AGENDA ITEM #5.

CITY COUNCIL COMMUNICATION FORM

FROM: Jon Snyder, Public Works Director

THROUGH: Gary Suiter, City Manager

DATE: November 19, 2019

ITEM: Steamboat II Metro District Annexation of Steamboat Springs School

District Property.

X DIRECTION
X INFORMATION
ORDINANCE
MOTION
RESOLUTION
PROCLAMATION

I. REQUEST/ISSUE & BACKGROUND INFORMATION:

The Steamboat Springs RE2 School District has requested that the Steamboat
II Metropolitan District annex the School District’s “Barber” property into the
Metro District in order to have access to water and sewer services. The Metro
District has conditionally approved the annexation request upon the approval
of the City to sell additional water to the Metro District in sufficient quantity to
allow the Metro District to serve the School District, and confirmation that
sufficient sewage treatment capacity is available at the City’s wastewater
treatment plant to serve the School District.

Staff seeks direction from Council as to whether or not Council is amenable to

approving the Metro District’s annexation of School District property and the
terms under which water and sewer service would be provided by the City to
the Metro District in order to serve the school.

Subject Property:
The subject property, commonly referred to as the “Barber” property, is a 45-
acre collection of parcels owned by the School District abutting the Metro

5.1
 District. It generally lies north of Highway 40 and west of County Road 42. It
does not abut city limits, and it is approximately 4,000 feet west of the proposed
West Steamboat Neighborhoods development.

Wastewater Service:
Under the current proposal, sewage generated at the school site would flow
from the school, through the Metro District’s collection system, to the City’s
wastewater treatment plant. The City’s treatment plant treats sewage from the
City as well as three other wholesale customers. Those three wholesale
customers are the Mt. Werner Water and Sanitation District, the Tree Haus
Metro District, and the Steamboat II Metro District. The three wholesale
customers own and operate their respective sewage collection systems. The
treatment plant is currently at 72% of capacity (as measured in terms of
biochemical oxygen demand during a peak month), thus staff is confident that
sufficient capacity exists at the plant to serve the proposed school.

Water Service:
The Steamboat II Metro District owns and operates their own water system,
which consists of wells located near the Yampa River, a treatment system, a
distribution network, and a 1MG water tank. 50% of this water tank is owned
by the City. Through a 1993 agreement between the City and the Metro District,
the Metro District has the right to purchase up to 150,000 gallons of water per
day from the City. Water is delivered from the City to the Metro District through
a 12”-diameter water main that runs from Downhill Drive westward to the Metro
District. Thus, water within the Metro District comes from two sources: the
Metro District’s wells and the City’s supplies.

The Metro District has stated that between their two water sources, they do not
have enough water to service the new school, and in order to serve the new
school, they have requested that the City sell the Metro District additional water
above the 150,000 gallons per day that the District is currently able to purchase.
In preparation for this decision, the School District commissioned a water
demand analysis for the new school. This water demand analysis is included
as attachment 2. City staff has reviewed the water demand analysis and
concurs with the analysis’ findings. Staff is confident that the City has sufficient
supplies to sell additional water to the Metro District to serve the school, even
when including anticipated additional demands from infill development and
West Steamboat Neighborhoods.

II. SUMMARY AND ALTERNATIVES:

City Council has three general alternatives:

