My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
City Council Minutes 2014 03 11 SP
PORTAL
>
CITY COUNCIL RECORDS
>
MINUTES (45.090)
>
2014 City Council Minutes
>
City Council Minutes 2014 03 11 SP
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/11/2021 2:44:35 PM
Creation date
4/3/2014 9:21:43 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Council Records
Doc Type
City Council Minutes
Original Hardcopy Storage
7D4
Supplemental fields
Test
CCMIN 2014 03 11 SP
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
11
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
City Council <br />Special Meeting Minutes <br />March 11, 2014 <br />Page 4 of 11 <br />COUNCIL QUESTIONS <br />Why in the immediate self- sufficiency there is almost no increase in the water rate, but <br />in the transition smoothing there is 2% to 2'h% increases, if the objective is to have <br />each fund be self- sufficient? Rick Giardina explained it is due to the amount of time it <br />would take to have each fund be self- sufficient. Self- sufficiency in each fund would not <br />be reached in the five -year period and the water fund would still be subsidizing the <br />wastewater and storm water funds for several years under the smoothing scenario. <br />Are charts available to illustrate when the funds converge to zero -more required? Mr. <br />Giardina explained going forward there will always be a need for revenue increases <br />because of aging facilities. Under the smoothing plan within eight years all three funds <br />would be self- sufficient. <br />Did this situation occur because the City did not collect enough depreciation and <br />renewal replacement funds investments? A Councilor responded that the situation is <br />largely a result of new EPA regulations, which require upgrades to wastewater <br />treatment facilities. <br />Drew Beckwith, 101 S. Buchanan Court, Louisville, CO. Task Force member and Water <br />Policy Manager at Western Resources Advocates in Boulder, noted one of the benefits <br />about water budgeting is it provides the customer an idea of how much water <br />represents efficient use. Xcel Energy bills list the efficiency of energy used by other <br />customers in the neighborhood. Water budgeting allows more educational opportunities <br />for the customers. <br />Mr. Giardina addressed a five -block approach, where the blocks are fluid and tailored to <br />each customer. Many communities have one unit cost for indoor use and a higher rate <br />reflective of outdoor water budget use and then increasing pricing as more water is <br />used above and beyond your budget. He stated there is a variety of ways to strike a <br />balance between equity and ease of administration. He noted there is not a perfect rate <br />structure, but balances and accommodations are made along the way. <br />How would business users be affected? Mr. Giardina explained for non - residential <br />users, the approach is to look at historic use and set some factor of that use as their <br />budget. He explained it is difficult to determine the usage of each individual non- <br />residential water user. <br />COUNCIL COMMENTS /QUESTIONS <br />There was concern over the determination of historic water use. Council wanted <br />businesses to succeed and not be required to change their water budget anytime they <br />make an investment in their business. The block structure works well for businesses. <br />There was opposition to imposing another level of government control over businesses. <br />Mr. Giardina explained individual water budgets will be different per user, but is based <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.