Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutWater Board - Minutes - 12/02/19850 ! Water Board December 2, 1985 Members Present Norm Evans, Chairman, Henry Caulfield, Vice Chairman, Jim O'Brien, Tom Moore, John Scott, Tom Sanders, Neil Grigg, Dave Stewart, Ray Herrmann (alt.) Staff Present Bill Carnahan, Mike Smith, Dennis Bode, Webb Jones, Andy Pineda, Paul Eckman, Assistant City Attorney Members Absent Marylou Smith, Bill Elliott, Stan Ponce (alt.) Chairman Norm Evans opened the meeting. The following items were discussed: Reappointed Member and New Member It was announced that former alternate John Scott was appointed as a regular member to fill the unexpired term of Morton Bittinger who recently resigned from the Board. Ray Herrmann was welcomed and introduced to the Board members and staff. . He was appointed for a two year term as an alternate. Minutes The minutes of November 15, 1985 were approved after a correction on page 9, the first full paragraph; 19% was changed to 9%. Discussion of Report: "Evaluation of Water Demand Manacement Options" Dennis Bode and Webb Jones prepared some follow-up work as a result of questions from the last meeting. Dennis Bode reviewed those questions: 1) There were questions about the 20% water use reduction figure from flat rate to metered. 2) Another question was related to Plant Investment Fees and whether there would be a need for an increase. 3) There was a question about a gradual phasing of rate increases for the flat rate customers to bring them in line with metered customers based on cost of service. Webb Jones distributed copies of material that related to the first two questions. A summary of the HUD study prepared by Brown & Caldwell gave statistics from several studies, including a three year study in Denver, where water reduction through use of meters was demonstrated. The 20% number which has been discussed so often came from the Denver study. It was found in this study, that the metered customers used 20% less water on an annual basis than the flat rate customers. That is similar to the 22% annual reduction that is being used in the staffs "Demand Management Options" Report. The principle finding from the Brown & Caldwell report was that metered customers use less water for landscape irrigation. Henry Caulfield pointed out that, according to his calculations regarding the "green lawn" concept, the projected reductions in water use with meters shown in the staff report, would not compromise the quality of the City's lawns. Mr. Caulfield also said that he trusts the staff will make it clear in the report that, for Loveland, there was a substantial price increase at the same time they installed meters. Thus, one could not attribute the decline in use entirely. to metering. Tom Moore asked about the per capita use in Boulder as compared with Fort Collins. Webb Jones displayed a graph that showed what happened in Boulder from 1956 to 1978. It indicates that before meters were installed, water use was about 220 gal. per capita per day. After meters were installed the per capita usage went down to about 160 gpd. Dennis Bode said that per capita use in Fort Collins is close to 200 gal. Tom Sanders related that the national average is 168 gal. Mr. Bode stressed that every City is different in terms of industrial use, etc. He answered Mr. Moore's question by saying that Boulder's residential use is much lower than it is in Fort Collins. Henry Caulfield asked if there was a price increase associated with installation of meters in Boulder. Mr. Jones isn't certain what happened when they installed meters, but he knows that the rate in Boulder at this time, is lower than in Fort Collins. Mr. Caulfield repeated that the report should state for each of the Front range cities, whether a rate increase accompanied the installation of meters. Mr. Jones informed the Board that currently Loveland's metered rates are 59% greater than those in Fort Collins; in Longmont their flat rate is 44% greater than in Fort Collins and the metered rate is 13% more; in Greeley the flat rate is 15% more and metered is 24% less. There are many variations, he said. Tom Sanders brought up the equity question in terms of industry (specifically, Anheuser-Busch) versus residential. He doesn't think those costs are broken dawn to show equity. Norm Evans assured him that the staff has considered those costs in their estimates. Henry Caulfield asked about the cost savings that are in the Benefit/cost analysis which are largely attributable to the delay in the treatment plant expansions and are not associated at all or very much with what Tom Sanders is concerned about. Mr. Bode replied that it is mostly attributed to the delay in treatment plant expansion. He added that staff has some data connected with the PIFs which will help demonstrate the reason for that. Mr. Caulfield related that he had spoken with former Board member Ray Anderson and his major argument is with the B/C analysis associated with "green lawns." Webb Jones went on to present information on one