1. Do not approve the Metro District’s annexation of School District property.

5.2
 Under this alternative, it would be up to the School District to find an
alternative way to provide water and sewer services to the new school.
Options the School District may pursue include:
a. Petitioning Council to be an out-of-district water and wastewater
customer served directly by the City. Under this sub-alternative, the
School District could directly tap the City’s water line and bring water
down County Road 42 into the school site, and build a sewage force
main southward from the school site to the City’s interceptor. The
water service tap is viable. However, running a force main to the
interceptor is not particularly viable, as it would include crossing
Highway 40, obtaining easements from private property owners,
going down a rather steep hill, going under the river, and then going
under the railroad tracks in order to eventually connect to the City’s
interceptor. This alternative would include significant costs for the
School District.
b. Construct their own onsite water system and wastewater septic
system. This is not a particularly viable option as the wastewater
leach field would have to be enormous, construction of a site-specific
public water system is incredibly costly, and the School District does
not currently own sufficient water rights. Furthermore, the sewage
from the septic tanks would be hauled by truck to the City’s
wastewater plant anyway.
2. Approve the Metro District’s annexation of School District property, but do
not provide additional water supplies. Under this alternative, it would be up
to the Metro District and the School District to find a way to provide water
service to the new school, either through development of additional
supplies, conservation of existing supplies, or a combination of the two.
Metro District staff has indicated that this is not a viable alternative. Also
under this alternative, wastewater treatment would still be provided by the
City.
3. Approve the Metro District’s annexation of School District property and agree
to provide the additional water supplies and wastewater treatment under
negotiated terms.

III. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:

Staff believes that sufficient capacity at the wastewater treatment plant exists
to serve the school, and sufficient water supplies exist to serve the school.
Therefore, staff’s recommendation is number 3 above: approve the Metro
District’s annexation of School District property under negotiated terms and
conditions. Staff proposes the following terms as a starting point in the
discussion:
a. Wastewater service charges and wastewater tap fees as established in
the Municipal Code for wholesale wastewater customers, which may be
modified by City Council from time to time.

5.3
 b. Sell water to the school through the Metro District at the City’s
commercial rate as established in the Municipal Code, which may be
modified by City Council from time to time. For reference, the City’s
commercial rate is the rate that the School District currently pays for its
existing facilities.
c. The sale of additional water above 150,000 gallons per day not to exceed
the June 19, 2019 water demand analysis prepared by Resource
Engineering Inc. (attachment 2).
d. Water tap fees for the school property in accordance with the terms of
the 1993 agreement (discussed under Legal Issues below), which equal
one half of the water tap fee payable if the property were located within
the City’s service area boundary.
e. A sunset provision related to closure or substantive change to the school.

Under these terms, there are no anticipated City subsidies to offset Metro
District or School District costs. The school project would be paying its own
way. Staff would appreciate any feedback Council may have and any terms
Council may wish to include in future negotiations.

IV. FISCAL IMPACT:

City water service and City wastewater service is financed through a TABOR
enterprise fund, and as such no tax dollars go toward the provision of these
services. Services are funded through plant investment fees (also known as
tap fees) and service charges (monthly customer bills). The City commissions
comprehensive and detailed rate studies every three years. These rate studies,
which are performed by accountant consultants that specialize in utility rate
setting, dive deep into the City’s operations, finances, and capital plans to
ensure that utility rates are set at an amount that achieves 100% cost recovery
while also being fair and equitable to its customers.

Wastewater plant investment fees and service charges for the Steamboat II
Metro District are set at Council’s sole discretion and are designed to offset
100% of the City’s costs. Water plant investment fees and service charges for
commercial accounts are also set at Council’s sole discretion, and they too are
designed to offset 100% of the City’s costs. Therefore, if the City provides
water supplies to the Metro District for the new school at the prevailing
commercial account rates, and if the City provides wastewater treatment to the
Metro District under the wholesale customer rates, then there should be no
negative financial impact to the City for providing these additional services.

V. LEGAL ISSUES:

In 1993 the City and the Steamboat II Water and Sanitation District, later to
become the Steamboat II Metropolitan District, entered into an agreement that

5.4
 governed the sale of water by the City to the Metro District. This agreement is
included as attachment 3. Section N of the agreement stipulates that the City
and Metro District shall both approve any expansion of District boundaries or
any out-of-District service. Therefore, the Metro District cannot annex the
School District property or serve the School District property as an out-of-district
customer without the City’s consent, which if it is Council’s desire, would be
done by ordinance.

