HomeMy WebLinkAboutWater Board - Minutes - 01/25/1985� y •
MINUTES
Special Water Board Meeting on the Water Rate Study
January 25, 1985
Members Present
Norman Evans, Henry Caulfield, Neil Grigg, Dave Stewart, MaryLou Smith,
Tom Sanders, John Scott (alt.), Jim O'Brien (alt.)
Staff Present
Bill Carnahan, Mike Smith, Dennis Bode, Ben Alexander
Members Absent
Bernie Cain, Mort Bittinger, Tom Moore, Ray Glabach
Chairman Norm Evans opened the special meeting arranged to discuss only
the Water Rate Study.
The first part of the meeting was devoted to clarifications and
modifications of the report which could be discussed with the
Consultant.
Norm Evans opened the discussion by stating the purpose of today's
deliberations. He said that the Board would go through the report
to discuss further questions, concerns, uncertainties, etc. When those
are cleared up, the Board can say they have reviewed the report and
they are ready to turn it over to staff to work with the Consultant on
the final document. The following concerns were discussed:
Henry Caulfield reminded the Consultant of the points that he had
stressed previously, which, he hopes, the Consultant will consider
before the final report is completed. Mr. Caulfield is thinking in
terms of alternative No. I with modifications.
Neil Grigg commented that the report is primarily a resource document
which now depends on staff analyses and alternatives.
John Scott suggested that the Consultant stress the scope of the work
since several City Council members asked a number of questions which
were outside of that scope. Mr. Stewart said that the executive summary
will clearly emphasize the scope of the study. Mr. Scott also suggested
that the Consultant might want to recommend any follow-up work.
Henry Caulfield added that Mr. Stewart might want to explicitly say, for
example, that it was not in the scope to make benefit/cost analyses of
the different forms of metering.
Norm Evans referred to page 2-4, point 3. It would include that 50%
responded for no change even though 43% opted for change. He expressed
the same comment for page 2-6, point 4; "evenly divided." On page 3-7
he wants the text sharpened because it is not clear.
Jim O'Brien had a question on page A-19, No. 14 called, "Opinion
Regarding the Best Way of Charging for Water." The table was divided into
Fort Collins Only and All Customers. Each was divided into flat rate and
consumption. The headings were: Total answers, All responses, Metered
responses, and Non -metered responses. Mr. O'Brien wondered if more
people with meters were responding than those on the flat rate? Dave
Stewart said no. 362 answered that question and when asked if they would
like flat rates based on lot size or a rate based on the amount of
consumption, 220 said they would like the rate based on actual
consumption; 142 said based on flat rate. 92.6% of the people on meters
would like rates based on use. Mr. Stewart clarifiedfor Mr. O'Brien
other points related to the basis fr the conclusions.
Henry Caulfield asked about. page 4-16. There are assumptions about
inflation; are these standard assumptions? Mr. Stewart said it is a
national average. Bill Carnahan clarified that for Fort Collins, they
are conservative on the high side.
Norm Evans had a question on page S-8. He found that section to contain
the kernel of important thinking behind the report. He had compared
these conclusions with a number of other studies and found this reduction
in max day demand to be as much as two times higher. The range in these
studies ran as low as 70 to as high as 370. A reliable Denver study was
between 160 and 190. Dave Stewart responded that they were required to
deal with the data that was available to them and this was a worst case
scenario, which was about a 30% drop in water use. The typical case is
around 10-15%. It was about 20% in the Denver study. Norm Evans cited
the Bryson study which examined accuracy. His conclusion was that if you
had the best data, it was possible to get, you would have an accuracy in
that number of + or - 30 gallons per day per dwelliing unit. The studies
that have been made to develop those differences have been based on lot
area estimates, etc. Dr. Evans stressed that we should be cautious about
what percentage we think it is in order to be realistic.
Jim O'Brien wanted to follow up on this question. On table 4-7 the 34%
should be reflected in these figures of the 3 year average of peak day,
peak hour maximum to average month ratio. What you are saying is that
the 704 gallons per account is actually reflected in the ratio. Mr.
Stewart explained that is why there is a difference in what a metered
customer pays versus a flat rate customer. Because of the peaking
factor, you Must design the system to meet the peak and the flat rate
customer is causing that peak. If you can change that peaking factor,
Your costs are changed accordingly.
Mr. O'Brien had calculated the figure as 34%. What Mr. Caulfield and
Dr. Evans related is that 20% is a better figure as far as those numbers
are concerned. Mr. O'Brien agreed with that. He concluded that there
are so few people metered compared with the total. How reliable are the
figures both in terms of trying to collect this data and in terms of the
study's recommendations and conclusions? In terms of equity, figure 2-3
answers that question. The 34% also answers the question unless this
data is not good enough.
-2-
Henry Caulfield thinks that the big problem when one talks about the
metered and non -metered customers, is that you must qualify that clearly
and explain that some of the metered customers have other sources of
supply: for example wells. There are two sentences in the report that
reflect that. Our own thinking should be in terms of perhaps 20% rather
than 34%. The danger is that members of the City Council and others will
pick up this number and conclude that there is tremendous waste by not
having meters.
