AF
UNEMPLOYMENT RATES, Not Seasonally Adjusted COUNTY Feb-07 Mar-07 Apr-07 May-07 Jun-07 Jul-07 Aug-07 Sep-07 Oct-07 Nov-07 Dec-07 Jan-08 Feb-08 Mar-08 Apr-08 May-08 Jun-08 Jul-08 Aug-08 Sep-08 Oct-08 Nov-08 Dec-08 Jan-09 Feb-09 Mar-09 ADAMS 4.8 4.5 4.0 3.8 4.4 4.3 4.2 4.2 4.0 4.3 4.7 5.3 5.1 5.2 4.7 4.9 5.5 5.4 5.5 5.4 5.7 6.1 7.2 8.5 9.0 9.3 ARAPAHOE 3.9 3.8 3.5 3.4 4.0 3.9 3.9 3.9 3.8 4.1 4.3 4.6 4.5 4.7 4.2 4.5 5.0 5.0 5.2 5.0 5.3 5.6 6.2 7.1 7.6 7.9 BOULDER 3.5 3.4 3.0 2.9 3.6 3.5 3.5 3.3 3.2 3.5 3.7 4.0 3.9 4.0 3.5 3.8 4.4 4.3 4.4 4.1 4.3 4.6 4.9 5.9 6.2 6.3 BROOMFIELD 3.7 3.6 3.3 3.2 3.8 3.7 3.7 3.7 3.5 3.8 3.9 4.2 4.2 4.4 3.9 4.3 4.7 4.7 4.6 4.7 4.8 5.0 5.6 6.6 7.0 7.3 CLEAR CREEK 4.2 4.0 3.4 3.2 4.0 3.8 3.8 3.6 3.6 3.6 3.8 4.1 4.0 4.3 3.9 4.2 5.3 5.0 4.7 4.7 4.7 4.9 5.8 7.2 7.1 7.6 DENVER 4.7 4.2 3.8 3.7 4.3 4.2 4.2 4.2 4.0 4.4 4.7 5.2 5.1 5.2 4.6 4.9 5.4 5.4 5.6 5.5 5.8 6.1 7.1 8.2 8.7 8.9 DOUGLAS 3.2 3.1 2.8 2.8 3.2 3.2 3.3 3.3 3.2 3.5 3.7 4.0 3.9 4.1 3.6 3.9 4.4 4.3 4.4 4.3 4.4 4.7 5.1 6.1 6.5 6.7 GILPIN 3.8 3.4 3.2 3.2 3.4 3.7 3.5 3.5 3.4 4.1 4.3 4.2 3.8 3.6 3.6 3.9 4.4 4.6 4.7 4.4 4.3 4.6 5.7 6.2 6.7 6.7 JEFFERSON 3.9 3.8 3.4 3.3 3.9 3.8 3.8 3.8 3.6 3.9 4.1 4.5 4.4 4.5 4.0 4.3 4.8 4.7 4.8 4.7 4.9 5.3 5.9 7.0 7.4 7.6 Source: Colorado Department of Labor and Employment
Apr-09 May-09 Jun-09 8.6 8.6 9.0 7.3 7.3 7.7 5.8 6.0 6.6 6.8 6.9 7.5 7.2 7.3 7.8 8.2 8.1 8.5 6.2 6.3 6.7 6.3 6.3 6.6 7.0 7.1 7.5
Unemployment Rates Not-Seasonally Adjusted Source: Colorado Department of Labor and Employment
10.0 9.0 8.0 7.0 6.0 5.0 4.0 3.0 2.0 1.0 0.0 Feb- Mar- Apr- May- Jun07 07 07 07 07
Jul07
ADAMS DENVER
Aug- Sep- Oct- Nov- Dec- Jan- Feb- Mar- Apr- May- Jun07 07 07 07 07 08 08 08 08 08 08
ARAPAHOE DOUGLAS
BOULDER GILPIN
Jul08
Aug- Sep- Oct- Nov- Dec- Jan- Feb- Mar- Apr- May- Jun08 08 08 08 08 09 09 09 09 09 09
BROOMFIELD JEFFERSON
CLEAR CREEK
Jul09
Jul-09 9.0 7.8 6.6 7.6 7.7 8.6 6.7 6.7 7.5
LABOR FORCE (Workers living in jurisdiction, either employed or unemployed) current as of Feb 2009; revisions published since then ADAMS ARAPAHOE BOULDER BROOMFIELD DENVER DOUGLAS JEFFERSON YEAR 2000 185,865 283,063 160,426 22,587 306,409 106,048 310,044 2001 184,400 284,408 162,747 22,313 304,934 114,010 304,645 2002 187,658 285,178 162,727 22,501 300,314 120,227 303,098 2003 195,221 289,565 162,874 22,945 300,708 127,095 304,561 2004 200,180 293,958 165,264 23,780 302,136 134,917 304,328 2005 202,468 297,824 167,589 24,002 305,104 136,780 308,500 2006 216,236 307,801 173,079 25,319 310,907 147,615 313,900 2007 218,936 311,950 176,810 25,660 314,767 149,792 318,005 2008 227,721 317,461 179,298 26,665 321,125 158,483 318,413
METRO
STATE
1,374,442 1,377,457 1,381,703 1,402,969 1,424,563 1,442,267 1,494,857 1,515,919 1,549,166
2,364,990 2,395,264 2,431,203 2,463,161 2,510,392 2,547,895 2,651,718 2,689,736 2,756,638
SOURCE: COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF LABOR AND EMPLOYMENT
CENSUS JULY 1 POPULATION ESTIMATES ADAMS ARAPAHOE BOULDER BROOMFIELD YEAR 2000 351,237 491,613 271,368 39,354 2001 360,930 503,289 276,873 39,847 2002 373,142 510,223 278,396 40,364 2003 381,404 515,781 277,309 41,742 2004 390,052 522,017 278,706 42,356 2005 402,219 529,305 279,508 43,376 2006 414,338 537,197 282,304 45,116 2007 422,495 545,089 290,262 53,691
DENVER
DOUGLAS
JEFFERSON
METRO
STATE
555,543 561,891 558,359 555,997 555,836 558,663 566,974 588,349
180,461 198,158 211,684 224,234 237,531 249,572 263,621 272,117
526,591 530,041 530,299 527,710 525,119 524,809 526,994 529,354
2,416,167 2,471,029 2,502,467 2,524,177 2,551,617 2,587,452 2,636,544 2,701,357
4,327,409 4,428,562 4,500,122 4,545,957 4,598,507 4,663,295 4,753,377 4,842,770
BROOMFIELD
DENVER
DOUGLAS
JEFFERSON
25,481 25,852 27,737 28,738 29,704 30,517
461,996 438,891 425,692 423,547 424,677 432,459 442,750
63,263 63,592 65,000 74,567 82,930 87,415 91,009 93,711
210,375 205,990 203,155 203,614 206,035 207,176 211,091
SOURCE: US CENSUS BUREAU
ANNUAL EMPLOYMENT (Jobs located in jurisdiction) 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008
ADAMS
ARAPAHOE
BOULDER
146,043 144,060 139,987 141,345 147,683 152,742 154,236
285,963 276,591 270,461 268,315 271,271 276,092 281,617
184,755 156,352 150,580 151,834 154,367 156,905 159,984
SOURCE: COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF LABOR AND EMPLOYMENT
Page 1 of 2
JOBS TO POP RATIO 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007
ADAMS
ARAPAHOE
BOULDER
BROOMFIELD
DENVER
DOUGLAS
JEFFERSON
0.405 0.386 0.367 0.362 0.367 0.369 0.365
0.568 0.542 0.524 0.514 0.513 0.514 0.517
0.667 0.562 0.543 0.545 0.552 0.556 0.551
0.000 0.631 0.619 0.655 0.663 0.658 0.568
0.822 0.786 0.766 0.762 0.760 0.763 0.753
0.319 0.300 0.290 0.314 0.332 0.332 0.334
0.397 0.388 0.385 0.388 0.393 0.393 0.399
JOBS TO LABOR FORCE RATIO 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007
ADAMS
ARAPAHOE
BOULDER
BROOMFIELD
DENVER
DOUGLAS
JEFFERSON
0.792 0.768 0.717 0.706 0.729 0.706 0.704
1.005 0.970 0.934 0.913 0.911 0.897 0.903
1.135 0.961 0.925 0.919 0.921 0.907 0.905
0.000 1.132 1.127 1.166 1.197 1.173 1.189
1.515 1.461 1.416 1.402 1.392 1.391 1.407
0.555 0.529 0.511 0.553 0.606 0.592 0.608
0.691 0.680 0.667 0.669 0.668 0.660 0.664
LABOR FORCE TO POPULATION RATIO 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007
ADAMS
ARAPAHOE
BOULDER
BROOMFIELD
DENVER
DOUGLAS
JEFFERSON
METRO
STATE
0.529 0.511 0.503 0.512 0.513 0.503 0.522 0.518
0.576 0.565 0.559 0.561 0.563 0.563 0.573 0.572
0.591 0.588 0.585 0.587 0.593 0.600 0.613 0.609
0.574 0.560 0.557 0.550 0.561 0.553 0.561 0.478
0.552 0.543 0.538 0.541 0.544 0.546 0.548 0.535
0.588 0.575 0.568 0.567 0.568 0.548 0.560 0.550
0.589 0.575 0.572 0.577 0.580 0.588 0.596 0.601
0.569 0.557 0.552 0.556 0.558 0.557 0.567 0.561
0.547 0.541 0.540 0.542 0.546 0.546 0.558 0.555
Page 2 of 2
CRIME IN DOUGLAS COUNTY 2008 CRIME RATE per 1,000 RESIDENTS * Castle Rock Police Department Douglas County Sheriff's Office Lone Tree Police Department Parker Police Department Colorado
15.2 15.2 57.5 18.8 34.8
ADULT ARRESTS ** Castle Rock Police Department Douglas County Sheriff's Office Lone Tree Police Department Parker Police Department
1028 2151 557 832
JUVENILE ARRESTS ** Castle Rock Police Department Douglas County Sheriff's Office Lone Tree Police Department Parker Police Department
342 924 127 376
TOTAL ARREST RATE per 1,000 RESIDENTS ** Castle Rock Police Department Douglas County Sheriff's Office Lone Tree Police Department Parker Police Department Colorado
30.2 17.5 65.8 27.0 9.7
TEEN SUICIDES *** Douglas County (all jurisdictions)
6
AUTO/PEDESTRIAN ACCIDENTS Douglas County Sheriff's Office
11
AUTO/BICYCLE ACCIDENTS Douglas County Sheriff's Office
14
* Source: "Crime in Colorado 2008" Uniform Crime Reporting Summary which is based on hierarchy rules that only count the highest ranking offense of each criminal incident. ** Source: "Crime in Colorado 2008" which is based on the number of individuals arrested by a particular agency and only counts the arrest for the most serious offense. *** Source: Colorado Health Information Dataset Population data source is the Douglas County Community Development Department, 1/1/2008.