Steamboat II Metro District is a wholesale wastewater customer of the City’s

and therefore City Council has sole discretion in establishing the Metro District’s
wastewater service charges and wastewater plant investment fees.

The 1993 Agreement for the Sale and Purchase of Water does not have a sunset
provision, and the terms of the agreement were reaffirmed in a 2003 settlement
agreement (attachment 4). This agreement gives the Metro District the right
to purchase up to 150,000 gallons per day. Section G gives the Metro District
the ability to purchase additional water “upon terms and conditions to be
negotiated between the City and the District at the time of such purchase.”
Therefore, the sale of additional water by the City to the Metro District to serve
the new school and at what price is subject to Council’s discretion in negotiating
proper terms.

VI. CONFLICTS OR ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES:

None at this time.

VII. CONSISTENCY WITH COUNCIL GOALS AND POLICIES:

None at this time.

ATTACHMENTS:

Attachment 1: PowerPoint Presentation

Attachment 2: Water Demand Analysis
Attachment 3: 1993 Agreement for the Sale and Purchase of Water
Attachment 4: Steamboat II Metro District Settlement Agreement

5.5
 Attachment #1

Steamboat II Metro District

annexation of
Steamboat Springs School District Property
November 19, 2019
5.6

Jon Snyder, Public Works Director

5.7
Water Demand Analysis
• Approximately 70,000 square feet
• Approximately 560 students and 30 faculty
• 23 gallons per day per person
• ½ acre of outdoor irrigation
• Equates to 13,570 gallons per day in winter months
• 5,350 gallons per day in summer months
• 17,770 gallons per day if school is in session and outdoor irrigation is
occurring
• This demand would represent a little over 1% of the City’s current
demands
• Demand assumptions used in the study consistent with Soda Creek
Elementary
5.8
Decision Points
Staff requests Council’s feedback and direction on any and all
topics, among them:
1. Does Council support the Metro District’s annexation of
School District property?
2. Does Council support the Metro District’s request for
additional wastewater treatment capacity?
3. Is Council willing to sell additional water to the Metro District to
serve the school?
4. Or, would Council prefer an alternative arrangement for the
provision of water and wastewater services?
5.9
Negotiation Terms
Should Council support provision of additional water and wastewater
services to the Metro District, what are the desired terms? Staff’s
recommended terms as a starting point include:
a. Wastewater tap fees and service charges per Municipal Code at
the wholesale customer rate
b. Water service charges per Municipal Code at the commercial rate
c. Water tap fees at 50% City rates, per 1993 agreement
d. Water quantity not to exceed the water demand analysis
e. Sunset provision
f. Any other terms?
5.10
 Attachment #2

Dr. Brad Meeks

Superintendent June 19, 2019
Steamboat Springs School District
325 7th St.
Steamboat Springs, CO 80487

RE: Proposed Steamboat II/Barber School Site

Dear Dr. Meeks:

At the request of Ms. Colleen Kaneda, Ph.D., P.E., Resource Engineering, Inc. (RESOURCE) has
completed a water demand analysis associated with a proposed school to be constructed on
property located generally east of the Steamboat II subdivision, 4.2 miles west of downtown
Steamboat Springs, CO (City). The purposes of the study were to calculate the monthly and
annual water demands associated with the school and to provide an opinion as to whether such
demand could potentially be met by the City’s Fish Creek municipal water system. Our study
assumptions, calculations and findings are described below.

Based upon information provided by Colleen, it is our understanding that the proposed school will
be approximately 70,000 square feet in size and will serve younger students, generally
kindergarten through eighth grade. Furthermore, it will contain a cafeteria, gymnasium, ball fields
and possibly, a running track. The play fields and running track will consist of artificial turf and
asphalt. Outside irrigation will be limited to small areas, adjacent entrance sidewalks and the
school building, and will consist of a mixture of turf grass, shrubs and trees. For purposes of this
analysis, RESOURCE assumes that the total irrigated area will be approximately 0.5 acres in size.

