Citation
The corset theory as applied to the Denver region

Material Information

Title:
The corset theory as applied to the Denver region alias an analysis of water tap allocation programs and how they have affected the distribution of growth in the Denver region
Alternate title:
Corset theory applied to the Denver region
Creator:
Hermsen, Gail Hill
Publication Date:
Language:
English
Physical Description:
iii, 84 leaves : color chart, maps (1 color) ; 28 cm

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords:
Population research -- Colorado -- Denver Metropolitan Area ( lcsh )
Water-supply -- Colorado -- Denver Metropolitan Area ( lcsh )
Population density ( fast )
Population research ( fast )
Water-supply ( fast )
Population density -- Denver Metropolitan Area (Colo.) ( lcsh )
Colorado -- Denver Metropolitan Area ( fast )
Genre:
government publication (state, provincial, terriorial, dependent) ( marcgt )
bibliography ( marcgt )
theses ( marcgt )
non-fiction ( marcgt )

Notes

Bibliography:
Includes bibliographical references (leaf 43).
General Note:
Cover title: The corset theory applied to the Denver region.
General Note:
Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree, Master of Urban and Regional Planning (presently Master of Planning and Community Development), College of Design and Planning.
Statement of Responsibility:
by Gail (Hill) Hermsen.

Record Information

Source Institution:
University of Colorado Denver
Rights Management:
All applicable rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
Resource Identifier:
09453217 ( OCLC )
ocm09453217
Classification:
LD1190.A78 1979 .H47 ( lcc )

Full Text
H&umse-v
TH CORST THORV RPPllD TO TH DNVR R6GIQ[J
huRi- STi'nni tiif:s;s"
Gail (Hill) Hermsen Fall 1979


"THE CORSET THEORY"
AS APPLIED TO THE DENVER REGION
£ 1 -f-'i
* *> * -V;.
/ ...f- >.r;Je *
)
i
Alias
{
w r W ** ^; **...
AN ANALYSIS OF WATER TAP ALLOCATION PROGRAMS
J ......- ' '
AND HOW THEY HAVE AFFECTED THE DISTRIBUTION
4
OF*GROWTH IN THE DENVER REGION
Planning Studio 3 by Gail (Hill) Hermsen
December 1979


ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Many people were very helpful in providing information for this study. Most of these people are listed in the Bibliography at the end of this report. Allen Burns, Planner with the Denver Water Board, was especially cooperative in providing data and responding to my numerous questions.
I would like to express my thanks to Herb Smith, my advisor, for his advice and encouragement in this project.
I would also like to thank Michelle Aronson for her creative artwork on the cover.
And lastly, I would like to thank Teri Deines for her excellent job of typing this and many other projects that helped me make my way through graduate school.


TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
INTRODUCTION 1
PURPOSE OF STUDY 4
WATER SERVICE IN THE DENVER REGION 6
STUDY METHODOLOGY 12
WATER TAP ALLOCATION PROGRAMS 15
Denver Water Board 16
City of Golden 22
City of Broomfield 23
City of Brighton 24
City of Westminster * 25
ANALYSIS 27
Analysis of Percentage of Region's Residential 28
Building Permits
Use of Water Taps 32
Water Tap Costs 35
Perceptions of Major Developers in the Region 37
GENERAL CONCLUSIONS 39
BIBLIOGRAPHY 43
APPENDIX 46
Jurisdictions Totally Served by the Denver Water Board 48
Edgewater 49
Littleton 50
Sheridan 51
Wheat Ridge 52
Jurisdictions Primarily Served by the Denver Water Board 53
Arapahoe County Unincorporated Area 54
Cherry Hills Village 56
Greenwood Village 37
Jefferson County Unincorporated Area 58
Lakewood 6
ii


TABLE OF CONTENTS (Cont'd)
Page
APPENDIX (Cont'd)
Jurisdictions With Their Own Tap Allocation Plan 61
Brighton 62
Broomfield 63
Golden 66
Westminster 68
Jurisdictions Under No Tap Allocations 70
Adams County - Unincorporated Area 71
Arvada 73
Aurora 74
Boulder (City) 75
Boulder County - Unincorporated Area 76
Commerce City 77
Denver 78
Englewood 79
Lafayette 80
Longmont 81
Louisville 82
Northglenn 83
Thornton 84
LIST OF TABLES
Table //
1 Water Service in the Denver Region 9
2 Percentage of Region's Residential 29
Building Permits
3 DWB Tap Allocation Summary 33
1977-1978-1979
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure #
1 Water Supply System Denver Water 8
Department
2 Water Supply 11
3 Percentage of Region's Residential Growth 30
Captured by Growing Communities
iii


The Corset Theory What is it? What does it mean?
To answer this question one must understand both the anticipated function of and logical results of the use of a corset. A corset is an undergarment (for wear by both ladies and gentlemen) whose function is to squeeze a large part of ones anatomy into a smaller package. This is accomplished by forcing, under pressure, the part of the body to be "slenderized" into a rigid, non-expandable devise namely the corset.
The corset, is then, an artificial constraint to the routine expansion of a certain mass.
That is the corset* s function. But what is the result of corset use? The result commonly causes another dilemma one we call "the battle of the bulge". For while the corset restricts parts of ones "mass", the parts at the corset boundary not under the corset pressure, protrude in those "unsightly bulges".
This study, in essence, applies the corset theory to the Denver Region. In this case, the corset, which we have defined as an artificial constraint, is the water tap allocation plans which put a limit on "natural expansion" or growth. This corset of tap allocation plans is, however, only put on certain portions of the Denver Region since not all of the region is dependent on the Denver Water Board, or other communities with tap allocation programs, for their water supply. Since the corset of tap allocation programs is only squeezing certain areas of the Denver Region, there are plenty of opportunities for protrusion of "unsightly bulges" or in this case increased residential growth in other portions
of the region.


This study will try to analyze how the corset theory has affected the Denver Region. It will evaluate the various tap allocation plans to determine what their effect has been on the distribution of new residential growth in the Denver Region.


The purpose of this study is to determine if the water tap allocation programs of the Denver Water Board and other municipalities have had any effect on the distribution of growth in the Denver region. Concern has been expressed that, as a result of the limitations of water taps to developers in many areas of the Denver region, a "squeeze" has been put on those portions of the region which may result in additional growth occurring in portions of the region which are not under any tap allocation program. This study compares the percentage of growth which was captured by individual municipalities prior to the initiation of the Denver Water Board tap allocation program in 1977 to the percentage of growth captured by individual municipalities after the allocation plan to determine if there have been significant changes.
The study also includes technical information which describes the allocation programs of the Denver Water Board (DWB) and other

communities that have such programs. Data is included on the actual amount of taps which were allocated and used by each municipality under these various tap allocation programs. That information is included in the appendix of this study.
This study did not analyze the impacts of tap allocation plans on the total water supply available to the region or on effects resulting from water conservation programs. The analysis was restricted to the effect of the tap allocation programs on the distribution of residential growth in the Denver region.

-5-


Water service provision to the Denver Region is a complex matter.
Most of the water provided in the metropolitan area is provided by the Denver Water Board. This water is largely in the form of surface water which has been diverted through a complex series of reservoirs and tunnels from the western slope of Colorado through the Continental Divide and on to the Front Range to serve the growing Denver region. (See Figure 1)
The Denver Water Board's charter responsibility is to provide water service to the residents of the City and County of Denver. However, over time, the Water Board has entered into service contracts (presently over 100 contracts) with individual water districts and suburban municipalities to provide water service. In the Denver region, the suburban communities which receive most of their water supply from the Denver Water Board are Lakewood, Littleton, Broomfield, Greenwood Village, Cherry Hills Village, Wheat Ridge, Sheridan, Bow Mar, Edgewater, Columbine Valley, Mountain View and portions of Arapahoe and Jefferson Counties (see Table 1).
These communities are all under the allocation plan for distribution of water taps by the Denver Water Board.
In many instances, the water for a specific area is provided to special water and sanitation districts in that area, rather than to the municipality. For instance, the Denver Water Board has contracts with twenty entities that provide water to the City of Lakewood, 22 entities that provide water to Cherry Hills Village and 17 entities which provide water to Wheat Ridge. In other instances, such as Arvada (for raw water) and Broomfield (for treated water), the Denver Water Board provides water directly to the City which then distributes it within the municipality
I
or the city's service area.
-7-


Water Supply System
DENVER WATER DEPARTMENT
Continental
Divide
-^0rad -
Boulder
Castle Rock
o
i ver
Eleven Mile Reservoir
Colorado Springs
r\
FIGURE


TABLE 1
WATER SERVICE IN THE DENVER REGION
Jurisdictions Totally Served by the Denver Water Board Bow Mar
Columbine Valley
Denver
Edgewater
Littleton
Mountain View
Sheridan
Wheat Ridge
Jurisdictions Primarily Served by the Denver Water Board
Arapahoe County Unincorporated Area Arvada (raw water only)
Broomfield
Cherry Hills Village Greenwood Village
Jefferson County Unincorporated Area Lakewood
Jurisdictions With Their Own Tap Allocation Plan
Brighton*
Broomfield
Golden
Westminster
Jurisdictions Under No Tap Allocations
Adams County Unincorporated Area**
Aurora**
Arvada
Boulder (City)
Boulder County Unincorporated Area Commerce City**
Denver
Englewood
Glendale
Lafayette
Longmont
Louisville
Northglenn
Thornton
* Has no tap limitation, but does have a limit on sewer hookups ** Except for small area served by the DWB
-9-


Several other communities within the Denver region have their own water tap allocation plans. These include the City of Westminster, the City of Golden, the Crestview Water and Sanitation District, the City of Brighton (which has a limitation on sewage hookups rather than water taps) and the City of Broomfield. Other communities within the Denver region do not have tap allocations. However, some of them such as Lafayette are considering such a program and are in the process of investigating tap allocation programs applicable to their community.
The major communities in the Denver Region that are not under any tap allocation plan are: Denver, Aurora, Thornton, Arvada, Englewood, Glendale, Commerce City, Lafayette, Longmont, Louisville, Northglenn, Boulder^ and portions of Jefferson, Boulder, Adams and Arapahoe Counties. Figure 2 shows the areas served by the Denver water system, areas served by municipal and special water service districts and those jurisdictions that have their own water tap allocation programs.
The City of Boulder has adopted a growth management plan which limits the number of building permits which can be issued each year. While Boulder does not have a specific water tap allocation program, the adopted limits on building permits tend to have a similar type of limiting effect on future growth in Boulder that a water tap allocation program might have.
-10-


FIGURE 2
WATER SUPPLY
-li-1
Denver Water System
Municipal and Special Districts
Jurisdictions With Their Own Water Tap Allocation Plans