Douglas County Air Quality Rankings for Air Quality Index, Carbon Monoxide and Nitrogen Oxides
Key: Blue Column Air Quality Index Percentile Red Column Carbon Monoxide Emissions Percentile Green Column Nitrogen Oxide Emissions Percentile This information is from Scorecard, the Pollution Information Site, found at http://scorecard.org/env‐ releases/cap that provides a report on smog and particulates. Scorecard’s data about criteria air pollutants are derived from US EPA’s Air Quality System and National Emissions Trend database. Exposure monitoring data are available for 2003, while emissions data are currently only available for 1999. This chart shows that according to this EPA data, Douglas County is ranked in the 80th percentile as one of the dirtiest/worst counties in the US for carbon monoxide emission and air quality index and in the 70th percentile for nitrogen oxide emissions. The main source of carbon monoxide in our air is vehicles. http://www.epa.gov/OMS/invntory/overview/pollutants/carbonmon.htm. Nitrogen oxides form when fuel burns at high temperatures, such as in motor vehicle engines. http://www.epa.gov/oms/invntory/overview/pollutants/nox.htm The AQI is an index for reporting daily air quality. It tells you how clean or polluted your air is, and what associated health effects might be a concern for you. The AQI focuses on health effects you may experience within a few hours or days after breathing polluted air. EPA calculates the AQI for five major air pollutants regulated by the Clean Air Act: ground‐level ozone, particle pollution (also known as particulate matter), carbon monoxide, sulfur dioxide, and nitrogen dioxide. For each of these pollutants, EPA has established national air quality standards to protect public health. http://www.airnow.gov/index.cfm?action=aqibasics.aqi
From: To: cc: Subject: Date:
Amy Enos Branstetter Elizabeth Kay Marchetti; Robert Kenny; Alexander E. Larson; Sharon Kalp; FW: Sustainability Committee Info Request Monday, January 11, 2010 3:17:53 PM
In 2009 Douglas County marked and signed 30.9 miles of bike lanes. Amy Branstetter Engineer III Extension 3334 -----Original Message----From: Alexander E. Larson Sent: Friday, January 08, 2010 2:47 PM To: Robert Kenny Cc: Amy Enos Branstetter Subject: Sustainability Committee Info Request Bob, As a heads up, the committee is looking to gather much data. One data point is bike-lane-miles. I mentioned you would be the contact for the miles of on-street bike lanes in unincorporated county. Elizabeth will likely be approaching you about getting this number. AL
Douglas County, CO From Groundwater Mining to Renewable Solutions
Timothy R. Murrell Water Resources Planner
Douglas County Domestic Well Report Prepared By: Douglas County Department of Community Planning and Sustainable Development Rural Water Authority of Douglas County September 23, 2009
Data Utilized •The sources for the report include: - water provider boundary data - County GIS records - County Assessor's records - County Information Resource Group databases - County Building Division records - City and Town building records •No sources specifically identify a list of properties served by domestic wells - County currently looking at making sense of State domestic well data
Assumptions: •Housing units within water provider service areas were assumed to be served by a public or private water provider •Housing units located outside the service areas of water providers were assumed to be served by domestic wells •All types of housing, including single family homes, townhomes, condominiums, apartments, and mobile homes, are lumped together as housing units •The only exclusions to the housing units used are assisted living facilities, group quarters, and seasonal housing •Only one domestic well serves properties primary residence, guest house, caretaker's residence, or an apartment in a barn
8, 000
7, 000
6, 000
5, 000
1970 1971 1972 1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
Total number of domestic wells: 1970 – 1,124 1980 – 3,386 1990 – 5,010 2000 – 6,846 2009 – 7,957
4, 000
3, 000
2 , 000
1, 000
0
Share of housing served by domestic wells:
2009
1970 Public water service 37% 774
Domestic wells 63%
Domestic wells 8% 8,419
1,295 Public water service 92% 96,531
Total housing by water service: 100, 000 90, 000 80, 000 70, 000 60, 000 50, 000 40, 000 30, 000 2 0, 000 10, 000
1970 1971 1972 1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
0
Housing ser v ed by public w ater sy stems
Housing ser v ed by domestic w ells
Total housing served by public water systems: 100, 000 90, 000 80, 000 70, 000 60, 000
1970 – 774 1980 – 4,186 1990 – 16,598 2000 – 54,433 2009 – 96,531
50, 000 40, 000 30, 000 2 0, 000 10, 000
1970 1971 1972 1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
0
Growth of housing served by domestic wells: 9, 000
2000 – 2008
14.6%
Before 1970
15.4%
8, 000 7, 000
1990 – 1999
1970 – 1979
22.6%
27.5%
6, 000 5, 000 4, 000
1980 – 1989
19.9%
3, 000 2 , 000
0
1970 1971 1972 1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
1, 000
Location of housing served by domestic wells:
Distribution of housing served by domestic wells: Pike/Rampart = 8.1% Margin A = 9.3% Margin B = 10.0%
Central Basin = 72.7%
Size of parcels with domestic wells:
Less than 1 acre 35 acres and over 2% 1.0 to 2.99 acres 14% 21% 6 to 34.99 acres 22%
3.0 to 5.99 acres 42%
Domestic Well Report Douglas County Questions?
Douglas County Clean Water Act Comparative Ranking
This chart reflects the percentage of surface waters within the county with impaired or threatened uses as reported by the state of Colorado and EPA data. This information is from Scorecard, the Pollution Information Site, found at http://scorecard.org/env‐releases/water. Scorecard’s profiles of Clean Water Act status are derived from US EPA’s tracking system to identify surface waters that fail to meet regulatory water quality standards (Total Maximum Daily Load [TMDL] tracking system). This, in turn, relies on reports from the individual states. The most current available data are for the year 1998. This chart indicates that Douglas County is better than the national average in terms of percentage of surface waters within the county with impaired or threatened uses. The state data reports that there are nine waterbodies in Douglas County with reported problems: Big Thompson River, Geneva Creek, Ladora Lake, Lower Derby Lake, North Fork South Platte River, South Platte River, Bowles Avenue to Burlington Ditch, South Platte River, Durlington Ditch to Big Dry Creek, South Platte River, Sources to North fork, and Tributaries to South Platte River.
Outline Geology – Ground Water Resources Dependence on GW in Douglas County DC Water Providers Regional Water Groups – Solutions? DC Zoning Ordinance Legislative Public Outreach
I-70 Hogback Formation
Denver Basin Aquifer CS
2030 M&I Water Demands and Gaps Yampa/White/Green
North Platte
South Platte
10,300 AF Gap 107,800 AF
Colorado 107,600 AF
Identified Projects 404,300 AF
Gunnison
Dolores/ San Juan/ San Miguel
Rio Grande Arkansas
Data obtained from Colorado Water Conservation Board - Water Supply Planning Section
6
Increase in Gross Demand (AF)
Estimated Demand met by future supplies and additional conservation (AF)
Total 2000 Gross Demand (AF)
Projected Conservati on Savings (AF)
Projected 2030 Gross Demand (AF)
Arkansas
256,900
18,600
354,900
98,000
80,500
17,500
Colorado
74,100
7,800
136,000
61,900
58,700
3,200
San Juan / Dolores / San Miguel
23,600
2,400
42,400
18,800
13,900
4,900
Gunnison
20,600
2,100
35,500
14,900
12,500
2,400
North Platte
500
—
600
100
100
—
Rio Grande
17,400
1,400
21,700
4,300
4,300
—
South Platte
772,400
68,700
1,182,100
409,700
319,100
90,600
29,400
900
51,700
22,300
22,300
—
1,194,900
101,900
1,824,900
630,000
511,400
118,600
Basin
Yampa / White / Green TOTAL
Identified Gross Demand Shortfall (AF)
Data obtained from Colorado Water Conservation Board - Water Supply Planning Section
7
Renewable or Not?
Vast majority still on non-renewable wells
Larger M&I Wells more susceptible to impacts
Centralized systems increase provides better opportunities for tie-in’s
Past, Current and Expected Growth
Groundwater Pumping Rate Declines
Douglas County Water Providers
30 Individual Providers
Purpose of Each to Serve
Lack of Coordination
Majority Solely on Non-Renewable Ground Water
County and Regional Water Groups SMWSA 13 water providers DCWRA Metro Roundtable RWSAWG RWA
Douglas County Zoning Resolution
Water Overlay District Intended to: Reduce sole reliance on ground water
Prevent short-term well dry-up
Increase opportunities for renewable water supplies for new development
Tracking of County Renewable Water Solutions Reuter Hess Reservoir Chatfield Reallocation Western-Slope Water?