of the major points from the last meeting which was what effect a metering program would have on the PIFs. Staff prepared some tables which were handed out at the meeting. The first table shows the costs for treatment plant expansions that would occur without a metering program. Without metering, the table shows 10 MGD expansions in 1991, 1997 and 2004. The costs shown in the table are the projected actual costs in the years that they occur. They took the 1986 costs and escalated them at 4% per year to come up with the actual plant expansion costs. They assumed that each of those expansions would be paid off from PIFs through a 2 i 0 bond issue; they assumed a 20 year bond at 8% interest would be issued. Neat, they distributed those payments for each of the 3 plant expansions. After that they added up the payment each year from each of the 3 bond issues. The same process was used assuming metering alternative # 2 would be implemented. With Alt. 2, plant expansions would occur in 1994 and 2003. The annual bond payments for each of those expansions was added to the cost of the metering program. The estimated cost of the metering program is based upon table 7-16 in the report -- the funding alternative that they developed. They escalated metering costs at 4% per year to indicate actual yearly costs and came up with a total PIF contribution just for these types of improvements. Other types of PIF expenditures were not included. The second sheet of the handouts lists the total PIF contributions without a metering program and with Alt. No. 2. They subtracted total annual PIFs to arrive at the difference in PIF expenditures between the base and Alt. 2. The table showed that in the first five years, the total PIF cost would be about $900,000 more with a metering program, but as plant expansions are delayed further, costs paid from PIFs under the metering alternative, would be significantly less than under the base program. Tom Sanders asked why staff used a cost escalation rate of 4% instead of a higher number. Mike Smith responded that the reason they used 4% was to be conservative. If a higher percentage of inflation is used, the benefit goes up with a metering program. Tom Sanders contends "that we need a lively debate on this.,, These figures represent pure speculation, he stressed, and he is not convinced that this is the best way to spend our money at this point. He concedes, however, that if alternative 2 really does reduce water use by 20% and still maintains green lawns, then we should "go for it." Nevertheless, he doesn't think we have "that good a handle on it." Jim O'Brien stressed that what the Board is trying to do is come up with a Policy decision based on the numbers the staff has produced. He thinks that if any of the members have some specific arguments against some of the numbers they used, these arguments should be raised right now; "Otherwise, we need to make a decision based on the staffs best efforts," he concluded. Dave Stewart thinks another point the Board needs to consider is whether we believe "we are going to go to meters someday." If we do, we must make that decision soon because if we delay, we lose the benefits. Henry Caulfield wanted to know what the PIF reserves are. Mike Smith said that the projected amount for the end of 1985 is $1.2 million. Mr. Caulfield referred to handout No. 2, the column labeled Base -Alt. After 10 years it shows $1.1 million, after another 10 years $7.8 million, and the next is $9.6 million. He didn't understand the 30 year total of $18.6 million. Webb Jones explained that the figures in the handout represent expenditures for only treatment plant expansions and metering. Mike Smith explained further that the 1.1, 7.8 and 9.6 are ten-year subtotals, not reserves at the end of those periods. Dennis Bode said the last column is the base minus Alt. 2 for each individual year. Mr. Caulfield said that tells him if you have already removed the distribution costs that are charged against PIFs, then "we are making a profit of $18.6 million in PIFs as a result of this activity." Mr. Bode answered yes, financially, not 3 economically. Mike Smith added that if we kept PIFs at the level needed for the base alternative for the next 30 years, and implemented Alt. 2, we would generate a reserve of about $18 million excluding interest. It is the projected difference between costs of no program and Alt. No. 2 over 30 years. Mr. Caulfield said he understands that, but he is trying to get at the fundamental policy point in order to explain it to the public. " Are we talking about a constant PIF or are we talking about a changing PIF; say at 4% a year or some other figure?" Mike Smith explained that the staff didn't look at the amount of the PIF -- it is going to go up no matter what alternative we use because costs are going to go up. John Scott commented that when the PIFs are added up for a 10 or 30 year period, that is when a discount rate needs to be used. Dennis Bode replied that the table is intended to show a financial analysis rather than an