HomeMy WebLinkAbout6 - Update on the Plant Investment Fee (PIF) StudyCITYOFBOULDER
WATER RESOURCES ~DVISORY BCIARD
aGENDa ITEM
NIEETING DATE: February 25, 2005
AGENDA TITLE: Update on the Plant Investment Fee (PIF) Study
PRESENTER/S: Joanna Crean, Project Manager
Todd Cristiano, Red (~ak Consulting
EZECL?TIVE SUh111~ZARY:
Plant Investment Fees (PIFs) are used to recaptu7•e initial capital improvement
investments in water, wastewater and stormwaten`flood management infrastructures and
have been used for the past 50 years by the city of Boulder. PIFs are charged to new and
existing customers who need new or additional utility service (such as a new tap) from
the city utility system. Currently, the city charges PIFs in the following manner:
• New customers comlecting to the utility system pay an upfront PIF charge to
compensate current customers for past investment, and
• EYisting customers may pay a PIF charge ti~vhen the customer increases their
projected usage (for exarnple, adds a bathroorn to their house) of water and
~~~aste~~~ater infi~astructure or ~~vhen they increase the impervious (hard-sui~faced)
ai•ea on their property and impact the stormj~~ater infrastructure.
Periodically, the city takes a comprehensive review of the PIFs to evaluate the
methodoloby and fees and to ensure equitable distribution of capital costs among the
following customei• classes:
• Single-family residential,
• Nlulti-family residential,
• Cornrnercialiindustrial;~'institutional, and
• Iirigation-only.
The last evaluation of PIFs occurred in November 2401. PIFs have been adjusted by the
Construction Cost Index (CCI) annually since 2Q01. In January 20Q7, the city
implemented a ne«~ «~ater rate structure that uses u~ater bud5ets for calculating monthly
~~=~ater bills. The ZQ08 PIF study presents an oppoi-tunity to review ho~~~ PIFs are assessed
and to make possible changes to reinforce the goals and objectives of the new water
budget rate structure. The utility infrastructure inventory and valuation will also be
revie~~ed and updated as part of the PIF study.
AGEND~ ITEM # P~GE
A stakeholder group has been formed and is meeting regularly to provide input and act as
an advisory group to the project. The consultant has completed a preliminary analysis to
assist in determining which characteristics should be used in calculating new PIFs. It is
anticipated based on input from the stakeholder group and the Water Resources Advisory
Board (WRAB} that the consultant will further analyze possible PIF options which will
be presented to City Council at a study session scheduled for April 22, 2008. Included in
this memo are details about the status of the PIF study process and the analysis that has
been completed so far, along with an outline of the next steps.
FISCAL IMPACT:
PIFs are one of four development-related fee structures being evaluated in 2008. [The
others include (1) Development Excise Taxes, (2) Planning & Development Services -
Development Review Fees and (3) Building Plan Review, Permit & Inspection Fees.]
Efforts will be coordinated given the potential cumulative impacts to customers. The
fiscal impacts related to PIFs will be analyzed as part of the PIF study and the analysis
will be included for WRAB and City Council consideration as part of the 2009 budget
process. Depending on the PIF methodologies chosen, the PIF for water, wastewater and
stormwater may increase. The impacts to the city (in terms of cost recovery for the
utility) and impacts to the customer will be analyzed and presented to both the WRAB
and City Council in the spring of 2008.
COMMUNITY SUSTAINABILITY ASSESSMENTS AND IMPACTS:
• Economic: Depending on the results of the PIF study, new methodologies and/or
adjustments needed to address cost-recovery objectives could result in higher fees
that tnay impact development-related activities. Specific economic impacts to
customers will be analyzed and presented to WRAB and City Council.
• Environmental: The impact of the stormwater PIF on helping to presence green spaces
(by limiting impervious area or hardscape surfaces) and potentially improving water
quality will be evaluated. Part of the PIF study analysis will include evaluating if PIFs
could be linked to the new water budget rate structure, and thereby continuing to
promote the city's water conservation goals and objectives. The results of this
analysis will be presented to WRAB and City Council.
• Social: As part of the PIF study, options for implementing PIFs related to low and
moderate income populations will be evaluated. These options «-ill be presented to
WRAB and City Council.
BACKGROUND:
PIFs are used to recapture initial capital improvement investments in water, wastewater
and stormwater,'flood management infrastructures. PIFs are charged to new and existing
customers who need new or additional utility service from the city utility system. A
number of concerns and issues have been raised regarding the current PIFs. Examples
include:
• Equity between and within customer classes, especially when water use might change
over time. For example, two different commercial customers, each having paid the
AGENDA ITEM # PAGE
same PIF fora 2" water meter, may ha~~e widely varying water usage patterns. One
customer may use ten times the amount of water over the other customer.
• Improvement in the definitions of each customer class to ensure consistent and/or
homogenous application. For example, the ratio of outdoor irrigation use to indoor
use is very different among multifamily residential customers; although, the current
PIF does not provide this distinction.
The PIF study will address these concerns and issues. As part of the study, options on
how to calculate the PIFs are being identified and evaluated.
The PIF study started in September 2007. A stakeholder advisory group has been formed
to provide feedback and assistance in determining PIF options. The stakeholder advisory
group includes two City Council members (Lisa Morzel and Crystal Gray), two WRAB
members (Robin Byers and Bill DeOreo) and representatives from the University of
Colorado (Jonathan Akins), AMGEN (Gary Mutz), League of Women ~joters (Jeannette
Hillery), development professionals (Phil Shull and Jon Simisky) and concerned
members of the general public (Steve Pomerance). Red Oak Consulting has been hired to
handle the data analysis and evaluation of PIF options. The stakeholder advisory group
meets approximately monthly with staff and the consultant. All of the meeting materials
and summaries of the meeting are posted on the PIF Study Web site located at
w~~~~~~.bouldei-water.net (click on "Projects and Programs").
ANALYSIS & STAKEHOLDER GROUP FEEDBACK:
The objectives of this study are to:
• Provide options of different PIF approaches that equitably recover costs associated
with customer impacts on the city's utility infrastructure.
• Provide a system that can be administered simply and effectively by city staff and
understood by the customer community.
• Equitably distribute costs by bringing projected impacts in line with actual impacts by
using current customer class information.
• Ensure a solid legal foundation for PIFs.
• Reinforce the goals and objectives of the new water budget rate structure.
The first part of the analysis was determining the appropriate PIF methodology for water,
wastewater and stormwater. The three PIF methodologies evaluated were:
• "Buy in" method which is used when there is existing capacity available in the system
to accommodate grotuth.
• "Incremental" method which is used when significant, growth-related capital
improvement projects are required.
• "Hybrid" method which is a combination of the "buy in" and "incremental" methods.
Red Oak analyzed the city's curY•ent and future plans related to capital improvement
projects, as well as growth projections. It was determined that the "buy in" method
should be used for water, wastewater and the stormwater PIF. Red Oak also surveyed
other communities within the Front Range and communities in other states that use a
water budget rate structure to compare PIF methodologies.
AGENDA ITEM # PAGE
Using the "buy in" methodology, Red Oak analyzed the city's customer usage data in
order to assist the stakeholders and staff in selecting characteristics that could be used in
determining the unit cost for calculating the PIFs (i.e., PIF assessment schedules). Red
Oak compiled customer usage characteristics from the city's 2005 utility billing data,
which was also used as the basis for implementing the water budget rates. Red Oak used
the city's water budget rate structure as a basis for analyzing usage characteristics of
existing customer classes and subdivided the customer classes based on pen~ious area
and/or water meter size.
Additional customer usage characteristics, such as number of accounts, number of units
(multifamily only), average pervious area, and average annual usage, were also included
in the analysis. This information was compared to each customer class' respective water
budgets. The customer usage analysis was presented at the December 2007 stakeholder
meeting. The details of the analysis are contained in Attachment A (Memo on 2005
Customer Usage Characteristics).
Also at the December 2007 stakeholder meeting, members provided input on which PIF
characteristics to further analyze in calculating the unit cost. The unit cost is used in
calculating the PIF assessment schedule for water, wastewater and stormwater. Based on
this input, Red Oak further analyzed the following PIF characteristics:
Water and Wastewater
• Plumbing fixtures
• Bathrooms
• Bedrooms
• Building square footage
• People per household
Stormwater
• Impervious area
The results of the analysis were presented at the Jan. 30, 2008 stakeholder meeting.
(Details are provided in Attachment B -Memo on PIF System Characteristics and
Sample Calculations.) As part of the January stakeholder meeting, members discussed
how to select characteristics for calculating the PIFs that hit the "sweet spot" for Boulder.
The "sweet spot" has been defined as the intersection of three equity areas:
• Interclass equity -each customer class pays its fair share and no subsidization occurs
among customer classes.
• Intrrclass equity -recognize differing service requirements within a class and no
subsidization occurs among groups within one customer class.
• Intergenerational equity -growth pays for itself and costs to serve new customers are
not subsidized by existing customers.
The stakeholders asked that the characteristics listed below should be further analyzed to
see if they move the city more towards the equity relationship "sweet spot." The
consultant is doing additional analysis to determine if there is a correlation between water
AGENDA ITEM # PAGE
usage and these characteristics. The analysis will be presented at the March 12, 2408
stakeholder meeting.