DC Water Conservation Plan Public Education/ Comment
Need for Water Conservation
Conservation Plan
Incentives Regulation
Lead by Example
Conservation Plan Support of Commissioners Support of Water Providers Questions still unanswered How active does the County want to be? Timeline and budget being fleshed out
Lead by Example Program:
Device Count, Make/Model and Water Use for Facilities / Parks
Historic Water Use Data, per facility
RFP Development and Release
Selection of Water Auditor / Cost-Benefit Analysis
Presentation of Suggestions / Budget for Suggestions
Retrofit of Indoor Devices
Douglas County Water Conservation Assistance Program
Rural Water Provider Assistance
Conservation Toolbox Technical Assistance County Financial Incentives • Water Conservation Device Rebates • Grants
Public Outreach / Education
Provide easily attainable and decipherable resources and two-way communication opportunities with public Website Fact Sheets Public Meetings Workshops
The Future for Douglas County?
Need for renewable water solutions SMWSA – 40% renewable Work to secure additional waters underway Need for one last Western Slope BIG project
Questions?
SOURCE:COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF LABOR AND EMPLOYMENT
The average annual number of establishments in Douglas County, during 2008, was 9,594. The net addition of 181 new establishments from 2007 to 2008 marked a 1.9% increase for the year. ANNUAL AVERAGE ESTABLISHMENTS
9,594 2008
8,904
7,511
6,936
5,900
5,241
4,495
3,546
9,413
1,942 1993
2007
1,681 1992
2,970
1,520
2,553
1,350
1991
2,000
1990
4,000
2,249
6,000
3,933
8,000
6,403
10,000
8,261
12,000
2006
2005
2004
2003
2002
2001
2000
1999
1998
1997
1996
1995
1994
0
SOURCE:COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF LABOR AND EMPLOYMENT
Douglas County is now home to 10% of all business establishments in the 7-county Denver Metro Area, a share slightly higher than the 7% share of Metro Area employment. COUNTY ESTABLISHMENT SHARES
s
JEFFERSON 19%
ADAMS 9% ARAPAHOE 20%
DOUGLAS 10%
DENVER 27%
BOULDER 13% BROOMFIELD 2% SOURCE:COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF LABOR AND EMPLOYMENT
TY PLANNING AND SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
Douglas County Housing Stock approximately 106,000 housing units in 2010 approximately 8,000 housing units in 1980 Douglas County has a young housing stock. Dwelling units built in: 2000’s - 42% 1990’s - 38% 1980’s - 13% before 1980 - 7% 25,170 were built before 1992 (24%) year EPA required new toilets to use no more than 1.6 gallons per flush 6,105 were built before 1978 (6%) year lead-based paint banned
2010 DRCOG Travel Model Results 2010 Douglas County Total VMT Total Trips Starting in Douglas County
8,151,616 1,038,773
Trips Starting in Douglas County
Mode Share By Trip Type
Home‐based Work Trips Home‐based Non‐work Trips Non‐Home Based Total
Drive Alone SR2 SR3+ Transit Total 189,368 21,996 7,115 5,863 224,342 212,702 179,828 135,779 4,000 532,309 146,638 79,284 55,603 596 282,121 548,708 281,108 198,498 10,459 1,038,773
HBW HBNW NHB Total
Trips Ending in Douglas County
Mode Share By Trip Type
Home‐based Work Trips Home‐based Non‐work Trips Non‐Home Based Total
Drive Alone SR2 SR3+ Transit Total 128,756 14,622 4,832 2,485 150,695 182,892 113,260 32,546 2,268 330,966 146,679 55,621 15,983 556 218,839 458,327 183,503 53,361 5,309 700,500
HBW HBNW NHB Total
Source: DRCOG Travel Model‐ Cycle 2, 2009
To Doug HBW
From Doug
Drive Alone SR2 SR3+ Transit 84.4% 9.8% 3.2% 2.6% 40.0% 33.8% 25.5% 0.8% 52.0% 28.1% 19.7% 0.2% 52.8% 27.1% 19.1% 1.0%
Drive Alone SR2 SR3+ Transit 85.4% 9.7% 3.2% 1.6% 55.3% 34.2% 9.8% 0.7% 67.0% 25.4% 7.3% 0.3% 65.4% 26.2% 7.6% 0.8%
Graduation and Completion Rates of School Districts in DRCOG Counties http://www.cde.state.co.us/index_stats.htm
Class of 2007 DOUGLAS CLEAR CREEK BOULDER GILPIN ARAPAHOE JEFFERSON ADAMS DENVER STATE OF COLORADO
grad base graduate 3,055 2,769 83 71 4,009 3,402 35 30 8,064 6,300 7,337 5,580 5,121 3,467 5,414 2,814 60,847 45,628
completer 2,855 75 3,488 30 6,611 5,913 3,693 3,289 48,557
grad rate 90.6% 85.5% 84.9% 85.7% 78.1% 76.1% 67.7% 52.0% 75.0%
completer rate 93.5% 90.4% 87.0% 85.7% 82.0% 80.6% 72.1% 60.7% 79.8%
Class of 2008 DOUGLAS CLEAR CREEK BOULDER JEFFERSON GILPIN ARAPAHOE ADAMS DENVER STATE OF COLORADO
grad base graduate 3,135 2,866 86 74 4,078 3,510 7,404 5,711 22 17 8,452 6,434 5,151 3,491 5,924 2,879 62,611 46,291
completer 2,981 77 3,582 6,074 18 6,694 3,722 3,396 49,359
grad rate 91.4% 86.0% 86.1% 77.1% 77.3% 76.1% 67.8% 48.6% 73.9%
completer rate 95.1% 89.5% 87.8% 82.0% 81.8% 79.2% 72.3% 57.3% 78.8%
Notes: Broomfield residents attend schools in the Jefferson County, Adams 12 Five Star, and Boulder Valley school districts.
Douglas County Sustainability Initiative Advisory Committee (SIAC) Preliminary report on LEED Buildings, Carbon Footprint, Energy Use, Net Meters/Renewable Energy, and Dark Skies in Douglas County February 11, 2010 Paul C. Hutton AIA, LEED ap
DRAFT LEED certified buildings in Douglas County According to the United States Green Building Council (USGBC) there are only two buildings in Douglas County that are currently LEED certified. They are both at Valor Christian School in Highlands Ranch. For comparison there are nine LEED certified buildings in Jefferson County, 21 LEED certified buildings in Boulder County, and 51 in Denver. There is no LEED certified house in Douglas County. As a side note, the Hutton Residence in Sedalia, completed in 2006, meets all certification criteria, but the new version of LEED makes it virtually impossible to retroactively certify a house. There are likely other residences in the county that could have met LEED criteria. It should be stated that the Douglas County School District’s recent series of elementary schools would qualify for LEED certification, but the District elected not to expend the extra cost for the process. Future versions may be LEED certified to the Gold level. An interesting question is why Douglas County has such an extremely low number of LEED certified buildings in place compared to other Colorado counties. The SIAC should discuss this question, perhaps involving the Building Department, and devise incentives to catch up with, and ultimately surpass, neighboring counties.
Carbon Footprint “Colorado has a per capita Carbon Score of 24, with the 24th highest resident population. Each Colorado resident produces 21 tons of Carbon Dioxide each year.” US Department of Energy Colorado’s carbon footprint is 89.72 million metric tons per year, ranking it 23rd in the U.S. The output is categorized as follows: Transportation 26.32 mmt Commercial 4.11 mmt Electricity 40.01 mmt Residential 7.52 mmt Industrial 11.76 mmt Another source of information on fossil fuel based carbon footprint is Project Vulcan from Purdue University (2002 data). According to that website, Colorado’s total emissions (2002 data) is 25,702,890 metric tons, an average of 5.71 metric tons per
1
capita. Douglas County’s share of that was 436,211 metric tons. Per capita carbon emissions of Douglas County compared to other counties is: Douglas County 2.08 Jefferson County 2.61 Arapahoe County 2.46 Boulder County 3.83 City and County of Denver 4.39 Interestingly, Douglas County is well below the state average and the lowest of nearby counties. This is somewhat misleading in that Douglas County has no airports or power plants, and almost no industry. Yet Douglas County residents take advantage of and benefit from these facilities elsewhere in the state. Douglas County’s carbon footprint is allocated as follows: Aircraft 0.00 Commercial 0.07 Electric prod. 0.00 Industrial 0.02 Nonroad 0.22 Onroad 1.44 Residential 0.36 Unknown 0.00 By far the greatest contributor to Douglas County’s carbon footprint is transportation, followed by residential use. This is to be expected given the county’s geographic size and dispersed population. What is unclear is why the US Department of Energy’s total carbon footprint data is so different from Purdue’s fossil fuel carbon footprint. Additional investigation into this disparity may reveal additional useful information. The SIAC may wish to recommend the Douglas County Community Planning and Sustainable Development Department actively monitor the county’s carbon footprint, either using in-house resources or by retaining a consultant specifically for this purpose.
Energy Use Colorado ranks 35th nationally in total energy consumption per capita, according to DOE 2007 figures. The numbers, along with a few other states for comparison, are: State Consumption (MBTU) Rank Alaska 1,062 1st Wyoming 948 2nd Texas 496 5th Colorado 305 35th Utah 301 37th Arizona 248 46th Rhode Island 206 51st
2
Colorado energy consumption by sector: Commercial 289.7 BTU Residential 317.4 BTU Industrial 368.4 BTU Transportation 375.9 BTU
21st 26th 29th 27th
The cause of the disparity between the values in the two above charts is not known at this time, but will be investigated. The disparity does not undermine the value of the relative rankings. In order to estimate Douglas County’s total energy consumption per capita, the county by county carbon footprint comparisons may be used as a rough guide. Doing so yields an approximate energy consumption per capita in Douglas County of 111 MBTU. Modeling total energy consumption per capita in any given geographic area is a challenging exercise, but the SIAC could consider assigning the task to the Community Planning and Sustainable Development Department. The benefit of doing so would be that Douglas County would establish itself as a leader in the state and it would be a precise tool to understand progress toward the goal of reduction in energy consumption. Many experts in the field would contend that energy consumption is the single most reliable indicator of the global impact of our collective actions.