Neil Grigg agreed that the 34% number needs to be qualified. We can't
base our decisions on attitudes in the survey.
Neil Grigg asked if there is a tendency along the front range for the per
capita consumption to be declining. Mike Smith said that there is a
tendency, because of the high density development: multi-fmaily housing,
etc., to see some of that happening.
Henry Caulfield said that the truble with per capita use is that it
includes industrial and commercial. Per capita use should be based on
household use: that would be more reliable. With AB coming in, the per
capita use will go way up in Fort Collins.
There was considerable discussion on the peaking factor and also about
the inside City customers with meters. Mike Smith contends that these
people usually have a meter for a reason such as a large lot with a
well or irrigation ditch water. These are probably the ideal customers
as far as water use. If you meter the whole town, you won't have this
ideal situation. Thus, Mr. Caulfield's point is well taken.
Tom Sanders reiterated that there will be those who will make a big deal
out of the 34%: we don't want that to happen, because that percentage
can't hold up no matter what the circumstances.
Jim O'Brien asked if we could go back to those 216 metered customers and
find out if they water with wells. This, of course, would be out of
the scope of the Consultant's work.
Dr. Evans said that the well problem is just one of the variables that
tends to affect the numbers.
Dave Stewart pointed out that on page 5-17, one of the conclusions states
that a reduction of peaking factors would be in the range of 10-30%.
Henry Caulfield noticed that no reference is made in the conclusions to
the substantial numbers of metered customers who have wells although it
appears elsewhere in the report. The place where the media is going to
pick things up is in the conclusions. Perhaps a couple of sentences
about this fact could be put in the conclusions, particularly about where
the range actually comes out, and also note that the high number could be
misleading because of the wells. This would protect the validity of the
report as well as the City and the Water Board.
Because all of the questions and concerns about the report itself that
the Consultant was there to answer, had been addressed, Dave Stewart
-3-
left. Because Dave Stewart is a member of the Water Board as well as the
Consultant, his action was in compliance with the Boards and Commissions
conflict of interest policy.
Before Mr. Stewart left, Jim O'Brien commended him and his colleagues for
the excellent information that was included in the report. It is going
to be very useful towards what comes next, he said.
Chairman Evans then asked for discussion on the report that would lead
towards what the Board many want to recommend.
Henry Caulfield asked for comments from the staff regarding the report.
Bill Carnahan related that during the preparation of the report Dennis
Bode and Mike Smith participated with a lot of input and time which
helped produce a report in a form that will be useful. The cost of
service portion, probably the most important thing that came out of the
report, will set the stage for looking at the equity issues, and looking
atwhat is influencing the costs as we do the broader look at where we
are going. The staff would like to think of the report as only one piece
of the puzzle and now proceed with the other pieces.
Dennis Bode added that the report has given us a larger data base to look
at and a great deal of useful information. As several Board members have
indicated, Mr. Bode also thinks that we need to be cautious with the way
we treat some of the numbers, particularly the peaking factors, and
remember that there are other considerations that we must investigate.
Mike Smith added that extreme caution needs to be used for table 4-26, so
that we don't end up doing anything drastic in the way of changing rates
for individual classes.
Henry Caulfield repeated a point which he brought up at the last meeting
relating to those green belt areas with programmed automatic sprinkler
systems. Even though they are metered and on sprinkler systems and are
handled by professionals, they are far off from the desired ET ratings,
so it can be assumed that individual residents can't be counted on to do
much better, unless they are very conscientious.
Bill Carnahan stressed that table 4-26 needs to be qualified and we need
to advise outsiders about it. They need to know that these figures are
merely a management tool for the staff and the Water Board to give us
direction, but not absolute answers.
Tom Sanders asked that the final recommendation on page 7-2 to be
deleted. He doesn't think it has anything to do with the study. Dennis
Bode pointed out that the same thing having to do with peaking factors,
is also listed on p. S-17.
Bill Carnahan pointed out, that from the Consultant's limited scope, that
recommendation is probably logical because they are not saying metering
is economically feasible or that there is a benefit/cost ratio: from
their perspective there appear to be some benefits in water savings.
Henry Caulfield said, furthermore, that this statement could indicate
-4-
that there should be a benefit/cost study.
Neil 6rigg is looking forward to what the staff will be doing with the
data.
At the next regular meeting, the Water Board will be reviewing the
annotated outline which the staff is preparing. The staff will continue
to work with the Consultant to complete the contractural arrangement.
Bill Carnahan mentioned that once the staff and the Water Board "get some
meat on" the outline, this will be forwarded to the City Council to let
them know how we plan to approach it. Into that we could integrate what
role or what purpose the report would play in that overall viewpoint.
This would take care of the obligation to get back to the Council with
regard to the report. This approach was acceptable to the Board.
Since there was other business, the meeting was adjourned at 4:35 p.m.
Water Board Secretary
-5-