Outdoor (for all customer classes)
¦ Pervious Area
Indoor (residential customer classes)
¦ Bedroorns
¦ Bathrooms
¦ Building Square Footage
¦ Water Budget Rate Structure
Indoor (commercial/industrial customer class)
¦ Meter Size
¦ Fixtures
¦ Building Square Footage
¦ Water Budget Rate Structure
Also at the Jan. 30 meeting, members reviewed why potential capacity is used when
determining the PIFs and what happens if capacity is met or exceeded by a customer. In
other words, should the PIF be adjusted (i.e., credit or refund) if there are changes in
actual water usage. Some stakeholder members expressed that the water budget rate
structure corrects for any overpayment or underpayment related to the PIF. Therefore, the
adjustments to the PIF assessment will naturally occur with time based on changes in
water use. One stakeholder member expressed that the PIFs should be corrected monthly,
semi-annually or annually through the water use charges. This member emphasized that
the correction was needed because it was not possible to accurately charge a PIF without
knowing the customer's actual demand on the system.
Other concerns or ideas that were raised by the stakeholder group include the following:
• How to value fire-related infrastructure?
• Which peaking factor works best across all customer classes?
• Assessing an initial PIF to commercial customers but recovering capacity costs over
time.
As mentioned previously, the consultant is completing additional analysis to determine
the correlation between water usage and possible PIF characteristics listed above. The
consultant is also developing the unit cost options for each PIF characteristic. Staff and
the consultant are compiling thoughts on the implementation and equity issues related to
each option. All of this information will be presented to the stakeholder group at their
March 12 meeting. Feedback fiom the stakeholder group will then be presented to
WRAB at the March 17 meeting.
SPECIFIC ITEMS FOR WRAB'S CONSIDERATION:
• Which characteristics discussed to date move the PIF calculation towards the equity
relationship "sweet spot" (intersection of the three equity areas: interclass, intraclass,
and intergenerational)?
AGENDA ITEM # PAGE
• Does it rnatter if a customer exceeds or meets capacity? If so, does the PIF need to be
adjusted (i.e., credit or refund)?
NEXT STEPS:
It is anticipated that the stakeholder group and WRAB may make a final recommendation
at their respective meetings in IVlarch. However, if it is determined at the March meeting
that additional information is needed to make a decision, then the stakeholder group will
reconvene on April 16 and the results ~~-ill be presented to WRAB at the Apri121
meeting.
All of the feedback will be compiled and presented to City Council at a study session on
April 22, 2008. It is anticipated that the City Council would make a final decision about
any changes to the current PIF methodology and assessment schedule as part of the 2009
budget process and that any PIFs changes would be implemented Jan. 1, 2009. Prior to
implementation, any PIF changes and financial impacts would be communicated to the
public via utility bill inserts, news releases, newsletters and targeted mailings. In addition,
several public meetings will be held to inform customers of the potential impacts.
ATTACHMENTS
• Attachment A -Memo on 2005 Customer Usage Characteristics
• Attachment B -Memo on PIF System Characteristics and Sample Calculations
AGENDA ITEM # PAGE
• RFD ~ ~~V~, ~ II`:~ ~ MEMORANDUM
To: Joann Crean Date: December 5, 2007
Public Works Administrator
From: Todd Cristiano, Senior Consultant
Red Oak Consulting
Re: 2005 Customer Usage Characteristics
I. Introduction
To further assist the City of Boulder (the City) with evaluating different plant investment
fee (PIF) assessment schedules, Red Oak developed the following customer usage
characteristics. Calculations were based on the City's 2005 utility billing database.
This analysis compares usage characteristics based on the City's existing customer
classes. The analysis further subdivides the customer classes based on pervious area
and/or meter size. Table 1 below summarizes the analysis completed for each class.
Charts contained in the appendices illustrate the detailed results.
Table 1
Usage Characteristics Analysis Summary
2005
A endixB A endixC
Monthly Usage per Comparison to Wa[er Bill Usage Distribution
Account based ov: Budget ("bill frequency")
Average
Customer Class Meter Pervious Monthly Pervious Meter Customer
Size Areat°~ Usagetb~ Areat°~ Size Class
Single Family ? ? ? ?
Multifamily ? ? ? ? ?
Commercial ? ? ? ? ?
Industrial ? ? ? (d) ?
Sprinkler ? (c) (d) ?
(a) Customers were grouped mm perwous mea ranges (e.g 0.2, SOOsgfb~ 5,000.7 SW sq R, e2.)
(b) Avarage eY(nllrty Usage (AMU)~s wamr budgemomponentapphedro mmmernal and mdusmal cusromers.
(c) Zla spnnkler customer doss exdudeda separate pernous area analyms muse memrs are razed bated on
mgable area.
(d) Duerothe srrall number ofacmuntc by memr, billfrequennes were mlculamd onadass level.
Red Oak used the City's water budget rate structure as a basis for analyzing usage
characteristics. Appendix A contains City documents describing the water budget rate
structure for each class.
2005 Customer Usage Characteristics Page 2
II. Definitions
¦ Single Family Residential - a detached principal building other than a mobile home,
designed for or used as a dwelling exclusively by one group of persons as an
independent living unit.
Multifamily Residential - a building used by two or more groups of persons living
independently of each other in separate dwelling units but not including motels,
hotels, and resorts.
¦ Commercial - Afor-profit, non-profit, or not-for profit business including retail,
offices, hotels, motels, shopping centers, none of which use process water in the
conduct of business and not classified as an `industrial' customer.
¦ Industrial - Afor-profit, non-profit, or not-for profit business requiring an Industrial
Discharge Permit per Boulder Revised Code 11-3-14. Manufacturing or process
facility which is engaged in producing a product.
¦ Sprinkler - A meter used specifically for outdoor usage.
¦ Kgalthousand (1,000) gallons; measure of water usage.
¦ Average Winter Consumption (AWC) - An average of billable water usage for the
4-month period December, January, February, and 1Vlarch.
¦ Average Monthly Usage (AMU) - Used to develop a commercial or industrial
customer's water budget. AMU is based on the prior years' actual water usage and is
calculated by dividing the annual usage by 12.
¦ Per~zous Area (Irizgable Area) -The portion of parcel size in square feet (sq ft)
that is used to determine the watering needs for outdoor water usage.
® Bill Frequency - An analysis that shows the number of bills at a varying levels of
usage.
~ Dwelling Unit -Multiple dwelling units exist if there is more than one address to the
property, contain a kitchen; or if there are separate entrances to rooms which could be
used as separate dwelling units; or if there is a lockable, physical separation between
rooms in the dwelling unit such that a room or rooms on each side of the separation
could be used as a dwelling unit, or rooms with no internal connections.
III. Water Budget Calculation Summary
The City's recently implemented ~~~ater budget rate structure requires the billing system to
calculate an account's monthly. The determination of an account's monthly water budget
varies by customer class. The methodology for each customer class is presented below.
2005 Customer Usage Characteristics Page 3
~ Single Family Residential -Monthly water budget =indoor allotment (7Kgal per
family of 4} + outdoor allotment (based on customer-specific irrigable area and
seasonal watering needs).
¦ Multifamily Residential -Monthly water budget =indoor allotment (4Kga1 per
dwelling unit) + outdoor allotment (based on customer-specific irrigable area and
seasonal watering needs).
¦ Irrigation Accounts - 1Vlonthly water budget =outdoor allotment (based on
customer-specific irrigable area and seasonal water needs).
¦ Commercial/Industrial Accounts -Monthly water budget = 100 percent of average
monthly use (currently based on 2005 actual average monthly use).
The outdoor allotment for each account is calculated by the irrigable area (i.e. grass,
trees, shrubs, etc.) of the account's lot which is based on professional aerial photos taken
during the summer of 2003. Published historical weekly water needs per square foot of
irrigable area are applied to calculate the monthly total for each account.
IV. Summarized Customer Class Usage Characteristics
The table below summarizes annual water per account for each customer class by meter
size. Total acre-ft by customer class and by meter size are included in the last row and
last column, respectively.
Table 2
Annual Acre-Feet of Water Usage per Account
2005
Meter Size Single Multifamily Commercial Industrial Sprinkler Total Acre-Ft
inches Famil b Meter Size
5/8 0.21 0.33 0.16 0.31 0.41 350
3/4 0.29 0.23 0.33 0.36 0.65 7,130
1 0.43 0.76 0.79 0.99 1.42 1,800
1 '/a N/A 0.32 0.61 N/A 0.00 0
1 '/Z 0.89 1.65 1.61 3.44 2.14 2,240
2 2.34 4.99 3.58 4.71 1.66 1,870
3 N,-'A 7.56 6.74 14.86 4.84 1,010
4 N/A 14.23 16.33 78.72 3.70 930
6 N/A 23.72 96.75 N/A 7.15 900
8 N/A 95.67 23.46 291.53 N/A 670
Total Acre-Ft
by Class 6,290 4,410 3,640 660 1,900 16,900
2005 Customer Usage Characteristics Page 4
Tables 3 through 11 summarize the data contained in Appendix B. The analysis grouped
customers within a customer class into subcategories based on the following criteria:
¦ Pervious area ranges
¦ Meter size
Additional customer usage characteristics are included in these subcategories such as
number of accounts, number of units (multifamily only), average pervious area, average
annual usage. This information was compared to each customer class' respective water
budgets.
Pervious Area Example
Table 3 classifies single family customers based on the amount of pervious area. The
customer usage characteristics for customers grouped into each subcategory are averaged.
Thus, customers with a pervious area between 4 and 2,500 square feet have an average
pervious area of 1,541 square feet and use approximately 56,000 gallons per year. There
are approximately 2,027 single family accounts within this subcategory.