Building Energy Efficiency Douglas County adopted the 2006 International Building Code (IBC) in 2009 and expects to adopt the 2009 IBC in 2010. The 2006 code represented a 11% energy reduction for commercial buildings and a 2% energy reduction for residential buildings in comparison to the previous 2003 code. The 2009 code represents a 16% energy reduction for commercial buildings and a 7% energy reduction for residential buildings in comparison to the previous 2006 code. Future codes are expected to get much more demanding in energy efficiency. Information already released about the next code in 2012 indicates further reductions of 30% and 30% for commercial and residential buildings respectively. Douglas County residents and businesses operating in the county may expect construction costs to increase with these newer and more stringent codes. Beyond 2012, it is impossible to predict building energy requirements, but in order to achieve the goals of the global 2030 Challenge, continued aggressive energy use reductions will be needed. The County should be commended for keeping up with current codes and requiring energy use data with building permit applications. But the County and residents alike should be aware that the energy use reductions coming will be much more demanding and perhaps more expensive than what has been achieved in the last few years. Refer to the attached chart for a review of building energy use codes from 1975 to 2030.
3
Net meters and renewable energy Colorado ranks 5th nationally in available solar insolation and 11th in wind. Both of these energy sources are readily harvested with proven, off the shelf, technology. Douglas County has three electricity providers – Xcel, IREA, and Mountain View. Excel Energy has an active Solar Rewards program to stimulate installation of renewable energy, Mountain View utilizes the Governors Energy Office (GEO) Solar Rebate Program to offset the initial cost of renewable energy, and IREA does neither. All of them have customer friendly net metering policies, as required by state law. Net meters facilitate the two way flow of electricity, so that customers may purchase and sell power at the same rate. Excel had 41 net meters in Douglas County in early 2009, Mountain View has one renewable energy installation using a 2.4 kW wind turbine, and IREA has 40, but they do not know how many of these are in Douglas County. The total capacity of installed renewable energy in the county is not known, but is probably in the range of 300-400 kilowatts. The SIAC may wish to recommend that the of Community Planning and Sustainable Development Department actively track total renewable energy installed capacity. The SAIC should consider a program to utilize the Governors Energy Office Solar Rebate Program for those residents and small businesses within IREA territory. IREA could utilize this program but has chosen not to. The program funds half of the cost of renewable energy, with the local governmental entity providing the other half. Not participating in the program sends available funding to other counties in the state and deprives Douglas County residents and small businesses of a significant opportunity to enhance their sustainability.
Dark Skies Zoning regulations adopted by the County in 1999 require “protecting the public’s ability to view the night sky.” No current county standards include the term “Dark Sky” but they do include many of the components of this system designed to protect the integrity of night skies and reduce light pollution. Some of the current prohibitions in the current code are: upward or outward oriented lighting wall pack fixtures that are not classified as full cutoff high intensity floodlighting lights mounted on poles for the purpose of illuminating the building Furthermore, all outdoor lighting is required to be full cutoff. Exterior lighting for commercial projects is regulated through the site plan process. Despite the regulations, there are cases of commercial lighting that violate the current code. It is not clear how these instances happened, but an effort to correct them would be a long term benefit to the County and would result in compliance with the long standing commitment quoted above. The Building Department has indicated that it would support an initiative from
4
the SIAC and the Board of County Commissioners to adopt and enforce more stringent Dark Sky regulations. Currently there appears to be no effort on the part of the County to apply or enforce exterior lighting regulations in single family residential applications. Doing so would require resources that do not currently exist. Yet, the vast majority of buildings in Douglas County are residential, and residences have the capacity to contribute significantly toward light pollution of our night skies. The current zoning regulation for lighting includes the following line under 3003 Exceptions: “Single family residential lighting, except as prohibited herein.” Immediately below, in section 3004 Prohibited Lighting, are listed a wide range of lighting types. There would seem to be some ambiguity in the code regarding whether single family residences are allowed to utilize prohibited lighting. But it is clear from any cursory examination of the County at night that residences routinely do use exterior lighting clearly listed as prohibited in the code, and that some of these lights are now contributing to light pollution. A further review of exterior lighting regulations in incorporated areas of Douglas County may be warranted, in order to achieve uniformity and consistency. Furthermore, an incentive program designed to remove non-complying lighting in the long term may be desirable.
5
PARKS, TRAILS, OPEN SPACE, STATE AND FEDERAL LAND LOCATED IN DOUGLAS COUNTY PUBLIC TRAILS Douglas County Open Space Douglas County Parks TOTAL COUNTY GOVT
58 miles 49 miles 107 miles
Castle Rock Parker Highlands Ranch Metro District TOTAL TOWN & METRO TOTAL TRAILS*
56 miles 12 miles 58 miles 126 miles 233 miles
PUBLIC PARKS Douglas County Parks Castle Rock Parker Larkspur Highlands Ranch Metro District Daniels Park (City & County of Denver) State Parks TOTAL PARKS
13 17 13 1 22 1 3 70
PIKE NATIONAL FOREST STATE LAND BOARD (STEWARDSHIP TRUST)
1,204 acres 250 acres 246 acres 35 acres 160 acres 954 acres 10,960 acres 13,809 acres (21.6 sq mi) 140,932 acres (220.2 sq mi) 1,109 acres (1.73 sq mi)
FEE OWNED OPEN SPACE Douglas County (excluding in subdivisions) Castle Rock Parker Highlands Ranch Community Association Highlands Ranch Metropolitan District TOTAL FEE OWNED OPEN SPACE
15,215 acres 2,612 acres 680 acres 8,200 acres 2,000 acres 28,707 acres (44.9 sq mi)
OTHER PROTECTED LAND (CONSERVATION EASEMENTS) Douglas County Douglas Land Conservancy Colorado Cattleman’s Agricultural Land Trust Colorado Open Lands TOTAL OTHER PROTECTED LAND
30,678 acres 7,941 acres 1,598 acres 4,230 acres 44,447 acres (69.4 sq mi)
TOTAL ALL PARK, OPEN SPACE, OTHER PROTECTED 229,004 acres (357.8 sq mi) *Trail mileage does not include State Parks, Pike National Forest, Lone Tree, or South Suburban
January 1, 2009 population of Douglas County = 290,311 Public Parks Pike National Forest State Land Board Fee Owned Open Space Other Protected Land TOTAL
13,809 acres 140,932 acres 1,109 acres 28,707 acres 44,447 acres 229,004 acres
Acres per person = .789 acres of parks, open space, and other protected land COMPARISON TO OTHER COUNTIES Boulder County (1967) Population = 294,000 =
330,326 acres (including Rocky Mtn Natl Park, USFS, watersheds, municipalities, and other state and federal land) 1.12 acres per person
Open Space Program only = 93,738 acres (146.46 sq mi) or .319 acres per person Jefferson County (1972)
51,981.5 acres (81.22 sq mi) Open Space Program only
Population = 571,288 =
.09 acres per person
Douglas County (1995)
45,840 acres (71.62 sq mi) Open Space Program only
Population = 290,311 =
.158 acres per person
Prepared by: Cheryl Matthews, Director, Open Space & Natural Resources Date: 1/27/10
SIAC Recycling Data February 16, 2010 Ruth Gaulke The City of LoneTree established a recycling program in 2009.
The program description includes: no additional cost for recycling service. Pro Disposal, Inc. provides residential single-stream recycling to Lone Tree residents. Single-stream recycling gives customers the ability to mix recyclable paper, plastic, and glass in one bin. Recycling is picked up every other week. (source - http://www.cityoflonetree.com/index.aspx?NID=535) ProDisposal would not reveal what it takes to allow a city to begin using their services. The costs for their current customers are as follows (notice that LoneTree is paid by the city): City
Zip Code
Trash Trash & Yearly Trash Yearly Trash Price Monthly Recycling & Recycling 1 Month Price Monthly (Includes Price Free) (Includes 1 Month Price Free)
Arvada
80003 & 80004
$15.00
$18.25
$165.00
$200.75
Aurora
80010-80017
$16.50
$20.25
$181.50
$222.75
Centennial
80111-80112 80121-80122
$18.75
$22.00
$206.25
$242.00
Denver
80221 & 80229
$18.00
$21.25
$198.00
$233.75
Englewood
80110,80113
$18.75
$22.00
$206.25
$242.00
Golden
80401
$18.00
$21.25
$198.00
$233.75
Highlands Ranch
80126,80129,80130
$18.75
$22.00
$206.25
$242.00
Lakewood
80214,80215
$18.00
$21.25
$198.00
$233.75
Lakewood
80226-80228 & 80232
$18.75
$22.00
$206.25
$242.00
Lone Tree
80124
City
City
City
City
Littleton
80126-80128 & 80120, 80123 &80124
$18.75
$22.00
$206.25
$242.00
Morrison
80465
$18.75
$22.00
$206.25
$242.00
Thornton
80229
$17.75
$21.25
$206.25
$195.25
Wheat Ridge
80033 & 80212 80214
$18.00
$21.50
$198.00
$236.50
Douglas County provides a list of sources for residents to use for specific items to recycle. (http://www.douglas.co.us/community/Recycle_Reuse_Guide.html) Jefferson County has a drop-off site at the Rooney Road recycling center. They accept yard waste and most types of household hazardous waste materials.
