HomeMy WebLinkAbout4 - Recommendation on the Utility Rate Structure Report
CITY OF BOULDER
WATER RESOURCE ADVISORY BOARD AGENDA ITEM
MEETING DATE:
January 26, 2004
SUBJECT:
Staff and Consultant Presentation regarding the Water Rate Structure and Billing
System Evaluation
REQUESTING DEPARTMENT:
Ned Williams, Director of Public Works for Utilities
Joanna Crean, Public Works Administrator
Carol Linn, Utilities Financial Manager
BOARD ACTION REQUESTED:
Board Discussion and Final Recommendation regarding
the Utility Rate Structure and Billing System Evaluation Final Report.
FISCAL IMPACT:
None at this time.
Tom Gould from Economic and Engineering Services, Inc. (EES) will attend the meeting and
give a 20-30 minute presentation focusing on the results of the analysis for each rate structure by
customer class of service. Staff will also present their recommendation regarding an appropriate
rate structure for each customer class of service. Also, since the last WRAB meeting, staff has
been soliciting public input regarding the water rate structure. This memo summarizes the
public process that has occurred over the last month; the public input received and outlines
staff’s recommendation regarding the water rate structure. The background section provides a
summary of the “top” scoring rate structures and the consultant’s recommendation which was
th
also provided for the December 15 WRAB meeting.
BACKGROUND:
In June of 2003, the city hired a consulting team (Economic and Engineering Services, Inc. and
Langham Consulting Services, Inc.) to evaluate the city water rate structure and billing system and
to provide alternative water rate structures for the city’s consideration. The evaluation process for
the rate structure included: definition and prioritization of rate design goals and objectives;
development of rate structure alternatives; development of block thresholds; determination of rate
structures by customer class for detailed analysis; and analysis of selected alternatives. The
following summarizes by customer class the rate structures that were analyzed in detail along with
the consultant’s conclusions regarding rate structures for each customer class.
Six different rate structures were reviewed for the single-family residential class of service. In
reviewing each of the rate structures, EES concluded the following:
S-FRRS1
– Seasonally Differentiated Rate Structure With
INGLEAMILYESIDENTIAL ATETRUCTURE
a 2-Block Winter Rate and a 3-Block Summer Rate.
nd
This rate structure combines seasonal price signals with a summer 2 block size that relates well to
typical single-family customer irrigation requirements (i.e. lot size). From the customer’s
perspective, this rate structure should be easy to understand, and from the city’s perspective easy to
administer. EES considers this rate structure to be a viable alternative for the city.
S-FRRS2
– Water Budget With Four (4) Consumption
INGLEAMILYESIDENTIALATETRUCTURE
Blocks. Block 1 is Fixedfor Indoor Use, Block 2 is Based Upon The Irrigation Requirements Of A
9,000 Square Foot Lot Size, Block 3 uses 150% Of Block 2 To Determine Size, and Block 4 is All
Usage Over Block 3.
This rate structure is in many respects similar to the first rate structure, but does contain some
nd
differences. The 2 block of the structure is based upon a standard lot size which is an
administrative strength from the city’s perspective. However, the use of a standard lot size may also
be a weakness since it does not reflect the individual customer irrigation requirements (i.e. lot
sizes/irrigable area). The water allocation is shaped for each month, which better reflects the
irrigation requirements in that particular month, but at the same time, adds a level of complexity to
the rate structure that may be confusing to some customers. EES considers this rate structure to be a
viable alternative for the city.
S-FRRS3
– Water Budget With Four (4) Consumption
INGLEAMILYESIDENTIALATETRUCTURE
Blocks. Block 1 is Fixed for Indoor Use, Block 2 Uses Three Different “Bins” to Determine
Irrigation Requirements, Block 3 Uses 125% Of Block 2 to Determine Size, and Block 4 is All
Usage Over Block 3.
This particular rate structure uses “bins” to help eliminate the issue of customers with differing lot
sizes and irrigation requirements. In the end, EES believes that the use of bins, at least as
conceptualized within this study, is not an appropriate approach since it does not gradually increase
rd
water allocation as lot sizes increase in size. In addition, the use of 125% as the 3 block size
appeared to be too small. EES would not consider this rate structure to be a viable alternative for the
city, and would eliminate it from further consideration.
S-FRRS4
– Water Budget With Five (5) Consumption
INGLEAMILYESIDENTIALATETRUCTURE
Blocks. Block 1 is Fixed for Indoor Use, Block 2 is Based on Tax Assessed Lot Size, Block 3 is
125% Of Block 2, Block 4 is 150% Of Block 2, and Block 5 is All Usage Over Block 4.
This particular rate structure uses tax assessed lot size to determine irrigable area and water
nd
allocation for the 2 block. This rate structure has addressed the concerns raised in the previous rate
nd
structure. That is, the allocation of the 2 block of water is proportional to lot size. The major
administrative issue associated with this rate structure is determining and verifying the lot size for
each account. While the use of 5 blocks within the rate adds some complexity to the rate structure,
the major complexity to the structure is the shaping of the water allotment from month to month.
nd
The final issue may be the customer perception of equity as it relates to the allocation of 2 block
water. EES considers this rate structure to be a viable alternative for the city.
S-FRRS5
– Water budget with Four (4) Consumption
INGLEAMILYESIDENTIALATETRUCTURE
Blocks. Block 1 is Fixed for Indoor Use, Block 2 is Based Upon Either a Customer Provided
Irrigable Size, or a Default of 5,200 square Feet of Irrigable Area. Succeeding Blocks Based Upon
Relationship to Block 2.
The major concern raised by this rate structure is simply the concept of the customer provided
irrigable area. Administratively, the city should not place itself in a situation where it would need to
measure irrigable area, as opposed to total lot size. At the same time, this rate structure creates a
situation where there is a perverse incentive for the customer to report a larger irrigable area than
they actually have. Given these concerns, EES would not consider this rate structure to be a viable
alternative for the city, and would eliminate it from further consideration.
S-FRRS6
– Existing City Rate Structure Modified To
INGLEAMILYESIDENTIALATETRUCTURE
Reflect Current City Goals.
This rate structure is a variation of the city’s existing rate structure. It is a three-block rate structure,
nd
using AWC to establish the first block size. However, in this particular case, the 2 block has been
established and fixed based upon the standard lot size irrigation requirements. One of the concerns
regarding the city’s existing rate structure was that it created a perverse incentive for customers to
nd
artificially increase their AWC, in order to increase their 2 block allocation. This modified rate
structure has eliminated that concern. EES considers this rate structure to be a viable alternative for
the city.
In summary, EES believes that there are four single-family rate structures available to the city that
would meet the city’s overall objectives. In EES’s opinion, Rate Structure 2, while a viable water
budget alternative, is not as well conceived as Water Budget Rate Structure 4. Therefore, that leaves
Single-Family Rate Structures 1, 4 and 6 as viable alternatives for the city.
Multi-Family Residential Rate Structures
Three different rate structures were reviewed for the multi-family residential class of service. In
reviewing each of the rate structures, EES has concluded the following:
M-FRRS1
– Seasonally Differentiated Rate Structure with
ULTIAMILYESIDENTIAL ATETRUCTURE
a 2-Block Winter Rate and a 3-Block Summer Rate.
This rate structure has seasonal price signals, but does not attempt to provide customers with an
rd
allocation of water for outdoor water requirements. While it does have a 3 block for the summer
period to capture outdoor irrigation use and excessive indoor use, it does not contain an excess use
penalty for outdoor use.
M-FRRS2
– Water Budget With Six (6) Consumption
ULTIAMILYESIDENTIALATETRUCTURE
Blocks. Blocks 1 and 2 are Fixed per Unit Threshold, Block 3 is Based On The Customer Specific
Irrigable Area, and Succeeding Blocks Based Upon Their Relationship To Outdoor the Goal (Block
3).
This rate structure is a water budget rate structure and the third block is based upon the customer
specific irrigable area. The use of irrigable area creates a direct relationship between the third block
and the customer’s irrigation requirements. One aspect of this particular rate structure that is
somewhat detracting is the use of six blocks. If desired, this rate structure could be simplified to five
blocks (e.g. combining Blocks 4 and 5 to 100% - 150%). In developing water budgets for the city,
EES noted that the water budget rate structure was more difficult to develop for this class of service
than for single-family residential customers. This is primarily a function of two issues; metered
irrigation customers and individual vs. master metering. As noted previously, some multi-family
customers have metered irrigation and some do not. As a result, developing a block of water for
irrigable use for customers that already have metered irrigation does not appear to be logical. At the
same time, for those customers that may live in a multi-family complex, but are individually
metered, the issue of how to establish the irrigable block must be resolved. While these technical
issues can be resolved, they do point out that water budgets may “fit” certain classes of customers
and situations better than others.
M-FRRS3
– Water Budget With Five (5) Consumption
ULTIAMILYESIDENTIALATETRUCTURE
Blocks. Blocks 1 and 2 are Fixed per Unit Thresholds, Block 3 is Based On The Customer Specific
Irrigable Area, and Succeeding Blocks are Based Upon Their Relationship To the Outdoor Goal
(Block 3).
This is a water budget rate structure and is very similar to the prior rate structure. However, this
option has only five blocks and sets the “excessive” use block at 125% of the outdoor goal. While
this rate structure has addressed one of the concerns raised with the previous option with the use of
six blocks, this rate structure has potentially raised a new issue. The use of 125% as the “excess”
use threshold may be set too low. Our preference would be at 150%, which would then tie to the
excess use threshold for Single-Family Rate Structure 4.
In summary, EES believes that all three options are viable for the city to utilize. Of the three
options, EES believes that option 2, because of the use of six blocks, may be the least desirable of
the two water budget alternatives. EES would recommend that the city consider Multi-Family
Residential Rate Structures 1 and 3 as viable options for the city.
Commercial/Large User Rate Structures
Two different rate structures were reviewed for the commercial/large user class of service. In
reviewing each of the rate structures, EES has concluded the following:
C/LURS1
– Seasonally Differentiated Rate Structure With
OMMERCIALARGESERATETRUCTURE
a 2-Block Winter Rate and a 2-Block Summer Rate. Block 1 is set at 100% of Average Monthly
Consumption.
This rate structure uses a seasonal pricing approach. In establishing the first block of consumption,
an average monthly use approach is utilized. It can be perceived that this alternative does not send a
strong incentive for indoor or outdoor efficiency. However, approximately 50% of customers within
this class of service have metered irrigation, which mitigates somewhat the importance and need for
a block of water based upon irrigable requirements. For those customers that will have outdoor
irrigation requirements, this consumption will be priced at a level that is slightly higher, on a per unit
basis, than that charged to single-family for their water allotment and consumption up to 125% over
their outdoor watering goal. The price for Single-Family Rate Structure 4, for the 100% - 125%
nd
block, is $3.25/1,000 gallons. For the commercial/large user customers, the 2 block summer price
is $3.30/1,000 gallons. Therefore, the price being charged for outdoor irrigation seems fair, relative
to the single-family price. The key issue may be the lack of an “excessive” use rate in the summer
period. The final issue associated with this rate is the concern that this rate structure may not
encourage efficient indoor use. EES concurs that this may be a concern, and the next alternative for
this rate structure has attempted to address this concern.
C/URS2
– Seasonally Differentiated Rate Structure With A
OMMERCIALLARGESERATETRUCTURE
2-Block Winter Rate and A 2-Block Summer Rate. Block 1 is set at 90% of Average Monthly
Consumption.
This alternative sets the first block at 90% of the customer’s average monthly use. By setting the
first block below the customer’s average monthly use, some incentive should be provided for
customers to improve their indoor efficiency. The other components of the rate structure are similar
to those noted above for the previous commercial/large user rate structure.
In summary, EES believes that both commercial/large user rate structures are viable options for the
city to utilize. However, of the two options, EES is of the opinion that the second option, which uses
90% of the average monthly use to establish the first block size, is an improvement and benefit when
compared to the first rate structure.
Metered Irrigation Rate Structures
Three different rate structures were reviewed for the metered irrigation class of service. In
reviewing each of the rate structures, EES has concluded the following:
MIRS1
– Uniform Rate.
ETEREDRRIGATIONATETRUCTURE
This rate structure is a uniform rate structure. While it has certain advantages related to the
administration of the rate, it may not meet the city’s objectives for encouraging efficient use. At the
same time, this rate structure does not have a block for “excessive” use.
IRS2
M – Water budget with Three (3) Consumption Blocks.
ETEREDRRIGATIONATETRUCTURE
Block 1 is Based Upon the Customer Specific Irrigable Area and Successive Blocks are Based Upon
their Relationship to the Outdoor Goal (Block 2).
The second metered irrigation rate is a water budget rate structure. As such, the first block is based
upon the irrigable area, and succeeding blocks are established in relation to the first block. This is
the only metered irrigation rate structure that has a shaped approach for ET. This tailoring of the
first block is a distinct and significant advantage for this rate. While it will require the city to
determine/measure the customer’s irrigable area, it does provide a direct relationship between the
water allocated within the first block and the customer’s irrigation needs.
MIRS3
– Inverted block rate with Three (3) Consumption
ETEREDRRIGATIONATETRUCTURE
Blocks. Block 1 is Based Upon 90% of the Customer’s Average Summer Consumption (ASC) and
Successive Blocks are Based Upon Their Relationship To the Outdoor Goal (Block 2).
The third rate structure uses a different approach to establish the initial block size for each customer.
It is based upon 90% of the customer’s average (monthly) summer consumption (ASC). Compared
to the previous metered irrigation rate structure, this method is not as technically correct a method to
establish the first block size. However, there is an assumed trade-off between measuring irrigable
area and the establishment of this rate. There may be the perception in this “trade-off” that this rate
structure does not encourage efficient use. At the same time, the irrigation block is not shaped for
this rate structure. While the sizing of the blocks is important, the other component that must be
considered is the pricing. The pricing should encourage efficient use, regardless of the method used
to establish block sizes. It should be noted that the second block under this rate structure is
$0.50/1,000 greater than the previous rate structure. This price difference may be sufficient to
encourage efficient use.
In summary, the first rate structure appears to be too simple and lacks the incentives for efficient use
that the city seems to be focusing on within this study. Of the remaining two options, the second
rate structure, which used measured irrigable area, seems to be the best choice. Water budgets are
ideal for this type of customer. While the third option is, in EES’s opinion, a viable option, it is
simply a default should the city decide not to implement a water budget rate structure for this
particular class of service.
PUBLIC PROCESS:
th
Since the December 15 WRAB meeting, staff has been providing information and gathering public
input in several manners. On Wednesday, January 14, 2004 staff hosted a community public
th
meeting to present information regarding the “top” rate structures and gather input. On January 15
staff attended a Chamber of Commerce meeting to present information which focused on the
commercial/ large user customer class. All of the city's water customers (approximately 28,000)
were sent a postcard notifying them of the water rate structure evaluation, public meetings, and the
Web site (www.boulderutilities.net) which provides information on the study and a survey for
customers to complete in regards to water rates. In addition "crawls" were run on Channel 8 and e-
mails sent to planning and public works e-news groups and neighborhood associations.
The web-based survey provided an opportunity for the public to participate regardless of whether
they were able to attend one of the public meetings. City staff also received numerous calls from
citizens who wanted to provide their opinion over the phone or who wanted to ask clarifying
questions. A copy of the survey was also mailed to people who did not have access to a computer.
These surveys have been returned, and the results have been included with the electronically
rd
completed surveys. As of Friday, January 23 the city has received 445 survey responses. The
survey was not developed to be a scientific collection of data but rather it was developed to provide
another means for public participation. The survey contained four specific questions and an area for
general comments (no space restriction). A copy of the original survey is provided as Attachment A.
Following is a summary of the survey results:
QUESTION #1 Yes, I SomewhatRarely look at the Total Responses
understandfamiliardetail, just pay the
bill
Do you understand how 339 (77%) 84 (19%) 17 (4%) 440
your current water bill is
calculated?
QUESTION #2 YesNoNo OpinionTotal Responses
Do you think the city should 254 (59%) 162 (37%) 18 (4%) 434
change the way it bills for
water usage?
QUESTION #3 Prefer the Prefer the Both options NoTotal
price of price to stay are acceptableopinionResponses
water to the same
change each throughout
seasonthe year
Do you think the price of 98 (36%) 115 (42%) 53 (19%) 9 (3%) 275
water (rates) should change
depending on the season (e.g.,
winter versus summer) or
should the price of water
(rates) stay the same
throughout the year?
