Broomfield staff outline utility funding needs; AECOM recommends $6M (water) and $9M (sewer/stormwater) annually

BROOMFIELD, Colo. — City and County of Broomfield finance and utilities staff and consultants told the city council at a study session that enterprise utility funds are structurally improved but will need sustained capital investment to reduce backlog and protect service reliability.

At the July study session, Graham Clark, Broomfield’s finance director, and Ken Rutt, director of water utilities, summarized 2024–25 usage and revenue patterns, emergency preparedness and major capital programs. Consultants from AECOM presented a multi‑factor asset‑management analysis that recommended funding replacement of existing water assets at roughly $6 million per year and sewer/stormwater at about $9 million per year to achieve and sustain a state of good repair.

The recommendation matters because the city is balancing near‑term rate adjustments and long‑term capital needs. AECOM’s risk‑informed model showed that higher annual funding reduces the backlog of assets beyond useful life, improves condition and lowers failure risk; lower funding scenarios allow backlog to grow and reliability to decline.

Clark said water use in 2024 was near historic highs but 2025 consumption fell through June by about 12% year over year, largely driven by heavy rainfall in June, which reduces usage revenue. Clark described the municipal Utility Relief Assistance Fund (URAF) as having processed more than 1,600 applications with over 1,300 approved; staff estimates total URAF assistance and personnel costs will be in the $400,000–$600,000 range by the end of the year and anticipates more applications before the Sept. 30 deadline. “We anticipate more applications before the deadline of September thirtieth of this year,” Clark said.

On capital finance, Clark said the city plans to issue two enterprise bonds and has begun documentation; staff and bond counsel believe mid‑January 2026 is the preferred issuance window and a rating decision is expected in late fall.

AECOM’s presentation, led by Bridget Malinowski and Bob Peskin, described an expanded inventory and a refined prioritization tool that weighs age/condition, probability and consequence of failure, and operations cost. Peskin said the model evaluates performance and spending measures over a 20‑year horizon and that under the firm funding scenarios the backlog for water assets disappears within two years at the $6 million annual level, while lower scenarios allow backlog and reliability problems to emerge.

Because many capital items are long‑lead or large facility investments, AECOM and staff identified timing sensitivity: if capital funding delays, the city risks larger backlogs and higher lifecycle costs. Peskin said the analyses exclude growth and expansion — they model “replace‑in‑kind” needs for existing assets.

Rutt provided project updates: the Westlake waterline replacement is about 67% complete (approximately 3,300 of 4,900 feet installed) and expected to finish in September; a meter‑replacement program will replace older 12‑year meters with new ultrasonic units (the 12‑year program estimated at about $13.5 million) and year‑to‑date crews have installed 65 new meters, with a four‑person crew installing roughly 76 meters per week; sewer collection rehabilitation uses cured‑in‑place lining and manhole structural lining; and the Mesa Booster Station is complete and operating.

Two storage/quality issues were highlighted. First, Northern Water’s Chimney Hollow Reservoir — which will store about 90,000 acre‑feet of Windy Gap water and in which Broomfield holds roughly 29.4% (about 26,464 acre‑feet) — has detected naturally occurring uranium in water retained behind a cofferdam during construction. Ken Rutt and AECOM said Northern Water and the project participants are monitoring and characterizing the concentrations, and no deliveries will occur from Chimney Hollow until assessments are complete. Rutt noted the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment regulates uranium under the state primary drinking water standards with a maximum level of 30 parts per billion and said conventional treatment can remove a high fraction of naturally occurring uranium from raw water. “No water will be delivered from Chimney Hollow Reservoir until the assessments are completed,” Rutt said.

Second, the Great Western Reservoir, built in 1904 and used for reuse storage, was rated “conditionally satisfactory” by the state engineer; engineers identified three alternatives: selective replacement of toe drains/outlet, full dam replacement, or breach/decommission (the latter not recommended). Sediment sampling (20 samples) and preliminary risk modeling found radionuclide concentrations consistent with historical background and preliminary modeling said potential construction‑period radiation exposure would be indistinguishable from typical background levels; staff will complete additional sampling and modeling once a repair option is selected. Staff plans an RFP in September for reuse system modeling, with recommendations expected by early 2027.

Staff also reported on the Becky property in Weld County: Broomfield purchased the 132‑acre site and associated 254 Colorado Big Thompson (CBT) units for $3.725 million; Clark noted the CBT units’ replacement value is much higher today (AECOM/finance cited an illustrative CBT valuation of about $17.78 million). A recent appraisal placed the Becky property at roughly $1.8 million as‑is but with extended permitting the sale price could reach $2.5–$3.7 million; staff said proceeds could help fund Great Western repairs.

On rates, Clark reiterated staff’s recommendation that the 15% rate increase previously communicated in late 2024 remain the baseline recommendation for 2026 for water, sewer and reuse; staff also recommended a 9% increase for the new stormwater fund in 2026 and said future increases should be single digits. Clark asked council for confirmation to proceed with proposed 2026 rate recommendations at first reading of the budget on Oct. 14, 2025. “This marks the second year of the 5 year rate plan that we've established,” Clark said.

Council members pressed staff for scenario details and practical implications. Mayor Pro Tem Schaff and others asked whether staff’s proposed increases align with AECOM’s high‑funding scenario; Peskin and staff said the recommended increases align with the higher funding path (roughly the $6M/$9M model). Several members requested supplemental modeling and customer examples — requests the manager and staff agreed to provide: council asked staff to run the 3,000/6,000/9,000 annual funding scenarios against the city’s models and generate sample bill comparisons so the public can see the short‑ and medium‑term tradeoffs.

What’s next: staff will proceed toward the bond timeline and to prepare the 2026 budget and rate first reading in October; staff also said they will prepare scenario runs and sample bills to inform council and the public during the budget process.

Speakers quoted in this article are limited to those who addressed these subjects during the study session: Graham Clark, director of finance; Ken Rutt, director of water utilities; Bridget Malinowski and Bob Peskin of AECOM.

Ending — The council’s budget and rate decisions this fall will determine whether Broomfield follows AECOM’s higher‑funding path that reduces asset backlog quickly or a lower path that slows capital spending but leaves greater long‑term reliability risk and potential cost escalation.