Boulder County: Updated its Trash Hauler Ordinance to help reduce waste and increase recycling (and composting) for residential trash customers in unincorporated Boulder County. Residents can choose a trash collection and waste reduction plan – available at the curb or driveway. Haulers required to implement new systems such as:
SIAC Recycling Data February 16, 2010 Ruth Gaulke
1. “Pay-as-You-Throw” disposal pricing tiers (see
http://www.bouldercounty.org/recycling/payt/PAYTpricegraphic.pdf).
This is based on volume of trash, recycling, and composting.
2. “Single Stream” Recycling (all recyclables together in one bin) recycling (with unlimited collection) 3. Curbside Compost Collections in certain neighborhoods. The ordinance provides a level playing field for licensed trash haulers in Boulder County; all haulers are required to provide similar services, but they set their own rates based on their particular costs of providing those services.
Skumatz Economic Research Associates (SERA). (Good source for information) Colorado is at the bottom ¼ of the United States regarding recycling. Trash collection systems vary among counties and cities in Colorado. Hierarchy of recycling programs include: • • • • •
Drop-off recycling Drop-off yard waste Curbside recycling Embedding recycling costs (no separate fee) Pay as you Throw
Colorado Association for Recycling (CAFR). (Good source for information)
CAFR is a registered 501(c)(3) non-profit organization. Membership is comprised of all facets of the industry: state and local governments, non-profit organizations, large and small businesses, schools, universities, and citizen recyclers. No other recycling organization within Colorado offers such a diverse and representative membership. CAFR offers you programs that give you the opportunity to learn more about the recycling and solid waste management issues that face Colorado.
Apr-09 May-09 Jun-09 8.6 8.6 9.0 7.3 7.3 7.7 5.8 6.0 6.6 6.8 6.9 7.5 7.2 7.3 7.8 8.2 8.1 8.5 6.2 6.3 6.7 6.3 6.3 6.6 7.0 7.1 7.5
Unemployment Rates Not-Seasonally Adjusted Source: Colorado Department of Labor and Employment
10.0 9.0 8.0 7.0 6.0 5.0 4.0 3.0 2.0 1.0 0.0 Feb- Mar- Apr- May- Jun07 07 07 07 07
Jul07
ADAMS DENVER
Aug- Sep- Oct- Nov- Dec- Jan- Feb- Mar- Apr- May- Jun07 07 07 07 07 08 08 08 08 08 08
ARAPAHOE DOUGLAS
BOULDER GILPIN
Jul08
Aug- Sep- Oct- Nov- Dec- Jan- Feb- Mar- Apr- May- Jun08 08 08 08 08 09 09 09 09 09 09
BROOMFIELD JEFFERSON
CLEAR CREEK
Jul09
Jul-09 9.0 7.8 6.6 7.6 7.7 8.6 6.7 6.7 7.5
LABOR FORCE (Workers living in jurisdiction, either employed or unemployed) current as of Feb 2009; revisions published since then ADAMS ARAPAHOE BOULDER BROOMFIELD DENVER DOUGLAS JEFFERSON YEAR 2000 185,865 283,063 160,426 22,587 306,409 106,048 310,044 2001 184,400 284,408 162,747 22,313 304,934 114,010 304,645 2002 187,658 285,178 162,727 22,501 300,314 120,227 303,098 2003 195,221 289,565 162,874 22,945 300,708 127,095 304,561 2004 200,180 293,958 165,264 23,780 302,136 134,917 304,328 2005 202,468 297,824 167,589 24,002 305,104 136,780 308,500 2006 216,236 307,801 173,079 25,319 310,907 147,615 313,900 2007 218,936 311,950 176,810 25,660 314,767 149,792 318,005 2008 227,721 317,461 179,298 26,665 321,125 158,483 318,413
METRO
STATE
1,374,442 1,377,457 1,381,703 1,402,969 1,424,563 1,442,267 1,494,857 1,515,919 1,549,166
2,364,990 2,395,264 2,431,203 2,463,161 2,510,392 2,547,895 2,651,718 2,689,736 2,756,638
SOURCE: COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF LABOR AND EMPLOYMENT
CENSUS JULY 1 POPULATION ESTIMATES ADAMS ARAPAHOE BOULDER BROOMFIELD YEAR 2000 351,237 491,613 271,368 39,354 2001 360,930 503,289 276,873 39,847 2002 373,142 510,223 278,396 40,364 2003 381,404 515,781 277,309 41,742 2004 390,052 522,017 278,706 42,356 2005 402,219 529,305 279,508 43,376 2006 414,338 537,197 282,304 45,116 2007 422,495 545,089 290,262 53,691
DENVER
DOUGLAS
JEFFERSON
METRO
STATE
555,543 561,891 558,359 555,997 555,836 558,663 566,974 588,349
180,461 198,158 211,684 224,234 237,531 249,572 263,621 272,117
526,591 530,041 530,299 527,710 525,119 524,809 526,994 529,354
2,416,167 2,471,029 2,502,467 2,524,177 2,551,617 2,587,452 2,636,544 2,701,357
4,327,409 4,428,562 4,500,122 4,545,957 4,598,507 4,663,295 4,753,377 4,842,770
BROOMFIELD
DENVER
DOUGLAS
JEFFERSON
25,481 25,852 27,737 28,738 29,704 30,517
461,996 438,891 425,692 423,547 424,677 432,459 442,750
63,263 63,592 65,000 74,567 82,930 87,415 91,009 93,711
210,375 205,990 203,155 203,614 206,035 207,176 211,091
SOURCE: US CENSUS BUREAU
ANNUAL EMPLOYMENT (Jobs located in jurisdiction) 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008
ADAMS
ARAPAHOE
BOULDER
146,043 144,060 139,987 141,345 147,683 152,742 154,236
285,963 276,591 270,461 268,315 271,271 276,092 281,617
184,755 156,352 150,580 151,834 154,367 156,905 159,984
SOURCE: COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF LABOR AND EMPLOYMENT
Page 1 of 2
JOBS TO POP RATIO 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007
ADAMS
ARAPAHOE
BOULDER
BROOMFIELD
DENVER
DOUGLAS
JEFFERSON
0.405 0.386 0.367 0.362 0.367 0.369 0.365
0.568 0.542 0.524 0.514 0.513 0.514 0.517
0.667 0.562 0.543 0.545 0.552 0.556 0.551
0.000 0.631 0.619 0.655 0.663 0.658 0.568
0.822 0.786 0.766 0.762 0.760 0.763 0.753
0.319 0.300 0.290 0.314 0.332 0.332 0.334
0.397 0.388 0.385 0.388 0.393 0.393 0.399
JOBS TO LABOR FORCE RATIO 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007
ADAMS
ARAPAHOE
BOULDER
BROOMFIELD
DENVER
DOUGLAS
JEFFERSON
0.792 0.768 0.717 0.706 0.729 0.706 0.704
1.005 0.970 0.934 0.913 0.911 0.897 0.903
1.135 0.961 0.925 0.919 0.921 0.907 0.905
0.000 1.132 1.127 1.166 1.197 1.173 1.189
1.515 1.461 1.416 1.402 1.392 1.391 1.407
0.555 0.529 0.511 0.553 0.606 0.592 0.608
0.691 0.680 0.667 0.669 0.668 0.660 0.664
LABOR FORCE TO POPULATION RATIO 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007
ADAMS
ARAPAHOE
BOULDER
BROOMFIELD
DENVER
DOUGLAS
JEFFERSON
METRO
STATE
0.529 0.511 0.503 0.512 0.513 0.503 0.522 0.518
0.576 0.565 0.559 0.561 0.563 0.563 0.573 0.572
0.591 0.588 0.585 0.587 0.593 0.600 0.613 0.609
0.574 0.560 0.557 0.550 0.561 0.553 0.561 0.478
0.552 0.543 0.538 0.541 0.544 0.546 0.548 0.535
0.588 0.575 0.568 0.567 0.568 0.548 0.560 0.550
0.589 0.575 0.572 0.577 0.580 0.588 0.596 0.601
0.569 0.557 0.552 0.556 0.558 0.557 0.567 0.561
0.547 0.541 0.540 0.542 0.546 0.546 0.558 0.555
Page 2 of 2
CRIME IN DOUGLAS COUNTY 2008 CRIME RATE per 1,000 RESIDENTS * Castle Rock Police Department Douglas County Sheriff's Office Lone Tree Police Department Parker Police Department Colorado
15.2 15.2 57.5 18.8 34.8
ADULT ARRESTS ** Castle Rock Police Department Douglas County Sheriff's Office Lone Tree Police Department Parker Police Department
1028 2151 557 832
JUVENILE ARRESTS ** Castle Rock Police Department Douglas County Sheriff's Office Lone Tree Police Department Parker Police Department
342 924 127 376
TOTAL ARREST RATE per 1,000 RESIDENTS ** Castle Rock Police Department Douglas County Sheriff's Office Lone Tree Police Department Parker Police Department Colorado
30.2 17.5 65.8 27.0 9.7
TEEN SUICIDES *** Douglas County (all jurisdictions)
6
AUTO/PEDESTRIAN ACCIDENTS Douglas County Sheriff's Office
11
AUTO/BICYCLE ACCIDENTS Douglas County Sheriff's Office
14
* Source: "Crime in Colorado 2008" Uniform Crime Reporting Summary which is based on hierarchy rules that only count the highest ranking offense of each criminal incident. ** Source: "Crime in Colorado 2008" which is based on the number of individuals arrested by a particular agency and only counts the arrest for the most serious offense. *** Source: Colorado Health Information Dataset Population data source is the Douglas County Community Development Department, 1/1/2008.