QUESTION #4a Same DifferentBothNeitherNoTotal
amount
amount options are option is opinionResponses
of water of water acceptableacceptable
at the (based on
sameindoor
ratewater
needs) at
the same
For residential customer’s 17754 (20%) 18 (6%) 15 (6%) 8 (3%) 272
indoor water use, what is (65%)
your preference?
QUESTION #4b Same DifferentBothNeitherNoTotal
amount
amount options are option is opinionResponses
of water of water acceptableacceptable
at the (based on
samelot size)
rateat the
same rate
For residential customer’s 14898 (36%) 7 (3%) 15 (6%) 4 (1%) 272
outdoor water use, what is (54%)
your preference?
5.Question #5
– Respondents were asked to provide any additional comments. All of the
comments were reviewed. The details of each survey response for question #5 are provided in
Attachment B. Below is a summary of the key themes mentioned by respondents. These themes
were frequently repeated in the responses.
Conservation is very important.
Reward those who use less water
o
Use incentives to encourage conservation
o
Encourage xeriscape
o
Only bill customers for the water that they actually use
Some respondents seemed to think that the city might consider billing customers
o
without reading their meter (e.g., using an average to calculate the bill).
More a customer uses, the more they should pay.
Simplicity – how the city calculates customers water bills should be simple and easy to
understand.
Predictable – customers would like their bill to be predictable.
Fair and equitable – the city should use a fair and equitable system to calculate water bills.
Current system is fine – don’t fix something that isn’t broken.
Do not like using average winter consumption (AWC).
Some respondents reiterated their opinions regarding issues that they had previously answered in
questions #3 and #4. The main themes included the following:
Customers should all have the same amount of water at the same rate (price).
Seasonal rates should not be used by the city.
Of those that chose to comment specifically on using lot size to calculate block sizes, a little
more than half of the respondents said they were against using lot size and a little less than
half said they were in support of using lot size
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Overview
Staff has been an active participant in developing, analyzing and reviewing the Utility Rate Structure
and Billing System Evaluation Study and agrees with the EES conclusion regarding the different rate
structures that were noted as viable alternatives in Section 8 of the report. Each rate structure has its
unique advantages and disadvantages, and there is not a single rate structure that clearly and
definitively rises to the top.
Staff has been receiving a lot of input on the features, philosophies, and designs for a water rate
structures since April 2002, when the most recent drought had such a significant impact on Boulder.
The study has provided an array of rate structure alternatives and information on which to compare
the alternatives. This provides an excellent basis for making a decision on the type and features of a
water rate structure that would work best for Boulder.
In determining a staff recommendation on the rate structures, staff believes the following themes, or
values, were of most significance in making a final recommendation:
1.The four different customer classes should be developed using similar themes and values, if
possible and reasonable.
2.Disconnect the relationship that exists in the current structure between the winter usage in
Block 1 and the establishment of Blocks 2 and 3.
3.Continue to calculate a bill based on actual water used and measured through a water meter.
4.Emphasize water conservation and reward customers who conserve water.
5.Simplicity and clarity in the rate structure and utility bill is critical to customer
understanding, acceptance and compliance.
6.The rate structure is important in a drought, but cannot be relied upon solely as the only tool
to achieve the necessary water savings. In severe droughts, like a Level III and IV,
enforcement personnel will be required.
7.A monthly “shaped” outdoor water allocation is appealing but needs to be balanced against
the customer understanding, implementation, and administration efforts.
8.The calculation of the Average Winter Consumption (AWC) will continue to be used for
wastewater billing.
Comments from the Director of Public Works for Utilities
In developing the Staff Recommendation, several different viewpoints and perspectives were
discussed and debated. The Staff Recommendation embodied some give-and-take, informed consent
and, in some cases, non-agreement. However, the WRAB, public, utility customers and City
Council members should know that city staff will fully implement and support the City Council’s
final decision.
Of the four customer classes, the staff recommendation for Single-Family Residential was the most
difficult to develop. There are good reasons for an inverted block rate structure in which the outdoor
allocation is based upon the specific size of the residential lot (water budget) as there are good
reasons for a rate structure in which the outdoor allocation is an equal amount of water for all lots
(fixed threshold). There will be an opportunity to discuss this at the WRAB meeting on January 26,
2004.
The staff recommendation for Single-Family Residential is an inverted, four block rate structure in
which an equal amount of water is provided to all lots. This recommendation, as is a water budget
structure, is an improvement from what is currently in place because it establishes an outdoor water
allocation that is disconnected from the winter usage.
In whatever rate structure is selected, customers will have enough water to use for outdoor irrigation.
The basic issue is how much water to allocate to individual billing blocks and at what price. The
principle question is whether a large lot should receive more water at the same unit price as a smaller
lot in order to adequately irrigate turf and water trees and shrubs, or whether all lots should receive
an equal amount of water at the same price.
In a simplistic manner, an advocate for a water budget rate structure would support providing at the
same unit price more water to sustain the landscaping on a large lot and a lesser amount of water on
a small lot. As an example, in a particular month, a 20,000 s.f. lot should be able to use 34,000
gallons of water at $3.00/thousand gallons while a 9,000 s.f. lot should be able to use only 19,000
gallons of water at $3.00/thousand gallons. This may be acceptable because a larger lot may require
more water to sustain the landscape.
In the alternative, and in a simplistic manner, an advocate for a fixed threshold amount of water
would support providing at the same unit price an equal amount of water to a large lot as to a small
lot, while still providing the large lot additional water but at a higher unit price. As an example, in a
particular month, both a large lot and a small lot should be able to use 19,000 gallons at
$3.00/thousand gallons, and that a larger lot could use an additional 15,000 gallons (to bring the
large lot total requirement to 34,000 gallons) at $4.00/thousand gallons.
Both approaches are worthwhile to consider and evaluate. The Staff Recommendation for Single-
Family Residential to use an inverted block structure with an outdoor allocation based upon a fixed
threshold does not preclude or prevent the city from moving to a water budget approach for the
outdoor allocation in the future. Monitoring and evaluating the water budget structure approach in
multi-family customers and irrigation-only customers, if those are finally selected, may help inform
the future city leaders in that decision.
Staff Recommendation on Rate Structure
As staff reviewed the information and data, we’ve incorporated revisions and modifications into
each of the rate structures of the four customer classes. All the rate structures would have the fixed
monthly service charge component. For the quantity/consumption charge component of the rate
structure, the staff recommendation is as follows:
Single-Family Residential Rate Structure –
An inverted block rate structure with four (4)
consumption blocks. Block 1 is fixed for very low indoor use at 3,000 gallons, Block 2 is fixed and
is the next 4,000 gallons for indoor use, Block 3 is a fixed amount of water for outdoor use that is
shaped 2 or 3 times annually (not monthly), and Block 4 is for all use in excess of Block 3.
Block 1 – First 3,000 gallons for Indoor
Block 2 – Next 4,000 gallons for Indoor
Block 3 – Outdoor water allocation that is shaped 2 or 3 times annually (see below)
Block 4 – Excess use above total of Blocks 1, 2 and 3
The outdoor water allocation would be:
If shaped two times annually: 5,000 gallons per month for January, February, March, April,
October, November and December, and
20,000 gallons per month for May, June, July, August and
September
If shaped three times annually: 5,000 gallons per month for January, February, March,
November and December,
10,000 gallons per month for April, September and October, and
20,000 gallons per month for May, June, July, and August
Multi-Family Residential Rate Structure –
An inverted block, water budget rate structure with
four (4) consumption blocks, with Block 3 having an allotment for outdoor use that is based upon
the customer specific irrigable area. Block 1 is fixed for indoor use at 2,000 gallons per living unit,
Block 2 is the next 3,000 gallons per living unit, Block 3 is a property specific amount of water for
outdoor use that is based on the size of customer specific irrigable area and is shaped 2 or 3 times
annually (not monthly), and Block 4 is for all use in excess of the total of Blocks 1, 2 and 3.
Block 1 – First 2,000 gallons per living unit for Indoor
Block 2 – Next 3,000 gallons per living unit for Indoor
Block 3 – Outdoor Allocation that is based on Customer Specific Irrigable Area that is
shaped 2-3 times annually
Block 4 – Excess use above total of Blocks 1, 2 and 3
Commercial/Large User Rate Structure –
An inverted block rate structure with four (4)
consumption blocks. Block 1 is set at up to 80% of the customer’s Average Monthly Use from the
prior year, Block 2 is for usage between 81% and 100% of the customer’s Average Monthly Usage,
Block 3 is for usage above the Average Monthly Use amount and twice (2x) the Average Monthly
Use amount, and Block 4 is for all use in excess of 200%, or twice, the Average Monthly Use
amount.
Block 1 – Up to 80% of Average Monthly Use
Block 2 – 81%-100% of Average Monthly Use
Block 3 – 101% - 200% of Average Monthly Use
Block 4 – Excess Use above 200% of Average Monthly Use
Metered Irrigation Rate Structure –
A water budget rate structure with three (3) consumption
blocks and based upon a monthly water allocation that is shaped 2-3 times annually and based upon
the customer specific irrigable area. Block 1 is set at up to 80% the monthly water allocation, Block
2 is for usage between 81% and 100% of the monthly water allocation, and Block 3 is for all use in
excess of 100% of the monthly water allocation.
Block 1 – Up to 80% of the monthly water allocation
Block 2 – 81% to 100% of the monthly water allocation
Block 3 – Over 100% of the monthly water allocation
NEXT STEP:
Staff requests that WRAB make a final recommendation regarding the water rate structure. After
completion of the WRAB process, staff will proceed to the city council for a final decision regarding
the water rate structure.
ATTACHMENTS:
Attachment A: City of Boulder Customer Survey – Water Rate Structure Evaluation
Attachment B: Responses to Question #5 (respondents provide any additional comments)
CITY of BOULDER CUSTOMER SURVEY
Water Rate Structure Evaluation
WHAT
: Evaluation of the city’s water rate structure. This could result in a new way to calculate your
monthly water bill.
WHY:
Boulder’s water rates have always had the goal of collecting enough revenues to meet the utility’s
financial requirements and promoting the efficient use of water. In more recent years, the need to protect
and encourage efficient use of water has become an increasing priority. Different rate structures may
encourage more efficient water use from our customers.
PLEASE RESPOND TO THE FOLLOWING: (select only one option for each question)
1.
Do you understand how your current water bill is calculated?
_____ Yes, I understand
_____ Somewhat familiar
_____ Rarely look at the detail, just pay the bill
2.
Do you think the city should change the way it bills for water usage?
_____ Yes
_____ No
_____ No opinion
If you answered Yes, please answer questions 3-5; if you would like to make additional comments
proceed to question 5.
3.
Depending on the time of year and availability of water, the value/price of water may change. Water
rates can be designed to reflect the changing value/price of water from season to season. Do you think
the price of water (rates) should change depending on the season (e.g., winter versus summer) or should
the price of water (rates) stay the same throughout the year?
_____ Prefer the price of water to change each season
_____ Prefer the price to stay the same throughout the year
_____ Both options are acceptable
_____ No opinion
4.
Your water bill is divided into blocks. The first block generally reflects your indoor water needs, such
as drinking, cooking, bathing, laundering, etc. The other blocks generally reflect your outdoor water use,
The following questions (4a
such as lawn care, gardening, etc. Each block is billed at a different rate.
and 4b) relate to how the block size is determined. The city will continue reading meters and
billing customers for the amount of water that they use. Customers will continue to be charged
different rates for water used in different blocks.
4a.
For residential customer’s indoor water use, what is your preference?
_____ Same amount of water at the same rate
[For example, each home is billed for
up to 5,000 gallons of water at the same price per 1,000 gallons. Note: any water used over this
level will be billed at a higher rate]
_____ Different amount of water (based on indoor water needs) at the same rate
[For example, one home is billed for up to 4,000 gallons of water based on their indoor water
needs and another home is billed for up to 6,000 gallons of water based on their indoor water
needs. Both homes purchase the water at the same price per 1,000 gallons. Note: any water
used over these levels will be billed at a higher rate]
_____ Both options are acceptable
_____ Neither option is acceptable
_____ No opinion
---OVER---
4b.
For residential customer’s outdoor water use, what is your preference?
_____ Same amount of water at the same rate
[For example, every home is billed for
up to 16,000 gallons of water at the same price per 1,000 gallons. Note: any water used over this
level will be billed at a higher rate]
_____ Different amount of water (based on lot size) at the same rate
[For example, a
home on a 9,000 square foot property lot can use up to 16,000 gallons of water and a home on a
5,000 square foot property lot can use up to 9,000 gallons of water. Both would be billed the
same price per 1,000 gallons. Note: any water used over these levels will be billed at a higher
rate]
_____ Both options are acceptable
_____ Neither option is acceptable
_____ No opinion
5.
Please provide any additional comments in the space below:
Thank you for completing this survey.
Please mail it to: City of Boulder Public Works Department, 1739 Broadway, Room 415,
Boulder, CO 80306-0791
–OR–
Fax it to:#303-441-4210
You can also drop this survey off at the Utility Billing Payment Center, first floor of the
Municipal Building, 1777 Broadway, corner of Broadway and Canyon.
Responses to Question #5
question5
It seems that your plans here reduce the tax burden on those who can most afford it and therefor I must
assume it increases the tax burden on those with more modest means. These alternatives seem to reward
those who who would use more water, I would be much more open to a plan that rewards those who use
less water.
question5
for environmentally conscious users and other water-savers, the "per 1000 gallons" is too large a block--
can this be made smaller to reflect more detailed usage?
question5
Each household should be billed on the actual amount of water it uses or billed for the average amount
that that particular house hold uses. Forget billing on square footage. I live alone, am gone every
weekend, and during the week I take most of my showers at the health club. I use very little water, and I
don't want to pay the same as my neighbors who live in an identical townhouse but have 4 people taking
showers every day!
question5 Under the current systeme, people who always use / waste water are subsidised by those of us who
conserve water. The price per gallon should not be cheaper for people with big green lawns.
question5--would like to see a "water budget" based billing system that encourages water conservation all of the
time, not just in years of low water supply
question5
3. Don't charge more when the need is greater! 4a. There are too many year-to-year variables in a
customer's indoor water needs to base the different-amount-of-water-rate on average winter usage of each
home - travel away from home, visitors, laundry needs, etc. 4b. Outdoor needs will not have those
variables and having different amounts of water at the same rate based on lot size makes sense.
question5 Any method must be based on metered actual usage. I could not support any plan that bases billing on
"average" use from lot or house size. Individuals must be held responsible for ACTUAL use.
question5 We think there is only one general rule more you use greater you pay, and less you use lesser you pay.
question5 This survey does not mention "assumed" water usage amounts but the card sent in the mail indicated that
you may consider "assuming an average amount of indoor water usage per household". I believe that
water payments/prices should be based on actual usage regardless of lot size - any other system will
punish those who are better at conserving water. And I do not think it is fair to make assumptions and
then charge people based upon an "assumed" rate of water usage for a certain lot size. Everyone should
pay the same rate for what they use and should have the same cut off level for higher rates on excessive
usage. I not only find it acceptable to charge different rates once you exceed a certain level of water
usage, I highly support it in order to promote water conservation (to use your example, every home is
billed for up to 16,000 gallons of water at the same price per 1,000 gallons and any water used over this
level will be billed at a higher rate.)
question5 For indoor use, I think that the indoor need should be determined by the number of household occupants,
where each person is allocated a certain number of gallons. For outdoor use, I think the same amount
of water should be allocated to each property. If someone chooses to have a larger property that requires
more water, that is their choice and they should have to pay more than someone who has more typical
outdoor water needs. I would like to see the price of water remain constant throughout the year. This
makes it easier for people to anticipate their costs, especially those on a fixed or low income.
question5
Do not bill based on lot size. Water usage is the factor that should be considered. Do not penalize
someone for having a large (or small) lot. For example, a homebuyer does not really have control over the
size of the lot that their house sits on. They do have control over how much water they purchase from the
City.
question5 1) indoor use allowance should reflect the number of people in the household. 2) outdoor allowance
should motivate owners of large lots to practice especially agressive conservation, hence present system is
good.