A two-fold methodology was used in this study. The first was to determine for the years 1973 through 1976, the percentage of the total region's building permits (total number of units single family, duplex and multi-family) captured by each community in the region. The same type of analysis was completed for the period from 1977 through September 1979, the period after the tap allocation program went into effect. These percentages of the region's growth were then compared for each community to determine if there was a significant change from the period prior to the tap allocations to the time after the allocations were in effect.
The second methodology related to this study was to determine the amount of taps that were actually allocated to and used by different communities since the establishment of the tap allocation plan. This was a straight-forward process in certain communities such as Littleton where the Denver Water Board provides all the taps directly to the city. However, in places such as Wheat Ridge, Lakewood and Cherry Hills Village where up to twenty separate water districts provided service, the individual tap allocations from the Denver Water Board to each service contractor had to be totalled for each community. In many instances, the boundaries of the service district with a contract with the Denver Water Board did not correspond with the boundaries of a municipality. In these instances, the number of taps allocated were apportioned to the various jurisdictions included within that district's boundaries on the basis of percentage of undeveloped land located in each of the jurisdictions.
The data provided by the Denver Water Board for tap allocations after the allocation procedures started in June, 1977, is aggregated by
-13-


service contractor by quarter years. Data included for each water service contractor is the number of taps allocated, the number of relief taps provided, the number of taps used, and the number of allocated taps which were not used and had to be returned.
The Denver Water Board allocates the water taps to the individual water service contractors and it is their responsibility to determine how they distribute those water taps to individual developers. The data on number of taps used reflects the date of payment for the water tap and not the actual start of use of the tap. In other words, the data might show a certain number of taps used in a certain period. However, that only means that the taps were purchased and from that time there is a one year time period during which the taps may be activated.
This study evaluates not only the water tap allocation program of the Denver Water Board, but also those of other jurisdictions in the region. The cities of Broomfield, Brighton, Golden and Westminster all have some type of tap allocation program. Those programs are described in the following sections.
Many local water service districts and some municipalities in the Denver Region have their own water sources and are not dependent on the Denver Water Board for water service. One of the elements of this study was to contact those water suppliers to find out if they had any programs for allocating water taps in their districts, if they had any future plans to establish an allocation program and to determine how they presently distribute water taps. This work element was accomplished through a telephone survey to the water suppliers and municipalities. The information obtained through that survey is included in the appendix of this report.
-14-


Denver Water Board
The Denver Water Board adopted a tap allocation plan in May, 1977. The Water Board indicated that the limitation of taps was necessary "in order to avert possible circumstances which would pose a hazard to the health and welfare of Denver customers and the fire protection capabilities of the system." The droughts of 1976 and 1977 had serious adverse effects on the raw water supply of the Denver Water Board and also on the Water Board's potable water supply. By Spring of 1977, the South Park watershed supply was approximately 37% of normal, the Frasier supply was 58% of normal, the Williams Fork supply was 34% of normal, the Blue River supply was 56% of normal, for an overall average of only 45-50% of normal. By Spring of 1977, the potential Denver Water Board's storage capacity of roughly 500,000 acre-feet had been reduced to 380,000 acre-feet and was anticipated to be drawn down further as the summer of 1977 progressed.
Delays in the approval of the Foothills Water Treatment Plant and the lack of the system's treatment capacity also prompted the Denver Water Board to initiate the water tap allocation program.
The water tap allocation procedure started in June of 1977. At that time, it was determined that there would be approximately 26,000 equivalent 3/4 inch water taps available for distribution by the Denver Water Board over the next five year period. That resulted in a total of 5,200 taps available for distribution per year.
The total allocation of 5,200 net equivalent 3/4 inch treated water taps to be allocated each year by the Denver Water Board was then reduced by the estimated amount of water taps required by the City and County of
-16-


Denver. The Denver Water Board has a charter obligation to accommodate all new customers within the City and County of Denver. For that reason the availability of new treated water taps for areas outside the city of Denver, yet within the Denver Water Board service area, was reduced by the amount of anticipated taps Denver would be using.
The water taps which would be available for the suburbs were allocated between DWB participation entities and other water service contractors based upon the ratio of their respective historical growth over the 16 month period from January 1, 1976 to May 1, 1977. Allocations are now determined on the ratio of growth from the 16 month period before the allocations started along with the time thereafter up to the present.
Participation entities are those water users who have a special agreement with the Water Board for future service. These districts have paid for part of facility development such as a major conduit or a pump station to provide service in the future. Other water service contractors are grouped into two categories. One of those categories includes those whose past development activity and undeveloped acreage entitle them to two or more taps per quarter. The other category is made up of small districts or water users whose monthly allocation is one tap or less.
The suballocation of taps among the various water users in different contract groups is based upon not only the historic growth, but also the growth potential for that district. This percentage for allocation is the average of:
a) a percentage derived by dividing the historic system growth for that distributor (water service district) for the past 5 calendar years by the total historic system growth for the same period for all distributors within that water service group,
b) a percentage derived by dividing the undeveloped acreage within the distributor service area by the total undeveloped acreage within the service areas of all distributors within the appropriate water service group.
-17-


The raw water taps allowed to connect into the Denver water system during 1977 were limited to 70% of the historic average raw water system growth in each distributor service area over the past 4 calendar years as determined by Water Board staff.
Each quarterly allocation of water taps takes into account several factors. One is the number of taps expected from the yearly allocation of 5,200 taps. Also included are the estimated cutoffs which are those taps made available by demolition of buildings, and the carry-over of taps not used in the previous year. The new taps to be allocated, the estimated cutoffs and the taps not used from the former year are all added together for a total amount of taps from which the allocations can be derived each quarter. From this figure, the expected growth of Denver is subtracted out and the allocations are made to the suburban water users in the Denver Water Board system.
Once the water taps are allocated and sold to developers, the water service cannot be transferred from one property to another, nor can allocated taps be sold, traded or conveyed by the water service user who received the allocation.
When the tap allocation procedure first went into effect, there were many complaints by developers who had initiated projects and were caught in the middle of the project without enough taps to finish it.
To deal with this problem, the Denver Water Board initiated two relief tap programs for developers severely affected by the tap allocation plan.
In July, 1977, the Water Board set forth a method to provide relief to builders who had already begun construction on their structures prior to May 20, 1977 when the water tap allocation plan was initiated. The Denver Water Board realized that severe financial losses would be realized by many builders if the buildings partially completed were not finished and furnished with water service. This relief program included the pro-
-18-


vision that the Denver Water Board would not increase its limitation of 5,200 net equivalent taps to be connected to the Denver water system during 1977. The total tap allocations during the last quarter of 1977 were adjusted as necessary to hold to the 5,200 net tap total after the required relief taps were distributed for houses already under construction. Since water service districts were not informed of the tap allocation program prior to the public announcement in May, 1977, the taps handed out in relief were not counted against their district allocation in 1977.
A relief program was also established for builders and developers who had made substantial financial commitments towards the development of homes prior to the actual construction of those homes. These projects had not progressed to the point of building construction, however, they reflected large investments of time and money in zoning, platting, grading and installing curbs, sewer mains and water mains. The relief program for these developments extended relief for 70% of the taps required over and above those already received from the normal allocation. The other 30% of the relief taps requested whose needs would not be met from the relief program, would have to be obtained over time from the normal quarterly tap allocations. The seventy percent of the relief taps obtained would not be charged to the distributor's normal allocation.
Because it was not possible to support a relief program and stay within the limitation of 5,200 net taps during 1977 and 1978, the plan of borrowing taps from future years was instituted. This plan indicated that taps in excess of 5,200 net taps during 1977 would be deducted from the total allocation for 1981. Taps in excess of the allocation for 1978 would be deducted from the total allocation for 1980 and taps for relief in 1979 would be deducted from that year's allocation.
-19-


It is important to emphasize that the relief taps were taken out of the total allocations for the Denver Water Board service area. That is to say, that if Lakewood needed a certain number of relief taps, those taps would not come out of only Lakewood's allocation; they would come out of the total allocations for the Denver Water Board's service area for the year from which the relief taps were borrowed.
In addition to the relief taps, some extra taps are given for hardship cases. An example of this might be a patient on a dialysis unit that needed extra water into a home that was located in a municipality that had already received its full tap allocation.
The Denver Water Board also has a system to deal with "rollover
)
taps". These are taps that once allocated, if not used within a one year period, must be returned to the Water Board and in essence "dumped into the pot" to be distributed again with the other water taps. In January of 1979, the rollover taps were given to the service contract districts that had used 90% or more of their normal allocation from the previous quarter. This process has continued to date. The purpose of the one year limit on the taps was so that the developers would not accumulate the taps and hoard them. The developer has exactly one year to activate the tap from the time it is purchased.
The communities in the Denver Region that have used more than 90% of their allocations and which are eligible to receive extra allocations of these rollover taps are Lakewood, Littleton, Broomfield, Wheat Ridge, and the districts in unincorporated Arapahoe and Jefferson Counties.
There are several key points to remember when considering the Denver Water Board water tap allocation process. The first is that the allocation process does not apply to the City and County of Denver. The Denver Water Board's first responsibility is to the citizens of Denver and
-20-


consequently all requests for taps within the city of Denver will be granted favorably. The estimate of the amount of taps needed per quarter to be used in the allocation process is prepared by the staff of the Denver Water Board based on historical use.
Another important point to remember is that the Denver Water Board will extend water service to unserved areas of the DWB service area if the developer will pay extra costs for the extension of the water system beyond areas where the Water Board had planned to serve.
In other words, it is a "pay as you go" situation. If the developer is willing to participate in the funding of the service extension, the Water Board may be willing to extend their service. The Water Board evaluates these requests on several criteria including the amount of water involved, the economic feasibility of the proposed service extension and how that water line extension fits into the overall design of the water distribution system in the surrounding area. This policy of funding participation for service extension applies to all municipalities within the Denver Water Board service area and not exclusively to development within the city limits of Denver.
In May of 1977 when the Water Board established the tap allocation plan, they also instituted a lawn watering restriction program. The lawn watering restrictions began June 1st, 1977 and have continued throughout the summer months to the present time. In the summer of 1977, residents were only allowed to water their lawns every third day for a total period of 3 hours. In the summer of 1978 and 1979 lawn watering could occur only every third day at each residence, but the three hour limit to watering was lifted.
The Denver Water Board tap allocation program was altered starting with the second half of 1979. At its June 20, 1979 meeting, the Denver
-21-


Water Board voted to increase the annual limit of new water taps from 5,200 to 7,000 per year. The Denver Water Board increased the amount of taps available per year for several reasons. The major reason is because of the additional water which is available due to the success of the Water Board's tap restriction program and conservation programs.
In addition, the non-drought conditions of the past few years have also lent a more optimistic view of the total water supply available. The "go-ahead" for the Foothills Water Treatment Complex also played a part in the decision to increase the yearly tap allocation limit.
It does not appear as if this increase in the number of taps available for allocation per year will result in a significant change in the amount of new development that can occur in the Denver Water Board service area when compared to the growth that has occurred during the two years in which the DWB tap allocation plan has been in effect.
As indicated earlier, the relief tap program has borrowed into the tap allocation limit for 1980 and 1981. Approximately 1,400 relief taps have been borrowed from the 1980 allocation. When these 1,400 taps are subtracted from the new allocation of 7,000 taps per year, the result will be an annual availability of 5,600 taps for 1980 as compared to 5,200 for 1978.
Another slight modification to the DWB tap allocation program was established on August 8, 1979. That change was retroactive to July 1, 1979 and exempts government agencies and low-income housing projects from the Water Board's tap allocation program through 1981.
City of Golden
The City of Golden adopted, in April 1975, an ordinance establishing the rationing of water permits. Their program is based upon the EQR (Equivalent Residence) System. Basically, one water tap for a single
-22-


family residence is equal to one EQR. EQR's for other buildings are assigned based on the size of the building and the use of the facility. Golden's rationing system allocates 46.8 EQR units per quarter of the year. This quarterly allowance is allocated to different land use categories. The quarterly EQR allowance for different land uses are included in the Appendix.
An EQR is issued only after a building permit has been issued.
This is in contrast to other communities who will sell a water tap prior to the issuance of a building permit. In the past, the number of EQR's available per quarter in Golden has been greater than the number of building permits issued. This is due to the fact that excess EQR's accumulate over time and those not used in one quarter will then become available for the next quarter. The new procedure, which issues an EQR tap only after issuance of a building permit, assures that the water tap (EQR that has been issued) will be for a specific location for a specific time period.
City of Broomfield
Presently, residents in the City of Broomfield receive water service from one of two service providers the Denver Water Board or the City of Broomfield. The Denver Water Board portion of the water service provided in Broomfield covers approximately 75% of the city limits and 25% of the City is covered by Broomfield's own water system. The area served by Denver water is under the Denver Water Board Tap Allocation Program established in May, 1977. The area served by the Broomfield system is under the City's tap allocation program established in February, 1979.
The Broomfield City Council adopted Ordinance 341 in February of 1979, establishing a policy for new water taps and connections to the city's water system during the period of January 1, 1979 through December 31,
-23-


