HomeMy WebLinkAboutresolution.council.026-96
4,101.0
i,L,,'1'
e
RESOLUTION NO. 2.10
(Series of 1996)
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN,
COLORADO, FINDING SUBSTANTIAL COMPLIANCE WITH THE CITY OF
ASPEN WATER POLICIES RELATING TO THE EXTENSION OR EXPANSION
OF WATER SERVICE TO THE HINES-HIGHLANDS LIMITED PARTNERSHIP
PROPERTY
WHEREAS, the Highlands Water and Sanitation District
(~District") has submitted an application for expansion of
water service to the City of Aspen Water Department, which
application is intended to be consistent with the terms of
the Agreement dated March 30, 1995 by and between Hines
Highlands Limited Partnership, Aspen Highlands Mountain
Limited Liability Company and the City of Aspen, approved
e
and authorized pursuant to Resolution No. 20, Series of 1995
(~1995 Agreement"); and
WHEREAS, the District has requested that such water
service be provided to serve the property described in
Exhibit A, and shown on the map attached thereto and
referred to in this Resolution as the ~Project Property";
and
WHEREAS, the Project Property is owned or controlled
by the Hines Highlands Limited Partnership and the Aspen
Highlands Mountain Limited Liability Company (~Hines-
Highlands Partners"), with portion being owned by Aspen
e
I
'.'.'.'"
,
.
e
Highlands Skiing Corporation and others, all of which are
the beneficiaries of the District's application; and
WHEREAS, the Project Property lies both inside and
outside the present District boundaries and is located in
Pitkin County, and not within the city limits of the City of
Aspen; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has adopted by resolution
(Resolution No 5, Series of 1993) policies to guise
municipal water system development and services beyond the
city limits; and
WHEREAS, said policies, codifies at Section 23-56(b)
of the Municipal Code, require the City Council to make a
determination that the proposed water service extension
complies with said policies and is in the best interests of
the City of Aspen; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has had an opportunity to .
review with City Staff the proposed expansion of water
service to the Project Property.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF
THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO,
That the City Council of the City of Aspen hereby
determines the proposed water service extension to the
Project Propersy located beyond the city limits of the City
of Aspen substantially complies in all respects with the
City Aspen Water policy for extraterritorial services, as
set forth in Resolution No.5, Series of 1993, as amended,
and therefore agrees to extend city water service to the
Project Property, for use on the Project as it is defined in
pending land use request before Pitkin County (~Project"),
2
.
..
e
pursuant to the city's standard water service agreement, so
long as all of the following conditions are met:
I. The offer to extend potable water service to the
Project Property (whether by means of a direct
water service agreement between the Hines
Highlands Partners and the City, or by means of
expanded Wholesale water sales to the District) is
expressly contingent upon execution of a raw
Water Agreement between the City and Hines
Highlands Partners. Prior to the city's adoption
of an ordinance providing for tre~ted water
service to the Project and the Project Property,
an application for raw water service for landscape
irrigation of common areas and on-mountain
snowmaking operation will be submitted. If the
terms under which the City offers raw water
service for these purposes are acceptable to the
Hines Highlands Partners, the Raw Water Agreement
will be executed concurrently with the potable
Water Service Agreement. No treated Water Service
Agreement will be approved by the City unless a
Raw Water Agreement is also approved by the City
and Hines Highlands Partners.
2.
An amended application for water service is
received by the Water Department within two years
of the effective date of final plat approval by
the Board of County Commissioners of Pitkin
County. The amended application shall contain, at
a minimum, the following information:
a. Engineering drawings detailing the proposed
water main extension and all related
facilities in a format and with clarity
satisfactory to the City of Aspen Water
Department. Such drawing shall provide
resolution in a manner acceptable to the
Water Department, of all technical issues
identifies by the Water Department in it its
preliminary review of he project, and other
technical issues that may arise as a result
of changes or refinements to the Project
occurring after the Water Department's
preliminary review.
b.
Revision of the preliminary engineering
drawings submitted as part of Exhibit ~B" of
3
.
c.
.
.
the Water Service Application to provide the
following:
i. adequate interconnections from the
existing District lines to newly
proposed distribution lies to ensure
continued water service to all District
customers;
ii. an adequate interconnection from the
existing 12-inch transmission line
serving the Highlands tank to the
~middle" pressure zone and the proposed
pumping station to service the ~upper"
zone;
iii. elimination of one of the two redundant
pumping stations shown on the plans for
the Moore project and this Project to
provide a single pump station and
storage tank to service the upper zone
of both projects.
A proposal acceptable to the City to ensure
financial security for completion of the
Project. The requirement of such security
shall not be ,construed to require duplication
of the security required by the City under
the water service agreement and the security
required under the Subdivision Improvements
Agreement (~SIA") approved by Pitkin County,
provided that 1) all improvements for which
the Hines Highlands Partners are responsible
under the Water Service Agreement are
included within the SIA; and 2) prior to any
release of security the County shall consult
with and obtain a consent to a full or
partial release of such security from the
City. Acceptable additional security shall
be required for completion of improvements,
if any, not contemplated in the security
provided under the SIA, and for completion
of improvements, if any, required as a
condition of the Water Service Agreement, but
for which Hines Highlands Partners are not
responsible.
d.
Estimated engineering and construction costs
to complete the Project and related
4
e
e
e
e.
facilities in sufficient detail to the
satisfaction of the city.
Any other technical information or action
reasonably required to implement the terms of
the 1995 Agreement and this Resolution.
f. The application for water service shall be
accompanied by a processing fee and review
fee as established by the city.
g. All parties determined by the city Attorney
to be necessary parties and signatories to
the Water Service Agreement shall be
identifies and willing to execute the Water
Service Agreement.
3.
The proposed extension of any water service lines
shall serve only such growth as is endorsed by the
city Council. Hines Highlands Partners have made
representations to the city Council with respect
to the development approvals currently being
sought from the Board of County Commissioners of
Pitkin County. Any substantial alterations to the
proposed development which are made and approved
by the City Council prior to the execution of a
Water Service Agreement. A substantial alteration
shall be defined as any amendment to the Project
which would require a remand to the Pitkin County
Board of County Commissioners as a general
submission review.
4. No extension or expansion of service shall be
approved without the prior execution of a written
Water Service Agreement. Said Water Service
Agreement shall contain, at a minimum, the
following provisions, which are intended to be
consistent with the 1995 Agreement1
1 It is intended that this Resolution, the 1995 Agreement, and the Water
Service Agreement be consistent; the fact that some matters are
addressed in one document but not in all documents shall not be deemed
an inconsistency; nor shall the fact that this Resolution contains
requirements not contained in the 1995 Agreement be deemed an
inconsistency. To the extent that this Resolution is inconsistent with
the 1995 Agreement, the 1995 Agreement shall control. To the extent the
1995 Agreement is inconsistent with the Water Service Agreement, the
Water Service Agreement will control.
5
.
a.
b.
.
e
The District and Hines Highlands Partners
shall agree, in a manner binding upon all
users of the water system located within the
Project Property, to a restriction acceptable
in form to the city Attorney on the use of
treated water to irrigate common open spaces
on the Project Property or other common
recreational areas on the Project Property
which do not require treated water.
An agreement by the owners of the Project
Property to annexation of all property served
by extension or expansion of water service at
time as the property becomes contiguous to
city and the city determines such annexation
desirable; provided, however, that said
agreement shall not be required until after
final plat approval and vesting of property
rights by the Pitkin County Board of County
Commissioners. Said agreement to annex shall
be provided by each owner of property served
on a document in form acceptable to the City
Attorney, and recordable in the County Clerk
and Recorder's Office as a covenant to run
with the land. The owners of the Project
Property shall provided to the City, within
seven days of the recordation of the final
plat, a list of all owners and legal
descriptions of the property individually
owned with the Project Property to facilitate
the preparation and recording of said .
agreement to annex. Nothing herein shall be
construed to anticipate or require annexation
of property owned by the United State of any
agency thereof.
c. The Hines Highlands Partners shall agree to
dedicate or transfer to the city water rights
previously found by the City in the 1995
Agreement to be sufficient in quantity and
seniority to provide a water supply, along
with the water rights already transferred to
the City by the District, comparable the that
which will be provided by the City.
d.
Hines Highlands Partners or its successors
shall pay all utility charges, tap fees,
utility connect charges, any other related
water utility fees as set forth in the Aspen
Municipal Code for the connection of City of
6
.
e.
f.
.
.
Aspen water services, and a pro-rated charge
for well system improvements based on the
number of connections which will benefit
therefrom (currently estimated at $400.00 per
ECU). In the event that the city amends its
current rate ordinance to provide for
recovery of those charges through tap fees,
the pro-rates well charges will not be
assessed.
Hines Highlands Partners shall secure an
easement for a tank site on Aspen Highlands'
property to serve the project. The cost of
acquiring the easement and construction of
the tank and pump station shall not be borne
by the city.
The District and Hines Highlands Partners
shall agree that all water lines and sewer
line locations shall comply with all state,
federal and local laws and regulations.
g.
In the event that the City determines that it
is in the best interests of the City to
construct a raw water line from the Thomas
Reservoir to provide irrigation and
snowmaking water service to the Project
Property, Hines Highlands Partners agree to
grant the City requisite easement to place
such a line in common trenches. The
easements will be located in alignments
mutually agreeable to the parties. If the
raw water lines are to be places in common
trenches, the City will time the construction
of its raw water lines to coincide with the
Project construction schedule. Further, in
such an event, the City agrees to pay one-
half pf all costs of such common trenches,
excluding any piping costs, up to a maximum
of $30.00 per lineal foot of common trench.
h. Provision for an automated meter reading
system for the new customers who will be
served by the project, and provisions
requiring execution of a written agreement
with the City prior to any "pre-tapping" onto
the distribution mains. "Pre-tapping" is
defined as connection of an individual
7
e
5.
.
e
service line to a main distribution line when
the main or distribution line is installed.
The Water Service Agreement between the city and
Hines Highlands Partners shall contain provisions
for the city and Hines Highlands Partners to use
their best efforts to cause the District to be
dissolved, and the parties' rights and obligations
under such Water Service Agreement will be
expressly contingent upon dissolution of the
District. Nothing herein shall be construed,
however, to dissolution of the District.
The city shall also enter into an agreement with
the District and the Hines Highlands Partners to
provide for expansion of wholesale water sales to
the District so that the District may provide
service to the Project Property. The Conditions
of service contained in this resolution must be
met before the City will enter into an agreement
with the District and the Hines Highlands
Partners. Furthermore, said agreement shall
contain, among other things, the provisions set
forth in paragraph 4 of this resolution, as well
as provisions that provide for an accounting and
master metering of all wholesale water deliveries
to the District during the tenure of the
District's existence. This agreement will
terminate upon dissolution of the District.
6.
The Hines Highland Partners shall participate in
transportation mitigation through a contribution of
$650,000.00 to be used to pay for physical
improvements to be identified in a Transportation
Plan, submitted in conjunction with the Detailed
submission to the Pitkin County Board of County
Commissioners. said Plan shall be consistent with
representations made by the applicant in the
General Submission process.
7.
In addition to the financial contribution set forth
at section 6, above, the Hines Highland Partners
shall participate in funding an amount equal to
$350,000.00 for the planning and development of
long term improvements to the entrance to Aspen, ~s
approved by the Aspen city Council and the Pitkin
County Board of county Commissioners. In the event
the long-term solution to the entrance to Aspen has
not been agreed upon, and/or implementation of the
solution is not proposed in the reasonable future,
the City and County, in consultation with the Hines
Highland Partners, shall agree upon a phased
8
e
.
.
improvement plan which will not unreasonably delay
the development of the project. These funds may not
be spent without the joint agreement of the Board
of County commissioners and the Aspen city' Council.
8.
The Hines Highlands Partners have received approval
of the Project through the county's General
Submission process subject to a number of
conditions, including, but not limited to, the
development of a detailed Transit Plan to be
submitted with their Detailed Submission
application. The Transit Plan is required to
address the following issues:
a.
The level of transit service that is to be
provided by the Applicant including hours of
operation and season of operation, frequency
of service (headways) , vehicle types and
capacities.
Where transit vehicles will be stored and
maintained.
Whether spare transit vehicles will be
provided to account maintenance down time,
etc.
Route/s to be seryed.
Promotion strategies for transit service.
Management and operations plan for transit
service and intended provider.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
The Hines Highland Partners shall permit the city
to meaningfully participate in the development of
said Transit Plan in the following manner: (1) at
the time the Detailed Submission Application is
filed with the County for consideration by the
county Planning and Zoning Commission, the Hines
Highlands Partners shall present to the city
Community Development Department a copy of the
Transit Plan to allow city staff an opportunity to
meaningfully comment on the Transit Plan before the
county P&Z; and, (2) following approval of the
Transit Plan by the County P&Z, but prior to
submission of the Plan to the county Board of
County commissioners, the Hines Highland Partners
shall present to the city Council the Transit Plan
to afford the city Council a meaningful opportunity
to review and comment on the Transit Plan for the
benefit. of the Board of county Commissioners as
part of their review and consideration of said
Transit Plan.
9
-
.
.
RESOLVED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this /~ day
o~, 1996, by the city Council for the City of
Aspen, Colorado.
~ !~~-
Johd's. Bennett, Mayor
I, Kathryn S. Koch, duly appointed and acting City Clerk, so
certify that the foregoing is a true and accurate copy of
that resolution adopted by the City Council of the City of
Aspen, Colorado, at a meeting held
~/~
jw628.1
, 1996.
~>i~clerk
10
-
e
-
CITY OF ASPEN
WATER SERVICE AGREEMENT
. ~s Water Service Agreement is entered into this .3 'i-I day of
P tUl' , 1996, in Aspen, Colorado, between THE CITY OF ASPEN, a Colorado
municipal corporation and home rule city whose address is 130 South Galena Street,
Aspen, Colorado 81611 (hereafter the "City"), and JEFFREY C. HINES, his successors and
assigns (hereafter "JCH").
WITNESSETH:
WHEREAS, the City owns and operates the City of Aspen water system in
accordance with the laws of the State of Colorado, and in accordance with the charter,
ordinances, rules, regulations, policies and resolutions of the City of Aspen, and this
Agreement is entered into in conformity with, and subject to, all such laws, charter,
ordinances, rules, regulations policies and resolutions; and
WHEREAS, JCH is the owner of Lot 2, Hines/Duncan Lot Split Plat (the Subject
Property) and whereas a main water line has been constructed along the Scully-Hines
water easement (hereafter "waterline") which runs from Red Mountain Road to the end
of Shady Lane along an easement agreement and amendment thereto recorded in Book 591
at Page 423 and in Book 632 at Page 50 of the records of Pitkin County; and
WHEREAS, there are four lots that are to be served by the water main, and perhaps
a fifth lot (Rowland); and
WHEREAS, Lot 1 (Duncan), the Kenneth Lay home and lot, and the Gerald D.
Hines home and lot are currently served by City water from the waterline; and
WHEREAS, JCH seeks to obtain municipal water service for Lot 2 from the City but
has no water service agreement, and .
WHEREAS, negotiations are taking place with the other owners served by the
waterline for such an agreement also; and
WHEREAS, Lot 2 is located outside the corporate limits of the city; and
WHEREAS, approval for the Hines/Duncan Lot Split was granted by the Board of
County Commissioners of Pitkin County by Resolution dated May 31,1989, and a copy of
the plat was recorded in Plat Book 20, at Page 89 of the records of Pitkin County; and
I
3n~884 ~'/18/9b 11:40R PG 1 OF 9 R
"'" ~'- CLERK & RECOROE
SILVIR ORVIS PITKIN COUNTY ,
REG
46.1Zl1ll
DOC
UGC
e
.M.