economic analysis. Mr. Scott said people are going to look at the $18 million total and misinterpret it. Webb Jones agreed that those numbers may be somewhat misleading. Essentially the subtotal after 10 years indicates that you don't need to collect $1.17 million with the metering alternative. John Scott contends that the public will look at the total and say that we are going to save $18 million by metering. It's not a present worth cost. Dennis Bode agreed and explained that we may have to have some other increases to keep up with inflation or because of other circumstances. A point that Mr. Bode emphasized was that with Alt. 2 in the first 5 years there would be shortages, but the following 3 years more than make up for the previous 5. If financing arrangements can be made for those first 5, such as borrowing from reserves, collections over the next 3 years would be more than adequate. Henry Caulfield commented that he thinks staff has done what he asked for in the sense that they have shown that there is a net over the long run and thus, we wouldn't be getting into trouble. But, in terms of a public document, we must go into the discussion of what the PIF actually is. All of the charges through the PIF must be indicated including the plant expansion and the meters and then show what the net is. Bill Carnahan said that what it really says is that we have looked at two alternatives to solve the problem in the future of meeting the need. We can demonstrate that one alternative is cheaper than the other, but we don't know what impact that has as yet on the existing PIF rate structure. Mr. Caulfield repeated, "It's got to show that." Mike Smith said the problem is we don't know what impact the base case has on the PIFs for 30 years. obviously, some assumptions would have to be made on inflation rates and growth rates. Mr. Caulfield suggested that any assumptions and qualifications should be stated for the public, to try to make it understandable. Mike Smith added that we can assume the distribution costs and the other plant facilities paid by PIFs are the same in either case. That may be conservative too because there may be some savings in transmission costs with a metering program. Mr. Caulfield offered the following scenario: "let's assume there is a constant — let's put that in here and then show the actual PIF so the ordinary person can tell that it looks whole and then show that 0 the PIF is more than adequate to take care of metering." Mr. Bode thinks that staff could make some assumptions and add those in so the total picture of the PIFs can be shown. Mr. Caulfield added, "and take some insurance out on inflation. Is there anything else you need to take insurance out on?" Mr. Smith said that the two main variables are going to be the inflation rate and the growth rate. Mr. Caulfield thinks we need to say to the public that the whole thing depends on a certain growth rate. Neil Grigg thinks we are focusing on the wrong thing. Growth rates and inflation rates, costs of construction, etc. are complicated. The average citizen in Fort Collins is not concerned about PIFs because they already live here; that's for the newcomers. What he is concerned about is the $324 that the existing homeowners might have to pay when they sell their homes. It appears to Dr. Grigg that the PIF will take care of itself — the staff will work that out. He thinks we need to focus on how to make a metering program palitable for an existing homeowner. He emphasized that the whole issue of whether it is a good idea to meter or not revolves around whether the individual either comes out ahead or behind by metering. "If I can be convinced I can come out ahead, I'll want to go to a meter, and I would want the City to find a way to help me finance it," he said. He concluded, "If I'm going to lose money as a homeowner, I'm going to think the whole idea is a wrong decision regardless of any of the argLmients the City makes." He thinks the ingredients for convincing the existing homeowner of the merits of metering are there, if, in fact, consumption falls enough that we can save money in the accounts where the existing homeowner pays. He added, "If you force a meter on me, I would feel as though I am being forced to pay for the growth of the City." Henry Caulfield suggested that the way you could possibly implement such an idea is in part use some of the PIFs to take care of some of these people and if necessary or desirable, assess the yoke expense for a new house to the contractor. That would reduce the amount of the PIF dedicated to the new houses, and thus, make more available to the existing homeowner. Webb Jones said tables in the handout were based on the funding formula shown in table 7-16 on p. 40. We came up with these same types of numbers assuming that instead of that cost sharing formula, the PIFs paid for 100% of the cost of metering. That analysis shows that at the end of a 10 year period you are short by about $267,000 -- that is assuming that PIFs are paying 100% of the cost of metering under Alt. 