1979. The Broomfield ordinance was adopted because the city's public works department determined that the Broomfield water system had the capability of servicing not more than 3,750 net equivalent 3/4 inch taps, the vast majority of which were presently connected to the system.
The ordinance relates to allocation of water taps in both the area served by the DWB and the areas served by the Broomfield system. Within the area served by the DWB, the number of available water taps is established on a quarterly basis by the allocations of the Denver Water Board.
Broomfield distributes these taps among different uses in the city as follows:
a. 80% of the 3/4 inch net equivalent taps are for new residential units,
b. 10% of the 3/4 inch net equivalent taps are reserved for new commercial and industrial uses,
c. 10% of the 3/4 inch net equivalent taps are reserved for public use to include parks, schools or other public buildings or uses.
The water tap allocation policy for the area served by the Broomfield system is as follows:
a. Not more than a total of thirty 3/4 inch net equivalent taps shall be used each quarter for new residential units,
b. Ten 3/4 inch net equivalent taps are reserved for new commercial and industrial uses and/or for public uses during each quarter.
City of Brighton
Brighton does not have a limitation on water taps, however, it does have a limitation on sewer connections. This sewer connection limitation has the same basic affect on managing growth as would a water tap allocation plan. Brighton has plenty of water and they will have a new sewage plant on line in about 5 years. In March 1978, Brighton determined that there would be about 1,000 hookups into the sewage system
-24-


remaining before it reached capacity. That allowed only 200 connections per year until the new plant would be operational in 1983 or 1984. The limit of 200 hookups per year has not yet been a limiting factor on growth in Brighton.
City of Westminster
In 1977, demand on Westminster's water system was so great that there was concern about the long-term supply of water to the Westminster system. A limit to the number of new connections to the system was instituted for the remainder of the year. On December 12, 1977, the Westminster City Council adopted Ordinance No. 1031, which established a building permit allocation program for the period January 1, 1978 through June 30, 1980 (2h years). Under this Ordinance, 2900 available single family (s.f.) "tap equivalents" were divided into a primary base allocation of 2,300 tap equivalents and a special base allocation of 600 tap equivalents. The primary base allocation was for the full 2% year period until July 1980. The special base allocation included 600 taps which would be available for any use other than single family residential. These taps would be to encourage commercial, townhouse, multifamily residential, etc. land uses in Westminster. "Tap equivalents" in Westminster are defined as follows:
Single family detached and mobile homes 1.0 single family tap equivalent
Single family attached .8 single family tap equivalent Apartment units .5 single family tap equivalent Taps were allocated on a priority level system of I to VI which was developed by City Staff. The primary base allocations were issued only under the first priority.
-25-


Special base allocations were issued under priorities II through VI. Developments competing for special base allocations could be assigned to two or more priority levels, and were ranked according to a list of standards contained in the adopting ordinance. Developers were not allowed to carry over into each year-long phase more than 25% of their allocated tap equivalents. Additional special base allocations are made in Westminster when extra water taps become available from taps that were committed but not used.
The Westminster ordinance also requires mandatory in-house water conservation through the use of water-saving toilets, water-saving shower heads, faucet aerators, thermal insulation on hot water piping and shower cut-off valves.
-26-


Analysis of Percentage of Regions Residential Building Permits
In order to determine any change in the distribution of residential growth in the Denver region, an analysis of each community's percentage capture of the total region's residential building permits was undertaken. Each community's percent of total new regional residential development was calculated for the years 1973 through the 3rd quarter of 1979.
The percentage capture of growth for each community was compared from the period of 1973 to 1976, which was prior to the establishment of the DWB Water Tap Allocation Program to the period of 1977 to 1979 after the tap allocation program was in effect.
The summary results of that analysis are shown in Table 2 and Figure 3. Table 2 shows the percentage of the region's building permits captured by individual communities in the Denver Region from 1973 through the 3rd quarter of 1979. Figure 3 graphically shows the changes in building permit capture for the larger, growing communities in the Denver Region.
Aurora showed the greatest change with a significant increase in its capture of residential building permits. Aurora had been capturing about 15% of the region's residential growth prior to the establishment of the DWB water tap allocation plan. However, in the post-tap allocation plan period, Aurora has captured from 19-26% of the region's growth a very substantial increase.
The City of Denver's pattern of growth has been somewhat erratic from 1973 to 1979. In 1973 it was capturing 17% of the region's growth but it took a large dip down to 11% in 1975 and 1976, and down to 10.5% in 1977. By 1978, when other communities were under tap allocations,
Denver increased to capturing 18% of the region's growth. In 1979, it
-28-


TABLE 2
PERCENTAGE OF REGIONS RESIDENTIAL BUILDING PERMITS
Prior to DWB Allocation DWB Allocation Program
1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 197 91
Jurisdictions Totally Served by DWB
Littleton .4 1.2 1.1 .8 .8 1.4 1.6
Sheridan .2 NA .1 .1 0 0 .1
Wheat Ridge .8 .5 .4 .4 .5 .1 .5
Jurisdictions Primarily Served by DWB
Arapahoe County Uninc. 7.4 8.8 13.2 13.3 13.5 12.0 9.4
Broomfield 1.3 1.5 3.1 1.4 2.3 1.0 1.7* *
Cherry Hills Village .1 .3 , .4 .2 .2 .1 .2
Greenwood Village .1 .5 .8 .9 .7 .3 .2
Jefferson County Uninc. 6.7 13.0 17.1 17.1 14.2 12.2 11.1
Lakewood 8.0 6.4 3.7 2.7 4.6 4.6 5.8
Jurisdictions with Their Own Tap Allocation Plan
Brighton .7 .5 .5 1.0 .5 .5* 1.0*
Broomfield 1.3 1.5 3.1 1.4 2.3 1.0 1.7*
Golden 2.4 .1 .4* .2* .1* .2* .5*
Westminster 7.3 8.7 6.1 8.1 7.2 7.0* 7.3*
Jurisdictions Under No Tap Allocations
Adams County Uninc. 3.9 2.9 1.5 1.0 .8 1.0 2.0
Arvada 9.3 5.6 6.2 6.4 5.9 3.7 3.2
Aurora 16.3 15.7 13.8 14.6 19.4 22.4 25.7
Boulder 2.9 4.4 2.9 4.6 4.9 2.8 2.8
Boulder County Uninc. 4.8 2.5 1.2 3.4 2.7 2.2 1.8
Commerce City .1 .1 .1 .1 .1 .1 .7
Denver 17.4 15.9 11.7 11.4 10.5 18.0 14.8
Englewood .6 .6 .2 .9 .1 .3 .2
Lafayette NA .4 4.1 .9 1.1 1.1 1.7
Longmont 2.5 4.4 3.8 6.7 4.9 4.2 3.8
Louisville .3 2.0 2.1 1.1 .8 1.0 .9
Northglenn .2 .2 .5 .1 .3 .3 .3
Thornton 6.0 3.9 5.1 1.9 3.8 3.5 2.8
* Indicates years of local tap allocation programs
* Through September, 1979
-29-


27
26
25
24
23
22
21
20
19
18
17
16
15
14
13
12
11
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
FIGURE 3
PERCENTAGE OF REGION'S RESIDENTIAL GROWTH
Start of DWB Tap Allocation Plan


decreased somewhat to capturing 15% of the region's residential growth.
The analysis showed that Aurora and Denver (both under no tap allocations) captured 40% of the total region's residential building permits in 1978 and 1979 after the tap allocations went into effect, as compared to 1975 and 1976 before the tap allocations when they only captured 26% of the region's residential building permits. It should be noted that Denver's increase in building permits has not resulted in increased population. Denver has experienced declining household size which has offset increases in residential construction.
Both the unincorporated areas of Jefferson County and Arapahoe County decreased in the amount of the region's growth they captured from their high periods in 1975 and 1976, to 1978 and 1979 in the post-tap allocation period. Jefferson County decreased from having 17% of the region's growth in 1975 and 1976 to having 12% in 1978 and 11% in 1979. In Arapahoe County the decline was from 13% in 1975 and 1976 to 12% in 1978 and 9% in 1979.
Growth in other communities that were under the influence of tap allocation programs remained fairly stable. These included Broomfield, Westminster, Lakewood and Littleton. All of these communities may have had the potential for significant increases in growth had the tap allocation program not been in effect. Their growth level stayed basically the same as that prior to the time of the tap allocations.
The tap allocation plans did not have a consistent effect of redistributing growth to communities without tap allocation limits. Both Thornton and Arvada are not under tap allocations and both of those communities declined in the percentage of the region's residential building permits they captured prior to and after the initiation of the DWB tap allocation plan. From 1973 to 1976, Arvada captured an average of 6.9%
-31-


of the regions total residential building permits. The average for 1977, 1978 and first three quarters of 1979 was 4.3%. Thornton also captured a lesser average percent of the region's total residential building permits decreasing from 4.3% (average for 1973-1975) to 3.4% for 1977-1979.
Most of the smaller, more fully developed communities in the region remained relatively stable in terms of capture of the region's growth before and after tap allocation plans. Wheat Ridge, Greenwood Village, Cherry Hills Village, Sheridan, Golden, Northglenn, Commerce City,
Englewood and Brighton each captured 1% or less of the region's growth for the period 1973 to 1979.
Use of Water Taps
The communities that captured a small percentage of the region's growth before and after tap allocations showed no significant effect from the allocation program. Several of these communities did not use their full allocations and had to turn many unused taps back to the DWB. Sheridan turned almost all of their taps back in 1978 and the districts in Adams County only used about 20% of the total taps they were allocated and turned the rest back in to the DWB for redistribution to those districts who used 90% or more of their previous quarters' allocation.
Many of the other communities in the Denver Region used most of the taps that were allocated to them. Wheat Ridge and Greenwood Village used most of the taps they received. The districts in Arapahoe County, Jefferson County, and Lakewood used most of their allocated taps as well as a large amount of relief taps that they received. Littleton used all of the taps they were allocated, and in 1979 Broomfield did the same.
Table 3 shows the total taps allocated, relief taps, taps actually used and allocated taps not used for the jurisdictions primarily served
-32-