,
e
WHEREAS, the Municipal Code of the City of Aspen, Colorado (the "Code"),
requires that the extension of water service outside the boundaries of the City shall be
made only pursuant to a written agreement wIth the City, that the City shall not be
obligated to extend such service, and may provide such service only upon a determination
that it is in the best interests of the City, and that the City may impose such requirements
by agreement as it deems necessary to protect its best interests; and
WHEREAS, the City's Water Service Extension Policy permits water service
extension only upon demonstration that such extension will meet the policy goals and
requirements of Resolution No.5 (Series of 1993) as amended June 28,1993, pursuant to
Resolution No. 49 (Series of 1993), as the same may be further amended from time to time;
and
WHEREAS, the City has determined that this Agreement and all covenants herein
are necessary to comply with the Code and the City's water policies, and the City is not
entering into this Agreement as a public utility not holding itself out to the public in
general as capable of or intending to provide water service extraterritorially; and
WHEREAS, the Code provides for the rating of new or expanded water service
based on potential water demand as expressed in equivalent capacity units (hereafter
"ECU); and
'WHEREAS, the City has approved the Application, and is willing to provide water
service to }CH on the terms and conditions of the Agreement;
THEREFORE, in consideration of the premises and the mutual promises and
covenants contained herein, the City and JCH agree as follows:
PURPOSE OF AGREEMENT
1. Water Service to Subject Property. The City hereby agrees with JCH to
provide treated water service to the Subject Property under the terms of this Agreement
in such quantities and to the extent herein provided so as to serve the structures and uses
authorized by Pitkin County under the appovals granted to JCH as referred to above.
Pursuant to this Agreement, the City shall provide treated water service to the Subject
Property in an amount necessary to service a residence with eight bedrooms (including a
caretaker unit's kitchen); provided, however, that the maximum volume of treated water
the City shall be required to provide to the Subject Property pursuant to this Agreement
shall not exceed 2.5 acre-feet per year. Only those structures and uses approved for the
Subject Property may be served under this Agreement.
2
3'30884
03/t8/'36 11:40R PG 2
OF '3
e
.
e
EXISTING UNE AND EASEMENTS
2. Easements. The water will be delivered to the Subject Property along the
waterline referred to above, which currently delivers water to the three residences referred
to above, and along the Hines/ Scully Easement and the waterline plat easement on Lot
2, as shown on the Hines/Duncan Plat referred to above. JCH warrants for himself and his
successors that he is authorized to use that line and those easements. He further warrants
and represents that he consents to the conveyance of that waterline to the City of Aspen
at such time as an agreement with all affected owners is entered into. The City shall not be
responsible for maintenance of the waterline or for water breaks until after the waterline
is conyeyed to the City. Each party shall be solely responsible for any injury or damages,
including costs and attorneys' fees, to persons or property arising from its own negligent
acts of omissions occurring on or resulting form its use or occupation of any easement
premises. Nothing contained herein, however, shall constitute or result in any waiver or
diminishment of any defense of limitation available to the City under the Colorado
Governmental Immunity Act or other applicable law.
WATER SERVICE
3. Treated Water Service. Upon completion of construction and acceptance
of the water distribution and transmission mains and lines, the associated facilities and
easements by the City, the City will provide treated water service to the Subject Property
to no more than the total number of ECUs provided for by the approyed final design
drawings, provided that the maximum volume of water the City shall be required to
supply each year shall not exceed the amount (in acre-feet) set forth in paragraph 1 above.
Any change in the treated water service requirements for the Subject Property will require
approval by the City, and amendment of this Agreement.
The treated water to be delivered by the City pursuant to the terms of this
Agreement may be used for all lawful in-building municipal purposes, and for fire
protection, swimming pools and the normal and reasonable outside irrigation of trees,
lawns and gardens. Notwithstanding the foregoing, all water use will be consistent with
the City's Water Policy Resolution (Resolution No, 5, as amended, (Series of 1993), and
water conservation ordinances.
4. Raw Water Service. The city may provide raw water for irrigation purposes
on the Subject Property to the extent it is able to do so utilizing its existing ditch system.
5. Tap Fees _ Computation and Payment: Scheduling- of Taps. All tap fees for
treated water service herein provided shall be assessed utilizing the City's prevailing
applicable tap fee at the time of application for a building permit for the structure for
which service is sought. No water service shall be provided to any structure absen~
3
3'10884
03/18/'16 11:40A PG 3
OF .,
1---
i
e
.
e
payment of the appropriate tap fee and any applicable hookup charges. Tap fees and
hookup charges shall be paid at the time of building permit issuance. The City Water
Department shall determine scheduling of all physical taps or connections to the main
lines.
6. Service Lines. Each service line shall be metered in accordance with the
Code at the sole expense of JCH and cross-connection and backflow prevention devices
will be installed at JCH's expense.
7. I ,imitations on Provision of Water Service. This Agreement is only for
the supply of treated water service as herein described and no expansion of uses,
connections, or water service beyond those set forth herein and in the Addenda and
Exhibits hereto is in any way authorized by the Agreement, The City is not by this
Agreement prejudging, certifying or guaranteeing its ability to provide treated water
service to any use or structure except as provided herein, nor may this Agreement be used
as evidence of approval of any land use requests, or as eyidence of approval 0 water
service for any land use request, except as provided herein.
8. Service Subject to the City Charter. Codes. Rules. Reg:ulations and Policies.
JCH and his successors in interest shall be bound by, and all water service provided
hereunder shall be subject to, all applicable provisions of the Charter of the City of Aspen
and the Aspen Municipal Code, as well as all applicable rules, policies or regulations of the
City now in effect or as may be hereafter adopted.
9. Rules Regarding Water Use. JCH agrees to adopt all provisions set forth
herein as rules and regulations governing the use of water in the Subject Property, and
agrees that this Agreement and the Addenda hereto shall be recorded as covenants
running with the land and shall be as fully enforceable on the Subject Property as if the
same were situated inside the City. JCH agrees to assist the City in every manner
reasonably possible to enforce the City's ordinances, rules and regulations make to protect
purity, safety and supply of the water delivered pursuant to this Agreement, including
curtailment during times of shortage, elimination of any potential cross-connections, and
utilization of water conservation devices as set forth in the Code. JCH also agrees to
prohibit all unnecessary or unreasonable waste of water on the property served by this
Agreement, and to make reasonable efforts to enforce such prohibition, The unreasonable
or unnecessary waste of water shall be defined as ,set forth in the Code.
10. Source of Water Supply. The parties to this Agreement recognize that the
City's water supply is dependent upon sources from which the supply is variable in
quantity and quality and beyond the City's reasonable control; therefore, no liability shall.
attach to the City under this Agreement on account of any failure to accurately anticipate
availability of water supply of because of an actual failure of water supply due to
4
390884
03/18/96 11:40A PG 4
OF 9
-
inadequate runoff, poor quality, failure of infrastructure, or other occurrence beyond the
City's reasonable control.
11. No Guaranty of Water Oil ali ty. Ouantity or Pressure. The City makes no
promise or guarantee of pressure, quantity or quality of water supply for any purpose,
including fire suppression, except as specifically provided herein or as is required by
applicable federal, state and local laws and regulations. The City agrees to that its water
to meet all mandatory local, state and federal potable water standards and to exercise
reasonable care and foresight in furnishing water hereunder equal in quality to that
furnished inside the City.
-
12. Propp-rty Rights in Water. All water furnished under this Agreement is
provided on a contractual basis for use on the Subject Property as described. in this
Agreement, and all property rights to the water to be furnished hereunder are reserved to
the City. Water service provided under this Agreement does not include any right to make
a succession of uses of such water, a!1d upon completion of the primary use of the water
on the Subject Property, all dominion over the water provided reverts completely to the
City. Subject to the prohibition against waste and any other limitations on water use
imposed in the Agreement, }CH shall have no obligation to create any particular volume
of return flow from the water furnished under this Agreement. }CH agrees to cooperate
with the City in measuring and reporting return flows to the extent such measuring and
reporting are required by the Colorado State Engineer or his agents.
VIOLATIONS
13. F.nforcement by the City, The parties to this Agreement recognize and agree
that the City as the right to enforce its rules, policies, regulation, ordinances and other
terms of this Agreement by the disconnection of the supply of water provided hereunder.
Additionally, in the event that }CH or any user who has purchased or leased a portion of
the Subject Property violated the rules, policies, regulations or ordinances of the City, the
City shall have all remedies available to it at law or in equity, or as provided in the Code.
Without limiting the foregoing rights and remedies, }CH agrees that the City may also
enforce such violations by injunction, the parties agreeing that the damages to the City
from such violations are irreparable, and there is no adequate remedy at law for such
violations. The City shall be free from any liability arising out of the exercise of its rights
under this paragraph.
TERMINA nON
14. Termination by Agreement. Except as provided to the contrary herein,
this Agreement shall only be terminated in writing by mutual agreement and the term of
this Agreement shall continue until such termination.
- 39121884
5
1213/18/9& 11:40R PG 5
OF 9
I .
<It
e
15. Termination if Illegal. The parties agree, intend and understand that the
obligations imposed by this Agreement are conditioned upon being consistent with state
and federal laws and the Code. The parties further agree that if any provision of this
Agreement becomes in its performance inconsistent with the Code or state or federal laws,
or is declared invalid, the parties shall in good faith negotiate to modify this Agreement
so as to make it consistent with the Code or state of federal laws as appropriate, and if,
after a reasonable amount of tome, their negotiations are unsuccessful, this Agreement
shall terminate. The City agrees that its contractual obligations hereunder will not be
impaired by any amendment to the Code unless such amendment (or impairment) is
mandated by State or Federal law.
GENERAL PROVISIONS
16. Upon the request of the City, and at its sole discretion, JCH, or his successors
in interest, shall petition for and/or consent to the annexation of the Subject Property, or
those portions thereof as deemed appropriate by the City, to the City of Aspen at such
time(s) as determined by the City. Such anneXation(s) shall not devest or diminish any land
use approvals or development rights awarded by Pitkin County for the Subject Property.
The zoning for the property shall be established and duly adopted and shall contain uses,
area and bulk requirements, setbacks, density and floor area limitations and other
restrictions which are not more restrictive than the zoning under Pitkin County regulations
which apply to the Subject Property on the date of this Agreement and, in no event, shall
any restrictions imposed under City zoning requirements render any existing uses or
structures on the property nonconforming, Failure of JCH or its successors in interest to
commence and complete annexation pro<:eedings as herein required shall constitute a
material breach of this Agreement authorizing the City to terminate the same.
Alternatively, failure of JCH or its successors in interest to commence and complete
annexation as herein required shall authorize the City to commence and/ or complete such
annexation on their behalf, in which event the City shall charge, and JCH and/or its
successors in interest shall pay, all cost and fees associated with such annexation.
17. No Public Utility Status. The parties agree that by this Agreement the City
does not become a public utility compelled to serve other parties similarly situated. JCH
agrees that neither it, nor its successors in interest or assigns shall at any time petition the
Colorado Public Utilities corrunission to acquire jurisdiction over any water rate set by the
City. The parties agree that in the event the City is held to be a public utility by virtue of
this Agreement, this Agreement shall terminate and be of no further force and effect.
18. No Waiver. Failure of a party hereto to exercise any right hereunder shall
not be deemed a waiver of any such right and shall not affect the right of such party to
exercise at some future time said right or any other right it may have hereunder.
6
_9121884
1213/18/96 11:40R PG 6
OF 9
e
e
e
19. Notices. All notices required to be given shall be deemed given upon
deposit in the United States mail, first class postage prepaid, properly addressed to the
person or entity to whom directed at his or its address shown herein, or at such other
address as shall be giyen by notice pursuant to this paragraph. Copies of such notices shall
also be sent in the same manner to the City Attorney, , City of Aspen, 130 South Galena
Street, Aspen, Colorado 81611.
20. Fore.. Majeure. No party shall be held liable for a failure to perform
hereunder due to wars, strikes, acts of God, natural disasters, drought of other similar
occurrences outside of the control of that party.
21. Severability. If any provision of this Agreement shall be or become invalid
or unenforceable, the remainder of the provisions shall not be affected thereby, and each
and every provision shall be enforceable to the fullest extent permitted by law.
22. Amendm..nt: Assignment. Neither this Agreement, nor the obligations
of either party thereto, nor the right to receive water service hereunder, may be amended
or assigned without the written consent of the paries hereto.
23. Entire Agreement. Except as otherwise provide herein, this Agreement,
including its Addenda and Exhibits, supersedes and controls all prior written and oral
agreements and representations of the parties and is the total integrated agreement among
the parties governing the matters provided for herein.
24. Intetpretation. Neither the titles to this Agreement nor the recitals
appearing prior to paragraph 1 of this Agreement shall be used to alter the mailing of this
Agreement and in the event of a conflict, the terms and conditions of the numbered
paragraphs shall govern.
25. Binding Agreement - Recording, 1bis Agreement is binding upon the parties
hereto, their successors and assigns, and any sale shall be subject to this Agreement a$
provided herein. 1bis Agreement and the Addenda hereto (but not the Exhibits, which are
lengthy, illustrative and teclmical in nature) shall be recorded with the Pitkin County Clerk
and Recorder, and shall impose covenants running with the land upon all of the Subject
Property. Deeds to subsequent owners shall provide notice of this Agreement and
obligations contained herein.
26. Governing Law: Venue: Attorneys' Fees. This Agreement and the
rights and obligations of the parties hereunder shall be governed by and construed in
accordance with the laws of the State of Colorado. Venue for all actions arising under this
Agreement shall be Pitkin county, Colorado. In the event legal remedies must be pursued
to resolve any dispute or conflict regarding the terms of this Agreement or the rights and
7
390884
03/18/96 11:411lA PG 7
OF 9
,.
.,
e
-
obligations of the parties hereto. the prevailing party shall be entitled to recover costs
incurred in pursuing such remedies, including expert witness fees and reasonable
attorney's fees.
27. Authori7.ation of SigJ1atures. The parties acknowledge and represent to
each other that all procedures necessary to validly contract and execute this Agreement
have been performed and that the person signing for each party have been duIy authorized
to do so. .
28. Countewarts. This Agreement may be signed using counterpart
signature pages, with the same force and effect as if all parties signed on the same
signature page.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Agreement the date and
year above written.
Subscribed and sworn to before me thisA'ldday of F", 1,;.-",11(-1,1996 by Jeffrey c.
Hines. 1
JULIE 'J. MATHIS
N't'" p,~i., ~"t. ,j T....
tOlllfllnlol1 E't.1ht1~ Qe-t""
JCH:
By:
G
STATE OF TEXAS )
) 5S
COUNTY OF HARRIS )
Witness my hand and seal.
My commission expires: ~ ';)..., Jj'j'
~\),~\l\~:A \.:;tr--..
No ry Public '--
390884
03/1B/96 11:40A PG 8
OF 9
8
e
.
e
THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO
A Municipal Corporation and
Home Rule City
By:
ArrEST:
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
~
"';~
..' l"7a .
ASp,efi CIty \<\. ttorney
. Lawl \jnm \hilp\ watserv3.kag
390884
03/18/96 11:40A PG 9
OF .9
""'1/) .' 0.-:1 ~...#:-" . i".I ...- 'J. /, . / .
,f)Li ~t!. ~..) /tC'/III':) ~,. y /tl,r'lJ;!J':./r-j..
Bill Efti~g, Acting City Manager
9
e
.
e
17",
-
4)
-
MEMORANDUM
TO:
MAYOR AND COUNCIL
THROUGH:
AMY MARGERUM, CITY MANAGER
THROUGH:
JOHN WORCESTER, CITY ATTORNEY
PHIL OVEREYNDER, W ATER DlRECTOR~
MAY 8, 1996
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
HIGHLANDS WATER & SANITATION DISTRICT APPLICATION
FOR WATER SERVICE TO SERVE HINES HIGHLANDS
DEVELOPMENT
SUMMARY: The Aspen Water Department has received a Water Service Application from the
Highlands Water & Sanitation District (District) to provide water service to the Hines Highlands
Development. The beneficiaries of the District's application are the Hines Highlands Limited
Partnership and the Aspen Highlands Mountain Limited Liability Company (collectively Hines
Partnership). The application for water service is made pursuant to Option 1 of a March 30, 1996,
agreement between the City and Hines Partnership.
The proposed service is not fully consistent with the requirements of the Aspen Municipal Code and
Water Management Policies adopted by Council, as further explained in this memo. Revisions to
the plan are necessary to avoid financial impacts to existing water customers, design modifications
are necessary to ensure that water deliveries to the district can be accurately metered to recover the
cost of water delivered to the District, and the application needs to include delivery of both potable
and raw water. These revisions are necessary to comply with the City's adopted water policies land
to comply with the terms of the 1996 agreement between the City and the Highlands partnei-ship.
I
.