With exception of a smaller irrigation demand, the size and type of school are identical to one that
RESOURCE evaluated last year in this same vicinity. RESOURCE examined the water demand
of a 70,000 square foot school associated with the near-by proposed West Steamboat
Neighborhoods (WSN) development In estimating water demand for the WSN school,
RESOURCE used standard water-use assumptions made available through the American Water
Works Association and the Digest of Education Statistics, National Center for Education Statistics.
The assumptions and calculations are shown below:

Water-Use Assumptions:
• 20 gallons per day per student and teacher(gpcd) 1
• 560 students, staff of 30 (590 total water users)
• National average number of school days per year = 1802

1
Design and Construction of Small Water Systems, a guideline published by the American Water Works
Association (AWWA) at Table 1.3.
2
Digest of Education Statistics, National Center for Education Statistics, 2003-2004.

5.11
Dr. Brad Meeks June 19, 2019
Superintendent Page 2
Steamboat School District

Water-Use Calculations:
• In-House Demand: 590 individual users * 20 gpcd * 180 days = 6.51 acre-feet (AF)/year

Based upon the same assumptions and calculations noted above, we estimate that the school
proposed for the Steamboat II/Barber Site will be similar, approximately 6.5 AF per year. This
equates to a monthly demand of 0.72 AF spread over the period January through mid-June and
mid-September through December. Additionally, we understand that public schools are more
frequently being used to host summer camps and meetings when school is not in session.
Accordingly, we have assumed a summer occupancy (mid-June through mid-September of
approximately 50 students). The additional summer use brings the total annual water demand to
7.1 AF.

The monthly estimated in-building water use of 0.72 AF was compared to 2018 metered water use
records available from the City’s downtown Soda Creek Elementary School. Soda Creek is of the
same size (70,000 sq.ft.) and use (elementary grades) and, therefore, provides a good comparison
between actual water use and projected use that was based upon engineering assumptions. The
water use at Soda Creek Elementary averaged 0.83 AF over the November through February
winter period, slightly higher than the estimated 0.72 AF per month as described above. Thus, at
Soda Creek, the daily water use per student is slightly higher than the amount referenced in the
AWWA technical publication (23 gallons/student vs. 20 gallons/student). For purposes of this
water availability analysis, RESOURCE utilized the higher 0.83 AF/month demand (23
gallons/student). Accordingly, the total in-building water use at the proposed Steamboat II/Barber
School site is calculated to be 8.1 AF per year.

The irrigation demand associated with the planned 0.5 acres of landscape is calculated to be 0.8
AF per year. This is based upon an average crop demand of 1.43AF/acre as calculated using
S.C.S. Manual TR No. 21, Revised September 1970. An irrigation efficiency of 85% was assumed.
In total, the annual water demand at the new school is expected to be 8.9 AF (8.1 AF in-building
and 0.8 AF irrigation). Table 1, attached, displays the calculated monthly and annual water
demands for the new school.

Cumulative Water Demand, City of Steamboat Springs

Based upon information provided by the City of Steamboat Springs, its calculated sustained yield
of its Fish Creek municipal water system is 4.05 million gallons/day (6.28 cfs). 3 In prior reports
prepared for the proponents of the WSN, RESOURCE calculated that the City’s total peak month
demand at build out, including the additional water uses associated with the proposed WSN would

3
The source, size, and reliability of the City’s water supply system was described in some detail by Mr. Jon
Snyder during his September 16, 2016 water resources technical presentation to City Council.