TABLE 3
DWB TAP ALLOCATION SUMMARY 1977-1978-1979*
Jurisdiction Taps Allocated Relief Taps Taps Used Allocated Taps Not Used
Arapahoe County
1977 686 278 1,247
1978 1,464 423 1,740 147
1979 834 153 930 57
Broomfield
1977 266 41 305
1978 502 5 214 293
1979 306 0 306 0
Cherry Hills Village
1977 25 17 38
1978 76 19 52 43
1979 30 11 28 13
Denver
1977 | 1,305 NA 1,165
1978 1,650 NA 1,797 **
1979 1,300 NA 1,786 **
Greenwood Village
1977 16 4 54
1978 40 8 41 7
1979 27 0 20 7
Jefferson County
1977 708 361 1,832
1978 1,563 851 2,010 404
1979 1,017 231 1,102 146
Lakewood
1977 147 58 464
1978 511 319 740 90
1979 316 70 350 36
Littleton
1977 113 28 144
1978 263 0 261 2
1979 118 0 116 2
Sheridan
1977 27 0 9
1978 65 0 9 56
1979 19 0 15 4
Wheat Ridge
1977 47 25 111
1978 184 22 186 20
1979 113 0 108 5
-33-


TABLE 3 (Cont'd)
DWB TAP ALLOCATION SUMMARY 1977-1978-1979* **
Taps Relief Taps Allocated Taps
Jurisdiction Allocated Taps Used Not Used
DWB Total Allocation
1977 5,508 657 5,633
1978 5,995 1,681 7,246 430
1979 4,407 475 4,967 **
Note: 1977 Taps Allocated and Relief Tap data did not include the first
4 months of the year Because 1977 was not a total year for alloca-
tions (allocations started in May), a total for "allocated taps not used" is not available.
* 1979 Data through September.
** The City and County of Denver can use as many taps as needed and sometimes they used more taps than originally allocated.


by the Denver Water Board since the start of the water tap allocation program.
Both the City of Littleton and the City of Broomfield have expressed concern that they need many more taps than they are being allocated. Littleton had requests from developers for 214 taps in the 3rd quarter of 1979 and they were only allocated 44 taps by the DWB. Littleton estimates that it needs 5,000 water taps over the next ten years according to developer demand. That would amount to a desired allocation of 125 taps per quarter which is almost triple their present average quarterly allocation.
In 1979, the demand for taps in Broomfield was well above the amount of taps allocated, and it appears that this trend will continue into the future. Preliminary tap requests for the first quarter of 1979 in the Denver Water Board service area were approximately 130 for which only 99 taps were allocated. In the area served by the Broomfield system, the requests for taps in the first quarter were 70, whereas only 40 were allocated. In the second quarter of 1979, there were requests for approximately 280 taps in the area served by the DWB of which only 91 were allocated and requests for approximately 130 taps in the area served by the Broomfield system of which only 40 were allocated. Requests for taps in the area served by the DWB were 280 in the 3rd quarter and 289 in the 4th quarter of which 116 and 140 respectively were allocated. In the Broomfield service area, taps requested were 125 for the 3rd quarter and 130 for the 4th quarter. Only 40 taps were allocated to the Broomfield service area for each of these quarters.
Water Tap Costs
Many factors other than water tap allocation programs affect the location and distribution of future growth in the Denver region. The cost
-35-


of water taps and sewer tap connections vary significantly throughout the metropolitan area. In some places, the combination of these two items is less than $2,000 and in other municipalities the cost for these same two services is over $4,000.
A brief survey of various municipalities and water service providers in the Denver region showed significant variations in fees for water taps and connections into the sewage system. The lower costs discovered were $1,000 for a water tap in the Willows Water District which covers a small portion of Arapahoe County. The DWB charges $1,700 for a water tap in the City and County of Denver and $2,350 for a tap within their service area yet outside Denver's city limits. Charge for a connection to sewer
i
service is $75 in the City of Denver. In Golden the charges are $1,500 for a water tap and $600 for a sewage connection per single family residence.
Costs for water and sewer service in the other suburban areas are substantially higher. In Aurora, the charge for a water meter and tap is $2,275 and connection to sewer is $510 for a fee of approximately $2,800 for both services. In Arvada, the charge for water meter and tap is $2,375 inside the city limits and $3,515 in the service area outside of Arvada's city limits. Connection to sewer costs from $100 to $200. Total costs for both services are then $2,500 $2,600 in the city limits and $3,600 $3,700 outside of the city.
Westminster charges $2,095 for a water tap and $1,255 for sewer service resulting in a total cost of $3,350 for both services per single family dwelling unit. Thornton's cost of $4,200 for both services was the highest cost discovered. The varying costs among communities for water taps and connections to sewer service may have a significant effect on where and why growth is occuring in certain areas of the region.
-36-


Perceptions of Major Developers in the Region
The perceptions of major developers in the Denver region support the premise that the tap allocations' effect on the availability of water taps in certain areas has had a very important role in affecting decisions relating to location of future large residential developments. Interviews with representatives of U.S. Homes Witkin and Wood Brothers Homes substantiated the significant effect that availability of adequate water has in affecting development location decisions. Mr. Charles Todd,
Division Vice President of U.S. Homes Witkin stated that the availability of a large parcel of land at a good price used to be the major consideration for land development projects, but that now the availability of water
taps and sewer service is the first consideration in project site selection.
Some developers have indicated that they have steered away from pro-
jects in Lakewood or Littleton because of uncertainty about obtaining water taps without long waiting periods. U.S. Homes Witkin indicated that they "pulled out of Westminster when they started their allocation plan".
These developers now have most of their projects in the southeast portion of the metropolitan area. Wood Brothers said that they steered future development toward Aurora, Arvada and Thornton because of the adequate available water supply.
The developers also were well aware of an existing market preference for the southeast metro area. When queried why this attraction to the southeast, the developers responded (Chris Dreher, Wood Brothers), "Southeast is certainly THE place to live. There is a hell of a lot more happening out there as far as restaurants and entertainment and the Cherry Creek Schools are noted as a better school system".
Developers are also very cognizant of the differences in costs of land in different parts of the region as well as varying costs for water
-37-


and sewer service. These factors, as well as stringency of local development regulations are also affecting locational decisions for large developers. Mr. Todd of U.S. Homes Witkin indicated that the cost of water taps was keeping them from developing in Thornton. He felt that Thornton was trying to "upgrade their city overnight" by having stiff regulations and making sure that the "developer pays his way".
In general, the land prices are higher in Aurora than Thornton but their water and sewer service fees vary by almost $1,400 with a combination sewer/water charge of $2,800 per home in Aurora, contrasted to $4,200 in Thornton. Because of Thornton's high service costs and the appeal of the southeast, more development is occuring in the southeast even though water is available in both areas.
U.S. Homes Witkin is now building all its high cost housing ($100,000+) in the southeast and southwest portions of the metro area. They will generally put the lower priced homes anywhere in the region depending upon service availability, zoning, land prices and land availability. Wood Brothers likes to have projects going in all quadrants of the region.
Both developers expressed a concern with land availability in the Denver Region indicating that there is a major problem in finding available land that has not already been purchased. Land purchasing patterns have changed significantly. The time of the large land purchase (over 640 acres) for a development is quickly slipping away. Mr. Todd of U.S. Homes -Witkin feels that large tracts of single family homes will be difficult to find in the marketplace by 1985 and that more emphasis will have to be put on smaller parcel "infill" development.
-38-


The water tap allocation programs in the Denver region have had a significant impact on the distribution of residential growth within the Region. However, that effect has not been consistent in all communities. That is to say that not all the communities under tap allocations decreased in the percentage of the region's growth that they captured, while all those not affected by tap allocations increased significantly in the percentage of the region's growth that they captured when compared to the time prior to the establishment of tap allocation plans.
However, several conclusions can be drawn from an analysis of the data. The study showed that certain portions of the metropolitan area, namely Denver and Aurora, which were not under tap allocations experienced a significant increase in the percentage captures of the metropolitan growth (residential building permits) of the region. Aurora specifically had captured approximately 15% of the region's growth prior to the establishment of the tap allocation plan. In the post tap allocation plan period Aurora has captured from 19-26%, a very significant increase. The percentage of growth that Denver captured varied from 11 to 17% from 1973 to 1976. In 1977 Denver captured 10.5% of the region's residential building permits and increased to 18% of the region's growth by 1978.
Both Jefferson County and Arapahoe County who are under tap allocations, decreased in their amount of the region's growth. In 1975 and 1976 those two counties combined accounted for about 30% of the region's growth. In 1979, those two counties together only captured 20% of the region's growth.
-40-


Growth in other communities that were under the influence of tap allocation programs remained fairly stable. These included Broomfield, Westminster, Lakewood, and Littleton. All of these communities may have had the potential for significant increases in growth had the tap allocation program not been in effect. Their growth level stayed basically the same as that prior to the time of the tap allocations.
The tap allocation plans did not have a consistent effect of redistributing growth to communities without tap allocation limits. Both Thornton and Arvada are not under tap allocations and both of those communities actually declined in the percentage of the regions residential building permits they captured prior to and after the initiation of the DWB tap allocation plan.
Most of the smaller more fully developed communities in the region remained relatively stable in terms of percentage capture of the region's growth before and after tap allocation plans. Wheat Ridge, Greenwood Village, Cherry Hills Village, Sheridan, Golden, Northglenn, Commerce City, Englewood and Brighton each captured 1% or less of the region's growth each year for the period 1973-1979.
These communities that captured a small percentage of the region's growth before and after tap allocations showed no significant effect from the tap allocations. Several of those communities did not use their full allocations and had to turn many unused taps back to the DWB.
Many factors other than water tap allocation programs affect the location and distribution of future growth in the Denver region. The cost of water taps and sewer tap connections vary significantly throughout the metropolitan area. In some places, the combination of these two items is approximately $2,000 and in other municipalities the cost for these
-41-


same two services is more than twice that figure. The various costs for such hookups can and do effect where and why growth is occurring in certain portions of the region. The costs of the raw land for development and the amount of available vacant land also affect the location and distribution of future growth.
People's attitudes about the desirability of various locations in the Denver region have a strong effect on the location of future growth. Certain portions of the region are perceived to be more desirable to live in than others and consequently more growth appears to be occurring in areas which are perceived to have a more desirable living environment.
The magnitude of a jurisdictionsdevelopment regulations and the processing required for developing a project also affect a developer's decision on where future large developments will be located in the region.
The tap allocation program does not work alone in guiding the spatial distribution of the region's growth. Factors such as those mentioned above including the cost and availability of developable land, the cost of sewer and water taps, the various local regulations and procedures guiding the development process and the perceived desirability of various areas for living environments throughout the region all affect the location of future development within the Denver Region.
This study, now concluded, has evaluated how the corset theory, applied in the form of water tap allocation programs, has affected the distribution of growth in the Denver Region. The corset has had an effect. Communities most squeezed in under the corset are Lakewood, Littleton, Westminster and unincorporated portions of Arapahoe and Jefferson Counties. The biggest bulges, protruding out from under the corset, are Denver and Aurora.
-42-