'.
e
e
PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION: On March 30, 1995, City Council entered into an agreement
with the Hines Partnership in order to resolve a dispute over Hines' Maroon Creek water rights
filings proposed to serve the needs of the Hines Highlands Project utilizing a _water supply
independent of both the City and the District. The agreement provides measures to protect the City's
municipal water rights, as well as establishing a continuous monitoring and diversion control system
in order to protect the aquatic habitat and recreational values of Maroon Creek through maintenance
of adequate streamflows.
The March 30, 1995, agreement between the City and the Hines Partnership provides three options
for water service: I) City provision of potable water service for the project and raw water for
snow making; 2) City delivery of raw water for use by Hines Highlands Partnership in an independent
water system; 3) maintenance of the status quo whereby City delivers 1.0 cfs of water already
committed to Hines Partnership would seek additional water rights to serve the needs of an
independent system. Details of the agreement are summarized in a Council memorandum from
Cindy Covell (Attachment "A").
The proposed application from the District is intended to describe the elements necessary to
implement Option I. Option 1 is the preferred alternative of the parties to the agreement and under
the terms of the agreement, Options 2 and 3 will not be pursued unless the City denies a request for
service or the terms of water service offered by the City are unacceptable to the Hines Highlands
Partnership. It is the intention of the parties to work towards dissolution of the District prov,ided
terms acceptable to the Hines Partnership and the City are provided under this Water Service
Agreement.
The proposed water main extensions, new pump station, and new finished water storage tank are
designed to operate as a single system with those intended to serve the adjacent Moore Project, On
September 6, 1995, Council approved a preliminary water service agreement for the Moore parcel,
subject to provision of more detailed engineering work detailing how the two projects could operate
together to avoid duplication of water facilities, including water storage tanks and pump stations.
At the same time, Council also directed staff to proceed to complete the off,site MeadO\iVood
interconnect line utilizing City water funds rather than funding this project with developer funds.
Completion of the l2,inch water main through the Meadowood subdivision is necessary to provide
adequate service to the Moore and Hines Highlands developments.
BACKGROUND: Water Department staff has analyzed the policy requirements of Resolution as
it applies to water service for the proposed Hines Highlands Development. This memo summarizes
how applicable policy requirements have been, or will be, satisfied under the terms of a proposed
Water Service Agreement. '
2
-
e
-
Potable Water Deliverv Capacities & Service to Existing Customers (Finding 12i of Resolution
Yl
The design of the proposed water system improvements is set up to work in conjunction with those
necessary to serve the Moore Project and existing facilities serving the District. Both new proj~cts
will include provision for three pressure zones, utilizing two new pump stations, two pressure
reducing valves, and two water storage tanks to provide adequate water for domestic service ancllfire
demand in each pressure zone based on the level of development planned in each zone,
Facilities serving existing development in the District would remain largely unchanged by facilities
added as part of the Moore and Hines Highlands projects with the exception of connection of new
sources of supply to the District, construction of additional interconnecting line between the base
village and the District, and additional points where water would be delivered from within the
District to the Moore Project and school complex. The proposal would also formalize out'of-District
service to the two on-mountain restaurants (Merry-Go-Round and Cloud 9).
The existing 500,000 gallon water storage tank serving District customers would remain intact. In
addition to serving the needs of existing District customers and the upper portion of the Meadowood
Subdivision, the existing tank, together with improvements to the Meadowood Pump Station, would
serve the domestic water and fire fighting needs for the "middle" pressure zone of both the Hines
Highlands and Moore Project. The majority of the proposed development, including the Village at
Highlands, falls within this zone.
A new 500,000 gallon buried concrete water storage tank will be constructed in the thunderbowl area
at Aspen Highlands in connection with the project. A new pumping station and two pressure
reducing valves are proposed as part of the project and are necessary to provide service to the upper
pressure zone, consisting of single-family lots on the mountain side above the existing Highlands
Water Storage Tank. The plans submitted will not adversely affect delivery capacities to existing
water customers of Aspen or the District.
Staff has analyzed the proposed water distribution system for the Highlands development and finds
that it complies with Aspen's requirements in terms of line sizes, provision of "looped" water
distribution systems, and adequate water storage to meet domestic and fire fighting needs, provided
that the following changes are made to the plans:
1.
Provision of adequate interconnections from the existing District lines to the newly proposed
distribution lines and to ensure continued water service to all existing District customers.
2.
Provision of an adequate intereonnection from.tIle existing 12,inch transmission line serving
the Highlands Tank to the "middle" press1j\re zone and proposed pumping station serving the
upper zone.
3
e
.'"
'"
e
3.
Elimination of one of the two redundant pumping stations shown on the plans for the Moore
and Hines Highlands project, to provide a single pump station and storage tank serving, the
upper zone. Staff understands that engineer for the Hines Partnership will make the above
revisions to the water service plans prior to the City's consideration of the ordinance
implementing any Water Service Agreement.
Sufficiency of Water and Water Treatment Capacity (Finding 12ii of Resolution V)
The City has sufficient water treatment capacity to satisfy the demand for the additional 247
Equivalent Capacity Units (ECU's), as well as the 155 ECU's already served by the City in the
District. This finding is subject to improvements to the City's three wells to expand supplies during
low streamflow conditions, pursuant to the Asset Management Plan.
An overall water supply deficiency for the City system has been identified and new water service
commitments are being recommended by staff only if the applicant agrees to participate financially
in the pro-rata share of development of additional firm water supplies to address this deficit. The
expected costs of retrofitting and rebuilding the three municipal wells has been utilized to establish
the cost of providing this increase to the reliable yield of the system. Provided the agreement
includes this standard provision, the project will be consistent with this policy.
Attachment "B" is a letter from Enartech, the City's consulting hydrologist, which provides
clarification on questions raised by Council at the February 6, 1996, regarding adequacy of water
supplies pertaining to this project. The letter addresses the questions of the availability of supply and
flow levels expected to be maintained in Maroon Creek in the event that the City approves the Water
Service Agreement, or in the alternative, and independent water supply is provided. Kerry Sundeen
of Enartech concludes in his April 12, 1996, letter that streamflows in Maroon Creek, determined
by the CWCB to be necessary to protect fisheries, would be better protected in the event that the City
provides treated and raw water for domestic and snowmaking needs associated with the projec\. An
independent water system would also provide some protections for these in-stream flows but noUo
the extent that Option 1 under the agreement would provide.
Financial Impacts (Finding 12iii of Resolution V as amended to include operational and capital
costs.)
Existing revenue from water rates and tap fees are not sufficient to recover costs incurred by the
Department in order to provide water to Utility Billing Area #5 which includes the area be\ween
Castle and Maroon Creeks south of l:;Ii'ghway 82, in which the project is located. A cost-of-service
analysis for the Moore and Hinrs Projects located in the same utility billing area indicates th~t tap
fees and rates would need to be increased in accordance with the discussion under potable water rates
4
.
..'" "
',,"
e
in order to fully recover both capital and operating costs consistent with current City policy.
Provided Council adopts the recommendations and these rates are assessed at the time: of
construction, the project would conform to the Council's policy regarding cost recovery of operating
and capital costs.
Attachment "c" provides details of the cost analysis for Billing Area 5, including the Hines
Highlands and Moore Projects. The financial analysis also provides details on the specific operating
and capital costs necessary to be recovered for two alternatives analyzed: 1) uniform rates across
the service area for all customers; and 2) continuation of separate rates for existing in-District
customers versus the balance of Service Area 5. Either alternative would provide for cost recovery
consistent with adopted City policy on revenue recovery of 100% of capital and operating costs.
Aspen Area Community Plan Consistency (AACP) (Finding 12iv of Resolution V)
Refer to the attached May 8, 1996, memo from the Community Development Department for a
discussion of conformance of the project with the AACP (Attachment "D").
Relationship to Environmental Goals (Finding 12v of Resolution V)
Provision of water service will not adversely affect water quantity and quality, the City's policies
with respect to minimum streamflows and the use of the City's hydroelectric power facilities. (See
also discussion on "Sufficiency of Water.")
Water Rates (Finding 12vi of Resolution V)
Potable Water: Water service will be provided under the prevailing water structure for Utility
Billing Area 5 as required under the terms of the March 30, 1995, agreement between the City and
the Hines Highlands Partnership. Water Department staff has evaluated tap fees and water rates for
Utility Billing Area 5 because of the extensive facilities and investments necessary to serve the
Moore and Hines Highlands Projects. (Refer to Attachment "c" for details.) A summary of these
findings is included below.
Water rates and tap fees for Billing Area 5 are not currently high enough to recover capital and
operating costs for the relatively low density of development planned for the area. This is further
aggravated by the existing wholesale water contract with the District which provides revenue on a
delivered water basis, without regard for water demand charges assessed in the balance of Aspen's
water service cont.dcts. Staff's estimate of cost recovery for water delivered to the District under
the present cortract and rates, considering operating cost for services and capital charges for facilities
provided by the City is approximately 30%. This calculation is based on a proportionate share of
5
-
'.
-
..'
.."""':,.~/
operating costs for services and facilities actually used to provide wholesale water to the District and
consistent with guidance from Council regarding recovery of the value of the land for the water
treatment plant. Details of costs of service and revenue sources from the District under the existing
and proposed agreement are contained in Attachment "C".
The District's application to expand service would provide an increase in water delivery of
approximately 160% based on the percentage increase in ECU's for the Hines Highlands
development. With an existing revenue recovery of 30%, the existing rate structure for the District
must be revised to provide service for this proposal. If Council does not elect to extend service for
this proposal, staff would still recommend a rate revision for the wholesale water contract with the
District to provide an equitable distribution of the cost of service, consistent with Council guidance
for full cost recovery.
Staff has, therefore, evaluated two alternative rate structures for the District and Billing Area 5. One
considering the combined cost of service for the Hines and Moore Projects together with existing
contracts in the area; the second considering the cost of water to existing District customers separate
from the other developments in the area. The rate analysis for the District is based on water me!ered
at the point of sale rather than a master meter as requested in the application. The application
submitted by the District does not sufficiently identify how a master meter system would operate,
and given the multiple points of delivery to and from the District's boundaries, staff has serious
reservations regarding the engineering feasibility of a master meter for wholesale water delivery to
the District with the addition of service to Hines Highlands. The current arrangement for wholesale
water is most likely subject to a minimum of 10.15% line and metering losses, whi4h is
representative of the industry standards for systems of this age and design. Without provision of a
working master metering system for wholesale water delivery, further adjustments to the rate'base
would be necessary to reflect these system losses in the cost of service.
Tap fees and monthly water rates for Billing Area 5 are not presently in-line with rates for other low
density, residential areas with the requirement to pump water to multiple pressure zones.
Comparable rates for Maroon Creek Club are shown on Table 1, together with the existing rates for
Billing Area 5. Staff recommends that if Council elects to extend service to Hines Highlands that
a rate revision for Billing Area 5 be initiated in accordance with the recommendations in Table 1.
If Council elects not to extend service, staff recommends that a rate revision under the terms of the
water service contract with the District be initiated in accordance with Table 2. Please note that the
rates paid by the existing District customers are recommended to be revised substantially in either
case, but that the rates paid by District customers would be less if rates are set uniformly fQr the
entire billing area, rather than considering the cost of service to the District only. However, tap fees
. fbr District customers would be less if wholesale water service to District customers were conti'nued,
, due to the provision of tap credits for facilities paid for in the past by the District. Proposed rates
in Table 2 are consistent with Council policy for full-cost recovery of capital and operating costs.
6
e
DESCRIPTION
MONTHLY RATES
Demand Charge
. e Protection Charge
er Consumption
Pumping Charge
Total Monthly Cost
TAP FEES
Total Tap Fee
UNIT RATES
Water Demand
Fire Protection
Water Consumption
Pumping Charges
Tap Fees
Billing Area Factor
e
TA'BLEl'E""X"'" '
:.', ';', '.' -",',' - --,' '-', ," '-',,:. ',",", ','
.'~' ',,',:, '<;I ; )'c-',. : ,,\, ,,:__.,,_'; "__;<-;--~;i'
" . ',i'" ":"-.' ,!., -'-"" '_'> ,- ".,\\ -
- - - -,','"
ALL
BILLING
AREAS
BILLING AREA 5
UPPER
MEADOWOOD
IDGHLANDS
W&S
I
DISTRI€'F
',",' _,no: !
ONLYI
,
PUMPED 1 X
PUMPED 1 X
$
0.00
0,00
13.31
0.00
13.31
($/ECU/Mo)
0.00
0.00
1.10
, 0.00
$ 4,925.00
,', .-::-<-,;, Y:-- -y'~: ;,:;, :
($/EeUlMo) ,'.
;-,,' ""f,',',.;k_,,,,,r,,",,,,.,j!>
($/1000 Gal)
',_,."f,'__"":':"""':"'::
$fl000~S'1al)
($/ECU)
7
DESCRIPTION
MONTHLY RATES
Demand Charge
Fire Protection Charge
r Consumption
Pumping Charge
Total Monthly Cost
TAP FEES
Total Tap Fee
UNIT RATES
Water Demand
Fire Protection
Water Consumption
Pumping Charges
Tap Fees
Billing Area Factor
e
TABLE 2--,P!ROPOSED RATES
ALTERNATIVE
1
COMBINED
SERVICE
, COMBINED
BILLING
AREA.
'5
ALTERNATIVE 2
WITH
HW &SD
SEPARATE
BILLING
AREA 5 .
EXCLUDING'
mV&8D'. '!.
PUMPED 1 X PUMPED 1 X
19.16 $ 0,00
, $ '0.00
,
14.14 14.14 $ 44.19
i 1;QJ , 11.01 $ 11.01
$ 49.76 49.76 $ 55.20
($/ECU/Mo)
($/ECUlMo) , "
($/1000 Gal)
($/1000 Gal) $Q,72bO
($/ECU) Varies
0.00
,0.00
3.65
0.91
$ 4,179.00
,-,"<<"':'"'--",,
Vari~s
i 3.0
,
8
-
-
e
Raw Water: See discussion under "Utilization of Raw Water."
AdeQuacy of Treated Water Storal!e (Findinl! 12 vii of Resolution V)
Staff has analyzed the adequacy of treated water storage and delivery of fire flows for all of Service
Area 5, including the proposed Moore and Hines Highlands developments, after the installation of
the proposed 500,000 gallon storage tank and completion of the 12-inch Meadowood interconnect
line. Provided that modifications to the meadowood Pump Station are made in connection with the
Moore and Highlands development, storage and delivery capacities wiII be adequate to provide for
fire fighting, as well as domestic water demands in this entire area of the system, including the
existing area served by the District.
Utilizatiou of Raw Water (Finding l2viii of Resolution V)
As part of the March 30, 1995 agreement between the Hines Partnership and the City, the parties
agreed that the primary option to be pursued was City provision of both potable and raw water for
the proposed project. While approval of the District's application for water service would clarify
delivery of potable water to the Hines Partnership, it does not formally address the provision of raw
water to serve snowmaking needs for the project.
The City's hydrologic analysis performed by Enartech and summarized in Attachment "B" is based
on the provision of both potable and raw water supply by the City. The reduction of impacts to the
in-stream flows in Maroon Creek are subject to the City's use of Thomas Reservoir as a means to
balance the peak and average water demands associated with snowmaking operations. Consistent
with the terms of the March 30, 1995 agreement and the findings of the hydrologic analysis, lstaff
recommends that potable water service for the project only be provided in conjunction with provision
of raw water.
Staff outlined the development of a raw water distribution system serving major raw water users in
the area west of the water facility in a August 29, 1995, memo on the Moore Project. The west side
raw water project would deliver untreated water to the Hines Partnership, the Moore Project, the
School District's athletic fields, Iselin and Rotary Parks, as well as to existing raw water custo\ners,
including Twin Ridge, Meadowood and Aspen Valley Hospital. The financial feasibility of this raw
water project is largely dependent on participation of the Hines Partnership. The feasibility amllysis
ws presented to the Asset Planning Committee and an appropriation for construction of this system
was provided in the 1996 AMP. The appropriations are subject to recovery of costs of the system
through raw water service agreements, including the agreement recommended with the Hines
Partners.
