Broomfield staff outline water, sewer and stormwater plans; propose enterprise advisory committee

City and County of Broomfield staff presented unaudited 2024 financial results for water and sewer enterprise funds, updated the council on major water and wastewater capital projects and proposed formation of an enterprise-focused resident advisory committee to provide community input on utility rates and capital planning.

Graham Clark, director of finance, framed the presentation as an update on 2024 results and a preview of rate and capital decisions expected during the 2026 budget cycle. Clark said operating expenses for the water fund ended about $1.1 million under budget in 2024 and the sewer fund was about $1 million favorable; he cautioned those variances must be evaluated alongside precipitation, unexpected repairs and development revenue timing.

Ken Rutt, director of public works, reviewed water‑system planning and major capital projects. He highlighted a suite of planning decisions: a 12‑year meter replacement program covering about 22,443 meters (replacement averaging roughly 1,568–1,870 meters per year), a 36‑year waterline replacement program to replace roughly 53.3 miles of pipe (average 1.48 miles per year, roughly $292 million in 36‑year projected costs), and a North Area potable storage project anticipated to require bond funding in the $60–$70 million range. Rutt also described progress on regional supply projects: Chimney Hollow (the Windy Gap firming project) will provide firmed Windy Gap supply and is expected to begin filling in July 2025; Chimney Hollow’s storage is approximately 90,000 acre‑feet.

Staff also reported a recommended change to reuse planning: operational changes with parks and HOAs reduced the immediate need to build a proposed reuse tank, saving an estimated $17.3 million compared with the tank alternative. At the wastewater treatment plant, a recent cost update after 90 percent design raised the phase‑one projection to about $548 million; drivers cited were regulatory requirements, asset renewal and solids handling.

On affordability, staff reported the Utility Rate Assistance Fund (URAF) has received 2,340 applications, more than 300 calls and over 100 one‑on‑one consultations; staffing and assistance costs to date are about $600,000 with a mid‑year projection of $900,000 to $1 million. Clark said staff will provide another update at the July quarterly meeting and final 2026 rate recommendations are expected at that time.

To improve community engagement and oversight, staff proposed an enterprise advisory committee of five residents plus two alternates with staggered terms; duties would include learning about enterprise finances, reviewing CIP and rate planning, and advising council and staff. Staff also announced public works and water utility “academy” site tours for residents (first scheduled for May 17 at the water treatment plant) to help residents see how funds are spent.

Council members asked detailed follow‑up questions about mandates driving wastewater costs (nitrogen, phosphorus and potential temperature limits), meter accuracy and potential revenue changes, and options for addressing a large 2029 CIP demand tied to several high‑cost projects. Several council members voiced support for forming the advisory committee, with a mix of suggestions about membership size, inclusion of subject‑matter expertise and whether to hire a third‑party facilitator to staff the committee during its initial months.

Staff flagged that two enterprise bonds are expected to be issued within the next nine months and that final rate recommendations will be presented at the July quarterly update after the CIP and rate alignment process is complete.

Quotes in this article are taken verbatim from the study session transcript and attributed to presenters and council members present.