Bibliography
Metropolitan Denver "Home Builder" Magazine, by Homebuilders Association, 1973 1979
Denver Water Board,"Tap Allocation Plan for 1977" May 1977
Denver Water Board, Quarterly Net 3/4-Inch Equivalent Treated Water
Tap Allocations; Summary Sheets of Water Taps Used; 3rd Quarter 1977 through 4th Quarter 1979
Denver Water Board, "Method of Providing Relief to Builders Who Had
Begun Construction On Structures Prior to May 20, 1977" July 13,1977
Denver Water Board, "Method of Providing Relief to Developers, Builders, and Individuals Who Had Made Substantial Financial Commitments Toward Development, Short of Starting Construction of Structures On or Before May 20, 1977", August 24, 1977
Denver Water Board, "Summary of Relief Taps Requested and Certified", October 12, 1977
Denver Board of Water Commissioners, List of Total Service Contracts,
August 28, 1978; List of Distributor's Contracts Master Meter and Read and Bill, August 28, 1978
City of Broomfield Ordinance No. 341 ---- An Ordinance Establishing
A Policy for New Water Taps and Connections to the City's Water System During the Period of January 1, 1979 Through December 31, 1979, Adopted February 13, 1979
City of Golden Ordinance No. 735 An Ordinance Declaring A Temporary Rationing of Water Permits by the City of Golden and Establishing A Priority System for the Administration Thereof, April 24, 1975
City of Golden Ordinance No. 724 An Ordinance Amending Title 13 of the Golden Revised Ordinances of 1965 Concerning Water and Sewers and Repealing Ordinances in Conflict Therewith, April 24, 1975
City of Golden Ordinance No. 791 An Ordinance Amending the Water
and Sewer Permit Fee Schedules for the City of Golden, April 13, 1978
City of Westminster Ordinance No. 1031 An Ordinance Establishing
A Building Permit Allocation Program for the Period January 1, 1978 Through June 30, 1980, December 12, 1977
City of Westminster, City Code Book, Chapter 2, Allocation of Building Permits, 1977
City of Westminster, City Code Book, Chapter 3, Allocation of Building Permits, January 1, 1978 Through June 30, 1980
-43-


PEOPLE WHO PROVIDED INFORMATION FOR USE IN THIS STUDY
Jurisdiction Information Source
Arvada Gary Hammond, Planning Department
Aurora Nicki Stoner, Planning Department
Boulder Jody Fitzgerald, Engineering Department
Brighton Rob Walsh, Planning Department
Broomfield Dan Fischer, Planning Department Dave Shelley, Planning Department
Denver Allen Burns, Denver Water Board Rocky Wiley, Denver Water Board Carmine Iadarola, Denver Water Board
Englewood Rich Wanush, Community Development Dept
Glendale Herb Moore, Department of Public Works
Golden Vic Seiferth, Engineering Department Chuck Hearn, Planning Department
Lafayette Leslie Freeman, Planning Department
Longmont Sondra Kluger, Planning Department
Louisville Mike Randall, Planning Department
Northglenn Wayne Ethridge, Planning Department
Thornton Duane Tinsley, Planning Department
Westminster Water Districts Bill Reeds, Planning Department Roger Walker, Engineering Department
Consolidated Mutual Water Company Mrs. Clements
Crest View Water and Sanitation District Keith Boyce
North Table Mountain Water District Helen Mitchell
South Adams County Water and Sanitation District Lucille Vanderlinden
-44-


Developers Information Source
U.S. Homes Witkin Charles Todd, Division Vice-President
Wood Brothers Homes Chris Dreher, Marketing Director
-45-


APPENDIX
SUMMARY OF BUILDING PERMIT AND WATER TAP ALLOCATION DATA BY JURISDICTION
This appendix includes a summary of building permit and water tap allocation data by community.
For those communities that are under the DWB Tap Allocation Program, the following data is included:
1. Number of taps allocated Number of relief taps Number of taps used
2. Number of residential building permits issued
3. Percent of regions residential growth captured
4. A listing of all DWB service districts that provide water service to that particular jurisdiction
For those communities that have their own tap allocation plans, the appendix includes a description of their tap allocation plan along with data on building permits and actual tap allocations.
For those communities that are not under the DWB Tap Allocation Program, only the building permit data is included.


JURISDICTIONS TOTALLY SERVED BY THE DWB


Edgewater
Year WATER TAPS RESIDENTIAL BUILDING PERMITS
Normal Allocation Relief Taps Taps Used Building Permits Issued (# of Units) % of Regions Residential Growth
1973 8 57 .2
1974 0 0
1975 1 0
1976 2 97 .7
1977 2 8 0
Jan Mar '78 1 0 1 0 0
Apr June '78 1 0 1 0 0
July Sept '78 0 0 0 0 0
Oct Dec '78 0 0 0 0 0
1978 Total 2 0 2 0 0
Jan Mar 79 0 0 0 0 0
Apr June 79 0 0 0 0 0
July Sept '79 1 0 1 2 0
Oct Dec '79
DWB Service Districts in Edgewater
City of Edgewater
-49-


Littleton
Year WATER TAPS RESIDENTIAL BUILDING PERMITS
Normal Allocation Relief Taps Taps Used Building Permits Issued (# of Units) % of Region's Residential Growth
1973 782 117 .4
1974 -51* 132 1.2
1975 119 104 1.1
1976 93 111 .8
1977 144 174 .8
Jan Mar '78 53 0 51 229 3.5
Apr June '78 62 0 62 39 .6
July Sept '78 66 0 66 64 .9
Oct Dec '78 82 0 82 52 .8
1978 Total 263 0 261 384 1.4
Jan Mar '79 39 0 38 71 1.4
Apr June '79 35 0 34 101 1.7
July Sept '79 44 0 44 92 1.6
Oct Dec '79 55
* In 1974, there were more housing demolitions where taps were returned than new taps used, resulting in a net deficit.
DWB Service Districts in Littleton City of Littleton
-50-


Sheridan
Year WATER TAPS RESIDENTIAL BUILDING PERMITS
Normal Allocation Relief Taps Taps Used Building Permits Issued (# of units) % of Region's Residential Growth
1973 226 51 .2
1974 29
1975 11 11 .1
1976 8 16 .1
1977 9 1 0
Jan Mar '78 13 0 1 0 0
Apr June '78 15 0 0 3 0
July Sept '78 16 0 4 3 0
Oct Dec '78 21 0 4 1 0
1978 Total 65 0 9 7 0
Jan Mar '79 5 0 5 1 0
Apr June '79 7 0 5 16 .3
July Sept '79 7 0 5 3 .1
Oct Dec '79 8 0
DWB Service Districts in Sheridan
City of Sheridan
Loos, Greenblatt and Newman
-51-


Wheat Ridge
Year WATER TAPS RESIDENTIAL BUILDING PERMITS
Normal Allocation Relief Taps Taps Used Building Permits Issued (# of units) % of Region's Residential Growth
1973 237 211 .8
1974 147 59 .5
1975 101 36 .4
1976 94 50 .4
1977 111 110 .5
Jan Mar '78 37 14 45 2 0
Apr June '78 43 0 42 8 .1
July Sept '78 47 8 49 7 .1
Oct Dec '78 57 0 50 0 0
1978 Total 184 22 186 17 .1
Jan Mar '79 36 0 34 5 .1
Apr June '79 33 0 32 59 1.0
July Sept '79 44 0 42 15 .3
Oct Dec '79 50
DWB Service Districts in Wheat Ridge
Mary Lou Water District East Wheat Ridge Association Northridge Metropolitan District Frank Lancaster J. L. Whitchurch Columbia Gardens
Stebbins Subdivision Water Line Company
Wheat Ridge Water District
Wellman's Subdivision
John W. Minshall
James Qualteri
Warner Brothers
Roxy Vendena
Andes Street Water Association South East Wheat Ridge Water Association Consolidated Mutual Water Company Valley Water District
-52-


JURISDICTIONS PRIMARILY SERVED BY THE DWB


Arapahoe County Unincorporated Area
A major portion of the rapidly urbanizing area of Arapahoe County is served by water districts under contract to the Denver Water Board. One area, however, which is located generally south of Arapahoe Road and between Colorado Blvd. and Quebec Street is served by the Willows Water District which does not receive water service through the Denver Water Board.
The Willows Water District has no tap allocation program. They provide water taps to developers as requested for a tap fee of $1,000 per 3/4" equivalent.
Year WATER TAPS RESIDENTIAL BUILDING PERMITS
Normal Allocation Relief Taps Taps Used Building Permits Issued (it of units) % of Region's Residential Growth
1973 3,414 2,071 7.4
1974 859 991 8.8
1975 883 1,195 13.2
1976 1,322 1,869 13.3
1977 1,247 3,067 13.5
Jan Mar 78 298 173 448 1,220 18.6
Apr June '78 343 174 491 812 11.8
July Sept 78 366 37 365 605 8.3
Oct Dec '78 457 39 436 585 9.6
1978 Total 1,464 423 1,740 3,222 12.0
Jan Mar '79 246 44 285 447 8.7
Apr June '79 269 74 328 522 9.0
July Sept '79 319 35 317 609 10.4
Oct Dec '79 381 5
-54-


ARAPAHOE COUNTY UNINCORPORATED AREA (Cont'd)
DWB Service Districts in Arapahoe County
Columbine Water and Sanitation District Southwest Metropolitan Water and Sanitation District Bow Mar Water and Sanitation District Darrell W. Blair
Loretto Heights Re Sub Water Association
Temple Rest Home
Pavlakis and Company
Rocky Mountain Prestress, Inc.
Cherry Hills Heights Water District
Cherry Creek Valley Water and Sanitation District
Holly Hills Water and Sanitation District
Hi-Lin Water and Sanitation District
East Warren Water Association
Panorama Park Water Association
Cross of Glory Water Association
Cherry Creek Village Water District
Southgate Water District
Southeast Englewood Water District
Brookridge Heights Water District
Castlewood Water District
Havana Water and Sanitation District
Sable Water District
-55-


Cherry Hills Village
Year WATER TAPS RESIDENTIAL BUILDING PERMITS
Normal Allocation Relief Taps Taps Used Building Permits Issued (# of units) % of Region's Residential Growth
1973 166 22 .1
1974 82 34 .3
1975 42 39 .4
1976 51 35 .2
1977 38 42 .2
Jan Mar '78 16 0 8 9 .1
Apr June '78 17 7 13 12 .2
July Sept '78 20 6 18 6 .1
Oct Dec '78 23 6 13 8 .1
1978 Total 76 19 52 35 .1
Jan Mar '79 12 6 14 11 .2
Apr June '79 9 4 9 7 .1
July Sept '79 9 1 5 9 .2
Oct Dec '79 7
DWB Service Districts in Cherry Hills Village
Cherry Hills Park Water Company
Edgar E. Warren
Robert P. Martin
Country Homes Land Company
East Cherry Hills Water Users Association
Southwest Cherry Hills Water District
Cherrymoor South Water and Sanitation District
Cherry Hills Farms Metropolitan Water District
Devonshire Heights Water and Sanitation District
First Plymouth Congregational Church
South University Place Water Association
Village Heights Additional Water District
Tamarac Water and Sanitation District
East Belleview Water and Sanitation District
Cherry Hills North Water and Sanitation District
Mansfield Heights Water and Sanitation District
Hillcrest Water and Sanitation District
Highline Park, Inc.
Canitoe Water and Sanitation District Southgate Water District Cherry Hills Subdivision Water District Cherryridge Water and Sanitation District
-56-