2. This indicates there is some potential to modify table 7-16 and still come out okay financially. Neil Grigg suggested that if you combine shifting the burden to the PIF for existing homeowners, with raising the rate for flat rate customers to an equitable level, and show the people how they could save money in the long range, he thinks the conditions would be there for everyone to come out ahead on metering. Tom Sanders asked, will there be a total decrease in cost to the homeowner and to the City if we meter? If the answer is yes, then meter. Henry Caulfield pointed out that we should remember that the builders would be happy with this because they would not have an increase in the PIF. The PIF they are paying now would cover this program. on the point of having the 5 yoke paid for by the builders; if this occurred, the deficit after the first 10 years would probably be wiped out. Dennis Bode explained that, currently, with the new homes, the PIF would stay the same and we would essentially give them the meter and yoke. Webb Jones clarified that in table 7-16 which summarizes all those costs, there is a cost for new homes of $48.00 that is paid from PIFs. Staff is assuming. that the yoke is still being paid for by the builder/homeowner. That $48 covers the cost of the meter and the remote readout; the yoke, they assume, is already there. On existing homes without a yoke, the PIFs will pay a portion of installing a yoke. Tom Sanders asked what the cost of labor is for installing a meter and a yoke. If the yoke is already there, it is estimated it will cost $40 for the City to intall the meter. Jim O'Brien asked what the PIF is originally based on. Mike Smith answered, anything related to development. Any expansions in the system caused by growth is charged to the PIF fund. Mike Smith informed the Board that the latest figures staff has provided show that if the Board wanted to have the PIFs finance the whole program, it is possible. There would be some cash'flcw problems the first 10 years, but it could be done. Tom Moore remarked that this could become an equity issue too. He has an old home in which it would cost more to install a meter. Essentially someone else would be paying for that installation. "Is that fair?" he asked. Henry Caulfield contends that as far as the politics is concerned, helping the existing customers is very important. Bill Carnahan explained that the big issue is that the existing customer is giving up some of the treatment capacity that was dedicated for his use. He, in effect, is selling that to someone else. The newcomer is buying it because, in the existing plant, it is cheaper than building new plants. This is the way the benefits flaw from the existing homeowner to the newcomer. Webb Jones explained the figures on the graph on p. 3 of the handouts, the comparison of annual PIF costs - Base vs. Alt. 2. This was the final handout on the PIF question. The staff also pursued some questions regarding sensitivity to certain variables. You will recall that the Denver study and some other information that was looked at indicated a 20% savings in water use was possible. Those savings were attributed mainly to lawn irrigation. Mr. Jones pointed out a chart in which they adjusted the amount that they assumed would be applied to a metered customer's lawn. He showed a chart on P. 4 of the handouts in which they are saying the flat rate customer will use 32" each year on his lawn. They also made two additional assumptions about the amount the metered customer will use. All the work that was done earlier was based on 20" outside irrigation. Staff tried to assess what the effect would be if 16" or 24" was used. If a metered customer uses 20" for irrigation, his total annual meter use is 14.7% less than the flat rate customer. If he applies 21 20" per year, he uses 22% less; for 1611, he would use 29.4% less. With those changes, staff went through the B/C analysis on p. 5 of the handouts. This analysis is similar to the one the Board saw last time, but instead of looking at each metering alternative, they looked at Alt. 2 with a different lawn water application rate. Again staff estimated when those plant expansions would have to occur and what those present worth costs would be to meet the demands through the year 2015. They summed up the total costs of each of the expansions to determine a 1985 present worth. They took the difference from each metering alternative with a different lawn application rate to come up with the line labeled base less alternate. They then placed a present worth value on the raw water reduction that would result from the metering alternative with the different lawn watering applcations and developed a total present worth benefit. Neil Grigg asked how much water is applied in the base case. The reply was 32". They determined the present worth of the metering cost with Alternative 2 is $2.29 million. Next, they took the difference between that cost and the total present worth benefit to come up with the net present worth savings. The ratio