9
e
e
e
Dedication of Water Rights (Finding 12x of Resolution V)
Cindy Covell, the City's water attorney, has reviewed the proposed water rights to be dedicated to
the City under the proposed agreement and has found the rights will provide sufficient water to meet
the project's needs. Please refer to paragraph 3 of Ms. Covell's May 7, 1996, letter (Attachrnent
"E"). -
Annexation (Finding 12xi of Resolution V)
The Hines Highlands development has agreed to a contractual provision to allow future annexqtion
of the property, provided that the City determines annexation is desirable and meets the legal
requirements for annexation, As part of the March 30, 1995, agreement between the City and Hines
Highlands, the developer has agreed to enter into a pre-annexation agreement with the City. Please
refer to paragraph 10 of Ms. Covell's May 7, 1996, letter (Attachment "E").
AdeQuacv of Water Facilities
On,site water distribution facilities serving the Hines Highlands development will be built by the
developer to Aspen and bistrict Standards. The developer has agreed to finance the cost of the
engineering inspection necessary to confirm that the system will be built to City standards. The
location, size, proposed materials and construction standards are adequate to meet City of Aspen
Standards. A security deposit sufficient to ensure completion of facilities to City standards and a
two-year warranty period are standard provisions to ensure that the facilities are constructed to' City
standards.
RECOMMENDATION: City staff recommends that a Water Service Agreement be introduced for
first reading, addressing the following special requirements:
I.
Concurrent approval of a raw water service agreement for snowmaking at Highlands Ski
Area.
2.
Dissolution of the Highlands Water and Sanitation District prior to execution of thel final
agreement. In the alternative that the District can not be resolved, revisions to the plans will
be necessary to demonstrate the engineering feasibility of metering of multiple points of
water delivery and exchange at each of the District's boundaries.
3.
Execution of a pre-annexation agreement between the City and Hines Partnership for the
expanded area to be served under the Water Service Agreement.
4.
Revision of the preliminary engineering drawings submitted under Exhibit B of the
application to provide the following.
10
e
e
e
A.
Provision of adequate interconnections from the existing District lines to the newly
proposed distribution lines and to ensure continued water service to all existing
District customers.
B. Provision of an adequate interconnection from the existing 12-inch transmission 'line
serving the Highlands Tank to the "middle" pressure zone and proposed pumping
station serving the upper zone.
C. Elimination of one of the two redundant pumping stations shown on the plans for the
Moore and Hines Highlands project, to provide a single pump station and storage
tank serving the upper zone. Staff understands that engineer for the Hines
Partnership will make the above revisions to the water service plans prior to the
City's consideration of the ordinance implementing any Water Service Agreement.
CITY MANAGER'S COMMENTS:
PO:ll
\memos\higJands.65
11
05/07/'36
e
e
e
15:08
LAW OFFICES UOICE: (303)861 2500 ~ 303 '320 5117
NO. 023
~10
K\\f:\L\\ MfNT t' f\ ~\
MEMORANDUM
TO:
Mayor and City Council
FROM:
Cindy Covell and Phil Overeynder
RE:
HiMS Highlantk I..imiled Partnenhip: Water Service Application
March 25, 1996
DATE:
-~-------------------------~-----------------------------------------------------------.---------
The Hines Highlands Limited Partnership and Aspen Highlands Mountain Limited
Liability Company are submitting a water service application to the City. We wanted to proVide
you with some background to this application in the hopes of facilitating your review. We are,of
course, available to meet with you to answer questions about the water service application as
well.
Background
In 1981, the City executed an agreement with the Aspen Highlands Skiing Corporation,
successor in interest to Whip Jones (the "1981 Agreement"). As nearly as we can determine,
that agreement was intended to resolve some longstanding disagreements about the parties'
respective ownership interests in the Nestell Ditch and the Stein-Arlian-Marolt Ditch, !UJd
carriage of Aspen Highlands' water rights in the City's.Maroon Creek Pipeline. The City was
to be given Whip Jones' interest in the Nestell Ditch (3.4 cfs) and agreed to carry waterl for
Highlands in the amount of 1.0 cfs of "finnand gwuanteed supply" and an additional 4.51 cfs
of water owned by Aspen Highlands on an interruptible basis. Unfortunately, this agreement
contained uncertainties as well.
The Aspen Highlands Skiing corporation's rights under the 1981 Agreement Were
transferred to Hines Highlands Limited Partnership and Aspen Highlands Mountain Limited
Uabillty Company ("Highlands"). As you know. the Highlands project was contemplated to be
a big one, and Aspen and Highlands had some fundamental disagreements over the meaning 'and
enforceability of the 1981 Agreement. Highlands, therefore, filed applications for junior wilter
rights in lare 1993. . One of these junior water rights would be diverted at Aspen's Maroon
Creek Municipal Intake, and the other~ from wells or direct diversions downstream, c10~ to
the Highlands project: Highlands requested permission to divert a total of 4.5 cfs from Mlipon
Creek under these junior rights. Higb.lands also proposed augmentation plans using the S~n-
Arlian-Marolt Ditch and Ruedi Reservoir water for augmentation purposes. Aspen IparticiJ'i!.ted
as an objector in this case, along with others, including Pitkin County and the Aspen Wilderness
Workshop. .
Highlands' water cases turned out to be major litigation, The City and Highlands were
quite adversarial for many months, as both tried to protect and further their own interests. The
Aspen Wilderness Workshop was also actively involved in trying to prevent the applications
from being granted. After. long negotiations, the City and Highlands resolved the water cases
05/07/96
e
e
-
15:08
LAW OFFICES UOICE: (303)861 2500 ~ 303 920 5117
NO. 023
~11
by means of a Settlement Agreement that was approved by Council in Resolution No. 20, Series
of 1995. We had advised the City that the Settlement Agreement was a reaso!l'lble way to
protect Aspen's water rights and the minimum streamflows, while at the same time allowing
Highlands to pursue a water supply system for its project. Although the City resolved' its
concerns with Highlands, the A WW did not.
The case proceeded to trial. where the water court awarded Highlands water rights for
several wells and direct stream diversions from Maroon Creek. All of these junior water rights
must be operated in confonmty with the Settlement Agreement between Aspen and Highlands.
The Court denied Highlands' request for an augmentation plan using Ruedi Reservoir water to
augment out-of-priority depletions to the lower Roaring Fork and the Colorado Riyer.
(Highlands had already withdrawn its request to use the Stein-Arlian-Marolt Ditch for
augmentation.) The cases are presently in the .early stages of appeal in the Colorado Suprc:me
Coun. Highlands, meanwhile, would like to proceed with its project and the project's water
supply. This memo is designed to set forth the key points of the Settlement Agreement between
Aspen and Highlands, because the Settlement Agreement is an integral part of the water supply
fur the Highlands project.
The Settlement Agnement
The Settlement Agreement was entered into between the City and Highlands on March
3D, 1995. The idea behind the Settlement Agreement is to provide alternate methods by which
Highlands can obtain a water supply for its project, and at the same time project senior d~
water rights, including those belonging to the City and the instream flow. The Sett1ement
Agreement sets forth three water supply options. Option I is a new water service agreem,ent
between Highlands 3.!1d the City of Aspen in which Aspen provides for potable water service and
raw water service to the project. Option 2 is a new raw water agreement between the City iUld
Highlands, in which the City provides raw water for use by Highlands in an independent sys~.
and Option 3 is essentially maintenance of the starus quo. Under Option 3, Highlands woUld
use its own junior water rights, as approved by the Water Court, and 1.0 cfs delivered by the
City under the 1981Agreement.
As a key factor in the protection of instream flows, the Settlement Agreement provi4es
that the City's Maroon Creek Municipal Intake will be reconstructed or otherwise set up so that
it will be part of a measurement and reporting program capable of continuously measuring, I on
a real-time basis, data on diversions, bypasgell and releases at the Intake. This will erulh1e
constant monitoring-of instrcam flows at the Intake, a capability the State does not presently have
on Maroon Creek, Flows at other locations on Maroon Creek canlk eliUmatedfrom this data.
Furthermore. the Settlement Agreement contains detailed provi~lions for modelling and measllf1.ng
strea.lnflows at other locations (such as Highlands' proposed downstream diversion StlUCtuI'eS)
in order to assure that the instream flow is not adversely impacted at those locations. The intake
improvements. and stream flow measuring and monitoring provisions in' the Settlem.ent
Agreement will be implemented regardless of which option is ulti.mately employed to provide
water to the Highlands project
- 2 -
05/07/96
...,
\.
.
e
15:08
LAW OFFICES UOICE: (303)861 2500 .. 303 g;e<l :'11'(
NU.~':::::"::'
LTL"
Because the Settlement Agreement obligates the parties to pursue Option I as the
preferred alternative, this memo is intended to describe the Settlement Agreement's terms
respecting Option l. Only if the City and Highlands are unable to enter into a mutua1ly
acceptable Water Service Agreement, consistent with the Settlement Agreement and the City's
other water policies, may the other options be pursued. At this point, Highlands is pursuing a
Water SelVice Agreement under Option I, so Options 2 and 3 will not be discussed.
Until the parties enter into a Water Service Agreement, the City will provide l.0 cfs of
raw water to Highlands on a "fIrm supply" basis, as set forth in the 1981 Agreement This
water is expected to be used by Highlands for its Base Village Project and, to the extent it' has
water remaining after such use,. for snowmaking.
Key Provisions of Option 1
A. Highlands has agreed to honor the State's existing in-stream flow decrees as a
condition of use of the 4.5 cfs decreed to it following the trial discussOO above. Highlands will
not divert these rights until the stream monitoring program is implemented. It is anticipated that
the Maroon Creek Intake reconstruction project and the monitoring program will be completed
and ready for use in the fall of 1996. '.
B. The City and Highlands have agreed to work cooperatively with the Highlllnds
Water and Sanitation District ("District") to obtain its dissolution. (The City will then proVide
water service to the Disuict's present customers, but they will not be a part of the HighlandS
Water Service Agreement.)
C. As part of any Water Service Agreement between the City and Highlands,
Highlands will convey to the City the water rights, changes, and exchanges it received decrees
for in Case No. 93CW322 and 93CW323, except for the Pearson Spring Ditch. Highlands will
use its Pearson Spring Ditch for irrigation purposes on project property.
D. The City has agreed to establish a new Service Area just for Highlands and the
Moore Project (if approved), in view of Highlands' contributions to the City's on-site and off-
site infrastructure, including the City's Maroon Creek Municipal Intake, the pipeline and ce$in
measuring devices. Tap fees and charges within this new service area will not be greater than
those of Service Area 5. The capital coses contributed by Highlands sba1l be allocated to the rate
base for this new service area.
E. Highlands has reserved the iright to construct certain downstream diversion
structures at its own cost for the withr,lraWal of the water rights decreed to these structures in
Cases 93CW322 and 93CW323. The new junior water rights will be diverted through tJ1.ese
structures if water cannot be provided through the City's intake. If any of these structures, are
constructed, they will be conveyed to the City, with appropriate easements, and the City will
operate and maintain these facilities. The cost of operation, maintenance, repair and replacement
of such facilities will be included in the water rates charged to Highlands for raw water.
- 3 -
05/07/96
e
e
e
15:08
LAW OFFICES UOICE: (303)861 2500 ~ 303 920 5117
NO. 023
[,11..)
F. Highlands has the option of electing to have a pipeline constructed at its cost ftom
the Thomas Reservoir to its project. (It is our understanding that Highlands does_wish to have
this pipeline constructed.)
G. Highlands has agreed to make demand for water for snowmaking pUIp05eS only
during the months of October through February. and to make instantaneous diversions of no
more than 5.1 cfs. A complex agreement has been negotiated to monitor flows in Maroon
Creek, and to reduce snowmaking withdrawals on a "real-time" basis to ensure, as far as
possible, that the current minimum stream flow (14 cfs) is not impacted as a result of diversions
for snowmaking.
H. The City has been advised that Highlands' expected demand for potable water is
appIOJtimat.ely .4 cfs. Since the City has delivered 1.0 cfs to Highlands under the 1981
Agreement, it is expected that the City can meet this expected potable water demand for' the
Highlands project.
1. The City will make available to Highlands up to 4.5 cis of raw water ior
snowmaking. Any remaining portion of the 1.0 cfs (described in "H" above) may also be used
for snowmaking. but the maximum that can be diverted from Maroon Creek at anyone time is
5.leis.
J. Raw water for snowmaking will be delivered only at times when the dec~
minimum stream flow is protected and when the City has capacity to serve customers and service
areas to which it had committed to provide service as of Mareh 30, 1995. The Settlement
Agreement provides that water service agreements entered into after that date (other than' the
Moon: Project) will be subject to the City's obligation to deliver water to Highlands for
snowmaldng as provided in the Settlement Agreement.
f.\u.aerldo\wp~.4.IIp
- 4 -
05/08 '96 09:47
ID:LANIERFAX3800
FAX:
PAGE
2
e
e
e
h\kl\\~E\{\
u. ~')
ENARTECH Inc. Consulting Englnoers and Hydrologists
May 8, 1996
Mr. Phil Overeynder
Utility Dircctor
City of Aspen Water l>epal'Ul1CIIl
130 S. Galen~ Street
Aspen, CO 81611
~
b... - T
~
RE: W~tcr Supply Altcfllatives
Aspen llighiands
n"ar Phil:
Pursuant It> your reljuesl, we havc assessed the water supply alternatives available to A~pen
Highlands. We conclude that an alternative which provides water from thc City's Mamon
Crcck illlakc will result in additional stream now in lower Maroon Creek, and will cnsurethat
the 14 cubic foot per second (cfs) instrcam flow decrccd to the Slate of Colorado is maintained
at all times. If Aspen Highlands is supplied water from ~n independent downstream delivery
systcm. lhe slream flow of Maroon Creek may he reduced, and it may be difficult to ensure
Ihat the 14 cfs instream flow is maintaincd on a continual basis.
The ralionale for this conclusion an::
. The City's existing Maroon Creek intake is opcratcd to automatically bypass the 141 efs
inslrealll {low. Only watcr in exccss of 14 cfs is physically availahle for diversion into the
City's supply system. If Aspen Highlands is supplied water from this facility, it will not
k possible 1,)f Htream flow 10 be reduced below 14 cfs.
. An independent water supply system, as dcereed to Aspen llighlands, would pump watcr
through shallow wells and collection facilities which would dcplete water from Maqoon
Crcek. Without continual monitoring and careful operation, these diversion facilities could
physically deplete slreamflow of Maroon Creek below 14 cfs. For example, if stream !low
during a givcn duytime pcriod was 16 cfs, Highlands could opcrate their pumps at a rat'e of
2 ds. If stream now dropped to 14 cfs during the suhseljuenl nighttime period (as a r~sult
or ice formatioi1 (lr other common'causcs). stream flow below the pump facilities would he
redJi:ed [(l 12 ds unless the pump facililies are 'continually monitorcd and diversions arc
I reduced. It will he very dit1lcult for Aspen Highland's to c.onlinually monitor stream flow
. of Maroon Creek, much less. m~ke continual adjustments in pumping rates in order to
maintain instream now conditions.
.1(1.."7 F"iph,h Street. $l/il0 .12fi P.O Dr8wel '60 GIOllwur)rI Swings.. Colorado 8'602 (970) 945-2236 Fax (970) 94!>.2!J71
05/08 '96 09:48
ID:LANlERFAX3800
FAX:
PAGE
"
-
e
-
Mr. Phil Overeynder
Page - 2
. Lcs~ water will he available for Aspen Highland's use at the City's upstream diversion
facility. which is located above Willow Creek. 1f Aspen Highlands divcrl~ at the City
illlake. all innow from Willow Creek will accrue to Maroon Creek, resultill,\1: in greater
stream now. If Aspen Highland~ diverts water at an independent diversion below Willow
Creek. more Willer will be available for diversion, potentially resulting in n:duced stream
now.
We hope this assessment is helpful. If you have any questions, or require any addilional
information, please do not hesitale to conlact us,
Sincerely.
ENARTf;CI/, INC.
X~ro l;}/JJ
Kerry D. Sundeen
Hydrologist
KDSfjlw
Kyn-l17 tK:-77 01^11J(1
~
'.
~
'.
(-
ATTACHMENT "C"
WATER RATE ANALYSIS
UTILITY BILLING AREA 5
MAY 8, 1996
Purpose
The purpose of the rate analysis is to evaluate the cost of service (both capital and operating costs)
versus revenue recovery from water rates and tap fees in Utility Billing Area 6. Two major 'new
water service agreements which will significantly alter the scope and costs of water service provided
in this area necessitate this evaluation at the present time.