Greenwood Village
Most of Greenwood Village is in the service area of the DWB. However, certain portions of the city (generally the central area) are served by private wells. These areas are basically served with one well for each residence.
Year WATER TAPS RESIDENTIAL BUILDING PERMITS
Normal Allocation Relief Taps Taps Used Building Permits Issued (# of units) % of Region's Residential Growth
1973 17 32 .1
1974 41 54 .5
1975 37 70 .8
1976 53 129 .9
1977 54 165 .7
Jan Mar '78 9 3 10 31 .5
Apr June '78 11 4 15 15 .2
July Sept '78 9 1 8 16 .2
Oct Dec '78 11 0 8 9 . 1
1978 Total 40 8 41 71 .3
Jan Mar '79 7 0 5 7 .1
Apr June '79 8 0 6 10 .2
July Sept '79 12 0 9 11 .2
Oct Dec '79 10
DWB Service Districts in Greenwood Village
Southeast Englewood Water District
Cherryville Heights Water District
South Clarkson Water and Sanitation District
Greenwood Hills Mutual Water Company
William A. Andreas
Southgate Water District
Cherry Creek Village Water District
Castlewood Water District
-57-


Jefferson County Unincorporated Area
The DWB presently has contracts with 21 water service providers in unincorporated Jefferson County. The areas served by these districts are under the DWB tap allocation program. One exception, however, is the North Table Mountain Water District, which serves the portion of Jefferson County west of Wheat Ridge and Arvada yet north of Golden. The North Table Mountain Water District receives only raw water from the Denver Water Board. Since the significant water problem in this region is perceived to be the lack of available treated water, North Table Mountain Water District is not under the DWB Tap Allocation program since they treat the raw water themselves. The North Table Mountain Water District is not annexing any more land into its boundary. The District does not operate any tap allocation program of their own design.
Year WATER TAPS RESIDENTIAL BUILDING PERMITS
Normal Allocation Relief Taps Taps Used Building Permits Issued (# of units) % of Region's Residential Growth
1973 1,718 1,888 6.7
1974 1,115 1,455 13.0
1975 1,186 1,548 17.1
1976 1,834 2,403 17.1
1977 1,832 3,233 14.2
Jan Mar '78 315 254 523 805 12.3
Apr June '78 368 269 534 933 13.5
July Sept '78 394 194 465 891 12.3
Oct Dec '78 486 134 488 658 10.8
1978 Total 1,563 851 2,010 3,287 12.2
Jan Mar '79 323 97 361 575 11.2
Apr June '79 298 68 341 611 10.6
July Sept '79 396 66 400 674 11.5
Oct Dec '79 466 73
-58-


JEFFERSON COUNTY UNINCORPORATED AREA (Cont'd)
DWB Service Districts in Jefferson County
Consolidated Mutual Water Company Markets, Inc.
Valley Water District
North Table Mountain Water and Sanitation District (raw water)
Green Mountain Park Water and Sanitation District
Northside Water and Sanitation District
Bear Creek Water and Sanitation District
Alameda Water and Sanitation District
Mrs. Ferae Kurtz
Fehlmann Sub Water Association
Colorado Academy
Lakehurst Water and Sanitation District Willowbrook Water and Sanitation District Ken Caryl Ranch Water and Sanitation District Platte Canyon Water and Sanitation District Meadow Water District Lloyd J. King
Southwest Metropolitan Water and Sanitation District State of Colorado, Division of Parks and Outdoor Recreation Town of Mountain View, Colorado City of Arvada (raw water)
-59-


Lakewood
Year WATER TAPS RESIDENTIAL BUILDING PERMITS
Normal Allocation Relief Taps Taps Used Building Permits Issued (// of units) % of Region's Residential Growth
1973 792 2,256 8.0
1974 803 723 6.4
1975 305 337 3.7
1976 403 373 2.7
1977 464 1,045 4.6
Jan Mar '78 100 67 160 113 1.7
Apr June '78 120 135 243 215 3.1
July Sept '78 126 34 124 598 8.2
Oct Dec '78 157 90 212 313 5.1
1978 Total 511 319 740 1,239 4.6
Jan Mar '79 106 49 145 407 7.9
Apr June '79 92 9 89 315 5.4
July Sept '79 118 12 116 252 4.3
Oct Dec '79 147
DWB Service Districts in Lakewood
Bennett Bear Creek Farm Water and Sanitation District
Lochmoor Water and Sanitation District
Green Mountain Park Water and Sanitation District
Consolidated Mutual Water Company
Rex M. Mosier
George M. Mitchell
G. L. Raughton
Miller Heights Water District Cedar Crest Water District
South Sheridan Water, Sanitary Sewer and Storm Drainage District
Alameda Water and Sanitation District
Kelton Heights Water District
Westland Water District
Bonvue Water and Sanitation District
P.J.L. Partnership
High View Water District
Northside Water and Sanitation District
Bear Creek Water and Sanitation District
Bancroft-Clover Water and Sanitation District
Lakewood Board of Water and Sewer Commissioners
-60-


JURISDICTIONS WITH THEIR OWN TAP ALLOCATION PLAN


Brighton
Brighton does not have a limitation on water taps, however, it does have a limitation on sewer connections. This sewer tap limitation has the same basic effect on managing growth as would a water tap allocation. Brighton has plenty of water and they will have a new sewage plant on line in about 5 years. In March 1978, Brighton determined that there would be about 1,000 hookups into the sewage system remaining before it reached capacity. That allowed only 200 connections per year until the new plant would be operational in 1983 or 1984. The limit of 200 hookups per year has not yet been a limiting factor on growth in Brighton.
WATER TAPS RESIDENTIAL BUILDING PERMITS
Year Taps Used Building Permits Issued (// of units) % of Region's Residential Growth
1973 187 183 .7
1974 65 57 .5
1975 52 42 .5
1976 149 135 1.0
1977 126 115 .5
Jan Mar '78 30 28 .4
Apr June '78 41 38 .6
July Sept '78 40 34 .5
Oct Dec '78 38 36 . 6
1978 Total 149 136 .5
Jan Mar '79 40 36 .7
Apr June '79 37 38 .7
July Sept '79 Oct Dec '79 97 94 1.6
-62-


Broomfield
Presently, residents in the City of Broomfield receive water service from one of two service providers the Denver Water Board or the City of Broomfield. The Denver Water Board portion of the water service provided in Broomfield covers approximately 75% of the city limits of Broomfield and 25% of the city is covered by Broomfield's own water system. The area served by Denver water is under the Denver Water Board Tap Allocation Program established in May, 1977. The area served by the Broomfield system is under the city's tap allocation program established in February, 1979.
The Broomfield City Council adopted Ordinance 341 in February of 1979, establishing a policy for new water taps and connections to the city's water system during the period of January 1, 1979 through December 31, 1979. The Broomfield ordinance was adopted because the city's public works department determined that the Broomfield water system had the capability of servicing not more than 3,750 net equivalent three-quarter inch taps, the vast majority of which were presently connected to the system. The ordinance relates to allocation of water taps in both the area served by the DWB and the areas served by the Broomfield system. Within the area served by the DWB, the number of available water taps is established on a quarterly basis by the allocations of the Denver Water Board. Broomfield distributes these taps among different uses in the city as follows:
a) 80% of the three-quarter inch net equivalent taps are for new residential units,
b) 10% of the three-quarter inch net equivalent taps are reserved for new commercial and industrial uses,
c) 10% of the three-quarter inch net equivalent taps are reserved for public use to include parks, schools, or other public buildings or uses.
The water tap allocation policy for the area served by the Broomfield system is as follows:
a) Not more than a total of 30 three-quarter inch net equivalent taps shall be used each quarter for new residential units,
b) 10 three-quarter inch taps are reserved for new commercial and industrial uses and/or for public uses during each quarter.
In addition, in the area served by the Broomfield system, the Broomfield City Council may allocate additional taps to an individual for use in that area if that individual conveys to the city for, or under, fair market value a raw water supply amenable to use and incorporation into the city's municipal water utility system.
The ordinance also includes an adopted procedure for allocation of the taps to residential categories. If the tap requests in a service area (either the Broomfield System service area or the Denver Water Board service area) exceeds
-63-


BROOMFIELD (Cont'd)
the total allocation available in that area in a given quarter, a portion of the available allocation shall be awarded to each individual development project according to established procedure. Priority for tap allocation will be given to all requests for taps for undeveloped single family residential lots in subdivisions for which a final plat was approved or recorded prior to 1970 and in which at least 90% of the prior lots have been improved by the building of residential dwelling units. Priority will also go to any requests for one single family residential tap for any unplatted parcel created prior to 1970 on which construction of a single family dwelling is allowed pursuant to the city code. After those priorities have been fulfilled, if adequate taps are available, a minimum of 10 three-quarter inch net equivalent taps shall be allowed to each eligible development in a priority one classification. However, in no instances would more taps be provided to a developer than initially requested by that development. If not enough taps are available to allow the minimum of 10 three-quarter inch net equivalent taps, a lesser minimum shall be established for that quarter by dividing the available net equivalent taps by the number of applicants with the quotient rounded down to the nearest whole number serving as a minimum for that quarter.
The three-quarter inch net equivalent taps which are available in excess of the minimum shall be allocated to priority one developments having outstanding requests on a percentage basis. That percentage will be determined by dividing the total acreage (commercial and industrial areas excluded) in the preliminary PUD plan or the preliminary plat of the individual competing development by the total acreage of all competing developments.
In order for anyone to obtain a water tap in Broomfield, they must first acquire a water license. No new water taps may be made to the city's water system unless a water service license has been approved and issued by the city's Public Works Department. After the water license is issued, it must be activated within 365 days. If it is not activated within that time, the water license is voided and the person no longer has access to that water tap.
Part of the Denver Water Board service area for their contract with the City of Broomfield is outside of the legal Broomfield city limits. Since the adoption of the tap allocation ordinance, Broomfield has indicated that they will not allocate any of the water taps to those portions of the Broomfield service area under Denver Water Board contract which are outside of the city's corporate boundaries. Such an allocation may be made, however, if approved by the Broomfield City Council. Presently, the undeveloped land included within the Denver Water Board service area contract to the City of Broomfield includes 35 percent in Adams County, 15% in the City of Westminster, 25% in the City of Broomfield and 25% in Boulder County. Since the start of the Denver Water Board Tap Allocation Program, the City of Broomfield has not provided any of the taps they have been allocated to areas that are not within the corporate boundaries of the City of Broomfield (but yet within Broomfield's contract service area).
Prior to the establishment of the Broomfield tap allocation plan in 1979, those areas within the area served by the Broomfield system were given as many taps as requested. At the present time, that area receives only 40 taps per quarter
-64-