Meter Size Example
Table 6 classifies multifamily customers based on meter size. The customer usage
characteristics for customers grouped by each meter size are averaged. Thus, customers
with a 3/4-inch meter have an average pervious area of 1,963 square feet and use
approximately 74,440 gallons per year. There are approximately 3,616 multifamily
accounts with a 3/4-inch meter. The accounts average 2 units.
Table 3
Single Family Customer Characteristics
2005
Pervious Area Average Number of Annual Usage
Thresholds Pervious Area Accounts per Account
s ft 1,000 al
0 to 2,500 sq ft 1,541 2,027 56
2,500 to 5,000 sq ft 4,107 7,159 85
5,000 to 7,500 sq ft 5,924 7,112 92
7,500 to 10,000 sq ft 8,633 2,424 120
10,000 to 15,000 sq ft 11,$36 1,740 135
15,000 to 20,000 sq ft 17,015 432 132
>20,000 sq ft 44,154 503 155
2005 Customer Usage Characteristics Page 5
Table 4
Single Family Customer Characteristics
2005
Average Pervious Number of Annual Usage per
Meter Size (inches) Area Accounts Account
(sq ft) (1,000 gal)
5/8" 5,060 1,486 70
3/4" 6,715 19,271 95
1" 9,853 782 141
1 1/4" N/A N/A N/A
11/2" 31,791 34 288
2" 23,838 1 105
3" N/A N/A N/A
4" N/A N/A N/A
6" N/A N/A N/A
8" N/A N/A N/A
Table 5
Multifamily Customer Characteristics
2005
Pervious Area Average Pervious Number of Average Annual Usage
Thresholds Area Accounts Number of per Account
s ft Units 1,000 al
0 sq ft' 0 666 13 474
0 to 2,500 sq ft 855 2,590 2 77
2,500 to 5,000 sq ft 3,625 1,011 4 172
5,000 to 7,500 sq ft 6,060 352 5 218
7,500 to 10,000 sq ft 8,584 138 10 460
10,000 to 15,000 sq ft 12,001 122 15 697
15,000 to 20,000 sq ft 17,010 41 23 1,207
>2Q000 sq ft 113,318 140 46 3,095
(a) Accounts with zero pervious area are assumed to have separate irrigation meters with a
corresponc&ng outdoor watering budget
2005 Customer Usage Characteristics Page 6
Table 6
Multifamily Customer Characteristics
2005
Average Pervious Number of Average Annual Usage
Meter Size (inches) Area Accounts Number of per Account
s ft Units 1,000 al
5/8" 3,852 70 2 107
3/4" 1,963 3,616 2 74
1" 4,460 575 5 246
11/4" 12,349 2 36 105
11/2" 4,621 519 12 535
2" 17,254 166 33 1,623
3" 25,660 77 61 2,457
4" 27,344 21 101 4,625
6" 474,415 12 118 7,708
8" 1,253,602 3 50 26,721
Table 7
Commercial Customer Characteristics
2005
Average
Pervious Area Pervious Number of Annual Usage
Thresholds Area Accounts AMU per Account
s ft 1,000 al
0 to 2,500 sq ft 1,082 1,502 33 359
2,500 to 5,000 sq ft 3,585 160 17 173
5,000 to 7,500 sq ft 6,130 89 22 246
7,500 to 10,000 sq ft 8,545 60 33 383.
10,000 to 15,000 sq ft 12,208 59 38 437
15,000 to 20,000 sq ft 17,519 31 27 320
>2Q000 sq ft 103,571 108 100 1,038
(a) Commercial accounts without identified pervious area are excluded
from this table.
2005 Customer Usage Characteristics Page 7
Table 8
Commercial Customer Characteristics
2005
Meter Number Average Annual
Size of Pervious Usage per
(inches) Accounts AMU Area Account
s ft 1,000 al
5/8" 29 6 4,887 52
3/4" 678 11 78,361 110
1" 500 25 9,088 262
1 1/4" 3 86 13,403 200
1 1/2" 529 49 35,545 535
2" 196 116 2,400 1,260
3" 40 285 49,553 2,245
4" 24 561 907 5,748
6" 6 2,744 0 31,445
8" 4 901 0 7,624
Table 9
Industrial Customer Characteristics
2005
Average
Pervious Area Pervious Number of Annual Usage
Thresholds Area Accounts AMU per Account
(sq ft) (1,000 gal)
0 to 25,000 sq ft 10,547 54 48 535
25,000 to 50,000 sq ft 34,607 4 94 1,121
50,000 to 100,000 sq ft 69,818 2 77 580
>lOQ,000 sq ft 1,864,122 7 1,689 18,839
(a) Industrial accounts withoutidentifiedpecvious area are excluded
from this table.
Table 10
Industrial Customer Characteristics
2005
Meter Number Average Annual
Size of Pervious Usage per
(inches) Accounts AMU Area Account
(sq ft) (1,000 gal)
3/4" 12 11 1,838 117
1" 14 31 37,836 320
1 N/A N/A N/A
1 24 97 12,039 1,118
2" 8 157 68,761 1,530
3" 5 411 47,494 4,829
4" 2 2,132 1,838 25,583
6" N/A N/A N/A N/A
8" 1 8,635 3,749,371 94,748
2005 Customer Usage Characteristics Page 8
Table 11
Sprinkler Customer Characteristics
2005
Meter Number Average Annual
Size of Pervious Usage per
{inches} Accounts Area Account
{sq ft) {1,000 gal}
5/8" 10 70,681 133
314" 731 17,211 212
1" 433 29,439 462
11/4" NIA NIA N/A
11/2" 189 72,446 694
2" 148 85,099 541
3" 16 281,584 1,574
4" 13 368,045 1,202
6" 5 129,044 2,322
VI. Appendices
Appendix A -Water Budget Examples
Appendix A contains descriptions and examples of water budgets for each customer
class.
Appendix B -Monthly Usage Characteristics by Class, Pervious Area, and Meter Size
Appendix B includes charts that support the data in Tables 1 through 8.
¦ Single Family Residential (Pervious Area) -Groups single family customers by
pervious area range and shows the monthly usage per account for that category as
well as the monthly budget for that category.
¦ Single Family Residential (Meter Size) -Groups single family customers by meter
size and compares the monthly water usage per account and the monthly water budget
for that category.
¦ Multifamily (Pervious Area) -Groups multifamily customers by pervious area range
and compares the monthly usage per account and the monthly water budget for that
category.
¦ Multifamily (IVleter Size) -Groups multifamily customers by meter size and
compares the monthly water usage per account and the monthly water budget for that
category.
¦ Commercial (Pervious Area) -Groups commercial customers by pervious area range
and compares the monthly usage per account and the average-AIVIU water budget
allotment for that category.
2005 Customer Usage Characteristics Page 9
~ Commercial (Meter Size) -Groups commercial customers by meter size and
compares the monthly water usage per account and the average- AMU water budget
allotment for that category.
~ Industrial (Pervious Area) -Groups industrial customers by pervious area range and
compares the monthly usage per account and the average-AMU water budget
allotment by month for that category.
~ Industrial (Meter Size) -Groups industrial customers by meter size and compares the
monthly water usage per account and the average-AMU water budget allotment for
that category.
® Sprinkler (Meter Sizc) -Groups sprinkler customers by meter size and compares the
monthly water usage per account and the monthly water budget for that category.
Appendix C -Bill Frequency Analysis by Custor~ner Class
Appendix C contains bill frequencies for each customer class. The bill fiequency plots
the number of bills at varying levels of usage for a particular customer class. The bill
frequencies are further grouped within a customer class by meter size or a combination of
meter sizes. These graphs are helpful to show the distribution of usage for the whole
customer category. They illustrate where most consumption falls for each category. For
example, approximately 70 percent of the City's single family residential customers are
being billed for 8,000 gallons of usage or less each month. 1Vlost frequently, single
family residential customers are billed for 4,000 gallons each month.
Appendix D -Customer Class Pervious Area Distribution
Appendix C plots the number of single family residential accounts against pervious area
(in increments of 1,000 sq ft). This graph indicates that the majority of single family
residential accounts have between 5,000 and 6,000 sq ft of pervious area.
APPENDIX A
Haw to Calculate aSingle-Family Residential Customer Water Budget
The single-family residential water budget is the sum of an indoor and outdoor
allocation. The indoor allocation is 7,000 gallons per month. The outdoor allocation is
based on customer-specific irrigable area as provided by the city's geographical
information system {GIS} and changes monthly based on seasonal watering needs. The
annual outdoor allocation is calculated as follows:
? The first 5,000 square feet of irrigable area gets 15 gallons of water per square foot
{gpsf},
? The next 9,000 square feet of irrigable area gets 12 gpsf, and
? All excess irrigable area gets 10 gpsf.
For example, a customer with 14,400 square feet of irrigable area would have the
following annual outdoor allocation:
Irrigable Area Gallons per
s uare feet S uare Foot Gallons
5, 000 15 75, 000
9,000 12 108,000
400 10 4, 000
Annual ~utdaar Allocation 187,000
The annual outdoor allocation is distributed throughout the year to meet changing
monthly seasonal outdoor watering needs. The table below shows the percentages by
month that will be applied to the annual outdoor allocation. These percentages were
derived from historic data.