they developed is just the total present worth of the benefits divided by the present worth of the costs. Thus, even with different reductions in lawn watering, the B/C ratio appears to be positive and the new present worth of the savings is fairly significant. Tom Sanders referred to the graph on p. 4 of the handouts about the peak day water use comparison. He suggested that gallons per day include the words "per household" because it is unclear what it is. Webb Jones continued by saying that the staff report is based on population projections we receive from the Planning Department. On the chart on p. 6, the top line represents these projections. Essentially, staff is saying that in the year 2015, there will be about 162,000 people in our water service area. That doesn't correspond with how many will be in the City because some City residents are served by the Districts, and some County residents will receive City water. Henry Caulfield asked what the percentage of growth is. Mr. Bode said the average per year is about 2-2 1/2%. It starts at about 4% and gradually declines. The line on the graph which represents the low growth rate averages about 1%. Tom Sanders thinks it is advisable if you are going to use a population Projection, that growth figures from 1940 on should be used. Otherwise, it is misleading. Henry Caulfield agreed that the prior years should be shown. Mr. Bode said that the issue they were addressing was if they were off on the Projected growth rate which appears in the report, and a much lower growth rate occurred, what is the sensitivity on this analysis? Webb Jones showed the table on p. 7 in which they went through the same exercise as in the table on p. 5 to determine what the total benefits were for the metering alternative assuming the lower growth rate. It is obvious that treatment plant expansions look quite different. If people, in.fact, reduce their lawn water use to 1611, you wouldn't need a treatment plant expansion for the next 30 years. It looks different, of course, if different amounts are applied on the lawns. It can be seen that the same sort of trend is evident as in earlier analyses. There are some significant benefits and savings which still result in positive B/C ratios that are not that much 7 different from those with the projected growth. Mr. Bode suggested that the Board look at the bottom of p. 5 and p. 7 to see how the numbers compare for the different alternatives and the different lawn application amounts. Henry Caulfield asked what the average growth rate has been from 1950 on. Mr. Bode responded that it is approximately 4%. Some of the members cited different growth projections, e.g., from the state and the chamber of commerce. Mr. Bode acknowledged that there are different projections. He explained that, basically, the one planning uses is tied into the Larimer/Weld a)G numbers. Neil Grigg moved that the Board would go on record as reaffirming their support for Alternative No. 2 subject to the following three conditions and that the staff would be asked to implement a plan that would meet these conditions: 1) It would maintain green lawns of Fort Collins by providing a rate structure that would allow for that. 2) The City would hold the PIFs as law as possible to encourage new growth. 3) This plan would be implemented at 0 net cost to existing homeowners. Henry Caulfield seconded the motion for purposes of discussion. After some questions from the Boatel, Dr. Grigg explained each of his points further. Regarding the point about maintaining the green lawns, several members pointed out that this is "a given." In a survey conducted during the rate study, the majority of the citizens wanted to maintain the green environment in Fort Collins. Jim O'Brien thinks that the City should not openly promote green lawns. Henry Caulfield contends that we are "protecting" it, not promoting it. Bill Carnahan commented from the staffs perspective. He said that the staff has prepared the background and looked at the alternatives. Now, what we need to take to the City Council, hopefully with the Board's modifications and/or endorsement, is a recommendation for a program; we could call it a phased metering program. We could then demonstrate how that particular program addresses those particular priorities or concerns. What staff needs to do is boil it down: here is a phased metering program, here is how it will be financed, he concluded. Mr. Carnahan also listed some of the issues the Board has addressed such as a sensitivity analysis which would be a good supplement to the report. What staff would like to do is take the Board's information and incorporate it into the report so staff could come up with a final report that would have the endorsement of both the staff and Water Board. Henry Caulfield asked what the staffs view is on the phased increase in monthly charges to the unmetered customers. Dennis Bode said that the staff did an analysis on that question, although it needs further refinement. Mr. Bode talked about two scenarios of adjusting