BROOMFIELD (Cont'd)
which is not even one-third of the amount of taps requested each quarter.
The Broomfield system is small and there is a definite upper limit on the water which is available within the Broomfield system service area. The small size of the system is the reason for the more stringent tap restrictions in those areas served by the Broomfield system.
WATER TAPS RES. BUILDING PERMITS
Broom-
field
DWB Service Area System Broomfield Total
Taps Bldg. Permits % of
Taps Relief Taps Alloc. Taps Relief Taps Issued Region's
Year Alloc. Taps Used & Used Alloc. Taps Used (// of units) Growth
1973 379 1.3
1974 165 1.5
1975 367 367 277 3.1
1976 775 775 202 1.4
1977 266 41 305 252 518 41 557 518 2.3
Jan Mar '78 102 5 45 53 155 5 98 76 1.2
Apr June '78 118 0 10 26 144 0 36 97 1.4
July Sept 78 126 0 3 54 180 0 57 36 .5
Oct Dec '78 156 0 156 23 179 0 179 48 .8
1978 Total 502 5 214 156 658 5 370 257 1.0
Jan Mar '79 99 0 99 40 139 0 139 90 1.8
Apr June '79 91 0 91 40 131 0 131 124 2.1
July Sept '79 116 0 116 40 156 0 156 75 1.3
Oct Dec '79 140 40 180
-65-


Golden
Ordinance #735 of the Golden City Council declared a temporary rationing of water permits by the City of Golden and established a priority system for the administration of those permits. It was set forth in April 1975, because of concern about continued growth in the city and continued demand for new city water permits. The City developed the ordinance in order to keep the total potential demand for water within the City's legal supply. The City has found that there is insufficient water in their Beaver Brook system to supply water to the city and to continue to allow the issuance of water permits on the Beaver Brook system outside of the city limits.
Golden's water permit rationing program is based on the EQR (Equivalent Residence) System. Basically, one single family residence water tap is equal to one EQR. All other buildings such as commercial or industrial facilities are assigned an EQR number depending upon the size of the building and the use of the facility. Each building within the city limits of Golden is given an EQR rating. The current costs are $1,500 per EQR for water tap and $600 per EQR for sewer hook-up. Presently, only the distribution of water EQR's is rationed, and the sewer, although assigned an EQR, is not rationed.
The tap allocation program, as indicated above, is based on EQR's. Ordinance #735 sets forth a quarterly allowance of EQR units for different land use types. These are as follows:
Quarterly Allowance
Land Use _____(EQR Units)
Single family residences 15
Multi-family residential units 15
Transient rental units including hotels, motels
and tourist homes 5
Bars, restaurants and other food service
establishments 1.8
Service stations 1.0
Commercial buildings, including retail stores, office buildings, clinics, studios, repair
shops and other similar uses 3.0
Industrial buildings, including warehouses and buildings housing scientific research or the manufacture, compounding, assembling or treatment of products or other similar uses 3.0
Churches 1.0
Schools 2.0
A total of all these different EQR allocations results in a total allocation of 46.8 EQR units per quarter. EQR's not used in one quarter will carry on as surplus EQR's available in the same land use classification unit for future quarters. These surplus EQR's can be applied for and used at any successive quarter.
-66-


GOLDEN (Cont'd)
An EQR is issued only after a building permit has been issued. This is in contrast to other communities who will sell a water tap prior to the issuance of a building permit. In the past, the number of EQR's available per quarter in Golden has been greater than the number of building permits issued. This is due to the fact that excess EQR's accumulate over time and those not used in one quarter will then become available for the next quarter. The issuance of an EQR tap only after issuance of a building permit assures that the water tap (EQR that has been issued) will be for a specific location for a specific time period.
One of the reasons for the institution of the EQR system was that prior to 1975, there were problems in Golden due to the random sale of water taps. At that time, the tap was sold without a strict indication of the exact location where that tap would be used, or the exact dates when it would be used. Now that the water EQR is issued after the building permit, both the problems of when and where the water tap will be used have been eliminated.
The city's water regulations as set forth in Ordinance #724 refer to "blue line control". This means that the City of Golden has the right to limit water service to those areas whose elevation is not serviceable from Golden's distribution system or an extension of that system by reason of insufficient gravity head. "Blue line" elevation above which water service shall be considered inadequate is any elevation where the static water pressure is less than 35 pounds per square inch (psi).
Golden presently only supplies water to the area within its city limits with one exception, Pleasant View. All water furnished by the city is delivered through and measured through meters.
WATER TAPS (EQR's)* RESIDENTIAL BUILDING PERMITS
EQR's Allocated Surplus EQR's Available (cumulative) EQRs Used & Reserved Building Permits Issued (# of units) % of Region's Residential Growth
1973 679 2.4
1974 15 .1
1975 187.2 130.8 79.8 32 .4
1976 187.2 272.4 62.8 27 .2
1977 187.2 326.5 166.5 30 .1
1978 187.2 405.2 185.0 51 .2
1979** 93.6 387.5 111.3 51 .5
EQR = Equivalent Residence System Through June, 1979
-67-


Westminster
In 1977, Westminster's City Council determined that there was a substantial probability that the demand for new connections to the Westminster water system in 1977 would exceed both the amount of new water which could be acquired and made usable in 1977 or the amount of water presently available from all sources which could be safely used in 1977 without imperiling the long-range supply of water to the Westminster water system. Therefore, the City Council determined that the number of new connections to the water system had to be based upon the supply capacity which was 900 acre feet of water that could be put into new service during 1977. That allocation program lasted throughout the year of 1977.
On December 12, 1977, the Westminster City Council adopted Ordinance No. 1031, which established a building permit allocation program for the period January 1 1978 through June 30, 1980 (2h years). Under this ordinance, 2900 available single family "tap equivalents" were divided into a primary base allocation of 2300 tap equivalents and a special base allocation of 600 tap equivalents. The primary base allocation was for the full 2% year period until July 1980. The special base allocation included 600 taps which would be available for any use other than single family residential. These taps were used to encourage commer cial, townhouse, multi-family residential, etc. land uses in Westminster. "Tap equivalents" in Westminster are defined as follows:
Single family detached and mobile homes 1.0 single family tap equivalent
Single family attached .8 single family tap equivalent
Apartment units .5 single family tap equivalent
Taps were allocated on a priority level system of I to VI which was developed by City Staff. The primary base allocations were issued only under the first priority.
Special base allocations were issued under priorities II through VI. Developments for special base allocations could be assigned to two or more priority levels, and were ranked according to a list of standards contained in the adopting ordinance. Developers were not allowed to carry over into each yearlong phase more than 25% of their allocated tap equivalents.
Additional special base allocations were made when more taps became available which developers lost by not using them within the designated time period.
The special allocations are made based on different development suitability criteria as determined by the City staff. Some of the main issues addressed under these criteria are the location and geography of the proposed development in terms of its relationship to existing developments and its serviceability through existing or proposed city services. The project is also analyzed as to whether or not it was in an area of potential hazard (i.e., floodplain, plutonium contamination area, airport hazard, etc.) If the development was in these hazard areas, it would not be considered for special base tap allocations unless corrective measures were taken to mitigate the hazards. The development was also reviewed to determine its proximity to existing developments, and its nearness to available commercial facilities. Projects were also analyzed as to the water conservation and energy conservation provisions that they employed with beneficial consideration given to those that had extra conservation measures incorporated into the project.
-68-


WESTMINSTER (Cont'd)
The Westminster water tap allocation ordinance also required mandatory in-house water conservation through the use of water-saving toilets, water-saving shower heads, faucet aerators, thermal insulation on hot water piping and shower cutoff valves.
In Westminster, building permits are not issued without first having obtained water taps.
WATER TAPS RESIDENTIAL BUILDING PERMITS
Building Permits % of Region's
Normal Taps Issued Residential
Year Allocation Used (# of units) Growth
1973 577 2,046 7.3
1974 421 977 8.7
1975 572 555 6.1
1976 1,134 1,142 8.1
1977 2,025 1,599 1,646 7.2
Jan Mar '78 547 8.3
Apr June '78 483 7.0
July Sept '78 609 8.4
Oct Dec '78 246 4.0
1978 Total 2,232 1,915 1,885 7.0
Jan Mar '79 329 6.4
Apr June '79 572* 359 6.2
July Sept '79 Oct Dec '79 531 9.1
Total for 1979 through the 2nd Quarter.
-69-


JURISDICTIONS UNDER NO TAP ALLOCATIONS


Adams County Unincorporated Area
The unincorporated area of Adams County receives water from several water districts some which provide their own water and others which receive it through contract with the Denver Water Board.
The Crest View Water and Sanitation District serves the western portions of unincorporated Adams Co. and receives 16% of its water from the Denver Water Board. That water is comingled with the rest of their water to make up the total water supply. The amount of taps that Denver allocates per quarter will end up being 16% of the total number of taps Crest View has available per quarter. For example, if Denver allocates 8 taps,that will be 16% of the total allocation of 50 taps for that quarter, and the rest of the allocation will come from taps allocated directly from Crest View Water and Sanitation District from the remainder of their water supply.
The South Adams County Water and Sanitation District serves the general area of Adams County along the South Platte River and north to 104th Avenue. The district has no tap allocations nor water restrictions. A very small portion of the District is served by water from the Denver Water Board.
Year WATER TAPS RESIDENTIAL BUILDING PERMITS
Normal Allocation Relief Taps Taps Used Building Permits Issued (# of Units) % of Region's Residential Growth
1973 316 1,095 3.9
1974 53 329 2.9
1975 80 135 1.5
1976 55 143 1.0
1977 217 0 116 190 .8
Jan Mar '78 100 0 16 62 .9
Apr June '78 115 0 14 82 1.2
July Sept '78 122 0 19 83 1.1
Oct Dec '78 153 0 22 38 .6
1978 Total 490 0 71 265 1.0
Jan Mar *79 61 0 17 80 1.6
Apr June '79 64 0 43 180 3.1
July Sept '79 84 0 43 84 1.4
Oct Dec '79 89
-71-


ADAMS COUNTY UNINCORPORATED AREA (Cont'd)
DWB Service Districts in Adams County City of Broomfield
Berkeley Water and Sanitation District
Crestview Water and Sanitation District
North Lincoln Water and Sanitation District
North Washington Street Water and Sanitation District
North Pecos Water and Sanitation District
Northgate Water District
Sable Water District
-72-


Arvada
Arvada is basically all in the service area of the Denver Water Board. However, they only receive raw water from the Water Board. Since the significant water problem in this region is perceived to be that of available treated water, Arvada is not under the tap allocation program since they do treat the water themselves.
Presently, if a developer in Arvada is ready for a building permit, they can obtain a water tap. Arvada's existing policy is that there is a set amount of water taps in the total system capacity, and that when they are gone that will limit the growth. In the meantime, however, they will pass out the taps on a first come/first served basis until the water supply gets too low to serve additional development.
RESIDENTIAL BUILDING PERMITS
Year Arvada Building Permits Issued (# of Units) Total Building Permits Issued In Region % of Regions Growth
1973 2,608 28,078 9.3
1974 623 11,224 5.6
1975 563 9,076 6.2
1976 899 14,054 6.4
1977 1,350 22,716 5.9
Jan Mar '78 172 6,568 2.6
Apr June '78 275 6,887 4.0
July Sept '78 317 7,271 4.4
Oct Dec '78 222 6,120 3.6
1978 Total 986 26,846 3.7
Jan Mar '79 164 5,139 3.2
Apr June '79 203 5,785 3.5
July Sept '79 171 5,865 2.9
-73-