Percentage of Monthly
Outdoor Allocation
Distribution
Percent of
Month Annual Outdoor
Allocation
January 0°~
February 0°~
March 1 %
April 7°~
May 14°~
June 20°l0
July 20°l0
August 18%
September 12%
October 7%
November 1
December 0°~
Total 100°I°
For example, if a customer's annual outdoor allocation was 187,000 gallons, they would
receive 20% of that, or 37,400 gallons, in June and 7%, ar 13,090 gallons, in October.
Page 1 of 60
A customer with 14,400 square feet of irrigable area would have the following water
budget:
Total Estimated
Water Budget
Indoor Outdoor (rounded up to the
Month Allocation Allocation nearest 1,000 gallons)
Janua 7,000 0 7,000
February 7,000 0 7,000
March 7,000 1,870 9,000
A ril 7,000 13,090 21,000
Ma 7,000 26,180 34,000
June 7,000 37,400 45,000
July 7,000 37,400 45,000
Au ust 7,000 33,660 41,000
September 7,000 22,440 30,000
October 7,000 13,090 21,000
November 7,000 1,870 9,000
December 7,000 0 7,000
TOTAL 84,000 187,000 276,000
"Monthly water budgets are shown as estimates because actual water budget amounts could
change depending on what date the water meter is read each month.
If this customer used 4,000 gallons in February and had a monthly budget of 7,000
allons, their usa a would be billed as follows:
Rate Gallons per Rate Water Usage
Block % of Bud et Block allons
Black 1 0-60% of bud et 0 - 5,000 4,000
Block 2 61-100°l0 of budget 5,001 - 7,000 0
Block 3 101-150°~ of budget 7,000 - 11,000 0
Block 4 151-200% of bud et 11,001 - 14,000 0
Black 5 aver 201 °,6 of budget Over 14,000 0
If this customer used 10,000 gallons in February and had a monthly budget of 7,000
allons, their water usa e would be billed as follows:
Rate Gallons per Rate Water Usage
Block % of Bud et Block allons
Block 1 0-60% of bud et 0 - 5,000 5,000
Black 2 61-100°~ of budget 5,001 - 7,000 2,000
Black 3 101-150°~ of budget 7,000 -11,000 3,000
Block 4 151-200% of bud et 11,001 - 14,000 0
Block 5 over 201 of budget Over 14,000 0
Gallons per Rate Black are rounded up to the nearest thousand gallons to benefit the
customer.
Page 2 of 60
How to Calculate aMulti-Family Residential Customer Water Budget
The multi-family residential water budget is the sum of an indoor and outdoor allocation.
The indoor allocation is 4,000 gallons per month per living unit within the building. The
outdoor allocation is based an customer-specific irrigable area as provided by the city's
geographical information system {GIS} and changes monthly based on seasonal
watering needs. The annual outdoor allocation is calculated as follows:
? Irrigable area gets 15 gallons of water per square foot {gpsf}
For example, a customer with 10,200 square feet of irrigable area would have the
following annual outdoor allocation:
Irrigable Area Gallons per
s uare feet S uare Foot Gallons
10,200 15 153,000
Annual Outdoor Allocation 153,000
The annual outdoor allocation is distributed throughout the year to meet changing
monthly seasonal outdoor watering needs. The table below shows the percentages by
month that will be applied to the annual outdoor allocation. These percentages were
derived from historic data.
Percentage of Monthly
Outdoor Allocation
Distribution
Percent of
Month Annual Outdoor
Allocation
January 0%
February 0°~
March 1
April 7°~
Ma 14°l0
June 20%
Jul 20°~
August 18°~
September 12%
October 7%
November 1
December 0%
Total 100%
For example, if a customer's annual outdoor allocation was 153,000 gallons, they would
receive 20°~ of that, ar 30,600 gallons, in June and 7%, or 10,710 gallons, in October.
Page 3 of 60
Amulti-family residential account that has 10 living units and an irrigable area of 1a,2x0
square feet would have the following water budget:
Total Estimated *
Water Budget
Indoor Outdoor {rounded up to the
Month Allocation Allocation nearest 1,000 gallons)
Janua 4a,a0o 0 40,000
February 4x,000 0 40,000
March 4x,a00 1,530 42,000
A ril 4x,xxx 1 x,71 x 51,000
Ma 40,xxx 21,42x 62,000
June 40,000 30,600 71,000
July 4o,xoo 3x,saa 71,aao
Au ust 40,x00 27,540 68,000
September 40,x00 18,360 59,000
October 4x,x0a 10,710 51,000
November 40,x00 1,530 42,000
December 4a,a0a x 40,000
TOTAL 480,xx0 153,xxx 637,000
"Monthly water budgets are shown as estimates because actual water budget amounts could
change depending on what date the water meter is read each month.
If this customer used 45,000 gallons in October and had a monthly budget of 51,4x0
allons, their usa a would be billed as follows:
Rate Gallons per Rate Water Usage
Block °lo of Budget Block {gallons)
Block 1 0-60% of bud et 0 -31,000 31,000
Block 2 61-100% of budget 31,x41 - 51,4x4 14,000
Block 3 1x1-154°!o of budget 51,x01 - 77,0x0 x
Block 4 151-20x% of bud et 77,001 - 102,x00 x
Block 5 aver 2x1 °lo of bud et Over 102,004 x
If this customer used 88,4x0 gallons in October and had a monthly budget of 51,OOa
gallons, their water usage would be billed as follows:
Rate Gallons per Rate Water Usage
Block % of Budget Block {gallons)
Block 1 0-60% of bud et 0 -31,000 31,000
Block 2 61-100% of budget 31,001 - 51,004 20,000
Block 3 101-150°~ of budget 51,001 - 77,004 26,x04
Block 4 151-200°~ of bud et 77,aa1 - 102,0x4 11,x04
Block 5 over 2x1 % of bud et Over 102,000 0
Gallons per Rate Block are rounded up to the nearest thousand gallons to benefit the
customer.
Page 4 of 60
How to Calculate a Commercial! Industrial Customer Water Budget
A commercial/industrial account's water budget is calculated based on average monthly
usage (AMU} and does not change from month to month. The budget is based on
customer-specific 2005 actual water usage and is calculated by taking 2005 annual
water usage and dividing it by twelve.
For example, a customer with 2005 annual water usage of 795,000 gallons of water
would have a monthly water budget of 67,000 gallons as shown in the table below.
Calculated Total Estimated *
Average Water Budget
Monthly {rounded up to the
Month Usage nearest 1,000 gallons}
January 66,250 67,000
February 66,250 67,000
March 66,250 67,000
April 66,250 67,000
May 66,250 67,000
June 66,250 67,000
Jul 66,250 67,000
August 66,250 67,000
September 66,250 67,000
October 66,250 67,000
November 66,250 67,000
December 66,250 67,000
TOTAL 795,000 804,000
* Monthly water budgets are shown as estimates because actual water budget amounts could
change depending on what date the water meter is read each month.
If this customer used 58,000 gallons in August and had a monthly budget of 67,000
gallons, their usage would be billed as follows:
Rate Gallons per Rate Water Usage
Block % of Budget Block {gallons)
Black 1 0-60% of bud et 0 -41,000 41,000
Block 2 61-100% of budget 41,001 - 67,000 17,000
Block 3 101-150°~ of budget 67,001 - 101,000 0
Block 4 151-200% of bud et 101,001 - 134,000 0
Block 5 over 201 % of bud et Over 134,000 0
Page 5 of 60
If this customer used 87,000 gallons in August and had a monthly budget of 67,000
gallons, their water usage would be billed as follows:
Rate Gallons per Rate Water Usage
Block °lo of Bud et Block allons
Block 1 0-60% of budget 0 -41,000 41,000
Block 2 61-100°r6 of budget 41,001 - 67,000 26,000
Block 3 101-150°l0 of bud et 67,001 - 101,000 20,000
Block 4 151-200% of budget 101,001 - 134,000 0
Block 5 over 201 °lo of budget Over 134,000 0
Gallons per Rate Block are rounded up to the nearest thousand gallons to benefit the
customer.
Page 6 of 60
Haw to Calculate a Metered Irrigation Customer Water Budget
A metered irrigation account's water budget consists only of an outdoor allocation. The
outdoor allocation is based on customer-specific irrigable area as provided by the city's
geographical information system {GIS} and changes monthly based on seasonal
watering needs. The annual outdoor allocation is calculated as follows:
? Irrigable area gets 15 gallons of water per square foot {gpsf)
For example, a customer with 30,500 square feet of irrigable area would have the
following annual outdoor allocation:
Irrigable Area Gallons per Gallons
s uare feet S uare Faot
30,500 15 457,500
Annual Outdoor Allocation 457,508
The annual outdoor allocation is distributed throughout the year to meet changing
monthly seasonal outdoor watering needs. The table below shows the percentages by
month that will be applied to the annual outdoor allocation. These percentages were
derived from historic data.
Percentage of Monthly
Outdoor Allocation
Distribution
Percent of
Month Annual Outdoor
Allocation
January 1
February 1
March 1
April 7°~
May 14°~
June 20%
July 20°~
August 18°~
September 12°~
October 7%
November 1 %
December 1
For example, if a customer's annual outdoor allocation was 457,500 gallons, they would
receive 20°l0 of that, or 91,500 gallons, in June and 7%, or 32,025 gallons, in October.
