3RXRKcWlHWWM/view?resourcekey=0- ok3Vu-S0vnCeDCIRpmo-yA 10. Water quality operation and maintenance manual https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BwDv77AW5PLkM19XRkJELU1OQ2s/view?resourcekey=0- MsPezO2Z9OopQV_EYzRcXw 11. Water system self -evaluation https://drive.google.com/file/d/13nPIkmZbeCxaBf1kIozHGRqMzGB-ASrt/view 12. Checkup program for small systems (CUPSS) CUPSS is a free, easy-to-use, asset management tool for small drinking water and wastewater utilities. CUPSS provides a simple, comprehensive approach based on EPA's highly successful Simple Tools for Effective Performance (STEP) Guide series. Information available at: https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2015-10/documents/cupssandus.pdf 13. Local assistance unit (LAU) The Water Quality Control Division LAU provides resources and assistance for public water systems including help with development of technical, managerial and financial resources. More information available at: https://cdphe.colorado.gov/dwtrain or by contacting Tom Valenta at 303-692-2988 or thomas.valenta@state.co.us. 14. EPA capacity development guidance Guidance on Implementing the Capacity Development Provisions of the Safe Drinking Water Act of 1996. Available at: http://nepis.epa.gov/Exe/ZyPDF.cgi?Dockey=2000284Z.txt 5 TMF capacity assessment form 5.1 General information System name: PWSID (if applicable): Applicant information: Name: Address: Email: Phone: Consulting engineer information (if applicable): Note: A professional engineer registered in the State of Colorado is not required to prepare the TMF capacity assessment. Professional engineers that do complete the TMF capacity assessment must follow the applicable requirements of the Department of Regulatory Agencies. See Section 3, general information and frequently asked questions, and Attachment 4 for submission of the plans and specifications. Name: Address: Email: Phone: Signatures: This TMF capacity assessment was prepared by: ___________________________ (Print name) Signature: ______________________________________ Date: _____________ Authorized applicant signature: ____________________ Title: _______________ Date: _______ 5.2 Executive summary 5.2.1 Initial and future service area description Please describe the initial and future service area for the new water system including the portion of the service area that will serve residents, transients and non-transients. For example, transient users include customers at restaurants, convenience stores, campgrounds, etc. Non-transient users include schools, office buildings, etc. Please also indicate the design planning period and why the design planning period was selected. 5.2.2 Initial and future population and demands Use the tables below to provide initial and future population and average day and peak water demands. Please refer to Section 5.3.2 for additional information and tools for population and demand projections. Initial service area population: User type Population Average day demand Peak demand Residents Non-Transients Transients Anticipated future population based on design planning period: User type Population Average day demand Peak demand Residents Non-Transients Transients 5.2.3 Proposed facilities Provide a description of the proposed source and source area, treatment type, potable water storage and distribution system including pressure zones. 5.3 Technical capacity 5.3.1 Planning area description 5.3.1.1 Project area map Provide a map showing a minimum three mile radius around the project area that includes environmental features (lakes, streams, wetlands, floodplains). Map must include initial and future service area for the design planning period, proposed drinking water facilities (plants, major distribution lines, water sources, storage facilities), existing and proposed wastewater outfalls/permitted discharge points and any new or affected sources with regard to the pertinent watershed or source water area. Include the map as Attachment 1. 5.3.1.2 Regional plan Is the project within or near an area included in a regional long term plan? Yes No If yes, describe how the project is conformance with the long term plan and any other planning limitations. 5.3.1.3 Local and regional issues Were local and regional planning efforts considered, including water quality and/or quantity? Yes No Please describe. Was consolidation with another water system/treatment facility considered? Yes No If yes, describe the consolidation considerations. If no, please indicate why consolidation was not considered. 