Scope
The rate analysis independently evaluates revenue recovery for both rate revenue and tap fees under
the existing rate structure. Where revenue recovery is out of balance with the cost of service rate or
tap fee revisions are proposed to provide for a minimum of 100% cost recovery, consistent with City
Council direction to provide for full cost recovery for all new water service contracts,
Alternatives Considered
The rate analysis for Billing Area 5 is complicated by the current wholesale water delivery cOntract
with the Highlands Water and Sanitation District. The District's water service application requests
consideration that the present wholesale contract be continued for existing customers. Two
alternative rate structures are evaluated: 1) new water rates for the entirety of Billing Area 5
including the existing District customers, 2) provision of a separate wholesale water rate structure
for the existing District customers considering only the costs and revenue sources applicable to that
class of customers.
Definition of Typical Residence
In order to provide for a uniform comparison of water rates and tap fees in different service areas,
a "typical" residence was defined for the rate analysis, The "typical" residence in Billing Area P was
defined after reviewing service records for customers in the Meadowood Subdivision which was felt
to be representative of the density and level of development expected throughout the proposed Bines
and Moore developments as well as representative of development in the District. For purposes of
this analysis, the "typical" residence was defined as a five-bedroom, three-bath home totaling 2.2
Equivalent Capacity Units (ECU's), Monthly water consumption averaged throughout the year is
12, I 00 gallons/month based on a unit consumption of 5,500 gallons/month/ECU.
The san1e "typical" residence located in various other Billing Areas was used to provide comparative
data on the cost of water within Billing Area 5 as rated against areas of comparable density and
services. Data on the cost of service was further compared for areas with gravity service (no
~
,-
.
e
pumping), and for one and two sets of pumps to provide service to areas with respectively higher
elevations.
Selection of Comparison Areas
Billing Area 6 (west of Maroon Creek including Maroon Creek Club and Eagle Pines), Billing Area
2 (east of Aspen including Mountain Valley) and Billing Area 3 (Red Mountain) were selected for
comparison of existing and proposed rate structures. These areas were selected because of their
comparable density in terms of miles of distribution system per ECU served, the range of water
deliveries from gravity systems up to two additional pumped pressure zones, and the overall
complexity of water service. Rates were not compared to the core area, Cemetery Lane, or the Music
School area because of the significant differences in the density of development and the number and
type of water facilities necessary to provide service. Recent service additions (e,g., Maroon Creek
Club and Williams Ranch) have provided a favorable cost recovery analysis including the fuWcost
of capital and operations.
Comparison of Existing Rates
Both tap fees and water rates throughout Billing Area 5 are low in comparison to Billing Areas 6,
3, and 2 as shown on Tables I, II, and III respectively. For instance, monthly service to gravity fed
p0l1ions of Area 6 (Maroon Creek Club) for the same typical residence is $38.75 versus $32.60 for
the gravity portion of Meadowood in Area 5. City charges for monthly service for the same
residence in the District is only $13.31. While District customers do not benefit from the entire
range of services, it is cleat in later sections of this analysis that the current rates charged to District
customers, which have not been revised in 15 years, do not come close to recovering the cqst of
serVIce.
Tap fees within Area 5 are also lower. For instance, the typical residence consisting of2.2 ECU's
constructed in Area 5 would be charged $ I 0,835 while same residence constructed in Area 6 would
be charged $16,258.
Recovery of Pumping Costs
Recovery of pumping costs appears to be a problem under the existing rate structure considering the
capital and operating costs involved in pumping and storing water at increasing elevations. The
"8040 green line" was defined as the elevation where reliable and efficient gravity service could be
provided. Recent land use and extraterritorial water service applications have included progressively
more development outside of the gravity zone involving as many as two additional pressure zones.
Examples include Eagle Pines, Moore Project, and Hines Highlands, all with two pumped zones,
multiple storage tanks and pressure reducing valves.
CUlTent rates recover $ .72 for each 1000 gallons pumped. Estimates of the capital and direct energy
costs (excluding labor) to provide for continued maintenance of the additional pumping and storage
facilities are estimated at $1.82 for the first pressure zone and a total of $4.04 for the second pressure
zone. Under recovery of pumping charges is a problem throughout all Billing areas with plimped
service (Billing Areas 2, 3, 5 and 6) and needs to be addressed independently of rate revisions for
Billing Area 5. The proposed rate would recover 50% ofthe pumping charges through monthly rates
and the balance through tap fees, Rates are proposed to increase to $ .91 per thousand gallons for
-
e
e
the first pressure zone and $2,02 for the second pressure zone.
Proposed Rates
Alternative 1: Combined Service
When considering a combined Billing Area. 5 incorporating the eXlstmg High!ands District
customers, both the revenue sources from the District and the cost of service to the District are
incorporated along with the costs and revenues from the balance of the area. Service to the District
under this alternative is assumed to be expanded to include the full range of functions from treatment
and supply, distribution, pumping and storage, hydrant maintenance, and individual meter reading
and replacement along with utility billing.
Monthly water billings would need to be adjusted to include charges for water demand" fire
protection, water consumption based on individual metering and pumping charges. The current rate
multiplier of 1.5 (a rate multiplier of 1 applies to the core area) is too low to recover the costs of
service for Area 5. A rate multiplier of 2 is recommended and would be consistent with areas of
comparable service such as Area 6 and Area 3. Existing monthly rates with the current multiplier
recover only 64% of the allocated operating and capital charges.
The monthly unit charges for service are proposed to change as follows:
Water pemand: Increase from $6.53 to $8.71 per ECU
Fire Protection: Increase from $1.86 to $2.48 per ECU
Water Consumption: No change in current rate of$1.l682 per thousand gallons
Pumping Charges (Pumped Once): Increase from $.72 to $ .91 per thousand gallons pumped
Tap fees would also be revised to recover the cost of capital and to ensure continued maintenance
and replacement offacilities at the end of their useful life. Considering that approximately 83% of
capital costs are attributable to new development, tap fees for Area 5 need to recover approxirr)ately
$379,000 in annual costs. For the development level anticipated in Area 5, tap fees need lto be
increased from their current level of $4,925 to $6,891 per ECU. For the typical 2.2 ECU residence
constructed in Billing Area 5, this would equate to an increase from $10,835 to $15,160.
Comparable tap fees for the same unit in the Maroon Creek Club (Billing Area 6) are presently
$16,258.
Alternative 2: Continued Wholesale Water Contract to Highlands Water and Sanitation
District
Under this alternative, there are some cost savings on the part of the City as a result of services
provided by the District. On the revenue side, the District is also entitled to credits for past
investments in capital facilities in service. Under this alternative, customers other than current
District customers would see the same monthly rates as in Alternative 1. District customers would
continue to be charged for wholesale water delivery only although at rates substantially di~ferent
than today's rates. Delivered water charges would increase from the current level of $1.10 per
thousand gallons to $3.65 per thousand gallons. In additiOn, District existing customers, who all
receive pumped water service, would see a new charge of$ ,91 per thousand gallons for pumping.
For the "typical" 2.2 ECU residence located in the District, monthly charges for water from tl:\e City
would increase from $13.31 to $55.20. This compares to a monthly charge of $49,76 for full City
-
-
e
service under Alternative 1. Continued wholesale water to existing District customers is predic;J.ted
on an adequate master metering system to accurately measure deliveries at the point of delivery to
the ultimate customer is subject to system losses which probably approach 10 - 15%. In the event
that the current system of metering is maintained, revisions to the proposed rate structure would be
required to reflect these losses.
Credits for existing capital investments paid for by the District would lower the tap fee assessl,1ent
per ECU from both the existing level and those for Alternative 1. In District tap fees would be
reduced from $4,925/ECU to $4,179/ECU. Out of District tap fees with this alternative would be
higher than Alternative 1 and the present tap fees.
Cost saving factors considered in the alternative of providing wholesale water to existillg district
customers considered savings in operating costs, credits.for previous capital investments and lqwer
charges for new capital expenditures. However, these factors appear to be more than offset by the
economies of scale of providing full service to a much larger customer base under the combined
service option (Alternative 1). Operating costs for hydrant maintenance, meter replacement, and
customer service are eliminated because of services provided by the District. The administrative and
overhead costs in the operating budget are proportionately reduced. The distribution and pumping
costs are reduced by one half. Only treatment and supply costs are fully assessed at the same level
as other City customers.
On the capital investment side, the District is entitled to a credit for the existing investment for the
500,000 gallon storage tank. At present replacement costs, this equates to a $500,000 credit or
approximately $35,000 per year. No capital charges were assessed for distribution, meter
replacement, water rights or customer services since those functions are take~ care of by District
personnel or resources,
"
"
m
m
a:
~
.
e
o
~
e
'tj
'x
W
'"
o
m
~
'"
fA
'.
~
'"
,g
'"
z
o
<I)
"'
..-..<
". I-
J ;;;
:0
~
o
<1)>-
,,~
w5:z
0:0
E
o
[1.
X
10000lO N
~~~~~-g
n::;L1..l<(..2""E
<<1)0= ~S::l
ClJUJID..
~""lt) x
js l'Il cD-o
iiiI~"a(l)~
::ccC"::!""E
t:;::; ~S::l
COWIe..
i",
~ I~~~I~
!;: ii""..2 """>
0::: =~S~
o ClJW:r:C>
~ ! l/l~
~ 0\1'- ~l]
o (/) ~I~ E
g: U1 ~Ig-I~ ~
UJ I' x
~~IC}o~
0ol.!::~ Q.
?;::J!~ s ~
j-'[UJIQ.
cazi
-,
I
o
~
" 0_
Ql"'C ,-
3: l'l:I fa
om"
...J ;2,<:)
<I)
W
f-
a:
I~
.0
o
~-cx
<0-
a> e ~
o.
w:w ~ E
<(;i5:1'tl ::J
UJ':J 20..
< '"
" 0
z",X
~~O
rorol5~
w e,f"
~ ~ ~
~, "
o! ;
~I',,_i~
5: e 0
I,O 0...
W
'" '
.::{ !-g x
UJ 10'-
~ "I~-g
m~
ggH~~
:51~ 0..
~ I
a> ~
o
~
" 0_
~ -g'~
om"
....J:2C>
!z
:::::i
(I)!::::! CI)
WW1a><
Cl)1--lUJ
<{<....Ie:::
coo:::i<(<
i
a:
W
f-
<
5:
:
I
!
:'
~
m
oorn..- 0
00..-0 N
cici'<i""": III
1FtV7'<t..... lO
."" '"
(OlD"""":!" en
.....'<1'..-'"
mlfi-io:i M
.-lfl..-N W
1Ft lfllFt jfl
(Ow'<t..- to
...-""..-0 f'-.
criui-.::i""": ai
.-tfl-..-..... '<t
V7 If}-t!7 lfl
CO(()'<tO lO
...-'<::t..-O f'-.
aiui-ici cO
...-tfl-.-tI} C")
'" '" '"
(Omo::t'<t rn
...-v.....'<1' ..-
mui-:i-i (")
.....w.-N CD
lfl tlttA- tFt
ww'<t..... fD
.....v.....o r--.
o:iu"i-.r""': ai
...-11)-.......... '<t
b'l- lfltl}- ffl
tl)WVO to
..............0 I'-
o:iui..fci cO
.....tfl-..-Efl t'1
'" '" '"
mcoo:::r..-
.....'<:t.....!'--
critri..fai
...-tA-.....lfl
'" '"
l.OCO'<tO
.....'<t..-o
ailfi-ici
.....Eft.....vt
'" '"
,
I~O 0 _ 0
OOMO
cicit""ici
,lfltf}-......",.
II '"
!r--.OlV..-
f'1o.....r---
'<t-i-io:>
..... lfl.- V7
'" '"
"1"'"'0
1:'10.....0
-i-i'<ici
I..... 1Ft..... V7
'" '"
,
i
I
"
'c
:J
W III C Ql
~.~~~
U)J::J::E..c
W()():JO
I--ge~~
<( 1tI 0.. 0'-
n::: E 0 a..
>- <1l ~ .... E
I!ai.i:~~
!z 5:
o
~.
'"
"
"
"
'"
'"
"
.;
'"
'"
;;
'"
;;;
;;
~
"'
'"
o
'"
N
'"
'"
.
o
o
>-
:s
e
o
~
0;
"0
f-
c15~c\ll$!~~~c$!&l
<1l:o:< 0 <1l(3..c 1ll.2:: <ll III t/l u..
.5~'~ ~:i:~.9111lii ~81s
m.;::..... 0 <ll ....(I)C/J(9 0"0 III
....V;~..!1!><ll......... (iicl-
1-'- := 9- ..... <ll t/l a. Illlij
a E <ll ~ ili:J 1ll....J.....
C/J ~~ >:s0 a:: ~
W e m
W e m
u.. I~ :2
~ 0:
f-
"
'"
m
'"
00l()..-
00(00)
00(1')0
!fl-tI)-tI)-tI)-
10
'"
a5
;;;
.....(O/'-N
I'-"<T"-O
cON"":N
!fl-!fl-!fl-!fl-
'"
'"
a5
;;;
.....(01'-.....
I'-"<T"-O>
cON"":O
tl)-tI)-tI)-tI)-
10
'"
a5
;;;
.....(O/'-_
I'-:-.t:""":z
"'N~
"'''''''
o
'"
on
;;;
.....<OI'-N
I'-"<T.....O
cON"":N
(fJ-!fl-tI)-(fJ-
o
'"
'"
;;;
.....001'-.....
I'-"<T..-O>
cON"":ci
(fJ-(fJ-(fJ-(fJ-
o
'"
'"
;;;
.....<01'-_
I'-:-.t:""":z
"'N_
"'''''''
N
'"
"
"
;;;
.....<OI'-N
I'-v.....1'-
roN"":ci
tl)-tI)-t/7tfl-
N
'"
"
"
;;;
.....<01'-_
I'-:-.t:""":z
"'N_
"'''''''
'"
'"
'"
ci
;;;
0000
00..-0
o ci"": 0
~ tI)-(fJ-tI)-
'"
'"
'"
ci
;;;
(")(O/,-N
It)<O...../'-
w"":"":ci
(fJ-tI)-UJ-UJ-
'"
'"
'"
ci
'"
~~~z
"'~-
"'''''''
(o"<TNO
"<TNooO
10 .(oN
C"l:~""":"':
" _0
'" "''''
00(11-;'
EEgg
=>=>00
0000
~~:!.:::::
t.')-(fJ-~t.')-
UCCt/l
:ii:8 :81~
E 0 a.1~'
llJ.2 E..r:
C/Joe~o
1l..I....c...c
~~.~8.5
<5:"-"E
I 2:J
o 0[1.
f- 5:
z
:J
~
"
.j
'"
NO'"
N~
N
"
'"
"
a5
'"
NON
N~
N
"
'"
"
a5
~
NON
'0
N~
N
"
'"
"
a5
'"
NON
N~
N
0;
'"
.0
'"
NON
'0
N_
N
0;
'"
.0
~
NON
N~
N
0;
'"
.0
'"
NON
'0
N_
N
o
'"
o
a5
~
NON
'0
N~
N
o
'"
o
.0
'"
NON
'0
N_
N
'"
N
~
.j
'"
NO_
N~Z
N
'"
N
'"
.j
'"
NO'"
N~"":
N
-
'"
N
'"
.j
'"
NO'"
'0 .
N__
N
..
"
>
.~
"
>
"
o
W
;;;
. 0
:J~
U"
We
"-"
0;
"
oc15.2
c:;::::;::: 0
m m 0
:Qa::Eu..
t/l::>:J1ll
~'O ~ ~
-woo::(
m 0 ~
l:~ e
I- in
.
m
m
U.
0.
o
f-
N
o
N
o
o
z
o
.~
o
>
.9
o
,j"
E
~
~
"
.
m
'"
~
.
c
.
rn
c
ti
'x
w
'"
.
.
~
rn'
~
.,
~
rn
~
iii
z
o
~
'"
<(
.