Aurora
Aurora presently has no tap restrictions. At one point in time, there was discussion on the possibility of setting up such restrictions, but no restrictions were instituted.
A small portion of Aurora is served by water from the Denver Water Board and this area is under the DWB tap allocation program. The tap allocation data for this area in the Sable Water District and the Cherry Creek Valley Water and Sanitation District is included in the following table.
Year WATER TAPS RESIDENTIAL BUILDING PERMITS
Normal Allocation Relief Taps Taps Used Building Permits Issued (# of units) % of Region's Residential Growth
1973 394 4,596 16.3
1974 82 1,757 15.7
1975 60 1,257 13.8
1976 34 2,053 14.6
1977 88 4,397 19.4
Jan Mar '78 35 0 6 1,614 24.6
Apr June '78 40 0 17 1,590 23.1
July Sept '78 43 0 5 1,449 19.9
Oct Dec '78 53 0 9 1,363 22.3
1978 Total 171 0 37 6,016 22.4
Jan Mar '79 19 0 6 1,330 25.9
Apr June '79 20 0 12 1,544 26.7
July Sept '79 25 0 13 1,444 24.6
Oct Dec '79 29
-74-


Boulder (City)
The City of Boulder does not have an official water tap allocation plan. However, their water taps are related to the issuance of building permits which are governed by the Boulder Growth Control Plan. The building permits are issued to proposed projects on the basis of their merit judged against other proposed developments also competing for building permits. The allocation of taps is, then, in essence, almost like a merit system in itself.
The Boulder service area extends beyond the City limits and any provision of taps outside the City limits must be approved by the City Council. The City Council considers such items as location of the growth, size of the development, and cost of the extension of the services in determining whether or not to provide service within the service area yet outside the City limits. All water taps purchased from the City of Boulder must be used within five years.
RESIDENTIAL BUILDING PERMITS
Year Boulder City Building Permits Issued (// of Units) Total Building Permits Issued In Region % of Regions Growth
1973 817 28,078 2.9
1974 493 11,224 4.4
1975 264 9,076 2.9
1976 648 14,054 4.6
1977 1,121 22,716 4.9
Jan Mar '78 135 6,568 2.1
Apr June '78 154 6,887 2.2
July Sept '78 167 7,271 2.3
Oct Dec '78 304 6,120 5.0
1978 Total 760 26,846 2.8
Jan Mar '79 219 5,139 4.3
Apr June '79 129 5,785 2.2
July Sept '79 119 5,865 2.0
-75-


Boulder County Unincorporated Area
Although the City of Broomfield Service Area for DWB water extends into Boulder County, the taps that Broomfield receives from the Denver Water Board are all used within the Broomfield city limits. Therefore, no DWB taps are allocated to Boulder County.
RESIDENTIAL BUILDING PERMITS
Year Building Permits Issued (// of Units) Total Building Permits Issued In Region % of Regions Growth
1973 1,337 28,078 4.8
1974 278 11,224 2.5
1975 105 9,076 1.2
1976 476 14,054 3.4
1977 615 22,716 2.7
Jan Mar '78 111 6,568 1.7
Apr June '78 173 6,887 2.5
July Sept '78 165 7,271 2.3
Oct Dec '78 138 6,120 2.3
1978 Total 587 26,846 2.2
Jan Mar '79 94 5,139 1.8
Apr June '79 120 5,785 2.1
July Sept '79 89 5,865 1.5
-76-


Commerce City
Approximately 35% of Commerce City is in the DWB Service Area and 65% of Commerce City is in the service area of the South Adams County Water and Sanitation District.
Only a very small portion (approximately 10%) of the total area within the South Adams County Water and Sanitation District is served by contract with the Denver Water Board. The rest of the South Adams County Water and Sanitation District has no tap allocation program.
Year WATER TAPS RESIDENTIAL BUILDING PERMITS
Normal Allocation Relief Taps Taps Used Building Permits Issued (# of units) % of Region's Residential Growth
1973 50 41 .1
1974 2 11 .1
1975 0 13 .1
1976 4 12 .1
1977 11 19 .1
Jan Mar 78 6 0 2 2 0
Apr June '78 7 0 0 0 0
July Sept '78 7 0 3 11 .2
Oct Dec '78 9 0 1 13 .2
1978 Total 29 0 6 26 .1
Jan Mar T79 3 0 1 67 1.3
Apr June '79 3 0 3 20 .3
July Sept '79 5 0 3 24 .4
Oct Dec '79 5
DWB Service Districts in Commerce City
South Adams County Water and Sanitation District Wilmac Enterprises Continental Oil Company
Phillips Petroleum Company/Shamrock Oil and Gas Corporation
-77-


Denver
The City and County of Denver receives all of its water from the Denver Water Board. Since it is the Denver Water Board's charter obligation to provide water service to the City and County of Denver, Denver is not under any tap allocation program. Developers within the City limits can obtain as many taps as requested.
Year WATER TAPS RESIDENTIAL BUILDING PERMITS
Normal Allocation Taps Used Building Permits Issued (// of Units) % of Region's Residential Growth
1973 4,876 17.4
1974 1,785 15.9
1975 1,058 11.7
1976 1,602 11.4
1977 1,305 1,165 2,384 10.5
Jan Mar '78 400 268 661 10.1
Apr June '78 400 429 1,142 16.6
July Sept '78 400 418 1,460 20.1
Oct Dec '78 450 682 1,557 25.4
1978 Total 1,650 1,797 4,820 18.0
Jan Mar '79 400 415 729 14.2
Apr June '79 400 481 812 14.0
July Sept '79 500 890 946 16.1
Oct Dec '79 900
-78-


Englewood
Englewood has no allocation program for water. Water is provided within the City limits if the developer requests it. No treated water, however, is provided outside the City limits. Englewood will provide some raw water to the Mission Viejo proposed development in Douglas County and has already provided some additional water to Thornton.
RESIDENTIAL BUILDING PERMITS
Year Englewood Building Permits Issued (# of Units) Total Building Permits Issued In Region % of Regions Growth
1973 162 28,078 .6
1974 63 11,224 .6
1975 21 9,076 .2
1976 129 14,054 .9
1977 14 22,716 .1
Jan Mar '78 49 6,568 .7
Apr June '78 12 6,887 .2
July Sept '78 2 7,271 0
Oct Dec '78 7 6,120 .1
1978 Total 70 26,846 .3
Jan Mar '79 3 5,139 .1
Apr June '79 12 5,785 .2
July Sept '79 13 5,865 .2
-79-


Lafayette
Lafayette does not, at this time, have a water tap allocation program. However, the Planning Department of Lafayette is presently working on developing one and would like to have such a program established within the next several months.
RESIDENTIAL BUILDING PERMITS
Year Lafayette Building Permits Issued (# of Units) Total Building Permits Issued In Region % of Regions Growth
1973 28,078
1974 46 11,224 .4
1975 370 9,076 4.1
1976 120 14,054 .9
1977 248 22,716 1.1
Jan Mar 78 99 5,468 1.5
Apr June '78 30 6,887 .4
July Sept '78 126 7,271 1.7
Oct Dec '78 49 6,120 .8
1978 Total 304 26,846 1.1
Jan Mar '79 39 5,139 .8
Apr June '79 118 5,785 2.0
July Sept '79 127 5,865 2.2
-80-


Longmont
Longmont has no water tap allocation plan. Presently, the City will provide water taps as requested within the area they have indicated as their "prime urbanized area". Some of the "prime urbanized area" is outside of the City limits. That area can still receive water taps, however, the area must be within the City limits in order to receive sewer service.
RESIDENTIAL EUILDING PERMITS
Year Longmont Building Permits Issued (# of Units) Total Building Permits Issued In Region % of Regions Growth
1973 705 28,078 2.5
1974 492 11,224 4.4
1975 342 9,076 3.8
1976 945 14,054 6.7
1977 1,106 22,716 4.9
Jan Mar '78 283 6,568 4.3
Apr June '78 347 6,887 5.0
July Sept '78 298 7,271 4.1
Oct Dec '78 206 6,120 3.4
1978 Total 1,134 26,846 4.2
Jan Mar '79 184 5,139 3.6
Apr June '79 216 5,785 3.7
July Sept '79 244 5,865 4.2
-81-


Louisville
Louisville does not have any tap allocation plan as of yet. However, they have generally been providing 150-200 water taps per year. With the advent of the Centennial Mall development, Louisville feels that they will continue to provide about 200 taps per year. Of that figure, 170 taps per year or possibly 85% of the total number of taps provided will go to the Centennial Mall development with only 30 taps per year used for development in areas other than the Centennial Mall.
RESIDENTIAL BUILDING PERMITS
Year Louisville Building Permits Issued (# of Units) Total Building Permits Issued In Region % of Regions Growth
1973 84 28,078 .3
1974 220 11,224 2.0
1975 190 9,076 2.1
1976 151 14,054 1.1
1977 190 22,716 .8
Jan Mar '78 60 6,568 .9
Apr June '78 112 6,887 1.6
July Sept '78 66 7,271 .9
Oct Dec '78 46 6,120 .8
1978 Total 284 28,846 1.0
Jan Mar '79 67 5,139 1.3
Apr June '79 23 5,785 .4
July Sept '79 61 5,865 1.0
-82-


Northglenn
Northglenn has no tap allocation plan nor policies relating to water tap allocation. Northglenn has a general policy that all land within the city limits will be served. Presently, over 90% of the land in Northglenn is developed.
RESIDENTIAL BUILDING PERMITS
Year Northglenn Building Permits Issued (# of Units) Total Building Permits Issued In Region % of Regions Growth
1973 67 28,078 .2
1974 28 11,224 .2
1975 48 9,076 .5
1976 20 14,054 .1
1977 57 22,716 .3
Jan Mar 78 38 6,568 .6
Apr June '78 7 6,887 .1
July Sept '78 4 7,271 .1
Oct Dec '78 24 6,120 .4
1978 Total 73 26,846 .3
Jan Mar '79 15 5,139 .3
Apr June '79 17 5,785 .3
July Sept '79 18 5,865 .3
-83-


Thornton
Presently, Thornton has no water tap allocation system, and they do not anticipate any for the future. The water taps are quite costly in Thornton. Presently, it costs a total of $4,200 for a water tap, sewer tap, the water resources charge and the line charge.
The City of Northglenn has been receiving water through the Thornton system up to the present time. However, Northglenn will be going off the Thornton system in 1980 or 1981. Thornton assessed Northglenn a high severance charge to purchase the lines and other system material from them. As a result, Thornton has additional money t <. be used
for their water system. In addition, having Northglenn go off of the Thornton system, leaves Thornton with an additional capacity to serve 34,000 people plus some commercial and industrial development.
RESIDENTIAL BUILDING PERMITS
Year Thornton Building Permits Issued (# of Units) Total Building Permits Issued In Region % of Regions Growth
1973 1,698 28,078 6.0
1974 437 11,224 3.9
1975 463 9,076 5.1
1976 267 14,054 1.9
1977 871 22,716 3.8
Jan Mar '78 203 6,568 3.1
Apr June '7 8 301 6,887 4.4
July Sept '78 242 7,271 3.3
Oct Dec '78 184 6,120 3.0
1978 Total 930 26,846 3.5
Jan Mar '79 161 5,139 3.1
Apr June '79 186 5,785 3.2
July Sept '79 120 5,865 2.0
-84-