Page 7 of 60
An irrigation only account that has an irrigable area of 3x,500 square feet would have
the following water budget:
Total Estimated *
Water Budget
Qutdoor {rounded up to the
Month Allocation nearest 1,000 gallons)
Janua 4,575 5,000
February 4,575 5,000
March 4,575 5,000
A ril 32,x25 33,000
Ma 64,a5a 65,000
June 91,500 92,000
July 91,500 92,000
Au ust 82,35a 83,000
September 54,900 55,000
October 32,025 33,000
November 4,575 5,000
December 4,575 5,000
TOTAL 471,225 478,000
"Monthly water budgets are shown as estimates because actual water budget amounts could
change depending on what date the water meter is read each month.
If this customer used 58,000 gallons in May and had a monthly budget of 65,aaa
allons, their usa a would be billed as follows:
Rate Gallons per Rate Water Usage
Block °lo of Budget Block {gallons)
Block 1 0-60% of bud et 0 -39,000 39,000
Block 2 61-1 aa% of budget 39,001 - 65,aaa 19,OOa
Block 3 101-150°!0 of budget 65,001 - 98,x00 a
Block 4 151-200% of bud et 98,001 - 130,000 0
Block 5 aver 201 °lo of bud et Over 130,000 0
If this customer used 87,aaa gallons in May and had a monthly budget of 65,aaa
gallons, their water usage would be billed as follows:
Rate Gallons per Rate Water Usage
Block % of Budget Block {gallons)
Block 1 0-60% of bud et 0 -39,000 39,000
Block 2 61-100% of budget 39,001 - 65,000 26,000
Block 3 101-150°~ of budget 65,001 - 98,OOa 22,OOa
Block 4 151-200°~ of bud et 98,001 - 130,000 0
Block 5 over 2x1 % of bud et Over 130,0x0 0
Gallons per Rate Block are rounded up to the nearest thousand gallons to benefit the
customer.
Page 8 of 60
APPENDIX B
Comparison of Monthly Usage per Account to Vltater Budget
Single Family 0 to 2,500 SgFt Pervious Area
~o.o
Average Pervious Area: 1,541 sq ft
Number of Accounts: 2,027 The bar graph represents the
50.0 - - - - - - -
average usage per account per
month for single family accounts that
The blue line shows fall within this category.
40.0 - - --the monthly water - - - -
= budget for this category
0 of single family
30.0 - - - - - - - - - - - -
0
0
0
20.0 - - - - - - - -
10.0 - - - - - - - - - - -
0.0
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec
~ Monthly Usage per Account Water Budget Allotment
Comparison of Monthly Usage per Account to Vllater Budget
Single Family 2,500 to 5,000 SgFt Pervious Area
so.0
Average Pervious Area: 4,107 sq ft
50 0 Number of Accounts: 7,159
40.0
c
0
030.0
0
0
0
20.0 - - - - - -
10.0 - - - - - - - - - -
a.o
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec
~ Monthly Usage per Account -~-Water Budget Allotment
Page 9 of 60
Comparison of Monthly Usage per Account to Water Budget
Single Family 5,000 to 7,500 SgFt Pervious Area
60.0
Average Pervious Area: 5,924 sq ft
Number of Accounts: 7,112
50.0 - - - - - - - - -
40.0
0
030.0
0
a
0
20.0 - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
10.0 - - - - -
0.0
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec
~ Monthly Usage per Account --~-Water Budget Allotment
Comparison of Monthly Usage per Account to Water Budget
Single Family 7,500 to 10,000 SgFt Pervious Area
60.0
Average Pervious Area: 8,633 sq ft
50.0 Number of Accounts: 2,424
40.0
c
0
c~a. o - - - - - - - - - - - -
0
0
0
2a. o - - - - - -
10.0 - - - - - - - - -
0.0
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec
~ Monthly Usage per Account -~-Water Budget Allotment
Page 10 of 60
Comparison of Monthly Usage per Account to Water Budget
Single Family 10,000 to 15,000 SgFt Pervious Area
60.0
Average Pervious Area: 11,836 sq ft
Number of Accounts: 1, 740
50.0 - - - - - - - - - -
40.0
c
0
~ 30.0 - - - - - - - - -
0
0
0
20.0 - - - - - - -
10.0 - - - - - - -
0.0
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec
Monthly Usage per Account -Water Budget Allotment
Comparison of Monthly Usage per Account to Water Budget
Single Family 15,000 to 20,000 SgFt Pervious Area
60.0
Average Pervious Area: 17,015 sq ft
50.0 Number of Accounts: 432
40.0 - - - - - -
0
t~ 30.0 - - -
0
a
0
20.0 - - - - - - - -
10.0 - - - -
0.0
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec
Monthly Usage per Account -~-Water Budget Allotment
Page 11 of 60
Comparison of Monthly Usage per Account to Water Budget
Single Family> 20,000 SgFt Pervious Area
120.0
Average Pervious Area: 44,154 sq ft
100.0 Number of Accounts: 503
80.0
tA
C
O
60.0 - - - - - - - - - - -
0
0
0
40.0 - - - - - - - - - - - -
20.0 - - - - -
ao
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec
~ Monthly Usage per Account tWater Budget Allotment
Page 12 of 60
Comparisan of Monthly Usage per Account to Water Budget
Single Family 518-inch
25
Average Pervious Area 5,060 sq ft
Number of Accounts 1,486
20 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
=15 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
0
C9
0
10 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
5 - - - - - - - - - -
0
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec
~ Monthly Usage --~-Monthly Water Budget Allotment
Comparison of Monthly Usage per Account to Water Budget
Single Family 314-inch
30
Average Pervious Area: 6,715 sq ft
Number of Accounts' 19,271
25 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- -
20 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
0
15 - - - - - - - - -
0
0
0
10 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
5 - - - - - - - - - -
i
a
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec
Monthly Usage ~+Monthly Water Budget Allotment
Page 13 of 60
Comparison of Monthly Usage per Account to Vltater Budget
Single Family 1-inch Meter
60
Average Pervious Area: 9,853 sq ft
Number of Accounts: 782
50 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - -
40
0
~ 30 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
0
0
0
20 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
10 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
0
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec
Monthly Usage -~-Monthly Water Budget Allotment
Camparisan of Manthly Usage per Account to VIlater Budget
Single Family 1 1I2-inch Meter
70 ~o.o
Average Pervious Area: 31,791 sq ft
Number of Accounts: 34 80.0
60 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
70.0
50 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
69.9
040
C9
0 30 - - - - - - - - - - - 40.0
30-0
20 - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
20.0
10 - - - - - - - - - - -
10.0
0 0.0
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec
Monthly Usage ~~Monthly Water Budget Allotment
Page 14 of 60
Comparison of Monthly Usage per Account to Water Budget
Single Family 2-inch Meter
256
Average Pervious Area: 23,838 sq ft
Number of Accounts: 1
200 - - - - - - - - -
~ 150 - - - - - -
0
C7
0
° 100 - - - - - - - - -
50 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
0
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec
Average Monthly Usage Monthly Water Budget Allotment
Page 15 of 60
Comparison of Monthly Usage per Account to Water Budget
Multifamily 0 to 2,500 SgFt Pervious Area
~0
Average Pervious Area: 855 sq ft
Average Number of Units: 2
50
Number of Accounts: 2,590
40
H
O~
~0
0
0
0
20
10 - - - - - - - - - - -
0
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec
~ Monthly Usage per Account Water Budget Allotment
Comparison of Monthly Usage per Account to Water Budget
Multifamily 2,500 to 5,000 SgFt Pervious Area
60
Average Pervious Area: 3,625 sq ft
Average Number of Units: 4
50
Number of Accounts 1,011
40
c
0
(930
0
0
0
20 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
10 - - - - - - -
o ~ ~
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec
~ Monthly Usage per Account Water Budget Allotment
Page 16 of 60
Comparison of Monthly Usage per Account to VIlater Budget
Multifamily x,000 to 7,500 SgFt Pervious Area
60
Average Pervious Area: 6,060 sq ft
Average Number of Units: 5
50
Number of Accounts: 352
40
H
O
c~ 30 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
0
0
0
20 - - - - - - - - - - - - -
10 - - - - - - -
0
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec
~ Monthly Usage per Account Water Budget Allotment
Comparison of Monthly Usage per Account to Vllater Budget
Multifamily 7,500 to 10,000 SgFt Pervious Area
7a
Average Pervious Area: 8,584 sq ft
60 Average Number of Units: 10
Number of Accounts: 138
50 - - - - - - - - - -
0}0 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
L?