/' '"
& ffi
~ i
~ 000)..- 0 .,. 0010..... '" NO'" ~
00.....0 N '" coma> "- '0
0 u cici"<i""': ui ciOMO N~
<f)>- . 1I7b'l-'<t..... '" '" tfl-lA-tfftff " N
""~ E ., ., ., ., .,
wSZ 0
:cO "-
x (CCOV'<:t ~ 10 .-<OI'-N "- NON N
"''''''' N ......v..-"<t 1'-'<2"......0 '" '0
<(<(t1:ICO-C critri<<io::i ..; "' roN"":N .,. N~
UJll..~'5(/)g. ...-If}..-N '" ai tf)-fI'}U'l-tI} ai N
o:::W<(.=!""'E ., ., ., ., ;;; ., ~
<{6=~S:J
COW Ill..
?; Oc:llOlg ~ (Ow........ '" 10 .....001'-..- "- NON ~
.....""..-0 "- I'-'<t.....m '" '0
::lSmCD'U mui<<i"": '" "' o::iN""':ci .,. N~
in:C ~ '0 (/)I~ .....IA-.-..... .,. ai fA- Wlfl ffl ai N
I<C..;!""'E ., ., ., ., ;;; ., ~
t:=~S:J
lIlW:Cll..
~lgo comva "' 10 ~~~z "- NON 0
....."""....0 "- '" '0
<f) a:ilfio::ici ro "' "'N~ .,. N~
w e!'O(/) ...-t/t......tfl- '" ai ., ., ., ai N
f- <(.2 "'" os: ., ., ., ;;; .,
<(
'" =~S!:!
COW:cC)
w x com"""" '" 0 .....COI'-N ;;; NON N
<f) _N .....v.....'<;f '" 1'-'<:t.....O '0
0 Uu criui'<i-:t ..; cON""':N '" N",
"- 0 C . .....V')-..-N '" ui fl'}fI'}lf}1;I)- <0 ~
, .
0 <f) 11l:c E ., ., ., ., ;;; .,
0:: to <>1l ._:::l
ll.. ::JIll..
w:c x IDeoV..... '" 0 ...... co 1'-...... ;;; NON -
'" ~ .............0 "- '" I'-q-.....cn '0
<(t:> D-c crilrio:i""": '" cON""":ci '" N~
C>BE~ . ...-(13-.......- .,. on tl)-fI'}tfl-tI)- <0 N
., ., ., ., ., .,
~::) ,!!!S E
::l--ltTI:t:ti
OJ'; u <OtO'<tO '" 0 ~~~z ;;; NON 0
I 0
0 .....o:::r......o "- <D '0
,L, aiui.,fo ro' "'N~ '" N~
, ui <0 N
I .....tA-......ER- '" ., ., .,
Q1"'C .- ., ., ., ;;; .,
~ . >
o . E
~ "",
I (0(0........ <D ;;; .....COI'-N "' NON ~
I C .....'<t.....r-- .,. r--v.....r-. '" '0
N- mtrivro tC '". cciN""':ci '" N~
""'x .....w-.....tR- .,. - tft(f.l-(I)-tff '" N
., ., ., N .,
<(u~ .,
I IOJ~'O
::N:@ :21~
<:(:2:2:;:1
;w'2: ll..
i I <( IDCO'<tO '" ;;; ~~~I~ '" NON 0
C .....>;1".....0 "- '" '0
" ;1 mll'i'<ici ro '". "'N~ '" N~.
Z'"u .....fI'}....tI)- '" N ., ., ., '" N
., ., ., .,
. , ::i=tt<ll .,
, I I ::::!<:(Cl::
I "'''',
, Qi ~.~
it!) ;: 0 fa
I::' o ~ '
~ "
, ~ 00.....0 ;;; "' 0000 "' ~~z
cO::: 00(")0 '" 00.....0 N Z
'" 10 u ciciC""ici ..; '" cici.....:ci '"
Iz <f) . If}-b'}.....tf) ;;; ci tfl-fI'}tI}U'l- " N
,- l<>1l E ., ;;; .,
.f- ISc :J
!U)
-, I:cOll..
w' 1{1' I'-O'l'<;l"..... '" "' (")(O('..N '" NO"' ~
, I (")0.....1'- '" 100;)..-1"- N '0' -
I <:(1 g~ -i-i-icx:i '" 0""":""':ci 0> N__
I ....11)-....11)- ;;: ci 11)-11)-11)-11)- " N
W, :1;:"'0 ., ., ., ;;; .,
~I' Ol~
i ~Ig m g
, I Z::::)::2:ll..
! ~
..J[ r--.cnvo 0 '" f(P&~z '" NO"' 0
CD: C'10....0 '" '" N '0 '
I ~ -.i-i-.ici N '" '" N_~
0 <D~_
I 0 ....tn-....II)- '" ci ., ., ., " N
! ~ ., ., ., ;;; ., ~
0
W"'O.-
j ~ al e
!..J':2(9
z WVNO .. .. - .
VNOClO
, ::J \{) -WN ~ ~ .~
I(/)~(/) (")........r--. >
.(1)- _ .
.,. ~O
, W:WlD<:( ., ., .,
U)!f-..JW
, ~!~;i~ I
I OO-;-lll => :,0 .
~~gg 0 O~I
::::)::::)00 !!! jlU ~
2 0000 e " 0
ww........
, ." w.!!tw.!!t "
::> "
. . C . c:~;gc:1l $ ~ ~ ~ c2 . u c c . . . rnC 0
e'le'I.9: ~ . C 0 0 . . g:E~~
E'g ~ e:2 ..c: lll'- Ql Q) III U. 1ll:P:P0l . 11
rnrno..rn .2> 0 C c: E 8 E u E2 u. .. 0 0
(/)..c:..c:E..c: " 1ii,Q2!~~ ':U5~(9~"O~ .~ :QO::EU. U.
wOO:::lO 0 Q)z(l)rn> (/)oe. ;:0 . Ill::::) ::Irn
I-"'OOlllCl 0 t=1II - .s w 1ii rn~_ w ,,,- rn f- ~o;gl! E
<:( ~ a: ~.!: >- is E Q) ~"'::J Q)..J2! Cl2Q)~C: _wac:( 0
a::: E 0 a. E 0'" rn 0 a::: 0 a:::~.=0.i5.. ~ 0 "-
>- Q) l! ... E '" "-- S f- c:( U....E ,g
Ii ~OU:"*~ " W C ~ I $:::1 '''-
0 W . . o 0"- >- iii
\< S '" u. 'R '" f- S f-
0 ] "- :c Z
0 <(
'" f- f- ::>
'"
"'
.
1ii
oc
~
.
c
ro
rn
.,;
1;;
'x
UJ
0'
.
.
dO
rn
~
,~
dO
rn
@
ffi
z
o
<fJ
0:
.<
l
'i:i~ UJ
-.>lo !;:
:a ~
UJ
~ ~
<fJ
UJ
!;:
oc
'X
o ~
~~ @
UJ5:z ~
IO a.
" x
1.00::1J1 N
;5ii~,g~-g
rx:W<(2""E
<o(/):= ~S:::l
COWIn.
~oalI1 ;5.
::JSracO-o
iIiI~'O(/)~
I c{.2oa E
t::=~S:;)
COWIn..
"'iq
. c Ol~
~'6(/)
c( :::l oa'-
=~S~
mw:r:(9
UJ X
8 {l~
n.. 0.... ~ ll)
o (J)lg:C E
g:l()I~::lI~
UJI X
~0 0:;;
0B:5~<ll
~::l'~?; ~
::J...Jw:ra..
lDZ -g
o
~
~ 0
~ -g'~
.3~0
I~
,;"
l~
1<;2
lUJI
. I
II
-"
I \<: ~ X
;NI~H
1~lg ~ ~
,~ ~
I" 0
1;S\<:I~
~<"
iDm<(
I" ~ ~.~
o 0 ~
~~"
X
1 0 ~
<fJ .
'"
I S"'2 ~
IOa.
",I
,c(' -g;::
i~ ~ u
I~ ~lg
iZ:J~~
i=
ro
~
o
o
~lf;
~ 0
III "'0 .-
> . >
I> . ~
.3~t9
. i ,
~
z
::;
, (j):CI)
'wwOJc(
',W I--lW
I<:(<(...JO::
ICC 0:: <(<:(
. i .
i
. ,
\
oam..-
00.....0
cici-i""":
tfJ-tfJ-"<f.....
.""
CDm'<t'<:t
.....'<:t.......;r
oiui:''<i-i
.....tfJ-..-N
~ ~~
(0(0"<1.....
.....'<t.....0
mtri-i""':
...-tfJ-..........
~ ~~
(0(0"<10
...-'<t..-o
mlf'i..fo
...-tfJ-.....tfJ-
~ ~
C!lCO'<J"'<t en
......'<t.......... ,....
criui-:i-i ri
......tfJ-......N tD
tfJ- fA-tfJ- tfJ-
(0(0"<1..... CD
...-'<;/"......0 I'--
oiui..j""': m
.....tfJ-........- '<:t
tfJ- tfl-tfJ- tfJ-
1.0(0'<3"0 Lt'I
...-'<:t.....o t'--
aiui-ici tci
.....tfJ-..-t/7 M
~ ~ ~
COW""""
...-'<!'..-l'--
mli'io::tcci
......tfJ-......vt
~ ~
W(O'<:to
..............0
criui-.ia
......tfJ-..-tfJ-
~ ~
00..-0
OOMO
cioMO
tfJ-tfJ-.....tfJ-
~
1"--0)'<3"......
MO......I'-
-i<<i-.:icri
......tfJ-....tfJ-
~ ~
1'-0)'<:1'0
Mo.....a
..;r=",r-ia
......tfJ-..-tfJ-
'" ~
J'l
'c
"
. c
OlOlOCl
(ijcu'iim
t3BB~B
1-"0 l/l 01
<(~a:a.5
CJ::: E 0 a.
>- III ~ .... E
~ou::~rr
!z 5:
o
2
o
0'
ui
'"
~
'"
'"
<0
~
<0
"-
ai
.,.
~
'"
"-
<ci
M
~
<0
.,.
..:
.,.
~
'"
"-
<ci
M
~
;;;
'"
~
;;;
::;
~
o
<0
0;
M
~
"
o
U
:c
"
o
2
"
<5
>-
<fJ
UJ
UJ
u-
a.
<
>-
c5~c~1l~~l:!"E2m
E:g] E:2~~'~ ~ E 8lL
ili.D rtI OJ)~0::..B OJ) OJ) OJ) 0 m
~E(j)g>Q;(J)~(9.2-g1-
I-'!!! - ..... Q; III m m-
DEl]) ~.....::s w_d9
::so:: >~O 0:: ~
n.c; Q;
. ..
~ ~
I
.,.
'"
ai
'"
001fl.....
oomm
OOMO
If}. If}. If}. If}.
;;;
~
<ci
;;;
.-CO\'-.N
\'-.'<;1'.-0
tON"":N
t.')-t.')-1f}.1f}.
;;;
~
<ci
;;;
.-0Cl1'-.-
I'-'<;I'.....m
a)N""':ci
If}.t.')-tf}tf}
;;;
'"
<ci
;;;
.....0Cl1'-__
I'-; "<I: "":z
"N~
~~~
o
<0
'"
;;;
.-OClI'-N
I'-v,-o
tON"":N
t.')-tF,l-If}.tf}
o
<0
ui
;;;
.-<01'-.-
\'-.v.-rn
a)N""':ci
tf}1f}.t.')-lIT
o
<0
ui
;;;
.-0:)1'-__
I'-;"":"":z
"N~
~~~
.,
'"
0'
<ci
;;;
.-COI'-N
I'-'<T.-f'o,.
a)N"":O
tf}t.')-lITlIT
.,
'"
0'
<<i
;;;
r::;~~z
"N~
~~~
'"
M
<0
o
~
0000
00.-0
cio""':ci
lITlITtf}lIT
'"
M
.,
o
;;;
M(oI'-N
1fl<O.-\'-.
u:i"':"':ci
tf}tf}l/Tl/T
'"
M
.,
o
;;;
~~~z
<D~~
~~'"
to'<TNO
VN<OO
Ifl 'WN
<'1.;:;;",,:1'-;
.,. _0
~ ~~
I'
o,.Q.' rtI rtI
~~gg
j 668g
ww.-.-
ifl~~~
Ul::1::1Il
c: 0 0 w
m:;::;:;::; m
~$E~
U)oE:::sO
W...n.:gCl
(9 oS l]) 0.;;;:
~~li:~ E
:J: .!l::s
u m <L
!:: 5:
z
"
'"
"-
"
~
NOM
'0
N~
0;
"-
M
.,.
<ci
~
NON
'0
N~
0;
"-
M
.,.
ro
~
NON
'0
N~
0;
"-
M
.,.
<ci
~
NON
N~
N
~
0;
.,
<ci
~
NON
'0
N~.
0'
0;
.,
<<i
~
NON
'0
N~
0;
'"
.,
<<i
~
NON
'0
N~
0;
o
'"
M
..:
~
NON
'0
N_
O;
o
'"
M
..:
~
NON
'0
N~
0;
'"
0'
'"
"
~
0'0_
N~Z
0;
'"
0'
'"
"
~
NO'"
'0 .
N~_
0;
'"
0'
'"
"
~
NO'"
'0 .
N~~
0;
.
'0
.
>
.~
"
>
s-
u
~
~
. 0
"2
@~
.."
"
"
~~:5B
;~I~ g
:QO::ElL
1Il::!::s (U
~O~!:!
-woo<(
,~ 0 @
I- i:ii
"
.
.
U-
n.
m
>-
0'
o
0'
o
o
z
o
.
.~
>
B
u
m
u-
E
"
<L
RATE ANALYSIS-Alternative 1
COMBINED SERVICE
BILLING AREA 5
. Monthly Charges For 2.2 ECU Res
Existing Proposed Using an Averag of 12,100 Gal/Mo
REVENUE SOURCES Gravity Fed (No umn Charnes
-.-- '-- Tap Credit $35,000 $35,000
- . lap Fees $210,790 $378,897 EXISTING PROPOSED
--- Rate Revenue $283,390 $408,580 Water Demand $14.37 $19.16
.~,_..- Fire Protec $4.09 ~5.46
f--' Total Annual Revenue $529,180 $822,478 Water COnSUmD" $31.10 $31.10
Pumping $0.00 $0.00
ALLOCATED OPERATI G COSTS
Hydrant Main $681 $681 Total Monthly Chg $49.56 $55.71
Treat & Suppl $17,308 $17,308
Distr & Pump $123,758 $123,758
Meter Renl $11,926 $11,926
--. Gust Service $17,921 $17,921
Syste[11 Mat'l $8,638 $8,638 Monthly Charges For 2.2 ECU Res
Admin $93,051 $93,051 Using an Averag of 12,100 Gal/Mo
Overhead $89,778 $89,778 Pumped Once
1-- r
I T otai Ooerating Cas $363,061 $363,061 EXISTING PROPOSED
, 2.2
.
ALLOCATED CAPITAL COSTS Water Demand $14.37 $19.16
Raw H20 Suppl $140,352 $140,352 Fire Protec $4.09 $5.46
Treatmen $661,758 $661,758 Water Consum $31.10 $31.10
I Distribution ~3,290,602 3,290,602 Pumping $8.95 $11.01
Pump Stations$1 ,001 ,095 1,001,095
, Hydrant Replacemen $106,041 $106,041 Total Monthly Chg $58.51 $66.72
I
, Vehicles $37,577 $37,577
i Water Right' $45,620 $45,620
I Finished H20 Storage $449,369 $449,369
Cust Service $16,039 $16,039
, . General $22,339 $22,339 Monthly Charges For 2.2 ECU Res
Meter Replacemen $66,247 $66,247 Using an Averag of 12,100 Gal/Mo
". . Land Cost, $697,341 $697,341 Pumped Twice
I
% Allocated Total Capital 6,534,380 $6,534,380 EXISTING PROPOSED
Annual Capital Cas $458,713 $458,713 2.2
Water'Demand $14.37 $19.16
>--- 82.60% Cap Aliocated to New $378,897 $378,897 Fire Protec $4.09 $5.46
17.40% Cao Aliocated to Exis $79,816 $79,816 - Water Consumo1 -
I $31.10 $31.10
Target Rate Revenue $442,877 $442,877 Pumping $17.91 - $24.44
% Rate Recov€r\ 63.99% 92.26%
Target Tap Revenue $343,897 $378,897 Total Monthly Chg $67.47 $80.16
% Tap Recave 71.47% 100.00%
CRF 0.0702 0.0702 Tap Fees $10,835 $15,160
I
I TOTAL ANNUAL COST $821,774 $821,774
L
I RATE BASIS-Taps
i ECU 1070 1070
I ECUs Subject to Taps 725 725
, Annual TaplECU $197 $275.63
i Unit Tap Fee $4,925 $6,891
I .