Monday, January 26, 2004Page 1 of 29
question5 The city should strive for billing of actual use, with a higher emphasis on conservation of outdoor water
use. Those of us with lower AWC than the customer class average should have lower bills to reflect better
indoor water conservation.
question5 Metering is the only fair basis for charging. Charges based on lot size or "average" consumption, once
fixed, would encourage over-consumption.
question5 Higher water use should NOT be rewarded with lower rates for any group or sub group be it
residential,commercial, or irrigation !! Simple is better. Changing rates and blocks by each month
seems unnecessary. Each study omitted the impact of a drought surcharge mecanism--Why?? Many
weaknesses of some comparitively simple alternatives,including the current method, seemed like they
could be significantly reduced by changes to block size or rates. It is very disturbing to see golf courses
and other businesses using millions of gallons of water a month (regardless of source) while I let my
bushes and trees suffer or die for needed conservation. Put in a system that deals with this! Thanks very
much for the opportunity to review some detail and take this survey.
question5
As a single user my basic useage is low and with a lot of 10,000+ the yard useage is high putting me into
a high rate even with major part of yard in Xeriscape drip irrigation. There should be some adjustment for
lot size during summer period.
question5
Don't increase rates just because you can. The rates charged should bear a reasonable relationship to the
cost of providing it, not "whatever the traffic will bear."
question5 Unless the current billing system is broken, DON'T FIX IT!! The current three block price structure could
be tweaked seasonally, quarterly, or monthly to reflect the market value of water. Billing according to lot
size is oppening a can of worms due to numerous variables: number of family or residents at the particular
address, amount of grass and different types of grass for lawns, or garden space in the spring & summer,
number of trees, and swimming pools, ad infinitum... The only equitable billing is to measure the useage
at each user site! We strongly recommend keeping the current billing process. Jim Shook &Peggy Schriner
question5 Please don't assume a single dweller has the same indoor water useage as a family even if their lot sizes
are the same. I support charging people extra money for water when they choose sizeable non-xeric
garden/lawns.
question5... I oppose any rates based on ''lot size'' because frequently the size of the lot has little or nothing to do
with water usage i.e., a lot may be one acre, and have very little water requirements OR it may be
completed covered with high usage requirements...Some means should be developed to insure that people
who have already historically taken measures to reduce consumption are rewarded, or at least not
penalized , due to a rate structure based on their low usage..
question5 This process is yet another example of the city wasting money, when there is supposedly a budget squeeze.
question5 The majority of residents in the city of Boulder have approximately the same size ground area to water, so
the present AWS method has and will continue to be the fairest method. For those with large lots, maybe
the city should handle those on an individual basis since they are a very small minority of the
populace. Please don't let the complainers control your decision.
Monday, January 26, 2004Page 2 of 29
question5 3 I think the cost of water schedule should be the same throughout the year as the basic purpose is for
users to learn to always conserve water not just at certain times of the year. Winter watering for example
is advised by horticulturists when it is warm enough. This would put the usage above that for indoor
usage and should so billed and not used to bolster the house basic usage which might be calculated using
several winter months. 4a The top limit of 5,000 may be a bit too low for those with a large family or
students living together. However, I do not think the 5,000 top basic level should not be raised just to
accommodate hot tubs, indoor swimming pools, Jacuzzi tubs and other related uses. My suggestion to
accommodate those with larger families would be to make the step up cost for usage from 5,000 to 10,000
be modest but for each step up after that make the rate increasingly higher. (0-5x1, 5-10x1.2, 10-15x1.4,
15-20x1.6, 20-30x2.5, 30upx5) Special consideration should be given to those commercial industries
that have an established water usage and are dependent on water for conducting their businesses such as
car washes, research facilities, breweries, etc. After all, the continuing presence of these industries in our
community is important and should not be discouraged from remaining in Boulder by water reasonable
water rates. 4b I think the 4b top limit for all house outside irrigation should be 15,000 gallons, with a
step up in rate significantly for each unit of 5,000 or 10,000. Many years ago, when I was on the
Waggoner Water District Board of Directors, we did this before the district was dissolved and entered the
city. It worked well. The increase in charge must be very significant if over watering and water usage is
to be controlled. Those with pools and large yars are going to strongly complain and or just pay the the
rates which in my opinion should be very, very high so as to help subsidize those that are prudent and
really trying to conserve water use. I think it unfair to use some winter month averages as the basis for
an individual home as many may be away for extended periods during this time. This may also apply to
those using perhaps some of their indoor usage for outside watering in the summer. I shall be most
interested in the final results. When we built our home 22 years ago, drip irrigation, limited landscaping
with xeroscaping was used. A small lot was selected for this purpose as well as to be situated for a solar
collector system to reduce energy usage. Both are still in use to this day with excellent benefits. It greatly
reduced our water, gas and electric utility consumption. This can only be achieved in our society with the
cost of utility consumptions as the incentive for controlling usage. Thank you for the opportunity to
respond to this survey. Donald B. Moore, 3820 Newport Lane, Boulder, CO 80304
question5 What is the problem with the current billing rate? It seems fair that if you use more water you pay more.
How much money was spent on research and studying alternative billing rates?
question5
We are heavy users during the summer and expect to pay for the water accordingly. But we have modest
winter use and would not like to be charged for water we don't use.
question5
Two comments: 1) Your survey has the first answer already filled and will be used unless the taker
changes the answer. This can bias your data (corrupt it) if someone only fills out one question. 2) It
sounds like you are looking to add multiple levels of complexity to your billing, thus probably increase
your internal costs and confusion to your customers. It is water. Keep the billing simple and keep your
costs in line. You drastically increased rates to curtail usage, now the water is here and the rates have not
gone back down. The perception of this proposed approach will allow a larger lower block to large
land owners (private and commercial), thus making a smaller private owner subsidize those other rates.
question5 I think rebates and reductions should be based on usage, not lot size or house size. Water usage should
be based on number of people in the household. If that is impossible, every house should be allotted the
same amount, and larger homes would pay much more for their excessive use. As a family in a small
home with good xeroscape, I need to be rewarded. Just because you have a large home doesn't mean you
should be able to waste water!!!
question5
3. Having a higher price in summer will further incentive conservation. 4b. People with small lots should
not have to, in effect, subsidize people who choose to have large lots. It is their choice to have a large lot -
let them xeroscape.
question5 Why must I continue to support the city with payments for flood plain when my property does not exist in
this plain? I feel the people who bought property in the flood plain should be responsible for this
cost. Also, my billing period seems to be erratic, last month I was billed for 1K gallons, this month is
billed at 5K gallons??
question5 This is a much less complex rate structure which does not require reading each meter separately. Bottom
line, this should save City of Boulder residents on their water bill expenses (with much less overhead
expenses because of no need to use water meters anymore). We're for it!!!!
Monday, January 26, 2004Page 3 of 29
question5 It would be better to balance population growth with water storage capacity, than to limit water use by
those already here. Water used is usually naturally recycled, it is really difficult to make it just go away
never to be seen again. And please don't hurt any more trees, or continue over charging for water, in the
name of "PC" though sophomoric bad science.
question5
lot size and family size should be reflected in billing policies.
question5 Your survey shouldn't have default checked answers; you didn't ask about varying size property lots as
suggested it would on the postcard
question5
I am very pleased that you are finally addressing this issue. I am very saddened especially in these times of
drought when for example 4 residences with small lots (e.g. 5000 sq. ft.) can waste 10,000 gallons of
water each relatively inexpensively while a resident with a large lot (20,000 sq. ft.) has to pay a large
surcharge if they were to use the same amount of water (40,000 gallons). It is about time outdoor water
use be spread fairly across the physical landscape and their not be an unfair advantage for many many
small lot owners to waste their relatively inexpensive water.
question5 4a. The first option sounds as if everyone would be billed the same amount, regardless of usage. Wouldn't
that be a disincentive to conserve? 4b. It makes sense to allow larger lots to use more water before
bumping them into the higher rate--there's not much a person can do about lot size. But we still need the
higher rate at some point, to motivate conservation.
question5 I want a water bill that I can predict. Last summer, I got hit with major increases while using less water
than I had been before. Since I do not understand how this happened, I am not happy. I do not like social
engineering experiments being done with my water bill. Please use a SIMPLE formula in which the rates
stay the same all year so that I can have some prayer of understanding what I will be paying. I do NOT
what to have to learn arcane systems in order to predict my water bill!
question5
I think people should pay for the water they use. But I am also concerned about neighbors who choose not
to do any watering of their lawns in the summer and then the neighborhood looks awfulbecause there are
dead lawns all over.
question5
Simply bill everyone equally for the amount of water they use. Cost of water is directly related to the
amount needed, so this is the only logical way to bill for it.
question5
It seems to me that the present method (pay per gallon used in increasing price blocks) is the fairest
possible way to allot the costs.
question5 I THINK WE HAVE A FAIR SYSTEM NOW AND IT DOES NOT NEED REVISED.
question5
We received your card in the mail about using property lot size to calculate water bills. We are very
strongly opposed to that. The city claims to have water conservation as one if its priorities. That should
imply rewarding households for low water use, and charging them considerably more for high water use.
If want to water your garden often, you pay! If your garden is also large, you pay even more, which is
something almost all people with a large garden can certainly afford.
question5 People who enjoy large lots with large water usage should pay for that option. If we want the combination
of conservation and operating revenue, only the current graduated method (or a further increase in block
rate differential) should be considered.
question5
I very strongly feel about my response in 4b. Even with very careful watering my needs are more (because
of the big lot I have) than some of my neighbors who have small lots. I hope therewill be a change in the
present policy.
question5
People that can afford large lots with extensive water requiring landscaping can probably afford to pay for
the water to maintain it. Changing the water cost in relation to lot size seems to favor the wealthy and the
use of more water for irrigating estates. This doesn't sound like something the People Republic of Boulder
would do without a mass uprising by outraged tree huggers. How about something like if you use less
water your fees for sewer go down? Reward those who conserve.
question5 As the owner of an apartment complex with a 20% vacancy rate I would not want to see my water rates
based on any benchmark that might be determined now. I would prefer to base it on the average water use
over the past five or ten years.
Monday, January 26, 2004Page 4 of 29
question5 Billing in 1000 gallon blocks hardly would show up minor savings of usage such as a low ga. toilet or
washer or turning off the water while washing. Billing by the gallon (I know you can't) would mean
something. Also if you allocated all the extras -sewer,flood,taxes,etc.--into the per gallon price we would
see the real cost and it would encourage more savings. For multi-family, I don't like having to pay the
meter charge all winter when I am not using water. I think requiring separate meters for small multi-family
is very unfair. If I could put them together like my house, it would cost me less, and it should.
question5 Pressure should be put on large properties to discourage water-hungry landscaping. And people who
really conserve should be rewarded, even if only in token ways. A combination of those strategies would
most effectively discourage water waste, I believe. Additionally, the city should stop wasting water
through incomprehensible decisions, e.g., watering city landscape/medians in the middle of the day on the
one hand, and allowing city trees to die of thirst on the other. The city should behave as it asks its
citizens to do.
question5 I think that it would be fair to recognize that lots do come in different sizes and allow homeowners with
larger lots to use more water at the same rate as homeowners with smaller lots.
question5 Water is a finite resource and for residential users should be billed equally and equitably according to
usage. There should be seperate rates for commercial and residential users but all residential users should
be charged equally irrespective of lot size, family size, etc. Those who save the most and live the most
economically should be favored.
question5 make it simpler, not more complicated
question5
A flat rate across the board is the only fair system.
question5 Your multiple choices on 4a and 4b do not allow for selecting the one item preferred. Who composed this
idiotic survey? I chose option one of each. Your choices of "both" "neither" and "no opinion" do not
reflect my choise of same water, same rate.
question5 There are amazing differences in indoor water usage by person. Estimating one value for a household is
grossly unfair. I have endless experience of these differences because I am responsible for many water
bills on properties which I manage. In some case, two people changing out of ten in the building can up
the water usage by as much as $20 per month under the current system. How can you calculate an average
fairly.
question5
assuming an average amount per household is a TERRIBLE IDEA THAT WOULD ONLY LEAD TO
OVERUSAGE
question5
It is important to consider lot size in calculating need for water. My 2/3 acre has dozens of trees that need
water. With the present system, my bill jumped from $89.60 last July to an outrageous $401.20 in
August. I'm environmentally sensitive and carefully conserve water, but I can't let my trees die. Fix this
unfair billing system!
question5 People who are careful (miserly) about their use of water should not be billed by their lot size. Lot size
does not determine how much water is actually used. Xeriscape should be encouraged over grass yards.
People who do not let the water run while brushing teeth, refrain from flushing the toilet when not
necessary should be rewarded by not being charged more. Lot size has no bearing.
question5 The current system is fine, especially with the ability to raise the block rates when supplies are low and
demand is high. Supply and demand should help you establish appropriate increases to block rates and
incentivise the limitation of water usage. The thought of permitting someone with a larger lot size to
purchase more water at a lower block rate because it takes more to irrigate the property is wrong. Owning
a larger lot is a choice. For example, consider property taxes. You live in a large house, you pay higher
property taxes. You don't have to live in a large house; it is a choice. Same with lot sizes. I'm dismayed
that the city council thought it necessary to spend our tax dollars for this evaluation. It's simple. You
want to conserve water, raise the rates. You want to cover expenses, raise the rates. You want flexibility
to do this in a crunch, let us know (like you did last year), that in an emergency, new higher block rates
could take effect immediately. By the way, why should different customer types get different rates? The
price for water ought to be the same for everyone. There are no efficiencies with great use.
question5 Water should be based on actual useage and not lot size. Someone who wants a green lawn and a fountain
should pay more than someone with xeriscape and low useage.
Monday, January 26, 2004Page 5 of 29
question5 The indoor / outdoor billing and/or block rates make no sense since there is no gauge on what is being
used as indoor / outdoor water in each home. It appears The City of Boulder is currently estimating the
number of gallons a household would use on a City wide basis and billing a higher rate when useage is
over a certain gallon amount. The current billing system and what is outlined in parts of this survey are
not fair to the Citizens of Boulder. Specifically the lot size calculation would penalize lower income
families and families with smaller lots. In these situations a family of 4 typically uses the same amount of
water (independent of lot size). People on property considered a smaller lot would pay more for water
because they are not allotted the same amount of water at the lower rate, and would be paying a higher
rate once they are over their level. The lot size billing does not take in account families that use water
(typically billed at the higher rate in the 2nd block) for what is needed and defined as "indoor" water. Lot
size calculations would only reward people with larger lots with more water since a family of 4's useage
would be the similar, however due to the lot size they have more water at the lower rate. This also begs
the following questions in which I am not sure if the City has researched: are people with larger lots using
more outdoor water for lawns, gardens, etc.? (the higher rate water). And shouldn't we conserve the
outdoor water that as residents of a dry part of the US? A lot size rate calculation system would promote a
socio-economic class system for water in the City, as well as have the potential for allowing less water
conservation since a larger lot would have more water at the lesser rate. Water useage should be billed
at one rate per 1000 gallons for residential use. The City should figure into the per gallon residential rate
taking into account total water useage in all blocks (ie. both "indoor" and "outdoor" water). The rates
should be calculated on average useage plus a standard deviation which would take into account such
things as droughts, natural disasters, high residential water use, etc. Rates should then be adjusted
periodically (quarterly or annually) based upon water useage, urban growth forecasts (taking into account
the entire Metro Area) and/or the City of Boulder's actual costs for providing residential water to
Citizens. This would provide a fair rate for a families use of water taking into account family size, natural
disasters, growth, and would be independent of lot size. This would also ensure that the City is getting the
revenue it needs since rates would be higher in what is now considered block 1 water useage. This would
also mean that as Citizens we are paying forward for such things that are beyond the Citizen's and City's
control such as floods, droughts, growth, natural disasters, etc. I do think in any situation the City
should find a solution for lower income families. One solution might be that the city could take
applications for a reduced rate based upon income and family size.
question5 Leave the water billing system the way it is. Using lot size or trying to create an average household size is
most unfair to those who try to conserve water usage through low water landscaping and in-home
conservation.
question5 Using Lot size as a determinating factor isn't fair. I have a patio and an efficient lawn, my neighbor
planted blue grass. He shouldn't get more of the cheaper water because he has a bigger lot. Also, there
is luxury use. During the water shortage, we saw new homes put in with swimming pools, koi ponds, and
waterfalls. These uses of water should be charged at a higher effective rate.
question5 As Sr. Citizens, on a fixed income, I would not want to pay as much per household as a family. Our lot is
fairly large, and we have had to give up watering the lawn in the summer because of the cost. Please keep
us old timers in your thoughts, as you look at your options. I feel that we are not big water users. Thank
you.
question5
The same amount of water at the same rate provides more rate parity among the residential customers and
more accurately charges rates based on usage without discrimination.
question5 We do not use water outside.
question5
Residential and business users should be billed by exact water usage. People who do not conserve water
should be penalized. People who have larger homes and/or family size should have to pay for the costs
associated with their choices (i.e., there should not be a different base allocation based on lot size and/or
household numbers). Otherwise, the rate structure will not encourage ecologically sensitive behavior
among the people of Boulder and will discriminate against people based on their family size.
question5 Water charges should be based on consumption and the cost of delivering water to the consumer. It
should not be used as a tool for social engineering. Nor should it be used as a a tool for balancing the city
budget (outside the water department).
question5 RE: 4.a.- We would like to have a larger base gallonage before the higher rate kicks in, no matter the
season. You can't use winter usage as a base rate due to "snow birds" who leave for winter. You
could use # of toilets as another area of punishment (i.e., more johns cost higher rates for excessive
flushers?). You could also furlough half the staff in the summer months when usage is restricted.
