Boulder board reviews utility finances, CIP and rate outlook ahead of June deep dive

The Water Resources Advisory Board on Monday, May 19 reviewed an overview of the City of Boulder’s three utilities — water, wastewater and stormwater/flood — and heard staff outline how capital projects, operations and debt service affect the utility funds and planned rate projections.

The briefing, given by the utilities budget analyst and senior engineering staff, covered 2024 actuals and the 2025 revised budgets, asset-condition priorities for pipeline and plant work, and why Boulder’s residential utility bills run higher than many Front Range peers.

Steph Lingaman, the city’s budget analyst for utilities, said the three enterprise funds operate like businesses and are funded by user fees rather than taxes. “We collected about $92,000,000 in revenues” in 2024, Lingaman said, noting that the figure included bond proceeds; 2024 expenses across the utilities were roughly $51 million after accounting for operating costs, debt service and capital spending. She said the wastewater and stormwater funds show similar patterns where multiyear capital projects and bond proceeds drive both revenue and expense spikes in any given year.

Lingaman highlighted the stormwater fund’s expected increase in debt service tied to the Saltwater Creek project and said the city’s fund balance projections assume carryover capital will be fully spent in 2025, which contributes to a projected drop in the beginning-to-ending balance. She also told the board the city uses a mix of reserves, ongoing rate revenue and bond proceeds to fund large projects.

Chris Douglas, senior utilities engineering manager, described how the department prioritizes capital work using a traffic-light (green/yellow/red) system and a cost-weighted Utility Condition Index (UCI) to compare assets by age, remaining useful life and replacement cost. He said the transmission mains and some source-water facilities scored into the red priority category because of age and consequence-of-failure considerations.

Douglas and construction project staff described several near-term asset priorities: rehabilitation of the Barker gravity pipeline (a multi‑year project being done roughly a mile a year), replacement work on aging tanks such as the Kohler and the Chautauqua tanks, and a program of transmission main replacements that will be phased over multiple years. For source-water facilities, staff said the city relies on a mix of Colorado-Big Thompson deliveries, the Southern delivery pipeline (built with Northern Colorado partners in 2018), and mountain-shed supplies from North and Middle Boulder Creek.

On wastewater, staff said a post‑2013‑flood inflow-and-infiltration remediation program has led to an aggressive 20‑year lining program. Staff showed maps of lined and unlined sewer mains and said one recent major interceptor project cost about $45 million. At the Water Resources Recovery Facility, staff said recent work included clarifier rehabilitation and that planned projects include clarifier mechanism replacements, blower upgrades, and an ongoing phosphorus upgrade.

On stormwater and flood work, staff pointed to the Fifteenth-and-Palm rain garden as an example of combined drainage‑capacity and water‑quality improvements. Douglas said the city is aiming to bring drainage reaches toward a 100‑year capacity where practical but that most current mitigation is based on historic 100‑year flows, and that physical and cost constraints limit where larger conveyance upgrades are feasible. He also said the department has begun applying the city’s racial equity tools when prioritizing projects, to avoid a historical bias toward higher property-value areas.

Lingaman closed by noting that comparison data show Boulder’s average household utility bill (for a single-family home at 7,500 gallons per month) runs roughly 25% higher than several Front Range peers; staff said Boulder’s large, geographically exposed drainage network and high flash-flood risk contribute to higher stormwater rates.

The board scheduled a dedicated June meeting for a deeper dive into the capital improvement program and proposed rate adjustments for 2026–2028.

Ending: Staff asked board members to send any follow-up questions before the June session so the June meeting can focus on project-level recommendations and rate scenarios.