5.3.2 Population and water demand projections For a proposed planning period, forecast the population growth, projected increase in Equivalent Residential Taps (ERT), and projected drinking water demands. Population and demand projections - The division generally accepts two methodologies for projecting water flows over the proposed planning period. Other methodologies may be acceptable with a clear explanation and listing of all assumptions and parameters: Method 1: Population based projections. Recommended for primarily residential systems and/or for systems without water meter data. Method 2: Equivalent Residential Taps (ERT) Analysis. Recommended for systems with a high multifamily, commercial, industrial, irrigation demands. Method 1 and 2 templates can be found at in Attachment 2. Attach the population projection as Attachment 2. Discuss supporting data and reasons for projected future growth during the proposed planning period. Include existing data sources (e.g., census data, water flow data) and any assumptions (e.g., growth rate). 5.3.3 Source water planning 5.3.3.1 Overall water resource management description For the proposed planning period, describe the new water system’s water resource management plan and source water area. Include a discussion of the source water, primary water quality parameters of concern, seasonal variability and availability. Summarize anticipated flow conservation measures. 5.3.3.2 Source water supply capacity For the proposed planning period, discuss if the proposed source water supply infrastructure is capable of delivering adequate source water to meet projected needs. If fire flow will be provided by the new water system, include fire flow considerations in the description. 5.3.3.3 Water rights Describe the new water system’s water rights and if the water rights are sufficient to meet the system’s projected water demands. Include copies of supporting documentation for water rights or other supply agreements as attachment 3. 5.3.4 Proposed facilities 5.3.4.1 Proposed sources, treatment and storage Provide the plans and specifications for the proposed sources, treatment and storage infrastructure as Attachment 4. Links to the applicable design submittal forms to accompany the plans and specifications are provided on the Attachment 4 cover page. Non-transient, non-community water systems with groundwater sources may utilize the Pre-Accepted Non-Community Groundwater Source/Treatment/Storage Drinking Water Design submittal. All other community and non-transient non-community water systems must use Appendix B of the design criteria. 5.3.4.2 Proposed distribution Overall distribution system description Discuss the proposed finished water distribution system including: gravity vs. pumped pressurization, material type, condition of materials, number of pressure zones, fire flow requirements, pump stations, and storage tanks. Pressure The distribution system must be designed to maintain a minimum pressure of 20 psi at all ground level points in the distribution system under all conditions of flow as required in the design criteria. The design criteria also recommends a normal working pressure in the distribution system of approximately 60 psi, and not less than 35 psi. Near storage tanks, the water main pressure will be less than the required pressures stated above. The department expects water systems to mitigate low pressure around storage tanks and to minimize the amount of distribution main impact. When fire protection is to be provided, system design should be such that fire flows and facilities are in accordance with the requirements of the appropriate regulatory authority (e.g. Insurance Services Office). Discuss how the distribution system will meet the required and recommended distribution system pressures. Schematic Provide a schematic or design drawings of the proposed distribution system as Attachment 5. This schematic may be included in the project area map described in Section 5.3.1.1, if appropriate. 5.3.5 Staffing Explain how the system has adequate staffing considering proposed treatment, to operate and maintain the system from source to tap and consistently provide safe drinking water that meets all state and federal regulations. Please note that certified operators must be accountable for performing as a minimum, the duties delineated by Regulation 100. If other workers perform these duties, written delegation of duties is expected along with a statement of constraints or conditions requiring consultation with the ORC prior to making adjustments that could affect the quality of the finished water. Please include delegation of tasks as applicable in the operations and maintenance manual (See Section 5.4.3.4). 5.4 Managerial capacity 5.4.1 Legal ownership of system Name: Address: Email: Phone: Fax: 5.4.2 Organizational chart Include an organizational chart as Attachment 6. 