Monday, January 26, 2004Page 6 of 29
question5 This is a very confusing survey. (As is the water billing methods used and proposed.) I'd like to see the
basis for rates reflect the size of the lot-- in terms of outdoor use. I object to the rate being determined
based on winter usage (as I believe it is now). We use very little water in the winter so when we use more
in summer for the garden our base rate reflects that for the different levels of summer usage. I believe
conservation is extremely important and any tax incentives you may offer to those attempting (the very
expensive and time consuming) effort to convert to a more appropriate low-water/ xeroscaped landscape
would be a good idea. I also feel commercial and CU landscapes should be required to landscape in a
more appropriate way for this climate. (After all we all use water from thhe same aquifer!) Commercial
landscapes should minimize vast expanses of chemical and water hungry areas. Public parks and school
yards on the other hand should have more water allocated. Why commercial pproperties continue to
landscape in the way they do seems to indicate a lack of concern for the big picture. The City needs to
bring those entities into line. I have seen some places (ie the huge cemetery north of Albertsons
approximately Iris and the Diagonal) watering at 2 pm during the heat of the day and drought using the
most inefficient water-cannon sprays, day after day. Perhaps they have a well, I don't know. Regardless,
the aquifer we all depend on is being needlessly squandered and the message they send to the public is of
waste and an attitude of "we've got ours, tough luck for the rest of you!" All over town people with
existing wells continue to water at will as if their well was completely separate. We need to educate
everyone including well-owners and especially commercial builders to landscape in a manner appropriate
to this climate. Whether we have a drought or not this spring we need to move towards a more intelligent
use of our resources. Tax incentives may be an answer as well. I'd like the city to try to have CU work on
improving the kind of landscaping they have and how they deal with it as well. They may somehow be
immune to our regulations, but we need to convince them to be partners in a solution. I also would like the
option to recieve my bill online. That would save some costs as well.
question5 1) Shift progressivity of water use to 500 gallon increments to facilitate customer conservation
awareness. Even per-gallon progressivity if technically feasible. 2) Change wastewater quantity
charge from flat 1000 gallon rate to same progressive blocks as water quantity charge.
question5
1. The varying rate options are attractive ONLY if it does not become a giant, expensive bureaucratic
nitemare that eats money. 2. Have incentives for using LESS outdoor water and less indoor water and
for installing efficent toilets, showerheads, xerascaping, and other water saving methods. It's a whole new
world, and we have to incentivize saving water. 3. give expensive tickets for letting water spray into
the street, and letting it run into the street/gutters for hours on end. THIS INCLUDES FINING THE CITY
which does this too !!!! Heavy heavy tax on water features !!!
question5
i'd like to benefit from the small size of my family. If I make choices to have a small family, then I'd like
to able to use more water per person than, say, a family with 3 times the # of family members. Likewise, if
someone is using their home for producing income, and they are packing their property with people, they
should bear the expense of the extra water usage. Not sure I see how this is built into the proposals I
read. Or that it is easy to do. But if you set an average based on occupancy rules, perhaps you can
approach reasonableness.
question5
"Water police" should be more vigilant in observing "street" watering by both individual property owners
and the city of Boulder, which has been observed to water the street frequently on south Broadway near
Table Mesa Drive. Numerous property owners also seem to believe the hours of the watering schedules do
not apply to them. Mr. Tebo,at his new property near Ead's News, watered his rocks and the street during
the noontime period on at least three occasions which I observed. Everyone uses water - some appear to
believe they're the only ones who do, and all of the water is for them only.
question5
Cost should be based strictly on actual use, not estimate based on house or lot size. I travel a lot and my
actual costs should reflect my actual limited use.
question5 what can be fairer than reading meters?? assuming an avesrage per household would be very unfair
especially to the seniors
question5 Conservation should be the highest priority!!! This study lists the "generation of revenue to meet the
utility's requirements" as its number one goal. I suspect that the proposed changes are not "revenue
neutral". These proposals will almost certainly result in increased water consumption. What is the logic
of the proposed rate structure??? If you buy a large house, with a large yard and/or have a large family,
your water should be subsidized by the rest of the ratepayers???? Maybe other utilities (XCEL energy)
will pick up on this idea and we can give subsidized rates for electricity and natural gas to our neighbors
with large properties!!!??? These proposals can only be justified as a revenue enhancer for the utitlity!
Monday, January 26, 2004Page 7 of 29
question5 I have always been a very conscientious water comsumer, long before this drought cycle, because we live
in a dry climate, drought or no drought. I believe that people should be charged based on the amount of
water they use.
question5 I strongly believe that water should be billed per usage. The only exception would be water used for
outside. People who insist on trying to maintain an Eastern look and need gallons of water to keep it
should pay for this. New york City finally put meters on every building and starting billing each building
bu usage. I know many pepople, myself included have turned off their sprinkler systems and depended
upon what is provided by nature. The only way people will conserve our precious resource is to pay for
it.
question5 Two senior citizens living in a modest home use less water than a family of 6 in a similar house. Therefore
we favor being billed for the number of gallons each household uses. This should be the case both
summer and winter so each homeowner can decide how much water he wants to put on his yard and he
should be willing to pay for it.
question5
Lot size should not be the only consideration in outdoor use. A xeric lot should have an "easier" rate than
a blue grass lawn lot. The differentiation would be an additional incentive for people to retrofit their
lawns.
question5
Basing water rates on the size of a residential lot is foolish. If consumption varies by lot size, it will be
reflected in the winter water use. If the goal is to penalize large lots, or provide incentive for small lots, it
is wrong-headed. People will not move the get a cheaper water rate, and new buyers will consider the
water rates below the noise level in the cost of a Boulder home.
question5 Increase base gallonage minimum price based on lot size. Either do with less people or less pay /
employee.
question5
Water consupmtion should be paid for by the 1000 gal. increments based on actual usage. So much for the
first 5kg, then adjusted prices for that used above 5kg. This is for all year long. No variation in fees
throughout the year. Increment cost upward for every increment of 5kg, all year long.
question5
We should pay for what we use, and be rewarded/penalized for conserving or not. Payments on lot size or
any other flat rates are disincentives to conservation. The only optional payment plans should be for
qualified residents on fixed incomes (i.e. seniors).
question5
Did you people go to some special school for the terminally stupid??The city is not in the profit making
business but solely in the business of serving it's citizens. You are way too obvious in your thinly
veiled attempt to weasel more money out of the citizens. This study is a total waste of money and
resorces.
question5
people who flagrantly waste water during drought should be severely fined ... people with large, useless
grass lawns should be charged much more for their water all the time ... all car wash facilities, dyi & drive
through, should be either closed down or be forced to pay extreme water usage rates (i.e. $100.oo per
1,000 gallons minimum).
question5 Some city lots have public service right of ways which require water to maintain. This increases water use.
question5 customers with water wise landscape and who use conservation methods throughout the year, winter and
summer should not have to subsidize those who choose large lots with big lawns and don't use much effort
to conserve water.
question5 Water should be billed based on usage. Any other method quickly becomes subjective. A large lot does
not necessarily require more water. It depends on the plantings, how much grass, how much patio,
concrete, driveways,etc.
question5
I prefer to continue billing the way it is now. My water use is metered, and I am billed for it. If I use less,
I pay less. A good way to encourage conservation.
Monday, January 26, 2004Page 8 of 29
question5 Being a family of 5 we consume more water than a two person household. I feel we are penalized for this
when we are given an unreasonably low amount of water usage as the norm on which monthly standards
are based. Perhaps you need to consider a per person monthly usage or at least a sliding scale based on
the number of family members. If you are basing water on lot size as a baseline, then you should base
indoor use on household size, too.
question5
The wording of your survey questions is dismaying confusing! I think we as a city should be doing
everything we possibly can to reward residential users who use little water and to make heavy residential
users pay heavily. There is no reason for us to subsidize the irrigation of large yards or the use of our
precious water in private swimming pools, hot tubs, etc. Such usage can no longer be afforded by our
environment, as well as our suffering local economy! People who use water lavishly should pay
accordingly. Water should be saved for our parks, where all can benefit from grass, pools, trees and
gardens.
question5 The current rates for block 3 seem unreasonably high. Perhaps a four block rate would lessen this burden.
I do support the drought surcharge but only on the fourth block
question5 I have a 45,000 sq ft lot with about 2000 sq ft of house/pavement non-irrigable area. Having lived on a
well before being annexed, our AWC is 1-2000 gallons, but because of our large lot size, our summer
consumption is much higher. The current fee structure penalizes us for our wintertime conservation of
water, and does not deal with our summertime needs. I would like a system that gives us credit for the
water that we "save" during the winter ("save" below what is the Boulder AVERAGE wintertime
consumption), and allows us to apply that to our summertime needs. I would also like a system that
acknowledges the differences in lot sizes and gives owners of large lots some kind of break. I feel that our
large lot and associated plantings provides the neighborhood with benefits that warrant such treatment:
carbon dioxide fixing by plants to decrease effects of global warming, more greenspace in an increasingly
congested world, and water absorbtion during major storm events and shallow flooding. Thank you,
Elizabeth Black
question5 the amount of water used should determine the cost and not the size of the your lot. it's the only logical
way to charge fairly.
question5- The proposed changes are for the city's convienience, not the customers'. - Leave the system
fundamentally as it is. I use a gallon, and I pay for that gallon. - Any averaging system guarantees that
*all* customers will be either over or under charged.
question5 I think the current water billing (based on winter consumption to set the levels per home) punishes those
who try to conserve water year-round. I think it is more fair to have a water rate that is the same rate per
home; therefore, those with larger homes and larger yards pay their fair share.
question5 It's best, and fairest, to have one rate that applies to everyone. Would you want gas stations to have a
lower price for big cars and a higher price for small cars?
question5 Becase of the complexities of determining family size (people coming and going in any one unit) and the
unfairness of allocating larger amounts of cheaper water to those who choose large lawns on their large
pieces of property, I believe the current rate structures should be left in place. These structures have
encouraged my family, and the families of my neighbors to conserve water; "refining" the structures may
have the opposit effect.
question5 Re: rates based on average winter water use. How might the rates be skewed by the fact that many
households are gone during the November-December holiday times, which appears to make the rest-of-the-
year rates too high. While other households have people visiting which gives a different number for their
average.
question5 People should encouraged to conserve water by having to pay more for higher usage.
question5
I selected "no opinion" for question #2 above because it doesn't make much sense to say you want the
present system to change unless you know what the alternatives are. Every option favors certain
individuals at the expense of others. I think you need to make those trade-offs explicit. For example, we
have a large lot, and therefore a large summer water bill under the current structure. But is you gave us a
break, by changing the rate breakpoints for us, then you are favoring people with large lots (in general,
people with higher incomes)
Monday, January 26, 2004Page 9 of 29
question5 One price citizens pay for having a 1. A big family/lots of occupants and 2. a large piece of property must
be higher costs of any commodity/utility. To give a "break" as in the second option above, it simply unfair
to citizens who use resources wisely/including living a smaller, more sustainable life style. Realistically,
giving the owners of large tracts of property a higher baseline for water usage is inherently unfair. I also
believe the cost of water needs to be adjusted according to the season and the availability of water.
question5
I really don't see any justification for going by lot size unless you just like to help out rich people. People
should pay for how much water they use, period.
question5
This proposal seems to be the result of an over-bloated City staff with too much time on their hands. What
is broken with the current billing system?
question5 The water bill should be based upon how much each home uses. Not on the size of the lot, not assuming
the same amount per household (why would you do this?! All the houses are metered already anyway),
and not differentiating indoor/outdoor. Charging people for what they use is the best way to encourage
conservation. Let them prioritize what they want to use it for and whether the cost is worth it to them -
don't impose your values on whether watering outdoor plants should be punished.
question5 We live in a dry climate, where water is a precious commodity.Extensive use should be discouraged, ergo,
the more you use, the more you should pay.
question5
The current incentive, built into the rate structure, to use more water in the winter is foolish. In fact the
block structure itself should be eliminated. All water used should be the same price, but that price should
be high enough to encourage conservation and should be market-based to reflect current supply and
demand.
question5 I think every household should be billed at the same rate for the same amount of water used regardless of
the lot size, number of people in household, etc.--that seems to be the fairest method.
question5 I strongly support the adoption of useage blocks based on individual family size and lot size. It has
never been fair to use the same block structure for all. Bigger families must use more indoor water and
large lots take more outdoor water. So, each inidividual situation should be considered to establish the
useage blocks for all homes.
question5 My indoor as well as my outdoor water use goes up in the summer because we take more showers, wash
more clothes and prep more veggies from the garden. I hope you take this into account when considering
rates.
question5 Don't try to overregulate the water utility like you overregulate the rest of the city government.
question5 Maybe I don't understand what the proposed change is but if it is calculated on lot size I would be
penalized for the small amount of water I use even though I have a half acre lot.
question5 The current system encourages water conservation on the part of the consumer. Using lot size or
average amount per household would only mean that I would have no incentive to conserve water.
Why would we want to institute either of these systems in a drought condition? Individual metering of
water usage in individual households is the only answer to encourage conservation. Different rates
between summer and winter make sense, within reason and provided that billed rates are based on
actual usage. I am somewhat surprised that any other method would be considered.
question5
A different base consumption level for the first block based on lot size is an excellent idea! Otherwise, I
think the current system of billing for consumption works just fine.
question5 Things to consider: ie: We have a daughter in college. Our indoor water rates may vary as to whether she
is away at school or at home (winter break, summers, etc.--showers, laundry, etc.) We will have 2 children
in college in another year. How will you calculate our indoor water usage if it is much less during the
school year and higher during breaks and the summer? This is a big concern for me. We should not be
penalized for this. Our family should be able to come and go and not be penalized for using more water
because more people are using water in our home. Are there incentives for xeriscaping (other than paying
more for water)? This would be a good idea.
question5
Water rate should not be based on lot size.
Monday, January 26, 2004Page 10 of 29
question5 We are currently billed by how much water we use. This seems to be the most fair, simple, honest way.
Why do you want to tinker with this? I am frugal with all natural resources. I am single & live in a very
small home. I will not pay extra because you might "assume" that I'm using "X" amount of water when I'm
not! Please do NOT waste any more of your time or the people's money on fixing something that isn't
broke! Thank you.
question5
Large families should not be penalized for the size of their family by paying higher indoor rates for their
basic needs. However, ouside use is a different story. Since water is a luxury when used outside,
everyone should be billed at the same structure so that those who want to use more of this luxury have to
pay for it.
question5 The options briefly mentioned in the postcards mailed to residents show flaws. - The first, to use
property lot size for calculating bills, would be a disincentive to xeriscaping or other low-water
landscaping. - The second, to vary rates from winter to summer, IS sensible. - The third, to assume
an average amount of indoor water usage per household, is a disincentive to personal and household
conservation efforts. I think the current system is fine. I don't understand what about it is broken. The
more water one uses, the more one pays for water -- seems logical, and supports conservation efforts.
question5 People will not conserve water unless they have to pay for what they use. Reasonable amounts of water
(say, 5K gallons/household) should be cheap, but all additional water, be it summer or winter, should cost
much more than it does now. Right now, water is so cheap that there is no incentive, for example, to
replace lawns with zeroscape or to leave the hot-tub empty.
question5
Pricing must discourage the watering of private lawns. Right now, it does not, and we will suffer for that
in future droughts.
question5 Water is a finite resource and it costs the same to provide that resource at any time of year. So, I believe
the rates shoud be same yearround. People with native or xeriscaped yards will use about the same amount
of water for yards yearround. People who choose to irrigate in the summer or anytime should pay for the
irrigation water they use. (Since I have a native yard and do not irrigate, I do not want to have to pay for
or subsidize the development of the irrigation water others use.)
question5 People with larger lots should never be given a larger alotment of lower priced water. We live in an semi-
arid environment, so should be highly valued. We currently undervalue water in my opinion. I think all
water rates should be raised particulary any useage over 3,000 gallons in any month. there are enough easy
alternatives to using more than that which can be easily employed.
question5
Water should be billed for only the amount of water used.
question5 A question - There are two adults in my 2200sf house on a 7500sf lot. We have one car which we do not
wash at home, we do one load of wash every other day and both shower once a day. Our neighbor in the
same size house, same sf etc, has eight children, they do 3 loads of wash every day, they have 5 cars
which they wash at home and all 10 of them bathe every day, they also have an above ground outdoor
swimming pool. Just how would these differences be taken into account.
question5
Property lot size is irrelevant. "Average" usage per household is not a good standard. Actual usage is
what should be billed.
question5 I believe that the city should continue the billing as it is now, since we are charged for the amount of
water we use and that encourages conserving.
question5 I have a question on how accurate your present metering system is. My husband and I have lived at the
same address (2666 Hawthorne Place in Boulder for nearly 11 years. During the first three years at this
address, our son and daughter lived with us. Our monthly bill stayed between 4000 and 5000 units (the
higher number during the summer months when I had three of four flower boxes on our front porch). The
last few years our bill seems to be at the 5000 level throughout the year even though there are only two of
us living here. Since we live in a townhouse, the outdoor lawn watering is done by the HOA. What
explanation is there for higher usage when there are fewer showers/baths being taken less than half of the
laudry being done, and the dishwasher only being used once or twice during the week?
question5
The fairest and simplest is that "you pay for the amount of water you use". Don't use winter usage to
decide on household indoor needs! Don't use lot size as a factor. Both of these are UNFAIR! A sliding
scale of higher cost for excessive amounts used IS NECESSARY.