5.12
Dr. Brad Meeks June 19, 2019
Superintendent Page 3
Steamboat School District

total 3.98 million gallons/day (MGD). 4 At that time, the City estimated that its average summer
peak month water demand at build out, including infill within city limits, would total 3.6 MGD.
Combined with the peak demands of the proposed WSN, the City’s peak month demands at build
out was expected to be 3.98 MGD (3.6 MGD + 0.38 MGD). This total fell within the City’s
calculated sustained Fish Creek municipal yield of 4.05 MGD.

The daily water demand during the peak month period for the Steamboat II/Barber school is 0.009
MGD. This peak demand occurs during May when school is still in session and the growing season
has begun (early irrigation). 5 This estimate, combined with RESOURCE’s prior demand
calculations, indicates that with the new school, the peak demand on the City’s Fish Creek water
system would be approximately 3.99 MGD (3.98 MGD + 009 MGD). Thus, the City’s sustainable
Fish Creek water supply system exceeds its future peak month water demands at full build out,
including the build out demands associated with the WSN development and the proposed
Steamboat II/Barber school. Providing water service to new school should not interfere with the
City’s ability to meet reasonably anticipated future water supply needs.

Respectfully,
RESOURCE ENGINEERING, INC.

R. Scott Fifer, P.H.

Hydrologist

RSF/mmm
Attachment
1553-1.0

4
RESOURCE prepared three reports concerning the WSN, January 27, 2017 (original report), October 4, 2018
(1st supplemental report and November 9, 2018 (2nd supplemental report).
5 Total water demand in May = 0.9 AF (Table 1). This equates to 0.029 AF/day or 9,438 gallons/day (0.009

MGD).

5.13
 Table 1
Steamboat II/Barber School Site
70,000 sq.ft. Elementary/K-8 School)
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6)
Monthly Water Demands

Steamboat II Irrigation Total Percent Average Average

Month Barber Site 0.5 Ac. Demand Annual Daily Rate Daily Rate
70,000 sf School (AF) (AF) Demand (cfs) (MGD)
Jan 0.83 0.0 0.83 9.3% 0.014 0.009
Feb 0.83 0.0 0.83 9.3% 0.015 0.010
Mar 0.83 0.0 0.83 9.3% 0.014 0.009
Apr 0.83 0.0 0.83 9.3% 0.014 0.009
May 0.83 0.1 0.90 10.0% 0.015 0.009
Jun 0.52 0.2 0.73 8.2% 0.012 0.008
Jul 0.20 0.2 0.45 5.0% 0.007 0.005
Aug 0.20 0.2 0.40 4.5% 0.007 0.004
Sep 0.52 0.1 0.63 7.0% 0.011 0.007
Oct 0.83 0.0 0.83 9.3% 0.014 0.009
Nov 0.83 0.0 0.83 9.3% 0.014 0.009
Dec 0.83 0.0 0.83 9.3% 0.014 0.009
Total 8.1 0.8 8.9

Notes: (1) 70,0000 sq.ft. elementary school with 560 students at 23 gpcd over a 180 day period (590 students * 23 gpd/student = 13,570 gpd.
Plus summer (mid-June through mid-September) demand for approximately 50 students =0.2 AF/month demand.
(2) Irrigation water demand = 0.5 acres of landscape. Evapotranspiration demand was calculated for bluegrass
using the methodology set forth in the S.C.S. Manual TR No. 21, Revised September 1970. An irrigation efficiency of 85% was assumed.
(3) Col. (1) + Col. (2)
(4) Percent Annual Demand = Monthly Demand / Total Annual Demand.
(5) & (6) Average Daily Rate = Monthly Demand converted to Daily Rate, Expressed in cubic feet per second (Col. 5) and million gallons per day (Col. 6).

Water Use Assumptions

0.5 Irrigated area
85.0% Irrigation efficiency
590.0 Students and Teachers
23 Gallons/day per student/teacher
180 No. of primary school days/year
0.2 AF/month in-building use during summer

5.14
Attachment #3

5.15
5.16
5.17
5.18
Attachment #4

5.19
5.20
5.21
5.22
5.23
5.24
5.25