5.4.3 Plans and policies 5.4.3.1 Monitoring plan In accordance with Section 11.5 of Regulation 11, all public water systems are required to comply with the Monitoring Plan Rule. Refer to Section 11.5 of Regulation 11 for additional information on requirements. Include a copy of the monitoring plan as Attachment 7. (The division has template monitoring plans available for use here.) 5.4.3.2 Backflow Prevention and Cross-Connection Control Plan In accordance with Section 11.39 of Regulation 11, all public water systems are required to comply with the Backflow Prevention and Cross-connection Control Rule. Refer to Section 11.39 of Regulation 11 and Policy 7, Backflow Prevention and Cross-connection Control Rule Implementation Policy for additional information on the requirements. Include a copy of the Backflow Prevention and Cross Connection Control Plan as Attachment 8. (The division has a template backflow prevention and cross connection control plan available for use here.) 5.4.3.3 Water efficiency plan Water efficiency plans are regulated by the Colorado Water Conservation Board. Water efficiency plans are required for system that will sell over 2,000 acre feet of water annually. Include a copy of the water efficiency plan as Attachment 9. (Additional information about water efficiency plan requirements can be found here.) - Not Applicable 5.4.3.4 Operation and maintenance manual (O&M) Include an O&M manual as Attachment 10. The O&M manual must be sufficient to meet the needs of the system based on the size of the service area and the scope of the water system. The O&M manual should include, as applicable, a description of the facilities; explanation of start-up and normal operation procedures; sampling schedules; staffing requirements; potential water supply risks; a safety program; delegation of tasks from the certified operators; plans for tracking unaccounted water; available external resources for equipment, emergency water supply, etc.; an emergency response plan; and manufacturer’s manuals. (Guidance and a template for O&M manuals can be found here.) 5.4.3.5 Public notification policies Provide a description of public notification policies as Attachment 11. Describe public education policies, customer complaint policies, and policy for notification of a water quality violation. 5.4.3.6 Ordinance establishing authority Provide a copy of water system’s ordinance or bylaws as Attachment 12 when applicable. The ordinance or bylaws for the water system should give the authority to establish tap fees, water service rates, board members and voting to enable the water system to remain whole. Not Applicable If not applicable, please explain. 5.4.4 Operator in Responsible Charge (ORC) requirements Please provide the certified treatment operator information below: Name(s): Operator identification number: Certification number: Certification expiration date: Please provide the certified distribution system operator information below: Name(s): Operator identification number: Certification number: Certification expiration date: Proposed System Operator Certification Level (check one) Refer to the Regulation No. 100, Water and Wastewater Facility Operators Certification Requirements for operator certification level requirements. Staff Operator Contract Operator Treatment: Class D Class C Class B Class A Distribution: Class 4 Class 3 Class 2 Class 1 Combined Treatment/Distribution: Class S Class T 5.4.5 Record keeping Describe the system’s proposed record retention policy that meets the requirements of the Regulation 11 including: record type, retention period, and record location. Electronic copies of these records are acceptable. 5.5 Financial capacity 5.5.1 Annual budget Does/will the new water system prepare an annual budget? Yes No Does/will the new water system prepare and maintain a capital improvement plan? Yes No Please provide a narrative of the process for annual budgeting and financial planning. Financial planning ensures that revenues are sufficient to meet operation and maintenance, debt service, and capital requirements, establish cash reserves, and meet debt service coverage requirements. The department has many tools and resources to assist with budget preparation and financial planning, which can be found here. Provide a copy of the annual and five-year budgets as Attachment 13. 5.5.2 Financial status Describe the current multi-year financial planning for the system including O&M costs, required reserve accounts, rate structure, fees, billing, other capital improvement programs, and the new water system’s reserve policies. For existing systems that now meet the definition of a public water system (scenario two or three as described in Section 3.1), please include a description of the system’s current financial status and existing debt. 5.5.3 5-year cash flow projection Include a copy of the five year cash flow projection as Attachment 14. Include projected revenues, expenditures, O&M reserve and capital and O&M expenses for the water system. 