Monday, January 26, 2004Page 11 of 29
question5 Having made a significant investment into my landscape to reduce turf area, install automatic irrigation
system and increase overall water efficiency, it is imperative to match irrigation water use to lot size. It is
unfair to have the same water budget for 20,000 sf lot as a 5,000 sf lot. This only promotes the lack of
water efficiency on the majority of boulder properties. Also commercial facilities must be charged on a
similar structure (at least as far a water cost)as residential properties. The block system may not work for
commercial properties, but a monthly water budget based on lot size or irrigated area would put
commercial properties on the same cost basis as residential properties. This element needs to be changed
prior to the 2004 irrgation season.
question5 keep pricing the same as is right now.
question5 Generally I see the current system working and I would not be in favor of creating a more punitive system.
question5
Regarding question 3, my opinion is that, if it actually costs the city more to provide water during a
season (or less during a season), the rates should reflect this fluctuation seasonally. If the cost to the city
is the same year round, the citizens should be pay the same rate year round. As a side note, in my
opinion, it is important that each household is billed for the amount of water it actually uses. It would not
be acceptable to consider averaging the cost for the total usage and spreading that cost amoung all the
households. In other words, one neighbor who uses minimal amounts of water shouldn't have to pay more
to help foot the bill of another neighbor who uses large quantities. Thank you!
question5 Currently, low water usage in the winter is "penalized" by a lower threshold for first tier rates in the
summer. Same amount of water at same rate would better encourage conservation year round.
question5
My comment relates to an office building with landscaping. In the summer, as water use goes upfrom
the sprinkler system, the billing for 'Wastewater' also goes up. This is unfair - the extra water is clearly
going on the lawn!
question5
- The first option, to use property lot size for calculating bills, would be a disincentive to xeriscaping or
other low-water landscaping. So what if a lot is large, if aggressive water conservation is employed?
Such a lot may use significantly less wa
question5
I think the current billing philosophy is a good one and should not be substantially changed. I do feel that
the utility department should heavily emphasize developing xeriscape landscaping -- both to conserve
present supplies and to reduce the cost of system augmentation in the future. Rebates for landscaping
costs, encourage whole streets to redo their front yards to get rid of blue grass, annual contests, lots of PR.
I feel the city should be strongly behind xeriscaping.
question5 The only current billing method I take issue with is determining BLOCK 1 by using Dec.-Mar.
consumption as baseline-think it more accurate to use 12 months as a baseline- too many variables during
a given quarter-
question5 The only legitimate purpose of water billing is TO PAY FOR WATER SUPPLY, not to extort
conservation, or function as a surreptitious property tax hike. Like me, most Boulder property owners are
wealthy enough not to care much what you charge, and will use about the same amount regardless; they
will also be very upset if they see their extra water fees just going into general revenue instead of directly
to increase water supply. On the other hand, higher rates for a basic utility like water are an unfair
imposition on those less well off. If there is no water shortage in a given year, there is no problem to
address. If there is a current water shortage, then RESTRICTIONS (not billing) are the proper way to
conserve water -- they make sense, and they encourage better landscaping and water use but in a far fairer
way. I think the city is wasting our money hiring consultants to contemplate ridiculous variations
on water billing. Property size has nothing whatever to do with billing. Charging different rates in winter
and summer for year-round indoor water use is ridiculous. The present average/block system makes
perfect sense, and merely adopting some novel approach different from the rest of the country does not
necessarily make us look more intelligent or progressive.
question5
I strongly support the average winter consumption method and lot size to determine blocks residentially.
This would not "penalize" those households with larger families or larger lots and consequently make
"water billing rates" more equitable among all residential users. The key is education, education,
education. This has started and for the most part I think the citizens of Boulder have become more "water
wise". Thank you.
Monday, January 26, 2004Page 12 of 29
question5 The primary goal for any new water billing structure should be to encourage water conservation, both
indoors and outdoors. Current use levels are much higher than actual needs, and current "requirements"
should not be a baseline for defining block size. I would support rate increases, especially for those who
make excessive use, but also for those with average use patterns. The billing structure should not
allocated more water in Block 2 to those who choose to have larger yards, as several of the options you are
considering would.
question5 The "water budget" approach for residential rates has a serious shortcoming: it provides no motivation for
holding down outdoor uses. Indeed, it encourages the expansion of irrigable area since that block will be
charged at much less than longrun marginal cost. A residence could declare some idle land as irrigable
area so as to expand their second block for more intensive irrigation of their traditional yard area. Also,
schemes that relate block rates to "tap fees" make little sense since 90% of residential users have never
and will never see a tap fee. The increasing block type of structure currently in place is backed by
extensive experience (AWWA practice) and theoretical considerations of sharply increasing system costs
and peak-period demand considerations.
question5
I responded "no opinion" on 4a and 4b because I don't understand the questions. Both questions seem to
imply that the city knows how much water I use outside and how much I use inside. I don't understand
how this can be, since (as far as I know) all the water I use goes through one meter. Your post card states
that changes being considered include "assuming an average amount of water usage per household." If
this means that you will no longer measure the actual amount of water used (ie read meters), then I think it
is a very bad idea since it removes all incentive to conserve water.
question5 For those of us who do not live in Boulder in the winter, the AWC calculation if punitive...water costs the
city the same for each user, and should be billed at the same rate/1000 gallons regardless of consumption.
question5
The city should not penalize larger families with children by assigning 1 block size for indoor usage to all
homes. Also the city needs to provide more economical means of outdoor water billing. Even after the
most recent drought was declared over, the cost of using water for irrigation was very high compared to
neighboring communities.
question5 5,000 gallons is insufficient for a basic household of 4. I think the first block should be for up to 8,000
gallons.
question5
We all need to continue to be conservative in your water usage and I think the same pricing structure for
all water use is correct.
question5
Last summer, I didn't water the trees on the side of my (corner lot) house because it was too expensive.
The trees will eventually die, but I just cannot afford the water rates. The grass over there is being
replaced by violets, which is fine, but I'll miss the trees.
question5
I amd on city water but outside the city limits. I don't know if my water rates are the same as residents. If
not, they should be.
question5 If you don't ajust water rates for large lots vs. small lots, you are penalizing large lot owners just because
of the size of their lot. This could adversly affect the "beauty" of Boulder, and the trees that may not be
watered if ajdustments to large lots is not taken into consideration. Values of homes on large lots would
also decrease.
question5
The city cannot know about the cause of needed fluctions of my use. Due to the increased block price of
water, we lost shrubs, a tree, and canceled a small vegatable garden last year. It's a sad loss for me and the
city. Also distressing was the total neglect of the city's medians and beautiful touches of color and
plantings that the city gave up that we could be proud of and enjoy even if our own yards care was
curtailed. The city's excellent water rights were created for property owners to have the least expensive
water and not to penalize or tax us for city purposes.
question5
Lot size seems terribly unfair, as there is no way ot knowing or no standard for the portion of the lot a
homeowner has lanscaped for non-watering or low watering. I also don't like the idea of assuming an
average amount of indoor water use per household, for two reasons. First, it removes some of the
incentive to conserve, and second, it would have to take into consideration how many people reside in the
household, and not be done by size of house.
question5 I think you should try to reward people who are economical with water during the winter.
Monday, January 26, 2004Page 13 of 29
question5 To reduce costs recommend going to less frequent meter readings and bills.
question5
I think the way you bill now if fine; it takes into account that people have to pay for water that they
actually use and pay more for the water the more they use. This way people can choose their consumption
levels and they can't complain when they get a high bill. I have a neighbor who waters night and day every
day and she should pay top dollar. No one else in the neighborhood should pay as much as her. I don't
think it's fair to charge people with large lawns less money than those with small lawns, or have different
rates between summer and winter or ASSUME an average amount of usage. We all know what happens
when you ASSUME. Things are fair, leave 'em alone. If it's not broke, don't fix it. I had a water bill in
Washington state that cost me a fortune, the same amount every month for water I never even used. People
who are conservative should be rewarded, not punished.
question5 Suggested use of billing according to lot size seems to introduce many inequities.
question5
I feel very strongly that each household should be billed according to the actual amount used. I am a huge
conservationist and would like to remain so. BUT if youchange the billing structure I will use the amount
that you are charging me for. Besides, we should penalize those who use larger amounts of water....let us
not encourage wasteful habits!!!
question5 The idea of charging for water based on the lot sixe is ridiculous. My neighbor has the same size lot as
mine. His lot is all gravel with a few arid plants. My lot has a large driveway but balance in grass and
flower borders. Each of us has a different water demand. I do not believe any two lots of the same size
would provide any fair way to compute water rates.
question5
Any plan that provides different amounts of water at the same rate (either indoor, outdoor, summer, or
winter) is unfair and discourages water conservation.
question5 These proposals seem designed to enhance revenues at the expense of conservation!!!!!!!
question5
Any plan should encourage conservation but not penalize people who really conserve water during the
winter so they can use it in the summer on their yards. For instance, I have not changed my 4 toilets to
low flow, since to do so would lower my winter usage and thereby raise my summer costs. Reasonable
total water usage for the year should be calculated based on # of bathrooms and lot size, and then any
usage over that should be charged at a MUCH higher rate. This way citizens could decide how to use a
fair amount of water and not be unfairly charged. The current system in incredibly unfair and in fact does
not encourage conservation!
question5 Compared to the water bill rates effective now. And assuming the water rate changes occur as planned,
and assuming we consume the same amount of water under the old rate, and the new rate, will our water
bills be expected to 1) lower 2) stay the same or 3) increase when the changes occur?
question5 I believe that my current bill is elegant and straightforward. Please don't tamper with the current three-
block system. However, I am also of the opinion that those who use more for outdoor and superfluous use
(e.g., car washing, etc.) should pay more--thus your formula should not provide a home with a larger lot
more "cheap" water. Furthermore, as a business owner, I feel there should be NO special breaks for
businesses (e.g., laundries, car lots, etc.) that use more water. In short, provide a meaningful first block of
cheap water, then feel free to bill the hell out of the rest. Let economics drive conservation.
question5 raise the rates for summer for outside watering. Keep the rates for indoor use the same as they are now.
Pay for what you use.
question5 Bigger lots need more water to allow trees etc. to live, which benefit us all. For example, if one house has
4 people living in it, then that house should be allowed to purchase water at a base rate equal to the same
sized house that has 8 people in it. Please do not allow discriminataory residential water prices. Each
house should be given the same water purchase base rate based on number of persons living in the house
and based on lot size.
question5
The commercial class of water users should be charged according to the same price structure as single-
family and multi-family residential class users in order to provide all users with a comparable incentive
for water conservation. Currently, because of their lower rates commercial users have little incentive to
conserve water compared to residential users.
question5 Conservation should be rewarded (financially).
Monday, January 26, 2004Page 14 of 29
question5 Most of our bill is fixed charges--service charge, wastewater, storm water. I know the intent is to charge
for the 'fixed costs' separately from the water, but the result is that we save very little if we use 2000
gallons instead of 3000 gallons. I would like to see the cost of each 1000 gallons higher and the fixed
costs lower as an additional incentive to save water.
question5
larger users should pay more in a time of drought. the value of water is going up in this situation and they
are making it scarce for everyone. If i am cutting back on my meager yard so people have water to drink i
don't want to see the golf course on the side of the freeway emerald green.
question5
I think we should all pay for our water at the same rate, not dependent on what we use indoors in the
winter, not dependent on how many kids we have (size of family), not dependent on lot size. When you
start trying to parse all these variables, it becomes complicated and inevitably unfair. Just bill us all at the
same rate. Nothing will be perfectly fair, since life isn't perfect, but at least we will all understand that
system, and it will be as fair and probably fairer than any other.
question5 I dislike being required to water on certain days unless we have a severe drought. I think I should be left to
manage my allotment as I think best. I think there should be much more stringent oversight and penalties
for those who do not cooperate during droughts. We had neighbors who were watering at night in order
not to be caught and clearly were ignoring voluntary guidelines.
question5
It would be helpful if the city was as concerned with conservation as they want their citizens to be. Losing
millions of gallons of water through cracks in the watershed and not repairing it is extremely hypocritical
question5 What I would really like is to see some financial reward for being conservative in my use of water,
regardless of the size of my house and yard. If I manage to use less water than the City calculates that I
need, then I want to pay less than someone in the same size house, on the same size lot, who is wasteful of
water resources.
question5
Water should be valued througout the year.....not just in summer months when it might be more
expensive. Excessive water use should always cost more. Thanks for inviting the input.
question5
I feel strongly that water use, beyond a basic amount, should be billed at a much higher amount, to send a
clear message that conservation is essential and it is rewarded.
question5 I feel very strongly that water should be based on usage. I have been very surprised to see the number of
people with expensive irrigation systems (with timers) watering in the middle of the day during the
summer in such a dry climate as Boulder. I do think this issue should be address so perhaps having
different rates in the summer vs winter would work. Another idea is to impose mandatory restrictions on
watering times limiting watering to morning or early evening hours. There could also be an
encouragement of xeroscaping by providing a carrot instead of a stick. How about a discount for
properties with approved xeroscape usage or stormwater BMPs?
question5
Regulations and rates in time of shortage are not addressed here. They should be on a water budget basis
by household. Even though I have a large lot, I don't favor a larger budget for larger lots, rather I think
that owners of large lots have a greater responsibility to use water wisely. However, people with small lots
should also be encouraged to conserve.
question5 I agree with a policy of charging more for outdoor and/or excessive use of water but I don't think lot size
is a good indicator. Some people water lawns more than others indepentent of lot size. Also, I don't think
having a large yard entitiles you to cheaper water. If you can afford a large yard in Boulder you can
certainly afford to pay more to water it.
question5 I was conservative on my watering last summer and was horrified to receive two bills of over $200!!! I
think if one uses less water in the winter (as I do), they should get a credit to be able to keep their yards
green in the summer. I am gradually adding drought tolerant grass seed to my lawn each year. This is not
a fast process for a poor divorced single woman.
question5 The city shouldn't be in the business of determining how much to charge based on *how* water is used; it
should charge based on *how much* water is used. (For the record, I have a relatively large piece of
property and a relatively small home, so I'm essentially in favor of the option that is more expensive for
me.) Thanks for giving citizens the opportunity to provide feedback this way!
question5 I like the lower water bill in winter when the heating bill is high. In summer when the water bill is
generally higher due to lawn watering, we don't have the heating bill.