rates to make them more equitable based on cost of service. The analysis was based on the assumption of water use that was used throughout the report. In the planning and budget projections, they show an overall 9% increase in 1986, which has been approved for Jan. 1; a 5% increase for the next 2 years and 4% on out. He pointed out that these are projections and they tend to change every year depending on growth, inflation, etc. In 1985 flat rate customers had a net 0 cost of $1.04 per 1,000 gal., whereas metered customers paid $1.33 per 1,000. This is primarily because the flat rate customer uses more than the metered, but basically is paying the same amount in a monthly bill -- nearly $17.00. Without any adjustments in rates, the differences in unit costs will continue to exist. He then showed two scenarios for rate increases that would maintain approximately the same amount of revenue. One way would be to hold the metered customer to 0% increases for the next two or three years. If you did that and still wanted to maintain the same revenue, you would need to increase the flat rate customers approximately 13-14% for about 2 years. At that point, the cost per 1,000 gallons would begin to even out. From then on the rates could be increased at the same percent to maintain a fairly close cost of service for each class. A second scenario would be to give a smaller increase to metered customers and larger increases to flat rate customers over a period of several years. This could be structured several different ways to achieve equity over the period desired. one advantage of doing it over a period of several years is to be able to analyze some of the metered data once it is available for single family homes to insure that rates are not over -adjusted. Bill Carnahan and Henry Caulfield think we would be better off to keep the increase in single digits for the flat rate to achieve equity. Mr. Bode thinks it could be done but the reserves may drop off for a couple of years. Ray Herrmann asked, if you do this why must it be mandatory? He suspects that the financial advantages may be self -imposing. As you get decreasing numbers of flat rate people, it is going to become clearer that if the existing flat rate customer goes to a meter, he will save money. Mr. Bode explained that Greeley is using a voluntary program. Their rates are significantly different between flat rate and metered so there is an incentive to go to metering. As far as staff's suggested alternative for metering, part of the problem is getting a large number converted to meters prior to the time that a next treatment plant expansion would be required. It is quite a jolt to get those rates adjusted quickly in about 2 years in order to give people the incentive to start converting voluntarily. Tom Sanders commented that if the incentive gets too good the City may have too many people wanting to convert to meters voluntarily at one time, making it difficult to handle. He also asked what consideration the staff has given to the concept of regionalization in terms of this program. Henry Caulfield said this had been discussed and explained previously and that it is not particularly an economic consideration, but more one of policy and structure. All of the surrounding areas are metered and thus, it is a good idea to be on the same basis as those we may be working with in the future. Chairman Evans reminded the group that Neil Grigg has a motion on the floor. Dr. Grigg said, in deference to some of the comments that had been made, he was willing to withdraw his motion and allow it to be reformulated. He has in mind that people already here do own the equity of the system, so in turn for tutting dawn on their consumption through a metering program, they could 0 be shown that part of that savings could go toward a meter. In return for their equity in an existing treatment plant, the PIF could go toward the cost of it. Through a combination of those two, the meter would be paid for. That is after the rates are adjusted to cover the cost of service. Jim O'Brien still thinks that there should be a 10 year deadline. It is conceivable that at the end of ten years, there will still be 30% unmetered, he stressed. Neil Grigg and Dave Stewart emphasized that by adjusting the rates until the proper cost of service is achieved, voluntary conversion will be encouraged. Bill Carnahan said the trick is to implement the program in a way that will result in the benefits of delaying the next plant expansion. You can't have the program drifting along until it is too late. Jim O'Brien repeated that there is no need to have it go beyond 10 years. Henry Caulfield added, that with 9% increases for flat rate customers as long as necessary to get them caught up with metered customers, would be a real incentive to be metered. "In fact as Tom Sanders said, those wanting to be metered by next Thursday, may be more the problem," he added. Bill Carnahan mentioned a possible problem with a strictly voluntary program. He said that in some apartments and houses the owner does not occupy the residence, so the occupant pays the bill. There would be no incentive for the owner to make -the investment because savings would go to the tenant. At this point Dr. Grigg formally withdrew his motion. Henry Caulfield moved that the Water Board encourage the staff to finalize the report incorporating the following Board suggestions: 1) Since existing homeowners have equity in the system, the installation of meters in existing homes should be financed by plant investment fees. 2) Water rates for flat rate customers should increase approximately 9% (including both general cost increases and cost of service adjustments) each year until they are in line with metered customers based on cost of service. 