I RATE BASIS-UnitServic
I Target Rate RevlECU $264.85 $41390 /.
I Demand/ECU $78.38 $104.51-
: FirelECU $22.32 $t9.76
Consumption/ECU $169.62 $169.62
I Pumping/ECU $0.00 $77.96
RateMultiplie 1.5 2.00
\1 270.33 381.8509
% Cost Recovery 64.39% 100.09%
Combined Analysis of Rates for Entire Billing Area 5
Page 1 of 1
PC0qNY I c",Jl.d
RATE ANALYSIS-Alternative 2
EXISTING DISTRICT WHOLESALE WATER CONTRACT
BILLING AREA 5
HW&SD (01 TRICT) Wholesale Contr ct
Monthly Charges or 2.2 ECU Res
Existing Proposed Using an Average of 12,100 Gal/Mo
'REVENUE SOURCES Gravity Fed (No F ump Charges)
Tap Credit $35,000 $35,000
Tap Fee $5,910 $5,015 EXISTING PROPOSED
Rate RevenuE $13,794 $45,794 Water Demanc $0.00 $0.00
Fire Pratee $0.00 $0.00
Total Annual Revenue $54,704 $85,809 Water Consump $13.31 $44.19
Pumpin $0.00 $0.00
ALLOCATED OPERATI G COSTS
Hydrant Main $0 $0 Total MonthlV Cho $13.31 $44.19
Treat & Suppl $3,073 $3,073
Distr & Pum $14,942 $14,942
Meter Re I $0 $0
Cust Service $0 $0
System Mat'l $1,043 $1,043 Monthly Charges 'or 2.2 ECU Res
Admin $9,886 $9,886 Usina an Averaae of 12,100 Gal/Mo
Overhead $9,538 $9,538 Pumped Once
Total Ooeratina Cos $38,482 $38,482 EXISTING PROPOSED
2.2
ALLOCATED CAP IT AL OSTS Water Deman $0.00 $0.00
Raw H20 SUDol $24,922 $24,922 Fire Pratee $0.00 $0.00
Treatmen $117,508 $117,508 Water Consumo' $13.31 $44.19
Distribution $0 $0 Pumpinc $8.95 $11.01
Pum Stations $241,946 $241,946
Hydrant Replacemen $0 $0 Total Monthlv Chg $22.26 $55.20
Vehicles $6,673 $6,673
Water Riohts $0 $0 TaD Fees $10,835 $9,193
Finished H20 Storag' $79,794 $79,794
Cust Service $0 $0
General $3,967 $3,967
. Meter Replacemen $0 $0
I Land Costs $123,827 $123,827 .
% Allocated Total Capital $598,637 $598,637
I Annual Capital Cas $42,024 $42,024
,
i
82.60% ! Cap Allocated to NeVI $34,712 $34,712
17.40% i Cap Allocated to Exis $7,312 $7,312
I , Target Rate Revenu $45,794 $45,794
i % Rate Recover"! 30.12% 100.00%
I Target Tap Revenu $34,712 $34,712
% Tap Recover 117.86% 115.28%
I CRF 0.0702 0.0702
ITOTAL ANNUAL COST $80,506 $80,506
I
IRATE BASIS-Taps
, I ECU 190 160
ECUs Subject to Taps 30 30
, Annual TaofECU $197 $167.15
,
, Unit Tap Fees $4,925 $4,179
,
I .RATE BASIS-UnitServic ,
i I Target Rate Rev!ECU $26.4.85 $879.27
, , Demand/ECU $0.00 $0.00
, FirefECU I $0.00 $0.00
i . Consumption/ECU $72.60 $241.02
i - i Pumpin9fECU $0.00 $0.00
I : RateMultiolie 1 3.32
I 72.6 241.0223
I
, i% Cost Recovery 67.95% 106.59%
Separate Analysis of Rates for HW&SD vs Balance of Billing Area 5 Page 1 of 2
fo:'..C-\l[ i"\d ?/j!.','
RATE ANALYSIS-Alternative 2
EXISTING DISTRICT WHOLESALE WATER CONTRACT
BILLING AREA 5
alance of iIling Area 5 (Excluding C uistrict)
Monthly Charges F br 2.2 ECU Res
Existing Proposed Using an Average lf 12,100 GalfMD
'---.- REVENUE SOURCES Gravity Fed (No PI mp Charges)
t-= $0
>- . Tap Credit $0
1--.-. Tap Fee $136,915 $234,549 EXISTING PROPOSED
1--.- -- Rate Revenu $206,222 $274,761 Water Demand $14.37
- $0.00
--'-- ~-Total Annual Revenu Fire Pratee $4.09 $0.00
$343,137 $509,309 Water Consump $31.15 $~
-- Pumping $0.00 $0.00
ALLOCATED OPERA TI G COSTS
-- Hydrant Main $421 $421 Total Monthly Chg $49.61 $62.24
Treat & SUDol $11,242 $11,242
--'- ~- Distr & Pum $75,579 $75,579
Meter Rer $7,747 $7,747
Cust Servic $11,640 $11,640
f---- f-. System Mat' $5,275 $5,.275 Monthly Charges F r 2.2 ECU Res
Admi $57,739 $57,739 Usinn an Averaae f 12,100 Gal/Mo
Overhea $55,709 $55,709 Pumped Once
T ctal Qoeratina- Cas $225,352 $225,352 EXISTING PROPOSED
.
ALLOCATED CAPITAL OSTS Water Demand $14.37 $0.00
Raw H20 SUDol $91,163 $91,163 Fire Pratse $4.09 $0.00
, Treatmen $429,834 $429,834 Water Consump $31.15 $62.24
I Distributio $2,009,572 $2,009,572 Pumping $8.95 $11.01
I Pump Station:: $611,619 $611,619
I Hydrant Replacemen $65,593 $65,593 Total Monthly Chg $58.56 $73.26
Vehicle $24,408 $24,408
Water RIOhl $0 $0
Finished H20 8torag $291,880 $291,880
Cust Servic $10,418 $10,418
Genera $14,510 $14,510 Monthlv Charaes F r 2.2 ECU Res
~. Meter Replacemen $43,030 $43,030 Using an Average f 12,100 Gal/Mo
Land Cos $452,946 $452,946 Pumped Twice
% Allocated I Total Capita $4,044,973 $4,044,973 EXISTING PROPOSED
i Annual Capital Cos $283,957 $283,957
Water Demand $14.37 $0.00
82.60% i Cap Allocated to Ne\h $234,549 $234,549 Fire Pratee $4.09 $0.00
17.40% ! Cap Allocated to Exis $49,409 $49,409 Water Consump - $31.15 $62.24
I Target Rate Revenu $274,761 $274,761 Pumping $17.91 $24.44
. % Rate Recover 75.06% 100.00%
Target Tap Revenu $234,549 $234,549 Total Monthly Chg $67.52 $86.6$
I % Tap Recover 58.37% 100.00%
CRF 0.0702 0.0702 Tao Fees . $10,835 $9,193
.TOTAL ANNUAL COST $509,309 $509,309
-
RATE BASIS-Taps
. ECU 695 695
I ECUs Subject to Tap 695 695 ,
i Annual Tap/ECU $197 $337.48
I Unit Tap Fee $4,925 $8,437
I
I RATE B~.SIS-UnitServic
Tar~et Rate Rev/ECU $264.85 $352.87
I I ' Demand/ECL $78.38 $0.00
I FirefECU $22.32 $0.00
r ConsumptionfECU $169.88 $339.52
I Pumpin9fECU $26.14 $0.00
RateMultlO1ie 1.5 2.00
296.7228 339.5177
~- ,
,----- % Cost Recovery 67.37% 100.00%
, --
Separate Analysis of Rates for HW&SD vs Balance of Billing Area 5
Page 2 of 2
Rcj
'i)J !ILl
MAY-08-1996
I
i
I
e\
I
i TO:
i
I THRU,
I
,
,
\ FROM:
I RE:
i
e
.
11: is
FROM ASPEN/PITKIN COM DEV
IU
':;l'::J<::::t:J::> 1 1'(
i.lQ.l
tll ~l \--l tJ\DtT
~tIJ ))
MEMORANDUM
Phil Overyender, City of Aspen Water Department
,
Stan Clauson, Community Development Director.' I
Tim Malloy, Deputy Director DeLong Range PJanni+ i
Dave Michaelson, Deputy Director i i.
" 'I
I !!
Highlands Water and Sanitation District/Aspen Hig~lands M~untain
Limited Liability Partnership Submittal for Water S~rvice c.lmsi~ration
COMPLIANCE WITH AACP I I!
I I
I
: I I
. . I .
Sum~~ry: Highl~~ Water and Sanitatio~ District! Aspen ~ighlan~ Limited~artn9rshiP hah
submItted an applicatlon for a Water ServIce Agreement With. the CIty! of Aspcf_ forlthe Aspen
Highlartds Village project. Section 25,12.010 (b) requires that every e",tension 9twajer service,
where either the utility service connection or any point of consumption, is outsi~e thtl corporat~
limits of the City of Aspen, shall be considered an extraterritorial tap,! and shaJjl be \nade only
pursuant to agreement with the City, in accordance with the City of Aspen water!mam extensi6J1
policy and consistent with the Aspen Area Community Plan (AACP).i Staff 9as sdmmarized
prior fffidings by the Planning and Zoning Commission regarding compl~ance wit the! AACP, ~
well as updating changes applicable to those findings since the Cominission's rev~w. Staff
finds the application is in substantial compliance with the AACP, p~cUlarl)i in 1Iglit of tl\e
difficulty for a project as compleX. such as the Highlands to comply pr~cisely wiith all goals anp.
objecti"es of the AACP, i !
, ,
: I I ~
Baekgr"und: The Aspen Highlands Village was reviewed initially on!August 17, 1~93 by ~e
Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission for advisory comments pursuant to Section 6-3.4 8.M
oft~e '~ty LandU~The Planillng Commission contin~ed revie~ oflhe proj.,pt
on ay 10, 1994Ja'nd Jun ,1994. Panning staff believed at that tinie that th~ mo~tilfficie*t
way t' ie~e proposa was sider the application based uponl its consilsten+ with the
Aspen <\rea Community Plan (AACP). ' Ii'
, ,I
The CoJnmission concluded that the application was in substantial com~iance wi,b thb AACP in
terms of general direction .and goals. However, the Commission; also . '1' d several
incoosistenci"s \?etween the general, ~ubmission (as proposed in June 1994), art specific
goals/policies of the AACP. The specific findings were summariz~' , ion 94-21
(attached), Staff notes that the Commission believed that it would /:le difficult fJr a large,
complex project such as the Highlands to comply exactly with all th,~ recomtnendktions and
goals of the AACP.. '. I I
, ,I :"
Staff Comm'ents: Staff has reviewed the application and Resolution 9~21 wi~ PiJin County
Community Development staff. and has confirmed that the findings regarding "i'nsistency with
DATE:
May 13, 1996
MRY-08-1996
i
!
e'.
,~,
"'",.
.
&.,
~~~.
~,~
w~
.
9921<l~117 r' ."'2
i
i
\ i
. ,I .
specifiC; goals and policies of the MCP remain valid. Staff ruis summariz~d ttt areas of
inconsi~tency as described in Resolution 94-21, and has responded based onl chatiges to the
project;since the Commission's 1994 review. Staff notes that issues:regarding thr elimination of
tounst llccommodations and the impact of the reduction of commercial space\ hav? not been
resolved, ' i
I '
I i- ,
Area..~ ~fNon_Compliancewitb AACP I
}, : The applicant has complied with the 60%/40% split as it was lntemyed to be
implemented. However, the methodology has yet to be determined; thereforJ, ,4apPlicant
should continue to work with the County to comply with the intent of the 160"A/40% spI ;
I '
RespoJse: Based on conversations with Tim Malloy and the appli~aiJ.t, the proj~t no~ compli~s
with the intent of the AAep in reference to the 60/40 affordable housing; mix. i I :
i' I I ·
2. ,The base area upgrades will have significant impacts on sUn'Ounding ~eighborhoods.
transportation palterns. environmental quality and service needs. Many of thesJ imphcts whi~hl
are p.ropos~d to be mitigated ar~ inconsist~n~ wir~ open space. recrearion.1 errv1'ronmentpl..,'
polrcles, which prefer that expansIons have mlnlmal/mpacrs, . I ' :
i : I . j
Resj;1OIi,se: In County staff's opinion, and inherent in the County's ,approvall of tjte general
submission, mitigation has been proposed which satisfies policies in:theiPitkin C;'unt)! Land Use
Code, ' Staff notes that specific mitigation requirements, including partiqipatibn in the
. ,I I
Castle~aroonJState Highway 82 intersection improvements, will be refmed! as the proj.,p1:
contioul;Os through the County's land use process. I I' !
3. , Upon review of the revised A VH proposal, the Commission still:finds tiu:k the !Highlands,
proposal L< not consistent with the Growth Action Plan for three reasons~ I I' i
: a. . The project buildout analysis is based upon current zoning and ~he 4ACP does,
: not recommend, other than for affordable housing development; rezoning to tichieve the
goals of the AACP, Unless another developable parcel, within the metro-fuea \were to qe
downzoned or effectively sterilized from future development,; t e develop~ent of 4q
!SingIB-familY free-market homes will further the imbalance betwee sea,ona an!?
! piimanent nousmg as was laentlfiea m Ute AACl'. ln adaIt/on, 'Ihe growrh rare analys;#
'. iduJ not .antlcipate the rezoning oJ free market homes' which wHZ thr04 off Ihe 30,000,.
,popUlatIon cap and the 2% growth rate recommendation. ; !! . :
; . : \ .
Respon.~e: The project, as revised, meets the 60/40 goal. This ,change app~ars ~oaddress
concerns regarding community balance and buildout issues. . ! I
. 1
. i i
,b. TJ:.e conversion of GA!QS allotments for lodge units to free marAft sin,gle family
[homes is nor consistent with the goal of a permanent commun!1J'- Nor I is it ICQnsiste~t
:With 'the ,goal to balance growth between tourist accommddatlor/S andl the feTmane~t
communlty- . : ! I '
Respon~e: Conversio.n is no longer propo.sed ~ part of the project. T.he c~+t p+posal fbr
grantmg the 63 required free-market reSidentIal development allocations IS sUIDlll'arized as
follows: I . .!
11: 17
FROM RSPEN/PITKIN COM DEU
TO
6.s,
2
MRY-I.dtl-l':::l':;lb 11; 1Ll r-KUI'1 H~Ic.I'vr! It\!l'i .....ul-j vc:.v
I
I
I
~
.,
e
.
.w
--.........'-''-''........,
, ........'""'
~
20 (minimum) by TDR (Transfer of Development Rights
43 by AH Exemption and/or competition.
, I
The applicant has agreed to relinquish any unused tourist accommddations ~loc~ti"m upon
submission of Detailed application. .: I' .
. c. Significam development of single-jamily homes (Visit~rl.<easoJal) ;[vim a de-
: emphasis on tourist accommodations eliminates appl'.opriate' ordas .deSI~aEed\.tor tourist
. accommodations- This point is more accentuated. by tke e~iminati"k of! the Tadge
: accommodations Jr. om the revised plan. In order EO preserve rhe nedessat, 'balance
; between permanent resident and tourist accommodation, asrecbmmendJd in fhe AACP,
: land' thot is most appropriate for tourist accommodations sho~ld be pr1servj'd for that
land,use . I.
i ;
RespOllse: This issue is still valid from the perspective of consistency :with the kAdP,' and has
not bee~ resolved with the project granted conceptual approval by Pitkin~ county'j i' .
4. ; The reduction in commercial space is not consistent with the desire to reUuce VM1'
because of the lack of support services and commercial space that wd,uld encolvag~ l'esiderits
and visitors to leave the Village for commercial activity. The balani;e 'of "c1tlca~ mass" of
comme~.cialmust be characterized by support services, PUbliclCOni(n. on sPj~e ,,!,d tourist
oriented space. The applicant must continue to work with the staff to definj th~ balance,
Maintenance of the "critical mass" should have a net effect of reducing VMT. ! :. .