Monday, January 26, 2004Page 15 of 29
question5 The only fair way to bill for water is to charge everyone the same rate. Any attempt to ration water
(indirectly) by average use, family size, lot size, etc., penalizes the thrifty and subsidizes the profligate. In
addition, varying price by lot size penalizes ditch users.
question5 This entire costly and complex effot is another Boulder "solution in search of a problem." You can't
afford to implement these software changes without raising water rates to pay for it. Let it go!!
question5 We need to keep Boulder "green" so we should try to not over price for water used outdoors for lawns and
trees.
question5
I think it is ludicrous that a homeowner on a sprawling lot should be rewarded for their overindulgence by
paying less for water. There is a limited supply of natural resources -- land and water are amoung those
resources. People who have the largest lots also have the greatest ability to pay for water. THE PRICE OF
WATER SHOULD HAVE NOTHING AT ALL TO DO WITH LOT SIZE. That is a very bad idea.
Another point that I would like to make is that people should be encouraged to conserve water indoors.
The current rate structure does not do that. It would be more fair to charge everybody the same rate up to a
certain level of consumption, say 4000 Gallons. Basing the price for the first block on the winter
consumption is not fair.
question5 Everyone should pay the same price for what they use; this will set up incentives for people to conserve,
e.g., a person with a 9000 sq ft. yard can xeriscape, or they can choose to have the big green yard. If they
choose the luxury of the big green yard, they should pay for it. Otherwise, you have the case of the person
with the smaller or xeriscaped yard subsidizing the large water using yard. THE PLAN YOU
IMPLEMENT MUST RECOGNIZE INCENTIVES FOR BEHAVIOR. Donald R.
Lichtenstein Business Professsor
question5 I have an environmental illness that requires me to purchase all of my drinking/cooking water separately.
I also need to eat organically and have kept my property pesticide free since 1975 so that I can grow my
own food. This is an unusul financial burden with my mimimum fixed social security income. My house
is small but my lot is large. The result is an unusual distortion in the difference between my winter and
summer usage. This causes my rate for drip irrigation in the summer to be exhorbitant vs my winter
usage. HEELLPP. I'm not smart enough to know how to adjust your charges so that the people with BIG
houses and small lots have a disproportionate advantage in the summer rating system but I trust you will
be able to consider my situation and adjust the system fairly. I appreciate your efforts to do so because
between water rates and taxes I could lose my house. Thanks, Maurine Hobbs - 489 Harvard Lane 80305
question5 I really disagree with the option to bill homes based on the size of their properties. We have a small house
on a rather large property. We are about to invest several thousand dollars to xeriscape our property to
reduce water usage. If water is scarce, then all homes should pay the same price. If you have a really
huge yard with beautiful grass, then you should have to pay the price for the watering.
question5
First, I can't say I think much of your survey questions. There are a number of apparent biases (such as a
default radio button selection). Second, I urge you to adopt a rate structure that rewards low water
users--regardless of their lot size, number of household residents etc. Our household is extremely
conservative in our water use. For example, we recycle gray water for use in the yard, have limited turf
areas, use drip systems, etc. Adopting broad averages is a DISINCENTIVE for this household to conserve
water. We do not want to subsidize the water use of others who are less efficient in their water use.
question5
We try very hard to conserve water, particularly in the summer, by saving our "warming up" water from
the shower. We have also purchased low-water appliances (dishwasher and front-load clothes washer),
and are contemplating buying dual-flush toilets for our home. The dual-flush uses even less water than
the 1.6 gallon toilet. Given these efforts, I like the idea of a low block size. For example, why not allocate
4,000 gallons per month per household, and charge a higher rate above that amount? It would encourage
others to conserve and try to reach that 4,000 gallon level.
question5
The current rate structure is based on what you actually use, wether it is indoors or outdoors. What's the
difference; it water. If you use more, you pay for it. This encourages conservation (as demonstrated by last
year's compliance with water restrictions). No one wants to pay more for water. If water budgeting is
considered, it should be based on lot size, house size and a factor above that amount, because lifestyles
change; parents move in, or stay for a long time; kids come back home to live for a while. Consider a
flexible approach for budgeting or its going to get very messy on the enforcement side of the issue.
question5 I do not think the structure of the billing for water needs to be changed
Monday, January 26, 2004Page 16 of 29
question5 I like the current system and am happy to see it refined. Note that indoor use varies by the number of
people living in the home, which suggests a use based system is fairest. I'm also okay with charging more
for people with big lots; they can afford it. We see a lot of water wasting in our neighborhood
(overwatering of landscape). Our lawn was the only one that died during the restrictions in 2002 and we
have less lawn area than anyone else on our cul de sac.
question5
For those of us foreward thinkers who invested in xeriscape years ago to conserve water for ourselves and
the community, anything other than charging for actual usage as we do today would be a disservice and a
disincentive for others to invest in xeriscape. Charging by lot size is totally unacceptable whereas
averaging usage has merit.
question5 It is unfair to allow a large home or family to pay less than me. Furthermore I should not be penalized for
conserving water during the winter, by having to pay hight rates in the summer. Everyone should pay the
same. The person living in a large home should be penalized just like me. They have a large home by
choice. Lets have equality for all
question5
This can hardly be called a survey! It is far too limited for use in deliberations on an issue of such
importance. I hope its results will not be considered statistically valid in making final decisions about
water use and billing. As a single person who is conscientious in avoiding overuse of water, i.e.,
watering lawns only once every 7-10 days in summer as grass goes into dormancy in both hot and cold
weather, I believe the issue of excess water use will not be controlled either by changing the current rate
structure or by changing billing processes. In fact, changing to estimated billing appears to be little more
than an easy way out of a difficult problem. People change only through education, so focus should be
placed instead on educating the public while continuing to provide monetary incentives for limited water
use. Clearly, estimated billing for water is no solution. In fact, we know that people learn more directly
from having to pay for what they use. Also, people like me will quickly tire of paying for others
irresponsible use of water and this problem will only come back for reconsideration. Tell me how you will
feel paying for community use of water when you see, on a day of pouring rain, homes with sprinklers
running freely? I hope you will take into account the fact that individuals like me are the minority but
you may well be asking us to disregard our well established ways of honoring the environment with the
new structures you are considering. Thank you. Sincerely, Judy Lampman 3107
Broadway Boulder, CO 80304
question5
How about a financial incentive to use LESS water???
question5 i don't see where lot size really enters into the picture. if you are measuring consumption, that should be
enough. i live in a townhome so i don't really care about lot size. i would encourage xero-scaping as part
of your program also.
question5 The only problem we have is with use of the "average winter consumption." We conserve all winter,
reducing our consumption, thus raising our summer rates. Our college-age children are with us in the
summer, so our household is larger. For both reasons, AWC is bad for us and we think unfair.
question5 These will be tough decisions. A person with a larger lot shouldn't automatically get an "allowance" of
more water use. Where's the incentive to conserve? Too many people already do stupid things like
watering on windy afternoons, or claim to have well water when they don't.
question5 Just bill on usage
question5 Many seniors and disabled people are struggleing to keep their homes. Increases in heating, water, etc.
puts at risk their ability to stay in the homes they have lived in for years. Many people, like myself...older
and disabled...living alone...use very little water. I don't cook often..shower several times a week where I
go for physical therapy, and not at home on those days, and have had to give up all gardening and lawn
care. I minimally watter trees and lawn. Thus, I use radically less water than neighbors with large families
and elaborate gardens and lawns...people who wash their cars and dogs regularly, etc. I can barely afford
to pay for the little water that I actually use..let alone the average amount of water used by my neighbors.
PLEASE CONSIDER THIS>
question5 Certainly 4b The larger the home the more water they get to use is unfair. Those of us who work hard to
limit our water use should get some reward for conservation. Water is not like other other
consummables, just because you have money to pay you shouldn't get to use all you want. Perhaps there
needs to be a per person allotment(that would be an administrative nightmare wouldn't it?) There also
must be some level at which a home wasting water,say 30,000 gallons a month, just wouldn't be allowed
to use that much.
Monday, January 26, 2004Page 17 of 29
question5 1) The current basis of using 'winter usage' as a basis is VERY unfair to those of us who are out of town
during the period for business or vacation travel (as we are). Our 'average' usage will be skewed
significantly, causing us to pay more for the same amount of water than other comparable households. Set
fixed rates (tiered is ok), and apply them to everyone. If I use more water in the summer because my lot is
larger, I will pay the extra amount ... my choice. My summer bills should not be larger than my neighbor
who happens to use the same volume as my family but uses more water during the 'winter basis' period
(thus lowering their 'summer' rate). Also, using lot size could also be extremely unfair if the person with
the larger lot uses xeriscape landscaping and is generally a conservative water user. With the statistics you
(should) have, you should have a fairly good idea of break points for tiered usage fees. 2) Business
should pay their 'fair share'. Their fixed rate schedule should not allow them to pay lower water fees (per
1000 gal) than homeowners. In a 'water poor' environment such as ours, we should not be encouraging
high volume usage that reduces water rates. 3) I do not know the financial situation, but the water utility
should be 'non-profit'.
question5 I feel strongly that the present system is the most equitable. Using property size as a determinant does not,
for example, allow for lots of people living on a small lot or one person living on a large property with no
lawn! And ssuming an average amount of water use per household will inevitably penalize people who use
an unusually small amount of water and reward people who use more than the average. I think that you are
trying to "fix" something that isn't broken!!
question5 We line in the city on a one acre lot. Half of the lot is not watered at all. We have a well which we use to
water the part that is grass. Using lot size would not reflect our situation. Also, we are retired and
leave Boulder for warmer climes in Jan, Feb and Mar. This would set our AWC at an artificially low
level. I'm not sure is this helps us (low waste water charge) or hurts us (our block sizes are artifically
small).
question5 I am very water-conscious. I do not want to be lumped in with a family who is careless.
question5 Continue strict enforcement! Ticket (with high $ fines) for those who water in the middle of the day,
those who over water such that it runs to the street, and any other scofflaws. Build in some method to
encourage large lot owners to conserve water as a priority of landscaping. Why should
business/commercial properties benefit from a lower rate structure?? Rate "breaks" encourage
waste. Have you a means of knowing that someone has submitted this survey multiple times? Thank
you for allowing us to participate.
question5 You should never bill by lot size as this would give no incentives for low maintenance planting . Also ,
those using less water but with a larger and perhaps barren yard may have an unfair price to pay for water,
Some people do not wter at all during a drought and should be rewarded not punished. Bill by use only.
That is the only fair way.
question5
Assuming an average amount of water use per customer is extremely unfair to those who try to conserve
or who are seldom home. Why should I pay as much as my neighbors (same house and lot size), when
they water their lawn 4 times/day 4-6 days/week and I water 2 times/day and only 2-3 days/week? Also,
houses with more people probably use more indoor water. Any move away from actual usage should be
dropped. An increase in outdoor water costs would be the best way to provide additional revenue. People
who choose non-native plants that require excessive amounts of water should pay more for that water.
question5
The benefits of the proposed new systems appear minor to me compared to the complexities, conversion
costs, and administrative effort. I would be agreeable to changing the block levels and rates of the current
system, but bins or variable block sizes are not worth the trouble.
question5
I answered no to question #2 so I didn't get a chance to comment on the other stuff. A couple of
comments. The cost of the water should reflect the cost to provide it. If the cost is significantly greater
during one season versus another then the economics should reflect that. One other important point. I
only live at my house in Boulder for 2-3 months of the year. The remaining time my water is turned
completely off. I already have to pay a minimum charge for water that I do not use. I think going to a flat
fee or any other method which is not based on actual usage would be incredibly unfair to persons in my
situation. We should pay for the water we use. Period.
Monday, January 26, 2004Page 18 of 29
question5 The stupidest idea is put forth in question 4b. The idea of basing water consumption on lot size is
absurd. I have a larger lot than my neighbors with a smaller house and much less grass. I have an
approximately 10,000 sq. ft. lot that is less than half grass that is irrigated in such a way that it complies
with city restrictions. The rest is xeriscaped without irrigation. My neighbor has about 8,000 sq. ft. with
all grass that is not irrigated but that he waters himself without timers. To penalize me with higher rates
based on my lot size is grossly unfair to me and others in the same situation. I shouldn't be penalized for
the size of my lot without consideration to the efforts I've made to get rid of the water consuming parts of
that lot. If you insist on basing the rates on lot size then you better determine how much of that lot is
irrigated. Only then would it be fair to the homeowner.
question5 I am the only person in my household and use very little water.I do not want you to assume an avverage
amount of indoor water usage per household.
question5 I believe (strongly) that we should be billed for what we use. IF more revenue is needed, raise the rate for
each block. Conservation is a reasonable goal and should be rewarded by lower rates through the curren
"block" system. Just because someone has a larger area lot, does not mean they should be charged more
(seems un-american). Base the rates on usage and change the rates overall when costs to run the utility go
up.
question5
My bills provide essentially zero incentive to save water. As a typical small homeowner I get a bill that is
mostly fixed charges - doubling water usage increases my bill by a small (20-40%) amount. The city will
get greater water use efficiency by reducing fixed charges and increasing cost of consumption. John
Price 303-939-9991
question5 Our water utility should be operated as the business it is. Water billing should not be used to achieve
social goals such making rich people (who may have larger yards) pay more. Fixed costs to supply a
gallon of water probably remain the same for 5000 gallons as for 10,000 gallons. Only variable costs
vary. Therefore, the 10,000th gallon probably costs less than the 1000th gallon. The homeowner should,
therefore, pay less for it. Making artificial guesstimates about indoor use and outdoor use is social
engineering and a well educated community like Boulder should not try to pull the wool over everyone's
eyes by making artificial rules. Let economics play its role and fair billing will result. Pay for what you
use, pure and simple. Water usage over some arbitrary amount should not be a higher per gallon price.
Price per gallon should be based on cost only. In drought years this rule should change - the price per
gallon should go up starting with the first gallon used. In a severe drought year the price should be much,
much higher, but homeowners who are willing to pay for the water they use should be supplied - at a high
cost. "Watering days" and the like should not be used to ration use. Price is the best mechanism man has
ever been able to come up with. If I can't afford it I won't use it.
question5 I support a change to the current billing method. I do not support the AWC method. I prefer a method
that is equitable for all, regardless of indoor and outdoor usage. I support a system where rates would
incrementally go up with more usage. Currently those that use less than 8,000 AWC pay more and go
into block 2 and 3 sooner than those at 8,000 AWC. Currently an example of 5,000 AWC will pay more
with block 2 beginning at 5,000 and block 3 beginning at 18,000 versus someone at AWC of 8,000 begins
block 2 at 8,000 and block 3 of 28,000. This is a 10,000 gallon difference between residents that use less
in the winter than someone who uses more in the winter. Those who use less pay higher fees in the
summer before those who use more. The 5,000 user pays at the highest block 3 rate beginning at 18,000
and the 8,000 user begins paying at block 3 highest rate beginning at 28,000. This is not equitable. I
support a system that is equitable. I have written many letters and had many discussion with city staff.