5.5.4 Available capital Describe the new water system’s funding capacity including available sources and limitations for public and/or private capital that are available to the system. 5.5.5 Audits Local governments are required by State Statute (29-1 Part 6 et seq., C.R.S.) to submit audits to the Department of Local Affairs. Please describe the system’s policy for preparation and submittal of audit documents. Not applicable (please explain) 5.5.6 Insurance Does/will the system maintain general liability insurance? While insurance is not a requirement, lack of insurance could affect a system’s ability to repay a loan or other obligations if anything should happen. A lack of liability insurance may have an impact on a system’s ability to qualify for a loan. Yes – Include documentation of general liability insurance as Attachment 15. No, please explain 5.5.7 Capital costs for infrastructure Summarize the capital costs of the new water system infrastructure. The five year cash flow projection included in Attachment 14 must reflect the capital and operation and maintenance costs associated with construction of the water system infrastructure. 1 Figure 1. Work flow and start of operations Figure 2. TMF capacity assessment checklist 5.1 General information System name: PWSID (if applicable): Applicant information: Name: Address: Email: Phone: Consulting Engineer Information (if applicable): Note: A professional engineer registered in the State of Colorado is not required to prepare the TMF capacity assessment. Professional engineers that do complete the TMF capacity assessment must follow the applicable requirements of the Department of Regulatory Agencies. See Section 3, general information and frequently asked questions, and Attachment 4 for submission of the plans and specifications. Name: Address: Email: Phone: Signatures: This TMF capacity evaluation was prepared by: ___________________________ (Print name) Signature: ______________________________________ Date: _____________ Authorized applicant signature: ____________________ Title: _______________ Date:_______ 5.2 Executive summary Capacity requirement Applicability (Yes or N/A)* Documentation and location within submittal Comments 5.2.1 Initial and future service area description 5.2.2 Initial and future population demands 5.2.3 Description of proposed facilities 5.3 Technical capacity Capacity requirement Applicability (Yes or N/A)* Documentation and location within submittal Comments 5.3.1.1 Map showing a minimum of a three mile radius around the project area that includes environmental features, initial and future service area, proposed facilities, existing and proposed wastewater outfalls, and new or affected sources 5.3.1.2 Conformance with regional long term plans 5.3.1.3.a Consideration of local and regional planning efforts including water quality and/or quantity 5.3.1.3.b Consideration of consolidation with another water system/treatment facility 5.3.2 Forecast for population growth, projected increase in Equivalent Residential Taps(ERTs), and projected water demands 5.3.3.1 Water resource management plan for the source water 5.3.3.2 Adequacy of source water to meet projected needs 5.3.3.3 Water rights description 5.3. 4.1 Plans and specifications for the proposed sources, treatment, and storage infrastructure 5.3. 4.2.a Finished water distribution system description 5.3. 4.2.b Distribution system pressure description 5.3. 4.2.c Schematic or design drawings of the distribution system 5.3. 5 Discussion of adequacy of staffing * If N/A, provide justification in comment column 5.4 Managerial capacity Capacity requirement Applicability (Yes or N/A)* Documentation and location within submittal Comments 5.4.1 Legal ownership 5.4.2 Organizational chart 5.4.3.1 Monitoring plan 5.4.3.2 Backflow prevention and cross-connection control plan 5.4.3.3 Water efficiency plan 5.4.3.4 Operation and maintenance manual 5.4.3.5 Public notification policy 5.4.3.6 Ordinance or bylaw that gives the water system authority to establish tap fees, water service fees, board members, and voting to enable the water system to remain whole 5.4.4 Operator in responsible charge for the treatment and distribution system that meets the requirements of Regulation 100 5.4.5 Record retention policy 5.5 Financial capacity Capacity requirement Applicability (Yes or N/A)* Documentation and location within submittal Comments 5.5.1.a Annual budget 5.5.1.b Capital improvement plan 5.5.1.c 5-year budget 5.5.2 Description of multi-year financial plan for the system including O&M costs, required reserve accounts, rate structure, fees, billing, other capital improvement programs, and the water system’s reserve policies 5.5.3 5-year cash flow projection 5.5.4 Description of funding sources available for public and/or private capital 5.5.5 Policy for preparation and submittal of audit documents 5.5.6 Documentation of general liability insurance 5.5.7 