3) Some sensitivity analyses should be included in the report or in an appendix to it. 4) An evaluation system of the metering program should be set up in order to monitor the program's effectiveness. 5) Discussion of metering programs in other cities should point out any rate increases along with water reductions. Neil Grigg seconded the motion. Bill Carnahan asked how the Board wanted to involve the public in this issue. It was generally agreed that the City Council should provide an opportunity for,public input. Henry Caulfield suggested that a statement of explanation be included with the report when it goes to the Council which might say that the staff produced a preliminary report. Through discussions of the Board, certain modifications were made. This report reflects the conclusions of both the staff and the majority of the Board. Jim O'Brien asked the staff if they think we should go to a 10 year deadline. Also in the analysis, are we saying we will have 80% metered after 10 years? 10 Dennis Bode affirmed that the analysis for Alternative 2 assumes that about 80% will be metered after 10 years. He also pointed out that the financing Plan for Alternative 2 was structured to encourge homeowners changing ownership to install meters indoors to hold the costs down. For those homeowners not changing ownership, the feeling was that they should not be required to install meters, particularly it they had to pay part of the cost. If it were to be a mandatory program, it would be more important that it be funded completely by PIFs. Board and staff discussed how those meters would be installed and how that would be paid for through various arrangements with plumbers. It was decided that it was an administrative question that the staff should handle. There was further discussion on the 10 year deadline. Bill Carnahan said that limitations should be set. Sven if it is a voluntary program, if you have a stated goal, the majority of people will try to comply. As a result of this discussion, a sixth point was attached to Mr. Caulfield's motion: 6) The intent of the program is to also encourage existing homeowners, who are not otherwise required to install meters, to voluntarily convert to meters in order to reach the objective of being 100% metered at some point. Tom Moore called for the question. The secretary polled the Board as follows: Yes: Tom Moore, John Scott, Henry Caulfield, Norm Swans, Dave Stewart, Jim O'Brien, Neil Grigg No: Tom Sanders Because this was his first meeting as a new Board member, Ray Herrmann abstained. The motion carried 7 to 1. Henry Caulfield asked if the report will be finalized before going to the Council. Mr. Carnahan said that the staff role is being viewed similar to that of a consultant. The Water Board was the preliminary reviewer. Now the staff will put it together and bring it back to the Board to be certain it says what we all agree it should. He suggested that the Board could meet with the Council at their second work session in January following the Board's regular meeting on the third Friday. Dr. Evans asked the Board if they thought it was necessary to meet before the regular meeting in January. They agreed that there was no need to meet again before then. Other Business Dave Stewart made a comment about the aftermath of a large water main break that occurred over the weekend. He said that his company, Stewart Environmental Consultants, received several calls from citizens who had originally called the Water Department with concerns about the quality of 11 their water following the break. The callers complained that there wasn't a clear policy from the Water Dept. about what procedures should be followed regarding the water quality. Mr. Stewart suggested that the Department establish guidelines to inform customers of proper water quality procedures in the event of a main break. Mike Smith assured Mr. Stewart that he would look into the situation. Since there was no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 5:30 p.m. 12 a i MEMORANDUM To City Clerk From: Molly Nortier, Water Board Secretary m Re: Change of Meeting Date Date November 26, 1985 The Water Board meeting has been changed from its regular date on Friday, December 20, to Monday. December 2. 198S at 3 00 p.m. in the Light and Power Conference room. 700 Wood Street.