The most recent letter, December 15th, to the City of Boulder: Robin Mandel, Ned Williams and cc:
Frank Bruno. in that letter I supported Rate STructure # 1, Noted on the agenda for the December 15th
meeting. I also noted that the wording describing #1 on the agenda was not written clearly. I obtained
better clarification through speaking with Joanna Crean at the utilities office. I understand that some of
these billing methods are complicated and perhaps difficult to explain. I hope clear accurate
representation of the options will be available to the public before a final decision is made. Bottom
Line: I support a more simplified method of billing where block 1 is the same for all residents and the
subsequent blocks, whether it is 3 or more blocks, are increased in cost incrementally and
exponentially. In this survey I hesitate to answer question 3 regarding seasonality with anything other
than the price staying same throughout the year because I don't want to support the current AWC method
or anything similar to it. If the cost of water varies depending on availablity then the rates will just be
adjusted appropriately and people who use more will pay more. Thank you for your time in reviewing
my comments. I will not be attending the public meeting on January 14th. I hope that my comments will
be given to the WRAB memebers as well as the utilities department and that by writing and speaking with
related staff, my opinion is considered. Sincerely, Julie Steel
Monday, January 26, 2004Page 19 of 29
question5 I think that the water rates based on usage is fair. I think the City should reduce waste water & flood
control rates instead of increase them each year. You have raised them each year and my understanding is
that there is a large surplus in the flood control fund. The projects that you are undertaking are a big waste
of money. The Goose Creek project is a joke and a waste of millions. This money could be spent on
benefitting many instead of few in an area where flood impact is very minimal. I think that there
should be controls put on your department on these capital projects. What was the cost for your
consultants for the rate structure? Why wasn't your staff used for this?
question5 Resident 1705 Upland Ave I think water prices should vastly increase (X3 perhaps)to reflect true cost
and promote conservation
question5 Heavy water users should pay more for the big water use.
question5
I suggest ONE "no bathe/shower day" per resident, per week. For example, many shower at least once
EVERY DAY, even when not necessary - it's just "habit," or "the thing to do." Granted, some need to
shower every day, e.g. construction workers, athletes, etc. For those who are mostly seditary, a sponge
bath instead of a shower just one day a week wouldn't kill them. Just think of the thousands of gallons
this would save the city!!!
question5 Your present Block 3 is much to high, lawn watering falls in most cases under block 3--prohibitive.
question5
It appears to me that the base level charge could include up to 5,000 gallons for a residential user and
provide stable revenue for the city. For usage above this amount the city could adjust the pricing base on
current market pricing.
question5
I see no mention of the factored costs for sewer/storm water processing discussed. The current bolck 2 &
3 costs do not have the sewer/stormwater factor included as this is assumed to be water used for
irrigation. What would the new cost schedule, should there be one, look like compared with the exisitng
sewer/storm water cost schedule. I believe that the other factored costs need to be discussed so that
fully informed choices can be made regarding the questions being asked on the survey. Thank
you. Lou Raskin
question5
I don't know what is the best answer on 2, 3 & 4. I just don't want the billing to become a financial
burden. I am a senior citizen, soon to retire on a limited income. Suzanne Dimond
question5
Commercial Options: 1. Option 3 inequitable. Assumes original business use is the same business use
20 years later. Imposes up to 54% annual impact. 2. 90% average in option 2 would lead to annually
being adjusted downward, i.e., Tabor racheting 3. Option 1 rewards "Best Business Practice" Very
articulated presentation - thank you
question5 i read you were talking about estimating use based on size of house; this is not fair - at this time there is
only one person, who is extremely careful about water, living in my fairly large house. (at other times
there have been more). charge only for water used please
question5 I feel strongly that people should pay per water use, not per lot size. Otherwise there is no incentive to
conserve water use outside. I also think that water use should be the same for inside or out, that the
summer use rate should not be dependent on winter use. The difference is not necessarily indoor vs.
outdoor. For example, I take more showers in the summer because I get hot and sweaty more.
question5 I'm pretty sure I get it... tell me if I'm wrong. Current system encourages me to waste water in the winter
months at a nice cheap rate so in the summer I'm able to use MORE on my lawn at a cheaper rate. My
impression is... if I use 1000 gal/month in winter and 9000 gal/month in summer I end up paying MORE
than my neighbor who uses 2000 gal/month in winter and 9000 gal/month in summer. This seems idiotic.
Monday, January 26, 2004Page 20 of 29
question5 I trust the City to make the right choices for **water conservation**. I didn't vote on questions 3 and 4,
because *I* really don't know what will get *everyone* to use less water--bottom line, that's the most
important thing to me, and that's what I want to see. I do kind of think that if you have an enormous
house with many bathrooms and appliances, you shouldn't get a price break; you chose to be a big
consumer by having a huge home; you should pay for your consumption (and maybe the cost of the water
will encourage installation of water saving devices). I also don't think that people with huge lots shouldn't
get a price break on water for the same reasons. But I wonder if there's a price break for small lots if those
people will wind up using a lot more water per square foot of their yard? (On the scale of the whole city,
this doesn't add up to be a good thing.) Please consider this last point carefully. Also, anything you can
do to strongly encourage water conservation inside and outside is wonderful. In particular, I believe there
needs to be way more promotion of xeric landscaping and sensible watering.
question5
Use current Customer Class Average to set " Same amount of water at the same rate" so that customers
who conserve or have a small family or use less of their property in GRASS pay less!!!
question5 Use customer class average to set block boundries
question5 Your mailings may have been quite misleading. You made it sound like you were advocating a change to
a socialized system. I base this statement on your description that you would be "assuming an average
amount of indoor water usage per household." This description makes it sound like everyone will be
charged an average amount. That would hardly achieve your goal of making people think more about their
water use. On the contrary, it would make most people use more, because they would be penalized for
saving water. They'd pay the same amount, but use less. I think it is important to charge people for exactly
the amount they use. Rates can change with season, but if one owns a large plot of land, but conserves
water by letting their huge lawn go brown, they deserve not to pay the "large land owner's fee." Your
mailings (I think I received two or three.) should have stated clearly some of the options, if I have
misinterpreted them. If I have not, I cannot believe the socialized water bill was even considered as a
conservation tactic.
question5 If you can afford a bigger home or lot, you can afford to pay your far share of water costs. Owners of
smaller houses or lots shouldn't subsidize owners of larger houses or lots. The current approach
encourages water waste in the winter months to inflate block 1 allocations.
question5 Either give more of low rate in summer for lg. lot & mature trees..or let me apply my extra saved gallons
from winter to summer. I use only @ 2000 in winter and am penalized all summer Who says a winter
household needs 5000 gal. at a low rate? Gardners are considering wasting water in winter to get a better
rate in summer! We are giving up lawns but hate to lose trees and perennials. What is needed indoor
use vs. indoor waste of water? Only outdoor watering is questioned. Have you considered that many new
houses cover an entire lot, while old houses (like mine) often had larger yards. Lot size might not mean
much in some cases.
question5
Why should customers with larger lots or families get larger water allowances without compensating
those of us with smaller lots and fewer people? From an tap fee perspective, each 3/4" tap residence
fundamentally represents an equal share of the City's water supply system.
question5 I suggest increasing the number of blocks and reducing the block size increments as the most effective
and straightforward means of encouraging and actually economically incentivizing reduced water use (and
the changes in lifestyle and landscaping that facilitate this). The basic pay-as-you-go structure we have
now works well and is basically fair. Meaning, while it may need to be tweaked, it's not broken and
SHOULD NOT be radically changed. Having a variable water rate scale for different houses/properties
depending household size or lot size penalizes those who are diligent about conserving water and other
precious natural resources. Such people (like me) have intentionally small family sizes and intentionally
small homes/properties because they want to minimize their ecological "footprint" or impact. On the other
hand, people who choose to live in large houses, or on large properties, or who choose to have large
families) should pay their fair share. Subsidizing larger property owners' or larger families' additional
water usage relative to those who are thriftier in their water usage "disincentivizes" those who are doing
what you want, and lets those who are less thrifty not see the full impact of their profligate ways. Finally,
I think rates should be adjusted according to the value of the resource, i.e., it's availability. This won't
necessarily correlate with season, but it often may correlate that way. Thus, I think greater flexibility than
seasonal changes in water rates is the best option. For example, rates could be adjusted every quarter or
biannually, depending upon the past year's rainfall and the current level of reservoir storage.
question5 I think that you should simply charge a "market price" for all water, and do away with the "block" method
altogether.
Monday, January 26, 2004Page 21 of 29
question5 I don't think a larger lot size should entitle people to a larger allotment of water at a smaller charge
(although I would personally benefit from such a rate structure). Similarly, I don't think a larger
number of occupants should entitle someone to a bigger baseline quantity. Costs should be based on
actual usage and it's fair for someone who has more kids or roommates to pay more than I do.
However, I would prefer to see smaller differences between the costs in the different block sizes.
Finally, I don't see any discussion of wastewater charges but that is traditionally a huge portion of my
monthly bill so I think it needs to be part of this discussion.
question5 We often travel in the winter and also conserve indoor water which makes our initial ("winter") block very
small. In the summer we have to a pay higher rate than those who don't curtail their use during the winter.
question5 I am not sure why the change? Is it to conserve water,which currently working or is it to raise revenues
because of conservation? My comment is that not all lots of equal size are landscaped the same way.
Some prefer all lawn, others use more rocks, mulch and plants which are drought resistant.And people are
changing landscaping to conserve. I for example have a 15000 sqft lot, my grass area was 6000 sqft prior
to relandscaping my lot.My lawn now is approx. 1000 sqft the rest of my lot is mulch and gravel. My
plants are on a timed drippsystem. I went to quite extensive and expensive professional relandscaping to
reduce my outdoor water consumption. I believe that one should be charged for water used irregardless of
lot size. I like to hear back. Thanks
question5
I like the current way water is billed, because it is based on actual use. Speaking as a homeowner with a
lot that has no grass, I would find a rate structure based on lot size to be very unfair. Much better to
simply charge an increasing rate for each additional block and let the cost of watering grass serve as a
limiting factor. Certainly more fair.
question5 Corner lots or lots that are adjacent to larger right-of-way areas for which they are responsible for
maintaining should get a credit for water used to maintain the right-of-way on the City's behalf.
question5
In fairness to persons on fixed incomes and whose income only just covers their monthly bills, I believe a
single rate for water should be used year-round. People need to anticipate their monthly bills, and it is
easier if one knows that in summer one will pay an average of x and winter an average of y. Changing
rates based on water availability is opening the door to chaos and manipulation of prices. Persons
should be billed for their indoor water based upon the amount they use and nothing more. It would be
profoundly unfair to charge the person who lives alone in a small house and uses 2000 gallons of water a
month the same fee as someone using 8,000 gallons a month because they are a family of five with a 3
bath home. I agree that over a certain amount of usage per household should be charged at higher rate,
BUT ALL persons should pay the same rate per 1000 gallons of water up to that limit, and none should be
billed for more than they actually use. Concerning outdoor water. Again, I believe that the rate should
be consistent year round, and that the point at which your rates increase should be based on your lot size.
I agree that, for example, a house on a 5000 sq ft property should, in theory requre much less water than a
house on a 10,000 sq ft property, and that the owners of the larger property should not be penalized for
needing to use more water to maintain that property. After all, they pay a huge amount of taxes for therse
larger parcels of land which contribute to the appeal of the city of Boulder. Hence there should be a set
rate for X gallons of water based on lot size, with higher rates thereafter. There should also be a
provision for deep winter watering for persons with lots of trees. The risk to public safety should a huge
maple fall down on someone's house, power lines or the street is such that penalizing people who deep
water twice per winter (as is recommended by tree experts) is counter to the public good. I personally do
not like the system employed during winter where an excess of water use is considered "waste" and
penalized heavily. Deep watering requires a trickle of weater at the roots for 12-24 hours. If you have 30
trees in your yard, as I do, this is a lot of time effort and water, but unlike all my neighbors, in the last
three heavy snowfalls/winds, I lost neither trees nor large branches.
Monday, January 26, 2004Page 22 of 29
question5 Since your stated objective is to recover your costs of water and delivering it, you must know your costs
and you must be using some assumption of total usage (although you probably have a complex algorithm
predicting usage be block categories and customer types). Assuming this to be true, I believe you should
simplify the billing as much as possible, and the simplest method is to develop one single rate for water
usage (e.g. single rate per 1,000 gallons of water delivered), and bill that single common rate for all
customers, regardless of the customer type, and regardless of the customer's AWC. Your current method,
and the new methods under consideration are complex and intricate, and can result in unintended
inequities. Currently a customer who is diligent about controlling their in-house water usage will be
penalized, while customers who are careless about in-house water usage will be rewarded in the summer.
Also, different customer types should not be given rate advantages over others. So two basic principles
should be applied - 1) Keep it simple, and 2) Make it fair and equitable. And the best way to accomplish
this is to develop a single common rate which will recover your total costs based on your forecast of total
consumption, and apply that single rate across all customers and all customer types. I believe such a rate
would accomplish what I assume to be your third goal - influencing customer water usage reductions by
reducing usage by your heaviest water users. Jim Timmermann 6878 Roaring Fork Trail Boulder,
CO 80301
question5 as may have been pointed out, I believe 4b DISCOURAGES efficient outdoor water use (e.g. xeriscaping,
irrigation, not overwatering, keeping lawns healthy, etc.), and has responsible residents subsidize
irresponsible water use. similar care should be taken to reward residents efficient indoor water usage.
waste should not be an option just because you live in a big house on a big lot. perhaps more blocks
(instead of the current 3) should be considered, with the price fluctuating with supply.
question5 In my opinion, consultant monies, etc., can best be spent on other uses -- try correcting leaks within the
system, modernize treatment facilities, etc. Sounds to me like someone has morew time on their hands
and this is a worthless actitivty -- think about what is needed and take a logical approach that will save
$$s and do not continue to search for 'any' solution that is not really a solution!
question5
The way the current rates are structured, we are penalized during our summer watering, for our winter
conservation efforts. Because we use far less than the average amount of water during the winter, our
summer water use for gardening is at a much higher rate. I worked this out, and we would SAVE money
on a yearly basis by using more water in the winter, to boost our baseline, which results in cheaper water
in the summer, high use/gardening season. This does not make good water conservation sense!
Additionally, if the quality of life in Boulder is enhanced for all by having more trees in the city, in terms
of visual benefits, shade, co2 fixation, global non-warming, etc, then some consideration should be made
for this benefit in the summer water price structure. Your brief questions do not adequately
address these issues. You seem to be on the right track in separating winter/household/indoor use
conservation/rates from summer/gardening/outdoor use/rates.
question5
If it's not broke----
question5 We have very low indoor water use - summer and winter. Outdoors we have a small lawn and a vegetable
garden - but again we try and economise with our water useage and even use reasonably clean waste water
on the garden
question5 I do not use water outdoors (total xeriscape), and live alone so use a minimal amount of water. I would
not like to be penalized for that minimum use.
question5 It's working don't fix it.
question5 I found the survey was dificult to understand. The explanation of the billing and other options was unclear
and perhaps too complicated so that input is difficult for me. I would say that to allocate billling levels
only to property usage does not recognize larger families that are attempting to conserve. We are a couple
without children or others at home now, and try to conserve. But without knowing how many people are
using the water at a specific address, it would be difficult to know whether the water used per person
suggests a conservation pattern or one of waste, I think.
question5 It is completely unfair to tie lot size to water rates. Consumers either use the water or not, and they should
simply be charged what they use. Many large lot owners may have secondary structures or zeriscaping,
and should not be penalized.
question5 Long ago I changed my lawn to xeriscape & groundcover to save water. I would not look kindly on a
system which rewards water overusers.
Monday, January 26, 2004Page 23 of 29
question5 Basing water rates on anything other than actual usage creates inherint unfairness in the system. People
who use more, no matter when, should pay more.
question5 My basic view is that the system should be tailored as closely as possible to measure the actual use of
water. So if there is a large family living in a small house on a small lot that uses a lot of water they
should pay more. If there are one or two older people who live on a large lot in a small house and use very
little water they should pay less. I fear my answers to the above questions may not be consistent with this
aim. But I think that should be the overriding aim....TO BILL PEOPLE AS PRECISELY AS POSSIBLE
FOR THEIR ACTUAL WATER USE. And that gross generalizations should be used as little as possible
because the situations vary so greatly. Large houses, few people and small houses lots of people,
etc....Thank you.
question5 I would prefer to see the impact of the various options you are considering on my current and future bills
rather than answering indirect questions. What is the real objective -to penalize people who have large
lots or existing landscaping? I think water should be charged at flat rates, and that the recent water rate
increases are both unwarranted and punitive. If you want people to get rid of landscaping water use, give
a credit for reduction that helps pay for renovation of landscaping.
question5 1. Rate of inflation on my overall bill (wastewater / storm,water etc.) is increasing significantly faster than
inflation -- it has more than doubled in less than ten years despite my water use going down!
question5 Midst all of the decision making I would hope that water is considered a primary service (that we are to be
good stewards of) and not a money maker for the city.
question5
Our children have moved out of our home and so in order to have more summer water at a lower price, we
waste a lot of water in the winter time due to the way your billing system is set up. Our lot size has not
changed but our household/family size has shrunk.
question5
The water rates are punitive at this point. It does not reflect lot size nor children coming back for the
summer. We resized our backyard grass area to take less water and spent $400-$500 per month to water
sod. We conserve where we can, but don't plan to use our spagetti water to bathe in.
question5
What's the impetus behind the proposal for change? I'm basically in favor of a system that has the users
paying for the actual usage, at an increasingly higher rate, if justified due to shortage etc...
question5
Meters are the only fair way to bill. Rates should be the same for everyone. Lot size doesn't tell the # of
people who will use water there. I think you should be able to use up to 10,000 gal. before the rates
increase, to save our trees & vegetation in the summer.
question5
If you do not charge by usage you will encourage people to use more water -- "it won't cost me any more,
why not use it?"
question5 Since I have spent thousands of dollars and backbreaking labor xeriscaping my yard, I like the current
system. I never get into block 3 pricing.
question5 I would prefer differentiation with regard to the size of water blocks, but the amount that "can be used"
should be substantially lowered for the initial block to encourage conservation.
question5 Make it simple. If water goes thro the meter, charge for it by blocks. Don't make it contingent on sq ft or
anything else, especially not on season or avg. winter useage etc. This is most important if rationing is
imposed. 15 min per zone is silly. one person's zone is different in size than anothers and the pipe size
varies. Again: Make it simple. You take the water, you pay.
question5 I'd like to learn more about S. Pomerance's proposal he handed in during the 1/14/04 meeting - thanks,
Sunchana Pucic, 4270 Grinnell, Bldr 80305
question5 I strongly object to using lot size or averages to determine my indoor or outdoor water use because I make
strong efforts to conserve inside and do not water my grass. I strongly support low/regular rates for low
usage and exponential increases for high usage. Thanks for accepting my input.
question5 BILLING EACH CUSTOMER BASED ON THEIR ACTUAL USE IS THE FAIREST METHOD--
REWARD THOSE WHO CONSERVE, CHARGE MORE TO THOSE WHO CONSUME MORE. A
FAMILY OF 6 SHOULD PAY MORE THAN A HOUSEHOLD OF ONE.