Estimate for capital costs for the new water system infrastructure * If N/A, provide justification in comment column Attachment 1 Project area map Attachment 2 Population projection Method 1: Population based projections. Recommended for primarily residential systems and/or for systems without water meter data. Method 2: Equivalent Residential Taps (ERT) Analysis. Recommended for systems with a high multifamily, commercial, industrial, irrigation demands. Other Projecting Water Flows Method 1: Population based projections Assumptions/data Information source Current system population People Current service area population (If providing water to neighboring community) People Population growth rates percent increase/year Average daily per capita flow rate Gallons per capita day Maximum daily per capita flow rate Gallons per capita day Peak hour factor Year System population Service area population (if different) Average daily flow Maximum daily flow Peak hour flow +0 +5 +10 +15 +20 Projecting water flow method 2: Equivalent Residential Taps (ERT) A Number of active residential taps – As calculated in the pre-qualification form B Total annual consumption (gallons per year) – residential C Estimated equivalent residential tap water usage Annual flow per ERT=A/B D Total annual consumption (gallons per year) – commercial/industrial/irrigation E Estimated commercial/industrial/irrigation flow in ERT # of commercial/industrial/irrigation ERT = D / C F Total ERTs = A + E Population and flow assumptions/data Information source Current system population People Current service population (if providing water to neighboring community) People Population growth rate percent increase / year Average daily flow per ERT Gallons per capita day Maximum daily per ERT Gallons per capita day Peak hour factor Gallons per capita day Year System population Service population (if different) Residential taps (ERTs) Multifamily residential taps (ERTs) Commercial/ industrial taps (ERTs) Irrigation taps (ERTs) Total taps (ERTs) Average daily flow Maximum daily flow Peak hour flow +0 +5 +10 +15 +20 Attachment 3 Water rights Attachment 4 Plans and specifications Non-Transient Non-Community (NTNC) groundwater system All other Community and Non-Transient Non-Community water (NTNC) systems For community water systems, the final plans and specifications design submittal must be prepared by a professional engineer registered in the State of Colorado. For a non-transient, non-community water system the final plans and specifications design submittal is not required to be prepared by a professional engineer. Attachment 5 Distribution system schematic Attachment 6 Organizational chart Attachment 7 Monitoring plan Attachment 8 Backflow prevention and cross-connection control plan Attachment 9 Water efficiency plan Attachment 10 Operation and maintenance manual Attachment 11 Public notification policies Attachment 12 Ordinance or bylaws Attachment 13 Annual and five year budget Attachment 14 Five year cash flow projection Attachment 15 Liability insurance documentation Wa ter Adequacy Determination Review 7-12-2022 Jenny Axmacher Senior City Planner ATTACHMENT 3 2Purpose of this Item •Provide Council with an update on the creation of a water adequacy determination review process. •Seeking input on •the approach for evaluating new water providers •impacts to existing water providers •identifying the decision maker for water adequacy determinations 1.Does Council have any feedback on the evaluation approach for new water providers? 2.Does Council support different standards for established providers and new providers? 3.Does Council have feedback on the decision maker for water adequacy determinations for new providers? 3Plan Alignment STRATEGIC PLAN •ENV 4.4: Provide a resilient, reliable and high-quality water supply. •NLSH 1.6: Transform regulations and revise procedures to increase clarity and predictability to ensure new development advances adopted City plans and policies. CITY PLAN •LIV 1.6 –Adequate Public Facilities •LIV 1.7 –Fees and Development Requirements •LIV 4.1 –New Neighborhoods •ENV 6.1 –Water Resource Planning OUR CLIMATE FUTURE •BIG MOVE 3 –Climate Resilient Community 4Prior Council Discussion •February 9, 2021 Work Session –Proposed Groundwater-Based Potable Water Supply for Montava Development •Council feedback: •Concerns about creation of a new water provider within the Growth Management Area •Support for creating a “non-standard” water adequacy determination process that could be applied to Montava and other future projects •Support for costs of new process and review to be paid by developers •Concern about costs of the water supply system being passed along to future homeowners within the development •Identified the need to explore alternative strategies for achieving affordable housing and other goals; openness