Laserfiche WebLink
Utility Rate Task Force <br />Agenda <br />February 19, 2014 <br />Page 2 of 3 <br /> Do the C-BT water shares have the same 35% loss due to leakage <br />· <br />and evaporation, or is some of this built into the price? <br /> Can the SDCs be designed to encourage and reward lower water use and <br />· <br />conservation? Maybe a lower tap fee for those designs that can show <br />lower use than the average SFE of 117,000. <br /> Specific to the Sewer and possible Storm SDC, should consideration be <br />· <br />given to the location of a new user so that downstream users who rely on <br />just a short system of conveyance don't subsidize a new user who is on <br />the far end of the City and needs much more conveyance infrastructure to <br />get to the treatment plant or outfall point? This is similar to using <br />the different drainage basins to help determine the fee. <br /> Can the irrigation tap fee be adjusted to reward the use of low water plants <br />· <br />and designs and to discourage the overuse of turf? As I looked at the tap <br />fee calculation sheet it seemed that a design with water saving native <br />plants would pay the same square foot fee as a plan with water intensive <br />turf. <br /> Many of the new single family and duplex neighborhoods have a separate <br />· <br />HOA irrigation tap for almost all of the outdoor areas, and thus use very <br />little of their domestic water for irrigation. How can this design be given <br />appropriate tap fees so users in this situation do not end up subsidizing <br />homes that irrigate all their outdoor areas with the domestic tap? <br /> The 8,693 Equivalent Units shown on WSDC-1 and SSDC-1 represents <br />· <br />what? Is it the number of equivalents that is currently served, the number <br />that can be served by the water and sewer utilities system as currently <br />configured, the number of equivalents that is planned to be served, or <br />something else. <br /> In WSDC-1, it shows a principle outstanding debt of $8,005,000. What <br />· <br />project(s) was this for? Was it for infrastructure (like a treatment plant) <br />whose “current value” is shown in WSDC-1 or for water resources <br />(associated with C-BT, Windy Gap or the South Boulder Creek system)? <br /> In WSDC-1, are all the costs associated with the “backbone” pipes for <br />· <br />treated water pipes, or are there raw water pipes, too? I’d like to know if <br />there are any costs/values included in the $9,635 amount that is for <br />raw/untreated water. Or, is all the raw/untreated water value to be <br />assessed in the Water Resources SDC calculation. <br /> In WSDC-2, an average annual SFE usage of 120,000 gallons per year is <br />· <br />used. How was that figure arrived at? In Meeting 2, the slide for 2012 <br />data shows SFR usage of 671,000 gallons and 6,090 SFR accounts, for a <br />usage of 110,181 gallons per year. Your email of 9-28-13 states that a <br />typical planning use is 117,000, but that in recent years it’s been less and <br />close to 110,000. What has been average annual SFR use in 2011, 2012 <br />(110,181gallons??) and 2013? There is a need to demonstrate why we’re <br />using a particular number (120,000 gallons or anything else). <br /> Why are you using the sale of C-BT units as the basis for the Water <br />· <br />Resources valuation? Louisville has South Boulder Creek rights, C-BT <br /> <br />