~0
20 - - - - - -
10 - - - -
0
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec
~ Monthly Usage per Account Water Budget Allotment
Page 17 of 60
Comparison of Monthly Usage per Account to Vltater Budget
Multifamily 10,000 to 15,000 SgFt Pervious Area
110
Average Pervious Area: 12,001 sq ft
100 - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Average Number of Units: 15
90 -Number of Accounts: 122 - - - - - - - - - - -
80 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
y 7a - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
6a - - - - - - - - - - - - -
c~
0 5a - - - - - - - - - - -
0
r' 40 - - - - - - -
30 - - - - - - - - - -
20 - - - - - - - - - -
10 - - - - i~ -
0
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec
Monthly Usage per Account Water Budget Allotment
Comparison of Monthly Usage per Account to VIlater Budget
Multifamily 15,000 to 20,000 SgFt Pervious Area
180
Average Pervious Area: 17,010 sq ft
160 Average Number of Units: 23
Number of Accounts: 41
140 - - -
120 - - - - - - - - - - - - -
100 - - - - - - - - - - -
80 - - - - - - -
0
60 - - - - - - - -
40 - - - - - - - -
20 - - - - - - - ~ - - - - - - -
0
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec
Monthly Usage per Account (Water Budget Allotment
Page 18 of 60
Comparison of Monthly Usage per Account to Water Budget
Multifamily> 20,000 SgFt Pervious Area
600
Average Pervious Area: 113,318 sq ft
500 Average Number of Units: 46
Number of Accounts: 140
4oa - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
0
~ 300 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
o -
0
0
200 - - - - - - - - - - -
100 - - - - -
0
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec
~ Monthly Usage per Account -+Water Budget Allotment
Page 19 of 60
Comparisan of Monthly Usage per Account to VNater Budget
Multifamily 518-inch
25
Average Pervious Area: 3,852 sq ft
Average Number of Units: 2
20 Number of Accounts: t0
=15 - -
0
t9
0
0
~ 10 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
5 - - - - -
0
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec
~ Monthly Usage per Account --~-Monthly Water Budget Allotment
Comparison of Monthly Usage per Account to V1later Budget
Multifamily 314-inch
14
Average Pervious Area: 1,963 sq ft
12 Average Number of Units: 2
Number of Accounts: 3,616
10 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
0 8 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
C9
0 6
o - - - - -
0
4 - - - - - - - -
2 - - - - - - - - - - - - -
0 I
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec
~ Monthly Usage per Account -Monthly Water Budget Allotment
Page 20 of 60
Comparison of Monthly Usage per Account to Vltater Budget
Multifamily 1-inch Meter
60
Average Pervious Area: 4,460 sq ft
Average Number of Units: 5
50
Number of Accounts: 575
40
c
0
30 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
0
0
0
20 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
10 - - - - -
0
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec
~ Monthly Usage per Account -~-Monthly Water Budget Allotment
Comparison of Monthly Usage per Account to VIlater Budget
Multifamily 1 1!2-inch Meter
70 IO-0
Average Pervious Area: 4,621 sq ft
60 Average Number of Units: 12 60 0
Number of Accounts: 519
50 - - - - - 50.0
0 40 - - - - - - 40.0
C9
0
30 - - - 30.0
20 - - - - - - - - 20.0
10 - - - - - - - - - - - 10.0
0 0.0
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec
~ Monthly Usage per Account Monthly Water Budget Allotment
Page 21 of 60
Comparison of Monthly Usage per Account to Water Budget
Multifamily 2-inch Meter
200
Average Pervious Area: 17,254 sq ft
180 Average Number of Units: 33
160 Number of Accounts: 166
140 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
~ 120 - - - - -
0
t~ 100 - - - - -
0
° 80 - - -
60 - - -
40 - - -
20 - - ~
0
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sept Oct Nav Dec
Monthly Usage per Account --~-•Monthly Water Budget Allotment
Comparison of Monthly Usage per Account to Water Budget
Multifamily 3-inch
350
Average Pervious Area: 25,660 sq ft
300 Average Number of Units: 61
Number of Accounts: 77
250 - - - - - - - - - - - -
X00 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
0 50 - - - - - - - - - -
100 - - - - - - - -
50 - - - - - - - - -
0
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec
~ Monthly Usage per Account +Monthly Water Budget Allotment
Page 22 of 60
Comparison of Monthly Usage per Account to Water Budget
Multifamily 4-inch
700
Average Pervious Area: 27,344 sq ft
600 Average Number of Units: 101
Number of Accounts: 21
500 - - - - - - - - - - -
0 400 -
0 300 - - -
200 - - - - - - - -
100 - - - - - - -
0
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec
Monthly Usage tMonthly Water Budget Allotment
Comparison of Monthly Usage per Account to Water Budget
Multifamily 6-inch
2, 000
Average Pervious Area: 474,415 sq ft
1, $00 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Average Number of Units: 118
1, 600 N u mbe r of Acco unts: 12 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
1, 400 - - - - - - - - - - - - -
01, 200 - - - - - - - -
t~ 1, oaa - - - - - -
a
0
800
600 - - - - - - - - -
400 - - -
200 -
a
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec
Monthly Usage per Account Monthly Water Budget Allotment
Page 23 of 60
Comparison of Monthly Usage per Account to Vllater Budget
Multifamily 8-inch
5aao
Average Pervious Area: 1,253,602 sq ft
4500 - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Average Number of Units: 50
4000 Number of Accounts' 3
3500 - - - - - - - - -
c 3000 - - -
0
~ 2500
0
°
2000
1500
1000 - - -
500 - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
0
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec
Monthly Usage per Account +Monthly Water Budget Allotment
Page 24 of 60
Comparison of Monthly Usage per Account to Water Budget
Commercial 0 to 2,500 SgFt Pervious Area
60.0
Average Pervious Area: 1,082 sq ft
Number of Customers: 1,502 The bar graph represents the
50.0 - - - - - - - - - - - - -average usage per account pe r
The blue line shows the monthly water budget for month for commercial accounts that
this category of commercial accounts; AMU. This fall within this Category.
water budget is based on AMU from the previous
40.0 - - - year. The budget remains the same for every -
0
~ 30.0 - - - - - -
0
0
0
20.0 - - -
10.0 - - - - -
0.0
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec
~ Monthly Usage per Account tWater Budget Allotment
Comparison of Manthly Usage per Account to Water Budget
Commercial 2,500 to 5,000 SgFt Pervious Area
60.0
Average Pervious Area: 3,585 sq ft
50.0 -Number of Customers: 160
40.0
N
C
O
c~3o.o
0
0
0
20.0 - - - - - - - - -
10.0 - - -
o.o ~
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec
~ Monthly Usage per Account -+-Water Budget Allotment
Page 25 of 60
Comparison of Manthly Usage per Account to Water Budget
Commercial 5,000 to 7,500 SgFt Pervious Area
60.0
Average Pervious Area: 6,130 sq ft
Number of Customers: 89
50.0 - - - - - - - - - - -
40.0
c
0
to 30.0 - - - - - - - - - - - -
0
0
0
20.0 - - - - - - - - - -
10.0 - - - -
0.0
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec
~ Monthly Usage per Account +Water Budget Allotment
Comparison of Manthly Usage per Account to Water Budget
Commercial 7,500 to 10,000 SgFt Pervious Area
60.0
Average Pervious Area: 8,545 sq ft
50.0 Number of Customers: 60
40.0
0
~ 30.0 -
0
0
0
2o.a - - -
10.0 - - -
a.o
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec
Monthly Usage per Account Water Budget Allotment
Page 26 of 60
Comparison of Monthly Usage per Account to Water Budget
Commercial 10,000 to 15,000 SgFt Pervious Area
60.0
Average Pervious Area: 12,208 sq ft
Number of Customers: 59
50.0 - - - -
ao. o - - -
0
30.0 -
0
0
0
20.0 - - - - -
10.0 - -
o.a
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec
~ Monthly Usage per Account Water Budget Allotment
Comparison of Monthly Usage per Account to Water Budget
Commercial 15,000 to 20,000 SgFt Pervious Area
45.0
Average Pervious Area 17,519 sq ft
40.0 - - - - - - - - - - - -
Number of Customers: 31
35.0 - - - - -
30.0 - - - - - - -
c
25.0 - - - - - - - -
-
~s
C4
0 20.0 - - - - - - -
0
15.0 - - -
'I Q.0 - - - - -
5.0 - ~ - - - - - - - - - - - - -
0.0
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec
~ Monthly Usage per Account tWater Budget Allotment
Page 27 of 60
Comparison of Monthly Usage per Account to Vltater Budget
Commercial > Z0,000 SgFt Pervious Area
250.0
Average Pervious Area: 103,571 sq ft
Number of Customers: 108
200.0 - - - - - - - - - -
c 150.0 - - - - - -
L?