Douglas County Air Quality Rankings for Air Quality Index, Carbon Monoxide and Nitrogen Oxides
Key: Blue Column Air Quality Index Percentile Red Column Carbon Monoxide Emissions Percentile Green Column Nitrogen Oxide Emissions Percentile This information is from Scorecard, the Pollution Information Site, found at http://scorecard.org/env‐ releases/cap that provides a report on smog and particulates. Scorecard’s data about criteria air pollutants are derived from US EPA’s Air Quality System and National Emissions Trend database. Exposure monitoring data are available for 2003, while emissions data are currently only available for 1999. This chart shows that according to this EPA data, Douglas County is ranked in the 80th percentile as one of the dirtiest/worst counties in the US for carbon monoxide emission and air quality index and in the 70th percentile for nitrogen oxide emissions. The main source of carbon monoxide in our air is vehicles. http://www.epa.gov/OMS/invntory/overview/pollutants/carbonmon.htm. Nitrogen oxides form when fuel burns at high temperatures, such as in motor vehicle engines. http://www.epa.gov/oms/invntory/overview/pollutants/nox.htm The AQI is an index for reporting daily air quality. It tells you how clean or polluted your air is, and what associated health effects might be a concern for you. The AQI focuses on health effects you may experience within a few hours or days after breathing polluted air. EPA calculates the AQI for five major air pollutants regulated by the Clean Air Act: ground‐level ozone, particle pollution (also known as particulate matter), carbon monoxide, sulfur dioxide, and nitrogen dioxide. For each of these pollutants, EPA has established national air quality standards to protect public health. http://www.airnow.gov/index.cfm?action=aqibasics.aqi
From: To: cc: Subject: Date:
Amy Enos Branstetter Elizabeth Kay Marchetti; Robert Kenny; Alexander E. Larson; Sharon Kalp; FW: Sustainability Committee Info Request Monday, January 11, 2010 3:17:53 PM
In 2009 Douglas County marked and signed 30.9 miles of bike lanes. Amy Branstetter Engineer III Extension 3334 -----Original Message----From: Alexander E. Larson Sent: Friday, January 08, 2010 2:47 PM To: Robert Kenny Cc: Amy Enos Branstetter Subject: Sustainability Committee Info Request Bob, As a heads up, the committee is looking to gather much data. One data point is bike-lane-miles. I mentioned you would be the contact for the miles of on-street bike lanes in unincorporated county. Elizabeth will likely be approaching you about getting this number. AL
Douglas County, CO From Groundwater Mining to Renewable Solutions
Timothy R. Murrell Water Resources Planner
Douglas County Domestic Well Report Prepared By: Douglas County Department of Community Planning and Sustainable Development Rural Water Authority of Douglas County September 23, 2009
Data Utilized •The sources for the report include: - water provider boundary data - County GIS records - County Assessor's records - County Information Resource Group databases - County Building Division records - City and Town building records •No sources specifically identify a list of properties served by domestic wells - County currently looking at making sense of State domestic well data
Assumptions: •Housing units within water provider service areas were assumed to be served by a public or private water provider •Housing units located outside the service areas of water providers were assumed to be served by domestic wells •All types of housing, including single family homes, townhomes, condominiums, apartments, and mobile homes, are lumped together as housing units •The only exclusions to the housing units used are assisted living facilities, group quarters, and seasonal housing •Only one domestic well serves properties primary residence, guest house, caretaker's residence, or an apartment in a barn
8, 000
7, 000
6, 000
5, 000
1970 1971 1972 1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
Total number of domestic wells: 1970 – 1,124 1980 – 3,386 1990 – 5,010 2000 – 6,846 2009 – 7,957
4, 000
3, 000
2 , 000
1, 000
0
Share of housing served by domestic wells:
2009
1970 Public water service 37% 774
Domestic wells 63%
Domestic wells 8% 8,419
1,295 Public water service 92% 96,531
Total housing by water service: 100, 000 90, 000 80, 000 70, 000 60, 000 50, 000 40, 000 30, 000 2 0, 000 10, 000
1970 1971 1972 1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
0
Housing ser v ed by public w ater sy stems
Housing ser v ed by domestic w ells
Total housing served by public water systems: 100, 000 90, 000 80, 000 70, 000 60, 000
1970 – 774 1980 – 4,186 1990 – 16,598 2000 – 54,433 2009 – 96,531
50, 000 40, 000 30, 000 2 0, 000 10, 000
1970 1971 1972 1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
0
Growth of housing served by domestic wells: 9, 000
2000 – 2008
14.6%
Before 1970
15.4%
8, 000 7, 000
1990 – 1999
1970 – 1979
22.6%
27.5%
6, 000 5, 000 4, 000
1980 – 1989
19.9%
3, 000 2 , 000
0
1970 1971 1972 1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
1, 000
Location of housing served by domestic wells:
Distribution of housing served by domestic wells: Pike/Rampart = 8.1% Margin A = 9.3% Margin B = 10.0%
Central Basin = 72.7%
Size of parcels with domestic wells:
Less than 1 acre 35 acres and over 2% 1.0 to 2.99 acres 14% 21% 6 to 34.99 acres 22%
3.0 to 5.99 acres 42%
Domestic Well Report Douglas County Questions?
Douglas County Clean Water Act Comparative Ranking
This chart reflects the percentage of surface waters within the county with impaired or threatened uses as reported by the state of Colorado and EPA data. This information is from Scorecard, the Pollution Information Site, found at http://scorecard.org/env‐releases/water. Scorecard’s profiles of Clean Water Act status are derived from US EPA’s tracking system to identify surface waters that fail to meet regulatory water quality standards (Total Maximum Daily Load [TMDL] tracking system). This, in turn, relies on reports from the individual states. The most current available data are for the year 1998. This chart indicates that Douglas County is better than the national average in terms of percentage of surface waters within the county with impaired or threatened uses. The state data reports that there are nine waterbodies in Douglas County with reported problems: Big Thompson River, Geneva Creek, Ladora Lake, Lower Derby Lake, North Fork South Platte River, South Platte River, Bowles Avenue to Burlington Ditch, South Platte River, Durlington Ditch to Big Dry Creek, South Platte River, Sources to North fork, and Tributaries to South Platte River.
Outline Geology – Ground Water Resources Dependence on GW in Douglas County DC Water Providers Regional Water Groups – Solutions? DC Zoning Ordinance Legislative Public Outreach
I-70 Hogback Formation
Denver Basin Aquifer CS
2030 M&I Water Demands and Gaps Yampa/White/Green
North Platte
South Platte
10,300 AF Gap 107,800 AF
Colorado 107,600 AF
Identified Projects 404,300 AF
Gunnison
Dolores/ San Juan/ San Miguel
Rio Grande Arkansas
Data obtained from Colorado Water Conservation Board - Water Supply Planning Section
6
Increase in Gross Demand (AF)
Estimated Demand met by future supplies and additional conservation (AF)
Total 2000 Gross Demand (AF)
Projected Conservati on Savings (AF)
Projected 2030 Gross Demand (AF)
Arkansas
256,900
18,600
354,900
98,000
80,500
17,500
Colorado
74,100
7,800
136,000
61,900
58,700
3,200
San Juan / Dolores / San Miguel
23,600
2,400
42,400
18,800
13,900
4,900
Gunnison
20,600
2,100
35,500
14,900
12,500
2,400
North Platte
500
—
600
100
100
—
Rio Grande
17,400
1,400
21,700
4,300
4,300
—
South Platte
772,400
68,700
1,182,100
409,700
319,100
90,600
29,400
900
51,700
22,300
22,300
—
1,194,900
101,900
1,824,900
630,000
511,400
118,600
Basin
Yampa / White / Green TOTAL
Identified Gross Demand Shortfall (AF)
Data obtained from Colorado Water Conservation Board - Water Supply Planning Section
7
Renewable or Not?
Vast majority still on non-renewable wells
Larger M&I Wells more susceptible to impacts
Centralized systems increase provides better opportunities for tie-in’s
Past, Current and Expected Growth
Groundwater Pumping Rate Declines
Douglas County Water Providers
30 Individual Providers
Purpose of Each to Serve
Lack of Coordination
Majority Solely on Non-Renewable Ground Water
County and Regional Water Groups SMWSA 13 water providers DCWRA Metro Roundtable RWSAWG RWA
Douglas County Zoning Resolution
Water Overlay District Intended to: Reduce sole reliance on ground water
Prevent short-term well dry-up
Increase opportunities for renewable water supplies for new development
Tracking of County Renewable Water Solutions Reuter Hess Reservoir Chatfield Reallocation Western-Slope Water?
DC Water Conservation Plan Public Education/ Comment
Need for Water Conservation
Conservation Plan
Incentives Regulation
Lead by Example
Conservation Plan Support of Commissioners Support of Water Providers Questions still unanswered How active does the County want to be? Timeline and budget being fleshed out
Lead by Example Program:
Device Count, Make/Model and Water Use for Facilities / Parks
Historic Water Use Data, per facility
RFP Development and Release
Selection of Water Auditor / Cost-Benefit Analysis
Presentation of Suggestions / Budget for Suggestions
Retrofit of Indoor Devices
Douglas County Water Conservation Assistance Program
Rural Water Provider Assistance
Conservation Toolbox Technical Assistance County Financial Incentives • Water Conservation Device Rebates • Grants
Public Outreach / Education
Provide easily attainable and decipherable resources and two-way communication opportunities with public Website Fact Sheets Public Meetings Workshops
The Future for Douglas County?
Need for renewable water solutions SMWSA – 40% renewable Work to secure additional waters underway Need for one last Western Slope BIG project
Questions?