Monday, January 26, 2004Page 24 of 29
question5 I think that this should be executed on a trial basis to "see how it works for the comunity and for the water
district". But at the same time used as a study to decrease the amount of water use per househould. I feel
that by doing this constant billing people will feel the desire to get their moneys worth. but again by
setting brackets of 1,000 gallons they might be compelled to reach the next lower level. not to large of a
bracket so as to seem unatainable but large enough to see the savings.
question5
When reading through the discussion of rate structures, the positives and negatives summary appeared not
to address a major issue which is a stated policy of the district. That issue is, 'Does the rate structure
encourage water conservation?' Another issue that concerns me is that many of the options seem to
include an assumption that by purchasing a larger lot I have automatically purchased some right to use
more water through the summer. I am not clear where this right arises. Does it appear in the property taxes
that I pay? I do not believe so. If I am not paying for that right, you should not automatically grant me that
right. Right now the city appears either unableor unwilling to discourage automatic systems that
sprinkle whatever the weather, something that particularly, but not exclusively, applies to commercial and
multi-occupancy properties. I realize that the rate structure itself cannot address this issue, but the current
apparant policy of not addressing the issue, does impinge on the price of water and hence the rate
structure. Regards, Andrew MacGregor
question5 You may wish to restrict outside water to off peak hours on an odd/even day schedule corresponding to
the street address'last diget. Fine those who don't comply. Encourage and provide information in bills on
low flow shower heads, toilets, and yard cover requring little or no water. Wash water could also be
recycled for yard and garden use.
question5
I would like to see billing that rewards those who have Xeriscape landscaping and penalizes those who
don't. I would think that billing at the same rate would accomplish that objective.
question5 I think that the water bill for the most part should remain the same, however, the price of water should
change by season to reflect the higher usage during the summer (in order to address supply and demand).
question5
I think to be fair to everyone, we should bill according to type of yard. If a homeowner has a lawn that
requires watering, charge the homeowner. If a homeowner does the right environmental thing and
zeriscapes with plants and ohter materials that do not require watering, they should not be charged on the
same basis as the homeowner with a lawn. We need to reward those who are friendly to our environment
and conserve resources. Just because a homeowner has a big yard doesn't mean he shoould be charged
more. The homeowner may use little outside water. It's even unfair to charge him for up to 16,000
gallons, using the example above, if he uses 4,000.
question5 My wife and I believe that these issues should also affect water rates: 1) We support a water budget type
system based on lot size and current use; 2) Along with the budget system, there should be significant
incentives to decrease use year-to year; 3) Commercial use should be billed at the same rates as residential
question5 I think the way you charge for water is equitable and fair to all...you bill based on consumption with the
more water being used, the higher the price (in the summer months when consumption increases with
lawn watering. This seems the only fair way increasing rates to those who use the most. Since my heating
bill goes up drastically in the winter, it helps reduce my financial stress by seeing my water bill go down.
thank you
question5
This information and that published on your website and in the newspaper are extremely confusing. But I
do have some general comments: I think payment for water should be based on consumption (by water
meter), and perhaps affected by type of customer- i.e. commercial vs. residential. I generally support the
idea of a progressive rate- higher cost per gallon for higher usage, to help reduce consumption. I do not
think cost of water should be determined by size of house or household or by lot size!!! I happen to own
a moderately sized house (under 2000 SF) on a relatively large lot (over 20,000 SF). However we do not
irrigate our property and we only water (by hose) a very small grass area next to the house (probably under
1000 SF. The rest of our property is left to natural grasses with no watering. Also, there are usually only
two people in our house and we both work, so our overall water consumption is relatively low. We should
be charged for what we use, and not be punished for our large lot!!! Many of our neighbors are in the
same situation. The current system may need some tuning up, but it does not appear to be totally broken
needing radical reworking. In the meantime the Utilities Dept. should make sure that new pipelines are
built to proper specifications, and our existing pipes are properly maintained, and not over- pressurized,
causing needless expenses to correct avoidable mistakes! That will save water and money.
Monday, January 26, 2004Page 25 of 29
question5 This is kind of a complicated survey - too many if-then statements. I think that people who use more
water should pay more. Anyone who uses over a certain amount should have to pay a LOT more, not just
a few dollars. There should be some monitoring of water wasting. I have neighbors who water their
lawn so much that there is constantly water running down the gutter. So much water that algae grows in it!
People who waste water should be fined and have a limit set on the amount they can use. We use little
water, have a xeric landscape, haul our grey water out for our plantings summer and winter, and hope that
we are not forced to pay for those who do not care how much they use. The City of Boulder needs to get
some teeth into enforcement of water wasting, including all the water wasted by the city itself. Soggy
parks and water running down the streets is a sorry sight when the rest of us are forced to conserve and
pay extra.
question5 We try hard to conserve water - don't flush the toilet every time, have a low flow shower, efficient washer,
etc. I don't think we should be penalized for this - that is, we shouldn't have a lower amount than others
before being charged more for the next block. (We do garden in the summer and use a bit more water
then)
question5
my preference is to give each home an 'allotment' of water to use indoors or outdoors.
question5 Make sure you give homes credit for reducing grass. Rates should go down if we no longer have drought
conditions.
question5 I think it would be observed to try to bill people based on property size, different rates. People should be
billed according to what they use!
question5
I have no issue with charging more for water during a drought. However, the notice of drought conditions
and the higher rates should be HIGHLY published and not just as an insert with the water bill. In
addition, everyone should pay the same price for the same amount of water.
question5
Changes to both inside and outside use are very complex. For example, similar size households will have
vastly different uses.Some people take 30 min. showers and some take 5 min. showers. Some families
wash clothes three times per week with small loads & some save water by washing clothes weekly with
large loads. The only fair billing method is strictly related to volume. It is also the only way to encourage
conservation of thes valuable resource. Look at the local lawns. Some have been well watered and some
basically left alone. If we must conserve, the billing structure cannot be related to area. If our lawns must
look bad during draught years so be it. We cannot logically say that the water bill depends largely on lawn
size and expect people to conserve.
question5 Whatever calculation is used, it must be fair to homeowners. We try to be conscientious water users; we
recently took out all our lawn and zeriscaped our front and back yards; we just installed a low-flow toilet
and shower. We feel we should pay only for water we use. It seems it would be unfair to assume an
"average" amount of indoor water usage per household. We do not have children or a dishwasher, and I do
laundry only once a week. It seems unfair that we would be charged an "average" amount for water usage.
Thanks for asking for opinions before changing city billing. Hope Steffens-Nett and Bert Nett, 150 So.
34th St., Martin Acres
question5
Stop the social engineering - the current system is not broken!
question5 do not bill on lot size - many of us have eliminated lawns with stone! Do NOT punish us for that
accomplishment!
question5
It seems to me that the most fair billing option would be to charge residential and commericial customers
the same rate. Blocks 2 and 3 are not at all the same right now for Res. and Comm. customers. I am
curious what the split is between residential and commerical use overall.
question5 Trees make Boulder a beautiful city. For the benefit of all, we should not discourage those with larger lots
from watering their trees.
Monday, January 26, 2004Page 26 of 29
question5 a water budget is the only idea that makes sense. It needs to be done well. However, there remains capital
cost issues, equity issues, legal tax vs fee issues, etc. You need an interim solution for this summer that
doesn't rip off the homeowner and subsidize the commercial user and you need a moratorium on new
hookups until you can figure out what is the correct PIF fee. Broomfield, the only city near us that has
had to make substantial new investments in water and treatment plants recently charges 250% of our PIF's
Ours may not be exactly the same but it is darm close. I, as well as over 75% of the citizens of Colorado
think that growth should pay its own way. Quit asking me to subsidize our commercial development. I am
very upset about this.
question5 I find the survey frustrating because I think the current method based on winter use encourages waste
during winter to raise your threshold for higher priced blocks, BUT I think larger lots have greater outdoor
water needs. What about number of people in household?--I realize that changes a lot, but is a really
important factor in winter water use. I appreciate the excellent City efforts to inform and encourage
conservation...also very good long-term water planning. How does hydroelectric output on water system
play into this?
question5
Your postcard made it sound like I would be paying for my neighbor's kentucky blue grass lawn and multi-
car washes and larger family when I only have hardscape, xeric plantings,take the bus,have no kids and
buy drinking water separately. But I see from this questionaire that I am still paying for MY water use.
That is good.
question5 Determining water used December through March in a single-family residence doesn 't seem quite right.
Family vacations affect water usage quantities (many people leave town for a week during spring break);
and when college-age kids return home in summer, water usage goes up, too. My vote is to allot water
according to lot size and family size. In new neighborhoods where a large house on each lot and all the
houses in the neighborhood jammed together is the norm, these lots require less water than houses in
established neighborhoods (Uni Hill, Mapleton, Whittier, Martin Acres, etc.) where the footprint of the
house on the property is much smaller, and there are many more established trees, shrubs etc. that are
critical to our health, and to property values. Trees are critical to our air quality, and to heat reduction
in summer; and in order to save money, many people are not watering them as much as the trees
require.We have lost a number of trees in Boulder, and are about to loose many more trees --- especially
older ones (see trees marked with blue Xs). Trees can only survive so much stress. It just makes me sick to
see the number of trees that will be lost. Thanks for considering this. --Jane Hailey
question5 the only fair method is pay for what you use. Large homes and large property should pay more. The truth
is they can afford it. If you want a large lawn, you pay more.
question5
As related to billing by lot size, keep in mind that xeriscaped and water-friendly or water-efficient lots
may be large but may require less water. Billing by lot size doesn't seem to account for the eco-friendly
advantages of xeriscaping, etc.
question5 I PREFER THAT THE METER IS READ AND I BE BILLED FOR THE AMOUNT OF WATER OUR
HOUSEHOLD HAS USED. ANYTHING ELSE IS REALY NOT ECCEPTABLE.
question5
By public policy, more water should be allowed at the lower rate for lots with more trees to protect. The
easiest way to do that may be by size of lot. Boulder benefits in city attractiveness and environmental
health by maintaining tree numbers and health. The present method of determining a household's size of
block one disadvantages households that practice water conservation during the winter. Higher rates in
summer seem to reflect a value judgment that it is not important to protect trees.
question5 By public policy, more water should be allowed at the lower rate for lots with more trees to protect. The
easiest way to do that may be by size of lot. Boulder benefits in city attractiveness and environmental
health by maintaining tree numbers and health. The present method of determining a household's size of
block one disadvantages households that practice water conservation during the winter. Higher rates in
summer seem to reflect a value judgment that it is not important to protect trees.
question5 Get rid of blocks. Encourage low water use both indoors and outdoors. Discourage growth --> no new
taps. Make service charge cover all operating costs.
question5
We are now in the process of replacing our entire lawn. We are using a Netafim drip system that is
suppose to cut water use by 50%. Billing us for size of lot would in my opinion be a disadvandage to us,
especially because we choose to use a more expensive irrigation system. We also took out the grass in our
front and replaced the grass with a fescue that does not require as much water. Dave Rogers 303-499-
9839
Monday, January 26, 2004Page 27 of 29
question5(Comments were written after every question.) WHY: And new trucks every 3-4 years instead of every
year. 1. Yes, I understand. Sorta 2. Get rid of the administration. 3. Seasonal - do we have seasons
in Boulder? 4. Where's the incentives to save H2O? 5. Somehow this whole hearing missed the point.
We are all worried dabout conservation of water. Instead we have a 30-40 minute presentation of words,
words, words about charges, charges, charges. Why are we collecting revenue and stock piling $ - I think
this dept. has the wrong approach. All you want to do is save your "turf." Let's talk conservation.
question5 This is a desert and the 21st Century should reflect a change in use of a rare natural resource. Drinking
water is scarce all over the world. We are acting like Rich Tycoons and we are living where water is
purist. Blue grass does cause contamination of soil - fertilizer, weed poisons, pollution. So alloting
60,000 gallons of pure water for indooro use and 78,000 gallons of pure water for outdoor use is insane.
The truth is we have to change the way we use water at the headwaters of the Missouri River. Dams have
created an artifical "desert wonderland" for people living and working in Boulder. Personally, I think
water should be rated on the number of people living in a home and working in a business for indoor use
and size of lot for outside lot if with vegetation like blue grass and less if xeriscaped with drought resistant
plants. Desalination of water is likely to be a major issue in the 21st Century.
question5 Blocks are good idea, but different persons, operating in the same block, must be charged the same rate
within that block.
question5 Great meeting last night! Please do not penalize homeowners with large lots. Subsidizing turf
replacement would be a good program - budgets allowing.
question5
Wednesday's meeting was announced that it would start at 6:00 pm. It actually started at 6:20 pm. After
Tom Gould's presentation, the comment speakers were delayed by questionable "clarification" questiions.
This wasn't fair to the legitimate individuals who signed in ahead of Tom Gould's presentation. Since
becoming a homeowner after my discharge from the Navy in 1946, I have resided in eight different cities
from the west to east coast and have never encountered such a complicated and in some ways an unfair
rate structure for wager usage. Respectfully, Jack D. Ramaley, 2295 Dartmouth Ave 303-499-7474
question5
I am very opposed to charging a flat rate to all customers - whether based on lot size, etc. There is no
reason to conserve in this situation. The current inverted block works. Since our water supply is based on
snow in winter, why does the value/price of water change seasonally? This does not make sense to me.
question5
Water in the west is liquid gold, and it should be treated as such. For Boulder to set up a system more
complicated than the one already in place is strictly a political issue. The "alternatives" and "options" will
NOT generate more water. Nor will the "alternatives" and "options" force Boulder's citizens to conserve
water. Every gallon of water is precious. A gallon of water coming through my faucet should not cost
more nor less than a gallon of water anywhere else in Boulder. Instead of figuring out so many different
tiers of water usage and blocks of users and "alternatives" and "options," conservation campaigns would
be a more sensible use of time and resources.
question5 The current system promotes waste during the winter months. My neighbor waters year round and daily
during the summer. Yet, his water bill is LESS than mine because I try to conserve year round, but water
my lawn during the summer. This is not only unfair, but encourages wasteful watering.
question5 Everyone should pay the same rate year round, simplify it! I don't belive someone with a bigger lot should
get more water. Water is a resource. Do they give you a better rate for gasoline , if you drive a big SUV?
question5 my preference is a system that promotes efficient water use and conservation techniques. If you choose to
own more property, you should realize either you will need to pay more for watering it or you need to let
more of it be naturally watered. Water based on direct use stops me from subsidizing people that want
larger families or want larger watered property.
question5 I don't think that lot size tells us much. Someone may have a gravel/xeriscape lot and another an all Blue
Grass lot of the same size. The mailing I got made it sound like a flat rate and no metering was being
considered but reading this it is clear that you are going to continue to read meters and are just figuring
how to allot the "blocks". I think paying for what we use is the best way to encourage using less.
Monday, January 26, 2004Page 28 of 29
question5 During the stage I drought water pricing last year, we conserved by not taking as many showers, not
flushing the toilet at every use and keeping lawn watering at a minimum so that we could continue to
vegetable garden and keep our strawberries and raspberries producing. We very careful about mulching
and have a drip system in our small garden. Even with these conservation measures, our water bills were
outrageously high -- way outside our budget. If the water charges continue to be prohibitively high,
those people who have little regard for trees and general appearance of their yards will not water. A block
from us are three beautiful pines in the a front yard that the renter has decided were not worth the cost of
watering and are now dying. Under the pines are dirt and thistles rather than lawn and next to the pines a
dead willow. A lot of the Boulder neighborhoods have examples of this kind of neglect from those who
are using water conservation and high water prices as an excuse. Pretty sad.
Monday, January 26, 2004Page 29 of 29