0
0100.0
5a o - - - -
a.o
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec
~ Monthly Usage per Account -~-Water Budget Allotment
Page 28 of 60
Comparison of Monthly Usage per Account to Water Budget
Commercial v/8-inch
8
Number of Customers 29
7 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
6 - - - - - - - - - -
y 5 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
0
4 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
0
0
0
3 - - - - - - - -
2 - - - - - -
1 ~
0
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec
~ Monthly Usage per Account --H•Water Budget Allotment
Comparison of Monthly Usage per Account to Water Budget
Commercial 3I4-inch
16
Number of Customers 678
14
12 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
~ 10 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
0
~ 8 - - - - - - -
0
0
0 6 - - - - - - - -
4 - - - - - - - -
2 - - - - - - - - - ~ -
0
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec
Monthly Usage per Account tWater Budget Allotment
Page 29 of 60
Comparison of Monthly Usage per Account to Water Budget
Commercial 1-inch Meter
35
Number of Customers: 500
30
25 - - - - - - - - - - - -
0 20 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
(9
0
°0 15 - -
10 - - - - - - - - -
5 - - - - -
0
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec
~ Monthly Usage per Account Water Budget Allotment
Comparison of Monthly Usage per Account to Water Budget
Commercial 1 112-inch Meter
60
Number of Customers: 529
50 - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
40 - - -
N
C
O
t~ 30 - - -
°o
0
20 - - - - - - - - -
10 - - - - - - - - - ~ - -
0
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec
~ Monthly Usage per Account tWater Budget Allotment
Page 30 of 60
Comparison of Monthly Usage per Account to Water Budget
Commercial 2-inch Meter
160
Number of Customers: 196
140 - - - - - -
120 - - - - - - - - - - -
v, 100 - - - - - -
c
0
~ $0 - - - - -
0
0
° 60
40 - - - - - -
20 - - - - - - - - -
0
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec
Monthly Usage per Account tWater Budget Allotment
Comparison of Monthly Usage per Account to Water Budget
Commercial 3-inch
350
Number of Customers: 40
300 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
250 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
0 200 - - -
R
t9
c 150 - - -
100 - - - - - -
50 - - - - - - - -
0
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec
Monthly Usage per Account tWater Budget Allotment
Page 31 of 60
Comparison of Monthly Usage per Account to Water Budget
Commercial 4-inch
Boa
Number of Customers 24
800 - - - - - - - - - - - - -
700 - - - - - - - - - - - - -
600 - - - - - - - - - - -
c
-°500 - - - - - - - - - - - - -
C9
°0400 - - -
0
300 - - - -
200 - - - ~ - - -
100
0
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec
~ Monthly Usage per Account +Water Budget Allotment
Comparison of Monthly Usage per Account to Water Budget
Commercial 6-inch
4,500
Number of Customers: 6
4, 000 - - - - -
3, 500 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
3,000 -
c
2, 500 - - - - - - -
°a 2, 000 - - - -
0
1, 500 - - - - - -
1, 000 - - -
500 - - - ~
0
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec
~ Monthly Usage per Account -~-Water Budget Allotment
Page 32 of 60
Comparison of Monthly Usage per Account to Vltater Budget
Commercial 8-inch
1, 200
Number of Customers: 4
1, 000
~ 800 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
0
600 - - - - - -
0
0
0
400 - - - - - - - - - -
200 I~
i r`
I
0
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec
~ Monthly Usage per Account tWater Budget Allotment
Page 33 of 60
Comparison of Monthly Usage to Water Budget
Industrial 0 to 25,000 SgFt Pervious Area
60.0
Average Pervious Area: 10,547 sq ft
Number of Customers: 54
5a. o - - -
4a. o - - -
N
C
O
c~3a o - -
0
0
0
20. a - - -
10.0 - -
ao
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec
Monthly Usage Water Budget Allotment
Comparison of Monthly Usage to Water Budget
Industrial 25,000 to 50,000 SgFt Pervious Area
160.0
Average Pervious Area: 34,607 sq ft
140.0 Number o f C u sto m e rs : 4 - - - - - - - - -
120.0 - - - - -
~ 100.0 - -
c
0
80.0
0
0
0
60.0 - -
40.0 -
20.0 -
o. o
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec
~ Monthly Usage -~-Water Budget Allotment
Page 34 of 60
Comparison of Monthly Usage to Water Budget
Industrial 50,000 to 100,00 SgFt Pervious Area
120
Average Pervious Area: 69,818 sq ft
110 - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Number of Customers: 2
1 oa - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
90 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
80 - - - - - - - - - -
c 70 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
(9 60 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
0
0 5a - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
40 - - - - - - - - - - - -
30 - - - - -
20 - - -
10 - - - - - - - - - - - - -
0
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec
~ Monthly Usage -~-Water Budget Allotment
Comparison of Monthly Usage to Water Budget
Industrial ~ 100,000 SgFt Pervious Area
2, 500
Average Pervious Area: 1,864,122 sq ft
Number of Customers: 7
2, 000 - - - - - - - - -
a , 500 - - - - - - - - - - -
0
~ , Oaa
5aa
0
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec
Monthly Usage tWater Budget Allotment
Page 35 of 60
Comparison of Monthly Usage per Account to Water Budget
Industrial 314-inch Meter
30
Number of Customers: 12
20 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
c
0
C9
0
0
0
10 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
I I
p -
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec
~ Monthly Usage per Account Water Budget Allotment
Comparison of Monthly Usage per Account to Water Budget
Industrial 1-inch Meter
70
Number of Customers: 14
60
50
0 40
C9
c 30 - - - - - -
20 - - - - -
10 - - - - -
0
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec
~ Monthly Usage per Account --~-Water Budget Allotment
Page 36 of 60
Comparison of Monthly Usage per Account to Water Budget
Industrial 1 112-inch Meter
140
Number of Customers: 24
120
100 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
0 80 - - - - - - - -
(7
o - - - - - - - - - - -
~ 60
0
40 - - - - - - - - - - - - -
20 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
0
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec
~ Monthly Usage per Account Water Budget Allotment
Comparison of Monthly Usage per Account to Water Budget
Industrial 2-inch Meter
260
240 Number of C u sto me rs: 8 - - - - - - - - - -
220 - - - - - - - - - - - -
200 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
180 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
~ 160 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
140 - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
0120 - - - - - - - -
100 - - - - - - - - - - -
80 - - - - - - - - - - - -
60 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
40 - - - - - - - - - - - - -
20 - - - - - - - - - - - - -
0
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec
~ Monthly Usage per Account tWater Budget Allotment
Page 37 of 60
Comparison of Monthly Usage per Account to Water Budget
Industrial 3-inch
650
600 Number of Custome rs: 5 - - - -
550 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
500 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
450 - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
00 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
~50 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
c~00 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
0
X50 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
200 - - - - - - - -
150 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
100 - - - - - - - -
50 - I - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
0
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec
~ Monthly Usage per Account tWater Budget Allotment
Comparison of Monthly Usage per Account to Water Budget
Industrial 4-inch
3, 5QQ
Number of Customers: 2
3, aa0
2, 500 - - - - - - - - - -
02,000 - -
C9
01, 500
1, 000
500 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
0
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec
~ Monthly Usage per Account tWater Budget Allotment
Page 38 of 60
Comparison of Monthly Usage per Account to Water Budget
Industrial 8-inch
12, Oao
Number of Customers: 1
1 QOQ - - - - - - - - - - -
8, OQO - - - - - - - - - -
c
0
t~ 6, 000 -
0
°o
4, 000 - - -
2 , 000 - -
0
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec
~ Monthly Usage per Account Water Budget Allotment
Page 39 of 60
Comparison of Monthly Usage per Account to Vllater Budget
Sprinkler 518-inch Meter
200
Average Pervious Area: 70,681 sq ft
180 - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Number of Customers: 10
160 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
140 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - -
0120 - - - - - -
~ 100 - - - - - - - - - - -
0
~ 80 - - - - - - -
60 - - - - - - - -
-
40 - - - - - - - - - -
20 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
0
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec
~ Monthly Usage per Account +Water Budget Allotment
Comparison of Monthly Usage per Account to Water Budget
Sprinkler 314-inch Meter
60
Average Pervious Area: 17,211 sq ft
50 Number of Customers: 731
40 - - - - - - - - - - -
c
0
C~30 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
0
0
0
20 - - - - - - - -
10 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
0
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec
~ Monthly Usage per Account tWater Budget Allotment
Page 40 of 60
Comparisan of Monthly Usage per Account to Vltater Budget
Sprinkler 1-inch Meter
12a
Average Pervious Area: 29,439 sq ft
Number of Customers: 433
100 - - - - - - - - -
80 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
c
0
C~ 60 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
0
0
0
40 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
20 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
0
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec
~ Monthly Usage per Account Water Budget Allotment
Comparison of Manthly Usage per Account to VIlater Budget
Sprinkler 1 112-inch Meter
220
Average Pervious Area: 72,446 sq ft
200 - - - - - - - - -
Number of Customers: 189
180 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
160 - - - - - - - - -
y 140 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
c
X120 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
t9
0100 - -
0
8a - - - - -
-
60 - - - - - - - - -
-
40 - - - - - - - - -
-
a
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec
~ Monthly Usage per Account Water Budget Allotment
Page 41 of 60
Comparison of Monthly Usage per Acount to Water Budget
Sprinkler 2-inch Meter
340
Average Pervious Area: 85,099 sq ft
300 Number of Customers: 148 - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
260
220
N
C
_°180 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
ca
0140 - - - -
0
100 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
60 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
20 - - - - - - - - - - - - -
{20)
~ Monthly Usage per Account Water Budget Allotment
Comparison of Monthly Usage per Account to Water Budget
Sprinkler 3-inch Meter
750
Average Pervious Area: 281,584 sq ft
675 - - - - - - - - - - - -
Number of Customers: 16
600 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
525 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
c 450 - - - - - - -
0
t~ 375 - - - - - -
0
° 300 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
225 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
150 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
75 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
0
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec
~ Monthly Usage per Account Water Budget Allotment
Page 42 of 60
Comparison of Monthly Usage per Account to Water Budget
Sprinkler 4-inch Meter
1,aao
Average Pervious Area: 368,045 sq ft
900 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Number of Customers: 13
800 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- -
700 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
0 600 - - - - - - - - - -
-
to 500 - - - -
0
400 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
T
300 - - - - - - - - - - - -
200 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
100 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
0
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec
~ Monthly Usage per Account -~-Water Budget Allotment
Comparison of Monthly Usage per Account to Water Budget
Sprinkler 6-inch
1,aoo
Average Pervious Area: 129,044 sq ft
900 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Number of Customers: 5
800 - - - - - - -
700 - - - - -
c 600 - - - - - - -
~ 500 - - - - - - - - - - -
0
400 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
300 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
200 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
100
a
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec
~ Monthly Usage per Account tWater Budget Allotment
Page 43 of 60
APPENDIX C
Bill Usage Distribution
3s,ooo Single Family -All Meter Sizes loo°io
so°io
30,000
80%
25,000 70% ~
O
Y
This bar shows that approximately 28,900 '
so°io ~
zo,ooo bills had 4,000 gallons of usage.