to new options and creative solutions to water challenges 5Introduction •Wa ter is a critical resource and its cost and availably impact new development •Existing review process •Need for a more robust process •More complicated development •Potential for creation of new water providers 6Requirement This review process is being proposed to further effectuate a Colorado state statute (Section 29-20-301, et seq., C.R.S.), which states: A l ocal government shall not approve an application for a development permit unless it determines in its sole discretion, after considering the application and all of the information provided, that the applicant has satisfactorily demonstrated that the proposed water supply will be adequate. A l ocal government shall make such determination only once during the development permit approval process unless the water demands or supply of the specific project for which the development permit is sought are materially changed. A local government shall have the discretion to determine the stage in the development permit approval process at which such determination is made. Current Process •Development occurs within the district boundaries of existing water providers •Will Serve Letter issued by provider •Part of the building permit process 7 8Other Jurisdictions •Other Jurisdictions •Staff continues to conduct research on other jurisdictions •Most comply with the state statute by: •Getting a will serve letter from •A w ater entity with a water plan on file with the municipality •Many municipalities have not been faced with the challenge of regulating a private water supply system •Innovative/novel idea •Not much basis to find comparisons 9Other Regulatory Agencies •Other Agency Review •Other agencies have the authority to review new providers •Colorado Dept of Public Health & Environment (CDPHE) •Requires public water systems demonstrate adequate capacity to construct, operate and manage the new public waterworks. •Wa ter Court •There is also likely a role for Water Court to play in the process to adjudicate claims for water under Colorado Law such as if a new water supply (e.g., groundwater) is proposed. •Staff will continue to investigate what other entities have jurisdiction over these private water systems which will help to inform the city’s review process creation. 10Proposed Evaluation Process Wa ter Adequacy Determination Needed Established providers: -Fort Collins Utilities -East Larimer County Water District (ELCO) -Fort Collins Loveland Water District New providers: -Special Districts -Metro Districts -Private Utilities 11Proposed Evaluation Process –Existing Providers •Keep similar process for existing providers •Will Serve Letter •Consider opportunities to •Improve letters •Streamline process •Increase consistency between different providers 12Proposed Evaluation Process –New Providers •Evaluation criteria for new providers •Wa ter Quality •Quantity of Water •Dependability of Supply and Supplier •Supply Resiliency •System Redundancy •Maintenance and Outages •Availability of Supply •Financial Sustainability of Supplier •Capitalization •Would apply to potable and non-potable supplies 13Timing and Approval Authority •Ti ming •State statute leaves the determination timing up to the local jurisdiction •The determination may be made only once, unless something materially changes •Options under consideration: Annexation/ Zoning Overall Development Plan or Planned Unit Development Project Development Plan Final Development Plan Building Permit Certificate of Occupancy 14Approval Authority Option 1: Match to Devt Review Process •Use same decision maker as the development plan •P&Z Commission, Hearing Officer, or CDNS Director depending on project type •Avoids an extra step in the process Option 2: Water Commission •Grant authority for recommendations or final decisions •Could offer greater technical expertise Option 3: CDNS Director •Matches current approach for established providers •Offers efficiency and consistency Decision maker could also vary based on type of provider (established vs. new providers) 15Next Steps •The major milestones for this project are: •Review Existing Service Provider Requirements for New Development •Establish Provider Sustainability Review and Determination •Propose Water Supply Requirements for New Development •Create Review Procedure •Code Adoption and Implementation •Outreach to community members, existing water providers, developers, and other interested parties at key milestones •Code adoption targeted for Q1 2023 16Questions for Council 1.Does Council have any feedback on the evaluation approach for new water providers? 2.Does Council support different standards for established providers and new providers? 3.Does Council have feedback on the decision maker for water adequacy determinations for new providers? THANK YOU!