SOURCE:COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF LABOR AND EMPLOYMENT
The average annual number of establishments in Douglas County, during 2008, was 9,594. The net addition of 181 new establishments from 2007 to 2008 marked a 1.9% increase for the year. ANNUAL AVERAGE ESTABLISHMENTS
9,594 2008
8,904
7,511
6,936
5,900
5,241
4,495
3,546
9,413
1,942 1993
2007
1,681 1992
2,970
1,520
2,553
1,350
1991
2,000
1990
4,000
2,249
6,000
3,933
8,000
6,403
10,000
8,261
12,000
2006
2005
2004
2003
2002
2001
2000
1999
1998
1997
1996
1995
1994
0
SOURCE:COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF LABOR AND EMPLOYMENT
Douglas County is now home to 10% of all business establishments in the 7-county Denver Metro Area, a share slightly higher than the 7% share of Metro Area employment. COUNTY ESTABLISHMENT SHARES
s
JEFFERSON 19%
ADAMS 9% ARAPAHOE 20%
DOUGLAS 10%
DENVER 27%
BOULDER 13% BROOMFIELD 2% SOURCE:COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF LABOR AND EMPLOYMENT
TY PLANNING AND SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
Douglas County Housing Stock approximately 106,000 housing units in 2010 approximately 8,000 housing units in 1980 Douglas County has a young housing stock. Dwelling units built in: 2000’s - 42% 1990’s - 38% 1980’s - 13% before 1980 - 7% 25,170 were built before 1992 (24%) year EPA required new toilets to use no more than 1.6 gallons per flush 6,105 were built before 1978 (6%) year lead-based paint banned
2010 DRCOG Travel Model Results 2010 Douglas County Total VMT Total Trips Starting in Douglas County
8,151,616 1,038,773
Trips Starting in Douglas County
Mode Share By Trip Type
Home‐based Work Trips Home‐based Non‐work Trips Non‐Home Based Total
Drive Alone SR2 SR3+ Transit Total 189,368 21,996 7,115 5,863 224,342 212,702 179,828 135,779 4,000 532,309 146,638 79,284 55,603 596 282,121 548,708 281,108 198,498 10,459 1,038,773
HBW HBNW NHB Total
Trips Ending in Douglas County
Mode Share By Trip Type
Home‐based Work Trips Home‐based Non‐work Trips Non‐Home Based Total
Drive Alone SR2 SR3+ Transit Total 128,756 14,622 4,832 2,485 150,695 182,892 113,260 32,546 2,268 330,966 146,679 55,621 15,983 556 218,839 458,327 183,503 53,361 5,309 700,500
HBW HBNW NHB Total
Source: DRCOG Travel Model‐ Cycle 2, 2009
To Doug HBW
From Doug
Drive Alone SR2 SR3+ Transit 84.4% 9.8% 3.2% 2.6% 40.0% 33.8% 25.5% 0.8% 52.0% 28.1% 19.7% 0.2% 52.8% 27.1% 19.1% 1.0%
Drive Alone SR2 SR3+ Transit 85.4% 9.7% 3.2% 1.6% 55.3% 34.2% 9.8% 0.7% 67.0% 25.4% 7.3% 0.3% 65.4% 26.2% 7.6% 0.8%
Graduation and Completion Rates of School Districts in DRCOG Counties http://www.cde.state.co.us/index_stats.htm
Class of 2007 DOUGLAS CLEAR CREEK BOULDER GILPIN ARAPAHOE JEFFERSON ADAMS DENVER STATE OF COLORADO
grad base graduate 3,055 2,769 83 71 4,009 3,402 35 30 8,064 6,300 7,337 5,580 5,121 3,467 5,414 2,814 60,847 45,628
completer 2,855 75 3,488 30 6,611 5,913 3,693 3,289 48,557
grad rate 90.6% 85.5% 84.9% 85.7% 78.1% 76.1% 67.7% 52.0% 75.0%
completer rate 93.5% 90.4% 87.0% 85.7% 82.0% 80.6% 72.1% 60.7% 79.8%
Class of 2008 DOUGLAS CLEAR CREEK BOULDER JEFFERSON GILPIN ARAPAHOE ADAMS DENVER STATE OF COLORADO
grad base graduate 3,135 2,866 86 74 4,078 3,510 7,404 5,711 22 17 8,452 6,434 5,151 3,491 5,924 2,879 62,611 46,291
completer 2,981 77 3,582 6,074 18 6,694 3,722 3,396 49,359
grad rate 91.4% 86.0% 86.1% 77.1% 77.3% 76.1% 67.8% 48.6% 73.9%
completer rate 95.1% 89.5% 87.8% 82.0% 81.8% 79.2% 72.3% 57.3% 78.8%
Notes: Broomfield residents attend schools in the Jefferson County, Adams 12 Five Star, and Boulder Valley school districts.
Douglas County Sustainability Initiative Advisory Committee (SIAC) Preliminary report on LEED Buildings, Carbon Footprint, Energy Use, Net Meters/Renewable Energy, and Dark Skies in Douglas County February 11, 2010 Paul C. Hutton AIA, LEED ap
DRAFT LEED certified buildings in Douglas County According to the United States Green Building Council (USGBC) there are only two buildings in Douglas County that are currently LEED certified. They are both at Valor Christian School in Highlands Ranch. For comparison there are nine LEED certified buildings in Jefferson County, 21 LEED certified buildings in Boulder County, and 51 in Denver. There is no LEED certified house in Douglas County. As a side note, the Hutton Residence in Sedalia, completed in 2006, meets all certification criteria, but the new version of LEED makes it virtually impossible to retroactively certify a house. There are likely other residences in the county that could have met LEED criteria. It should be stated that the Douglas County School District’s recent series of elementary schools would qualify for LEED certification, but the District elected not to expend the extra cost for the process. Future versions may be LEED certified to the Gold level. An interesting question is why Douglas County has such an extremely low number of LEED certified buildings in place compared to other Colorado counties. The SIAC should discuss this question, perhaps involving the Building Department, and devise incentives to catch up with, and ultimately surpass, neighboring counties.
Carbon Footprint “Colorado has a per capita Carbon Score of 24, with the 24th highest resident population. Each Colorado resident produces 21 tons of Carbon Dioxide each year.” US Department of Energy Colorado’s carbon footprint is 89.72 million metric tons per year, ranking it 23rd in the U.S. The output is categorized as follows: Transportation 26.32 mmt Commercial 4.11 mmt Electricity 40.01 mmt Residential 7.52 mmt Industrial 11.76 mmt Another source of information on fossil fuel based carbon footprint is Project Vulcan from Purdue University (2002 data). According to that website, Colorado’s total emissions (2002 data) is 25,702,890 metric tons, an average of 5.71 metric tons per
1
capita. Douglas County’s share of that was 436,211 metric tons. Per capita carbon emissions of Douglas County compared to other counties is: Douglas County 2.08 Jefferson County 2.61 Arapahoe County 2.46 Boulder County 3.83 City and County of Denver 4.39 Interestingly, Douglas County is well below the state average and the lowest of nearby counties. This is somewhat misleading in that Douglas County has no airports or power plants, and almost no industry. Yet Douglas County residents take advantage of and benefit from these facilities elsewhere in the state. Douglas County’s carbon footprint is allocated as follows: Aircraft 0.00 Commercial 0.07 Electric prod. 0.00 Industrial 0.02 Nonroad 0.22 Onroad 1.44 Residential 0.36 Unknown 0.00 By far the greatest contributor to Douglas County’s carbon footprint is transportation, followed by residential use. This is to be expected given the county’s geographic size and dispersed population. What is unclear is why the US Department of Energy’s total carbon footprint data is so different from Purdue’s fossil fuel carbon footprint. Additional investigation into this disparity may reveal additional useful information. The SIAC may wish to recommend the Douglas County Community Planning and Sustainable Development Department actively monitor the county’s carbon footprint, either using in-house resources or by retaining a consultant specifically for this purpose.
Energy Use Colorado ranks 35th nationally in total energy consumption per capita, according to DOE 2007 figures. The numbers, along with a few other states for comparison, are: State Consumption (MBTU) Rank Alaska 1,062 1st Wyoming 948 2nd Texas 496 5th Colorado 305 35th Utah 301 37th Arizona 248 46th Rhode Island 206 51st
2
Colorado energy consumption by sector: Commercial 289.7 BTU Residential 317.4 BTU Industrial 368.4 BTU Transportation 375.9 BTU
21st 26th 29th 27th
The cause of the disparity between the values in the two above charts is not known at this time, but will be investigated. The disparity does not undermine the value of the relative rankings. In order to estimate Douglas County’s total energy consumption per capita, the county by county carbon footprint comparisons may be used as a rough guide. Doing so yields an approximate energy consumption per capita in Douglas County of 111 MBTU. Modeling total energy consumption per capita in any given geographic area is a challenging exercise, but the SIAC could consider assigning the task to the Community Planning and Sustainable Development Department. The benefit of doing so would be that Douglas County would establish itself as a leader in the state and it would be a precise tool to understand progress toward the goal of reduction in energy consumption. Many experts in the field would contend that energy consumption is the single most reliable indicator of the global impact of our collective actions.
Building Energy Efficiency Douglas County adopted the 2006 International Building Code (IBC) in 2009 and expects to adopt the 2009 IBC in 2010. The 2006 code represented a 11% energy reduction for commercial buildings and a 2% energy reduction for residential buildings in comparison to the previous 2003 code. The 2009 code represents a 16% energy reduction for commercial buildings and a 7% energy reduction for residential buildings in comparison to the previous 2006 code. Future codes are expected to get much more demanding in energy efficiency. Information already released about the next code in 2012 indicates further reductions of 30% and 30% for commercial and residential buildings respectively. Douglas County residents and businesses operating in the county may expect construction costs to increase with these newer and more stringent codes. Beyond 2012, it is impossible to predict building energy requirements, but in order to achieve the goals of the global 2030 Challenge, continued aggressive energy use reductions will be needed. The County should be commended for keeping up with current codes and requiring energy use data with building permit applications. But the County and residents alike should be aware that the energy use reductions coming will be much more demanding and perhaps more expensive than what has been achieved in the last few years. Refer to the attached chart for a review of building energy use codes from 1975 to 2030.