, I;
. ; I i
Respon,se: The applicants have represented that they would maintain the same Ileve\ of squar~
fcet of locally s~r:jng co~:nercial as in the ~riginal submittal. ~is ~ct shoul~ dirjtinish t~i$
concern. Inaddltton, addluonal traffic analYSIS showed the traffic Impacts and traffic generatton
was reduced slightly, assuming the same reduction in shared trips. I:
I .'
Conclnsion: In spite of the issues noted, Staff believes that the proposed prbject ishould b<;
found to be in substantial compliance with the AACP, and eligible for water servite. .
. . .'. I
I
.
.~
,,~
.,
'e
..~. .
',-"
MAY Idl:l l':j':::Ib 11; Id rKUI"1 H.::l,C.I'Vl'J.IK11"l L.WI'I.UCV
'w
\
I
SI:oN TO THE
mE ASPEN
CE i WITH THE
I ,. ' .,
RESOLUTION, OF 'I'HE ASPEN pIJ\:NNI:NG AND ZO:Jll'I:NG ~OMHI:
p~TKIN ICOUNTY PLANNI:NG AND ZONI:NG CaMHI:SaI:O~ FO
HIGHLANDS VI:LLAGE AMENDED GENERAL SUBMISStON'COMPLI
! : .
ASPEN ARBA'COMMUNI:TY pLAN
\ Resolution No. 94- ") i I
. -=+- .: I I .
l WRE1tEAS, the Aspen Highlands vill.age . (tlhe ";ro~ect") lis
1 cated! within 1.5 miles of the city U,mit~ lof A pelli and ';{as
rlsferreq, to the Aspen planning and zoning commissi ,n tor th!'lir
a~visory cqmments pursuant to section 6-3.4 B.2Alof the C9unty L~nd
Use cod$i qnd : I I
I WHEREAS, the commission's review of the prqject ~s ~ referral
agency to ihe county is to provide constructivelcorom~ntsl enabling
an applicant to make adjustments during the County re~ie~ process,
ahd design and build a project that meets our communi~y ~oals;and
I :. . i i
I WHEREAS, the Planning staff believes that the m~st ~fficient
w~y to review the proposal is to consider theiapplipation ba~ed
~on itis cbnsistency with the Aspen Area Commun~ty Plan GAACP) for
tfo rea$ons: it does not make sense to. recite the, co~nt~ Land Vse
Cpde standi:>.rds or base a review upon the .city LaJnd IUse C()de
s(tandards pnd the AACP was adopted for. the metro larela and', is
iptende?- t$ provide guidance for decisions re~ardin9 g~owth. find
l~nd use issues that are metro in scope and the AAcpl isl also~he
pplicy document that guides our land use review~ and !le~islatiOnj
ard . . I I
, . I'
I WHEREAS, secondly, if the applicant requests Ci~y ~ter, ~e
~terpplicy of 1993 requires council approva~ and ~heir review
e~tai]s; consideration of the project's consist~ncy w~thl the AACP
and in i the past the council has relied upon' the iCoIllimissidn I s
rfcommendation of a project's consistency with the MCPj! and
, ' . I,
I WlIEREAS, the Planning and Zoning commission ;first I re-.{iewed ithe
Ajspen Highlands village General submission August 17,1 19193; arid
I WHEREAS, the applicant has SUbstantially amended tJeGen~ral
dubmission application which requires another retie~bythe
9ommission; and . i i
II WR~EAS, the commission reviewed the apPlicationlaglin on May
10, 1994 and June 2, 1994j and 'I !
I . . I
\ WHEREAS, the Commission, using the AACPj ~ade ~in~ings ~ith
rrgard to ~he. Aspen Highl<\l)ds village proposal's consistjency. "lith
t;ne Aspen lj.rea community Planj and ..! '.. .
I . wx:E:R~' ~hile utilizing the AACP as a' guid~ for levi~w Of! the
Project. tne commission recognizes that ther,e; exfst ! inherent
i~consistencies between.the goals and recpmm~ndation~ within the
. .. I'
I
,
i
:I.
,e
'-
-
'.
rrlHY lCItl l':::l'=lb 11; .l"::J rKUI'1 M.:J,L.11-- r ! I r'>.!11 ,-WI I .......L-.V
;
i
Af'-CPi arid
\ j i.
! wHEREAs, the commission believes that it would be difficult
f~r a large complex project to comply with allt~e'recbmmkndations
and goaJ!.s of the MCP i and ., !! .
i wR~R~S, the Commission, having revie~ed.t~e Aspkn kighla~ds
V~llage . proposal, believes that the project is in I su~stantial
cpmpliance .with the MCP and its general direc~ion, fonfepts and
gbalsi and' !
I . I '
I WR~S, although the commission believes that tde p~oject lis
algood projec~, ther~ are areas that still ne~d!~brk ~nd! r7visi,on
sUch ascbmpl~ance W1th the overall rate of gro~h and the.~mpacts
o~ the' ~ew project on the population cap as iden~ified!in ~he AACP;
~d . ! i. I
I . i ! I
i WHERE1l.S, the Commission encourages the land ruse r~viek process
t6 continue through the county Planning andzpning cormi~sion and
the Board of county Commissioners review process. ! i
I' . .:: I
NOW, ~HEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the AspenpianniJg a~d Zoning
cpmmission finds that the Aspen Highlands: Vill~ge! General
sp.bmission proposal is consistent with the followiirig gdalsl/Policies
olf the Aspen Area community plan: : : f
I . 'I
1. The integration of affordable dwelling unitb w~thiniFhe
'I two neighborhoods is consistent with the;Af'-CP H9usi~g Action
plan that recommends the integration 'of .fre~-market and
! a.ffordable units. In addition, the appli9ant iE c~nsist~nt
I with the AACP's goal to develop family-orirnted IhOufing.
! . I:
I 2. The AACP recommends the development of. sal;;. a~fordable
I dwelling units. The revised application indica~esi that fll
I the affordable dwelling units will be saleiunit~. i '
I . : I i
1'1 3.; ~he revi~ed Highland~ ~roposal is consibt~ntiwi~h sev7~al
Hous1ng act~on plan pol1c1es to promote a m~crp ~ommun1~Yr
I develop neighborhoods to accommodate perr'.manent rjesidel'1:ts,
enhance neighborhOod character, promote mixed hbus~ng types
i and uses, and provide usable open space ana conv~nient public
I transportation. ' I:
4.' consistent with the MCP, the AHV propo~al pr~moJes infill
I development within the existing urban arEiCi: pre~eriving qpen
space and rural areas, enables more employees ~o live near
their work, and locate ,permanent resident hOusing!near'desired
activity centers. .': .
5.
to
of'
The p~oposal is consistent with Action; itemi#l~ (AAC~) -
work W1th the landowners to ensure that ~uturi' develop~ent
property along ,Maroon Creek Road a~d' near the schools
2
r-1HY ~lj l'::f::1b 11; 1'::;1 J-KUI'l H=:.I't:.I"1/l1 1"11'1 .....Ul-l .u,-v
,u
-.J-.J"-"->.....,........,
,,:"->'-'
, .
..,,~
'.
emphas.izes a mix of free market and
housing and recreational uses.
i
afford1ah).e faJily
. I I'
.' I; 1
oriented
".
6: T~e Village proposal utilizes vertical!Zonin~ within ~he
VJ.llage and proposes affordable. hO'ilsJ.ng ,nd! ..tourl.st
accommodations ahove co~erical/retail space. .
. !. . -
.' . I .
7. epnsistent with the MCP the propos'ill' pr<;>vides looal
serving businesses but the applicant shaH. 'ensure! that the
neighborhood serving colllItlerical will re~a!i.n aCges~ible and
will not eventually become higher end comm~rciall sp~ce.
I !:
, I "
8... The revised AHV plan is still consist\ent with I the MC:!?
policy to promote of expansion of existing!ski a~eas first.
. : I
. ' I'
9. The amenities such as new nordic traiis, cl~mb~ng rock,
and aqcess to the mountain in the summer,. are consis~ent with
the policy in the open/space/Recreatiort/Enviro~meIJlt action
plan to encourage projects that not only develop a~fordable
housing but integrate the preservation of ?pen s~ac~.
. ' i (
However, the expansion at Highlands could.i~creask tde.impacts
onPa~ks and Recreation facilities. It is still lundlear what
summer recreational activities Highlands! is ptop6sing' ;;l.nd
therefore what the impact on city faciliti~s WillI b~ and how
these activities will accolllItlodate users. .'
-
10. The transportation mitigation
with items from the Transportation
, i' .
proposajls are cpnsistent
Action flan (~qp):
, .
#19 _ develop intercept lot at Brush crelek ;
Road/ state Highway 82, Buttermilk and/pr othier !
appropriate locations; 'I :
#25 _ increase the frequency, se~vice ~nd ljng~~
. ' I'
hours of bus serVl.ce throughout the Aspen ~re~.
; I,
#33 _ evaluate the establishment of the di~l- '
a-ride concept within : the Aspen metio arEJa;
and i I
, I
i i
#38 - study, fund and implement imprbvements
to improve safety for bicyclist . on Castle
Creek, Maroon Creek (roads)... '
11. orhe pr?posal ,is consistent. with thi;: po.licyj to: incr~ase
transportat~on cho~ces by prop~sl.ng a bus/~hut~l~ s~stem ~rom
Highlands to downtown Aspen Wl. th 10 to' l!i ml.nulte iheadw2!YS.
The revised proposal integrates this system withlthe exis~ing
RFTA service. A dial-a-ride system will a~so b~ operational
for Village residents and this will help.t~ redude de~endenCy
on the single occupant vehicle. ' ,
of
'.,,'
"
3
'e
'.
~~.
.:'.
~,
l'IH'l'-l:1t:1-1'::l':::lb .L..l..'::::1CJ ",,--,,, n...:JI-c.,'t/ri ,r-.l''1 '--W" ...........'"'
1.2. bther measures that the applioantl should: \ pUrsue that
would :be consistent with the Transportation Actipn Plan are:
*. development of the gondola connect~on to tre
Tiehack Ski Area;
*_ utilization of trip generation ~at"'~ th~t
accurately reflect existing conditi9ns; I
~ participation in off-site impr;oveme*ts th~i t
the potential to reduce VMT by 'approximately
2,500 vehicle miles per day for. the ba e
village only (includes 450 SPace skijer
parking) and any additional ~ that may ~e
generated by the ski area improveme~ts; ,
more
have
* preparation of a Transit Plan: which is afprp,:"ed
by RFTA;
, I
.. construction of remote parking1 . stalls i . to
accommodate transit users destined ifor t\he'
. village and ski mountain;
tt-ansp~rta:tion
..1 h
. lln t; e '
. ,
.. implementation of all proposed
mitigation measures outlined
application;
.. working closely with CDOT on,the ~utterEil~ to
Aspen EIS (Entrance to Aspen)' rela,tive Ito :
potential improvements to the SR. 82 and Mar90n :
Creek Road intersection;
* provision of design widths and exact' locations of
the proposed trail from Highlands tq town; ~nd
-* separation of bicycles/electriq cart: (small sCiale)
corridors from pedestrian corridors'., " .
.. a seperate transportation corri~or for ;some
transit mode other than rubber wheel vehic,~es must
be defined around the parking lot at:the'bas$ of the
base village. .
~, THEREFORE BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the AspeniPlanning and
~oning Commission finds that the Aspen Hfghl~nds Vi~la~ General
~bmission: proposal is.. inconsistent: w~th thJ following
9]oals/Pol:icies of the Aspen Area community Pljan?
L The applicant has complies with .the: ?O~;'-40%i split as it
was intended to be implemented. Howeveri, the methodology.has
yet to be detennined; therefore, the applicant should continue
I .
4 I
I
,
,
i
!
i
. ,
MRY 08 1996 11:dlCl t-r<UITj H=.ot'"'t:.N/t'"'lIKll'i I....Ul.1 UC.V
,u
;.);.)~"-'-'..L.J..'
. .!'--''-'
i
th~
I
i
intent! of the 60%-
. !
~-
to work with the County to comply with
40~ split.
i
2. 'The base area upgrades will have si~n:i;fican~ impacts on
surrounding !'leighbOrhoods, transpottation'! patternr',
en"i"i~cinmental quality and service neeqS.' . Maj1y of Whi~h
impCl,qbs ar,,; ~roposed to b.e miti.gated bu~i where 1;pose' impac!ts
are not mJ.tJ.gated are J.nconsJ.stent wJ.th. the lopen spaqe,
recreation, environmental policy which pr4fEirs eXI/ansions that
have!' minimal impacts. :.
3.; Upon review of the revised AHV prop9S<;l1, tl$ c01ll1llission
still:finds that the Highlands proposal. is no~ co~sistent with
the Growth Action plan for three reasons!: .
* First, the projected buildout aJilalysis lis
based upon current zoning and the! AJl,CP dcies
not recommend, other than for afforda~le
housing development, rezoning to abhleve ~he
goals of the AACP. Unless another d",v~lopaJ:lle
parcel, within the metro-area wEira; ;to Ibe
downzoned or effectively sterilized fl:!o-m
future development, the deve.lo~ment 'of :46
single-family free market homes wi~l;furttler
the imbalance between seasonal and! p~rmandnt
housing as was identified in . the ,AACP. !In
addition, the growth rate analysis :did not
anticipate the rezoning or added free ~ar~et
.' . I
homes whJ.ch wJ.ll throw off the 30,QOO
population cap and the 2% growth rate
recommendation.
.
." .
,
,
* Second, goal of a permanent commu~ity:is ri,ot
consistent with a conversion; of' GMQS
allotments for lodge units to free~mar,~et
singly family homes. Nor is it cons~stent w~th
. . ' l
the goal to balance growth between' tourist,
accommodations and the permanent cQmmUriity~
'. '
* Third, significant development 9f' singie-
family homes (visitor/seasonal) wit:p. :ade-
emphasis on tourist accommodations ;elimina~es
an appropriate area designated f6r tour~st
accommodations. This point; is more .
,!\ccentuated by the. elimination of; the. lo4ge
acco1ll1llodations from the revised plan.. :In
order to preser.ve the necessary bi;l.lance, . as
,. . I
rec':lmmended J.n 1:;be AACP, b,et'l!een I p~rman~nt
resJ.dent and tourJ.st accomm~datJ.onsi land that
is most appropriate for t,ourist accdmmP<'iatidms
should be preserved for that land lise,.
I
I
I
I
5
i
!
.
,'---'..
,-----,..'
.
'----"
."
'\i.
4 .trhe reduction in commercial space inl not cOI1lsistEmt wi~h
the "desire to reduce VMT because of the 'lack of . support
services and commerical space that wouldi ehcpur~ge residents
and :visitors to leave the village for boIiunercial activity.
The :balance of "critical mass" of conimEiricql space imust be
characterized by support services, pub~ic/common space and
tour~st oriented space. The applicant must con~inueto work
with' the staff to define that balance. I Maintehance of the
"ct-i'tical mass" should have a net effect; of ''t"educing VMT.
, .'
AND, TItEREFORE BE IT FINALLY RESOLVED, thati title coinmis~ion w~s
split as to their support of Finding #3 (the iJiconsistency with t;p.e
Growth Action plan) and the basis for theiri differences: are 'as
fDllows:
l.. 'some members support the conversion beli.eving it, is less
impactive and requires less mitigation than lodge dev~lopment
and :therefore is not inconsistent with the bverall goals ,of
the AACP. (Free market homes may become ~ermanertt residences
while second homes are an alternativ~fbrmof' I'tourist
acco'mlllodations" .
2. Other members believed that the subst~ntial amount of free
mark~t homes proposed in the developmentwere:not'conte:mPlated
in tihe AACP and therefore is a "balance"; issue when compared
to t.~e goals of the AACP.
3. The majority of the commission belie'Ve!:1 .that the. concept
of the conversion was acceptable but the! conversion rate and
the 'number of units lost and gained was riot acceptablJ:. Some
conversion rates do not relate especi<iLLy. given delivery,
service, transportation issues. Peihaps an integrated
property management system would help reduce some' of thbse
impacts.
APPROVED by the commission at its regul~r meeting on. Junel 2,
~994. [
!~/~~.
W. Bruce 'Kerr, Cha~r 'y Clerk
6
TOTAL P,09