3
Net meters and renewable energy Colorado ranks 5th nationally in available solar insolation and 11th in wind. Both of these energy sources are readily harvested with proven, off the shelf, technology. Douglas County has three electricity providers – Xcel, IREA, and Mountain View. Excel Energy has an active Solar Rewards program to stimulate installation of renewable energy, Mountain View utilizes the Governors Energy Office (GEO) Solar Rebate Program to offset the initial cost of renewable energy, and IREA does neither. All of them have customer friendly net metering policies, as required by state law. Net meters facilitate the two way flow of electricity, so that customers may purchase and sell power at the same rate. Excel had 41 net meters in Douglas County in early 2009, Mountain View has one renewable energy installation using a 2.4 kW wind turbine, and IREA has 40, but they do not know how many of these are in Douglas County. The total capacity of installed renewable energy in the county is not known, but is probably in the range of 300-400 kilowatts. The SIAC may wish to recommend that the of Community Planning and Sustainable Development Department actively track total renewable energy installed capacity. The SAIC should consider a program to utilize the Governors Energy Office Solar Rebate Program for those residents and small businesses within IREA territory. IREA could utilize this program but has chosen not to. The program funds half of the cost of renewable energy, with the local governmental entity providing the other half. Not participating in the program sends available funding to other counties in the state and deprives Douglas County residents and small businesses of a significant opportunity to enhance their sustainability.
Dark Skies Zoning regulations adopted by the County in 1999 require “protecting the public’s ability to view the night sky.” No current county standards include the term “Dark Sky” but they do include many of the components of this system designed to protect the integrity of night skies and reduce light pollution. Some of the current prohibitions in the current code are: upward or outward oriented lighting wall pack fixtures that are not classified as full cutoff high intensity floodlighting lights mounted on poles for the purpose of illuminating the building Furthermore, all outdoor lighting is required to be full cutoff. Exterior lighting for commercial projects is regulated through the site plan process. Despite the regulations, there are cases of commercial lighting that violate the current code. It is not clear how these instances happened, but an effort to correct them would be a long term benefit to the County and would result in compliance with the long standing commitment quoted above. The Building Department has indicated that it would support an initiative from
4
the SIAC and the Board of County Commissioners to adopt and enforce more stringent Dark Sky regulations. Currently there appears to be no effort on the part of the County to apply or enforce exterior lighting regulations in single family residential applications. Doing so would require resources that do not currently exist. Yet, the vast majority of buildings in Douglas County are residential, and residences have the capacity to contribute significantly toward light pollution of our night skies. The current zoning regulation for lighting includes the following line under 3003 Exceptions: “Single family residential lighting, except as prohibited herein.” Immediately below, in section 3004 Prohibited Lighting, are listed a wide range of lighting types. There would seem to be some ambiguity in the code regarding whether single family residences are allowed to utilize prohibited lighting. But it is clear from any cursory examination of the County at night that residences routinely do use exterior lighting clearly listed as prohibited in the code, and that some of these lights are now contributing to light pollution. A further review of exterior lighting regulations in incorporated areas of Douglas County may be warranted, in order to achieve uniformity and consistency. Furthermore, an incentive program designed to remove non-complying lighting in the long term may be desirable.
5
PARKS, TRAILS, OPEN SPACE, STATE AND FEDERAL LAND LOCATED IN DOUGLAS COUNTY PUBLIC TRAILS Douglas County Open Space Douglas County Parks TOTAL COUNTY GOVT
58 miles 49 miles 107 miles
Castle Rock Parker Highlands Ranch Metro District TOTAL TOWN & METRO TOTAL TRAILS*
56 miles 12 miles 58 miles 126 miles 233 miles
PUBLIC PARKS Douglas County Parks Castle Rock Parker Larkspur Highlands Ranch Metro District Daniels Park (City & County of Denver) State Parks TOTAL PARKS
13 17 13 1 22 1 3 70
PIKE NATIONAL FOREST STATE LAND BOARD (STEWARDSHIP TRUST)
1,204 acres 250 acres 246 acres 35 acres 160 acres 954 acres 10,960 acres 13,809 acres (21.6 sq mi) 140,932 acres (220.2 sq mi) 1,109 acres (1.73 sq mi)
FEE OWNED OPEN SPACE Douglas County (excluding in subdivisions) Castle Rock Parker Highlands Ranch Community Association Highlands Ranch Metropolitan District TOTAL FEE OWNED OPEN SPACE
15,215 acres 2,612 acres 680 acres 8,200 acres 2,000 acres 28,707 acres (44.9 sq mi)
OTHER PROTECTED LAND (CONSERVATION EASEMENTS) Douglas County Douglas Land Conservancy Colorado Cattleman’s Agricultural Land Trust Colorado Open Lands TOTAL OTHER PROTECTED LAND
30,678 acres 7,941 acres 1,598 acres 4,230 acres 44,447 acres (69.4 sq mi)
TOTAL ALL PARK, OPEN SPACE, OTHER PROTECTED 229,004 acres (357.8 sq mi) *Trail mileage does not include State Parks, Pike National Forest, Lone Tree, or South Suburban
January 1, 2009 population of Douglas County = 290,311 Public Parks Pike National Forest State Land Board Fee Owned Open Space Other Protected Land TOTAL
13,809 acres 140,932 acres 1,109 acres 28,707 acres 44,447 acres 229,004 acres
Acres per person = .789 acres of parks, open space, and other protected land COMPARISON TO OTHER COUNTIES Boulder County (1967) Population = 294,000 =
330,326 acres (including Rocky Mtn Natl Park, USFS, watersheds, municipalities, and other state and federal land) 1.12 acres per person
Open Space Program only = 93,738 acres (146.46 sq mi) or .319 acres per person Jefferson County (1972)
51,981.5 acres (81.22 sq mi) Open Space Program only
Population = 571,288 =
.09 acres per person
Douglas County (1995)
45,840 acres (71.62 sq mi) Open Space Program only
Population = 290,311 =
.158 acres per person
Prepared by: Cheryl Matthews, Director, Open Space & Natural Resources Date: 1/27/10
SIAC Recycling Data February 16, 2010 Ruth Gaulke The City of LoneTree established a recycling program in 2009.
The program description includes: no additional cost for recycling service. Pro Disposal, Inc. provides residential single-stream recycling to Lone Tree residents. Single-stream recycling gives customers the ability to mix recyclable paper, plastic, and glass in one bin. Recycling is picked up every other week. (source - http://www.cityoflonetree.com/index.aspx?NID=535) ProDisposal would not reveal what it takes to allow a city to begin using their services. The costs for their current customers are as follows (notice that LoneTree is paid by the city): City
Zip Code
Trash Trash & Yearly Trash Yearly Trash Price Monthly Recycling & Recycling 1 Month Price Monthly (Includes Price Free) (Includes 1 Month Price Free)
Arvada
80003 & 80004
$15.00
$18.25
$165.00
$200.75
Aurora
80010-80017
$16.50
$20.25
$181.50
$222.75
Centennial
80111-80112 80121-80122
$18.75
$22.00
$206.25
$242.00
Denver
80221 & 80229
$18.00
$21.25
$198.00
$233.75
Englewood
80110,80113
$18.75
$22.00
$206.25
$242.00
Golden
80401
$18.00
$21.25
$198.00
$233.75
Highlands Ranch
80126,80129,80130
$18.75
$22.00
$206.25
$242.00
Lakewood
80214,80215
$18.00
$21.25
$198.00
$233.75
Lakewood
80226-80228 & 80232
$18.75
$22.00
$206.25
$242.00
Lone Tree
80124
City
City
City
City
Littleton
80126-80128 & 80120, 80123 &80124
$18.75
$22.00
$206.25
$242.00
Morrison
80465
$18.75
$22.00
$206.25
$242.00
Thornton
80229
$17.75
$21.25
$206.25
$195.25
Wheat Ridge
80033 & 80212 80214
$18.00
$21.50
$198.00
$236.50
Douglas County provides a list of sources for residents to use for specific items to recycle. (http://www.douglas.co.us/community/Recycle_Reuse_Guide.html) Jefferson County has a drop-off site at the Rooney Road recycling center. They accept yard waste and most types of household hazardous waste materials.
Boulder County: Updated its Trash Hauler Ordinance to help reduce waste and increase recycling (and composting) for residential trash customers in unincorporated Boulder County. Residents can choose a trash collection and waste reduction plan – available at the curb or driveway. Haulers required to implement new systems such as:
SIAC Recycling Data February 16, 2010 Ruth Gaulke
1. “Pay-as-You-Throw” disposal pricing tiers (see
http://www.bouldercounty.org/recycling/payt/PAYTpricegraphic.pdf).
This is based on volume of trash, recycling, and composting.
2. “Single Stream” Recycling (all recyclables together in one bin) recycling (with unlimited collection) 3. Curbside Compost Collections in certain neighborhoods. The ordinance provides a level playing field for licensed trash haulers in Boulder County; all haulers are required to provide similar services, but they set their own rates based on their particular costs of providing those services.
Skumatz Economic Research Associates (SERA). (Good source for information) Colorado is at the bottom ¼ of the United States regarding recycling. Trash collection systems vary among counties and cities in Colorado. Hierarchy of recycling programs include: • • • • •
Drop-off recycling Drop-off yard waste Curbside recycling Embedding recycling costs (no separate fee) Pay as you Throw
Colorado Association for Recycling (CAFR). (Good source for information)
CAFR is a registered 501(c)(3) non-profit organization. Membership is comprised of all facets of the industry: state and local governments, non-profit organizations, large and small businesses, schools, universities, and citizen recyclers. No other recycling organization within Colorado offers such a diverse and representative membership. CAFR offers you programs that give you the opportunity to learn more about the recycling and solid waste management issues that face Colorado.