This point shows that approximately 42% so°io ~
m
1s,ooo of bills used 4,000 gallons or less.
ao°io R
E
30% ~
10,000 U
20%
5,000
10%
0 0%
4 5 6 7 9 101112131415161718192021 222324252627282930
This volume scale may 1,00o gaiions
vary by graph. ~gccount Usage Distribtion Cumulative Distribution
Page 44 of 60
Bill Usage Distribution
3,00o Sin le Famil - 5/8-inch Meter loo°io
so°io
zsoo
ao°io
70% ~
z,ooo r
so°io
Y
m1,500 50% ~
Y
40% R
1,000 ~
30% U
20%
500
10%
0 0%
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 131,QQ0'~II17R's17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30
Bills Cumulative Distribution
Bill Usage Distribution
Single Family - 3/4-inch Meter
30,000 100%
90%
25, 000
80%
70% c
20, 000 ~
Y
60% ~
Y
m 15,000 50% ~
Y
40% R
10, 000 ~
7
30% U
20%
5, 000
10%
0 0%
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 131,Q~O.~Il~s17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30
Bills Cumulative Distribution
Page 45 of 60
Bill Usage Distribution
t,soo Sin le Famil - 1 & 2-inch Meter too°io
so°io
1,400
80%
1,200
70% p
Y
1,000 ~
60%
Y
800 50% ~
m
Y
40% R
600 ~
I_
30% U
400
20%
200
10%
0 0%
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 261 ~~0 galt~ns34 36 38 40 42 44 46 48 50 52 54 56 58 60
Bills Cumulative Distribution
Page 46 of 60
Account Usage Distribution
1z,ooo Multifamil -All Meter Sizes loo°io
so°io
10,000
80%
70% p
8,000
7
60% ~
Y
6.000 50% 0
m ?
40% R
4,000 ~
30% 7
U
20%
2,000
10%
0 0%
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 261,2 03gal ons4 36 38 40 42 44 46 48 50 52 54 56 58 60
Bills Cumulative Distribution
Page 47 of 60
Bill Usage Distribution
10o Multifamil -5/8-inch Meter loo°io
so so°io
ao ao°io
70 7o°io c
Y
60 60%
Y
50 50% ~
m ?
Y
40 40% R
C~
C
30 30% ~
U
20 20%
10 10%
0 0%
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 131,QQ0'~I~s17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30
Bills Cumulative Distribution
Bill Usage Distribution
s,ooo Multifamil -3/4-inch Meter loo°io
so°io
s,ooo
ao°io
70% ~
a,ooo °
Y
60% ~
Y
=3,000 50% ~
m ~
Y
40% R
2,000 ~
7
30%
20%
1,000
10%
0 0%
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 131,QQ0'~I~sl7 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30
Bills +Cumulative Distribution
Page 48 of 60
Bill Usage Distribution
soo Multifamil - 1-inch Meter too°io
so°io
soo
ao°io
aoo 7o°io c
Y
60%
Y
=300 50% ~
m ~
Y
40% R
200 ~
30% ~
U
20%
100
10%
0 0%
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 261,000 galfons34 36 38 40 42 44 46 48 50 52 54 56 58 60
~Bllls +Cumulative Distribution
Bill Usage Distribution
t,aoo Multifamil - 1 1/4 to 1 1/2-inch Meter too°io
so°io
1,200
80%
1,000 70% p
Y
60%
800 ~
50% ~
m ?
600 r
40% R
C~
C
400 30% U
20%
200
10%
0 0%
O ^O ~O ~O aO ~O 60 ~O 00 00 ^00 ^^O ^~O ^~O ^aO ^~O ^60 ^~O ^00 ^00 X00 ~^O ~~O ~~O ~aO ~~O X60 ~~O X00 X00 X00
1,000 gallons
Bills +Cumulative Distribution
Page 49 of 60
Bill Usage Distribution
3so Multifamily - 2-inch Meter 100%
0
so°io
300
80%
250 70% O
Y
200 60%
50% ~
m ?
150
40% !5
7
100 30% U
20%
50
10%
0 0%
O ~O aO 60 60 ^00 n~ ^aO ^60 ^00 N~ ~~O ~aO X60 X60 X00 ~~O ~O X60 X60 bOO b~O baO b6O b6O 600 6~0 6aO 660 660 600
1,000 gallons
~Bllls Cumulative Distribution
Bill Usage Distribution
Multifamily - 3-inch Meter
160 100%
90%
140
80%
120
70% ~
O
100 60% ~
Y
m 80 50% p
60 40% R
30% j
40 U
20%
20
10%
0 0%
O aO 60 ^~O ^60 00 aO 60 ~O 60 00 aO 60 ~O 60 00 OaO 00 ~O 60 00 aO 00 ~O 60 00 O 00 ~O 60 00
`L `L `L `8 `8 b b b 6 ~I,0~0 gallo~s ~ 1 6 6 6 0 0 ^O ^O~` ^O ~ti
Bills Cumulative Distribution
Page 50 of 60
Bill Usage Distribution
so Multifamil -4-inch Meter loo°io
so°io
ao ao°io
70% ~
Y
30 60% ~
Y
50% ~
m ?
Y
zo ao°io R
I_
30% U
10 20%
10%
0 0%
O ^60 ~0 b6O 600 616 X60 6~6 000 O~~'`~1O,
~0~']~OIOIBh~s'`~~O^b~4J^~00^~~4J^~O^~~4J^000^O~4J^0~~O~O~4J~^00~^~4J~~4JO
Bills Cumulative Distribution
Bill Usage Distribution
3o Multifamily - 6 to 8-inch Meter 100%
0
so°io
ao°io
c
~o°io 0
zo
so°io c
m
= so°io
'm ~
Y
ao°io R
10 ~
30% 7
U
20%
10%
0 0%
O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O
n6 ~0 b6 00 16 00 ^06 ^~0 ^~yh ^60 ^66 ^60 ^06 ~^O nth ~pO ~1t'~h X10 ~Oh ~pO ~nh ~~yO mph X60 ~1h X00 bOh b~O b~yh bgO
1,0'00 alldns
Bills Cumulative Distribution
Page 51 of 60
Bill Usage Distribution
3,soo Commercial -All Meter Sizes loo°io
so°io
3, 000
80%
2,500 0 ~
70 /o O
Y
60% 'C
2.000 ~
50% ~
m ?
1, 500
40% R
7
1,000 30% U
20%
500
10%
0 0%
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40 42 44 46 48 50 52 54 56 58 60
1,000 gallons
~Bllls Cumulative Distribution
Page 52 of 60
Bill Usage Distribution
1,zoo Commercial - 5/8 & 3/4-inch Meter loo°io
so°io
1,000
80%
70% ~
800 O
Y
60% ~
Y
- 600 50% ~
m
Y
40% R
400 ~
7
30%
20%
200
10%
0 0%
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30
1,000 gallons
Account Usage Distribtion Cumulative Distribution
Bill Usage Distribution
aso - - loo°io
aoo so°io
350 80%
c
70% O
300
60%
250
50% ~
d
m 200 ~
Y
40% R
150 ~
30% 7
U
100
20%
50 10%
0 0%
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30
1,000 gallons
~ACCOUnt Usage Distribtion +Cumulative Distribution
Page 53 of 60
Bill Usage Distribution
3so Commercial - 1 1/4 to 1 1/2-inch Meter too°io
so°io
300
80%
250 70% ~
O
Y
60%
200 ~
- 50% ~
m
150
40% !5
7
100 30% U
20%
50
10%
0 0%
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40 42 44 46 48 50 52 54 56 58 60
1,000 gallons
Account Usage Distribtion Cumulative Distribution
Bill Usage Distribution
Commercial - 2 to 6-inch Meter
aoo too°io
so°io
700
ao°io
soo
c
7o°io 0
Y
500 60%
Y
400 50% ~
m
Y
40% R
300 ~
30% U
200
20%
100
10%
0 0%
O ~~J 60 16 ^00 ^~6 ^60 ^16 X00 ~~6 X60 X16 000 0~6 060 016 bOO b~6 b6O b16 600 600 X00 000 000^000^^00^~00^~00^bOO^~00
1,000 gallons
NOte: I71agIlltUde Of Account Usage Distribtion Cumulative Distribution
scale
Page 54 of 60
Bill Usage Distribution
Industrial -All Meter Sizes
300 100%
90%
250
80%
70% p
200
7
60%
Y
150 50% ~
m
Y
40% R
100 ~
30% U
20%
50
10%
0 0%
O ^O ~O ~O aO ~O 60 ~O 00 00 ^00 ^^O ^~O ^(yO ^aO ^~O ^60 ^~O ^00 ^00 X00 ~^O ~~O ~(yO ~aO ~~O X60 ~~O X00 X00 X00
1,000 gallons
~ACCOUnt Usage Distri boon Cumulative Distribution
Bill Usage Distribution
Sprinkler -All Meter Sizes
700 loo°io
so°io
soo
ao°io
soo 7o°io 0
Y
400 60%
- 50% ~
m
300
40% !5
7
200 30% U
20%
100
10%
0 0%
O t~ ^O nh ryO ~t~ ryO ryh aO bh ~O h~ 60 0~ ~O 1h 00 Oh 00 Oh ^00 ^Oh ^^O ^^h ^`LO ^`Lh ^(yO ^,hh ^aO ^ah ^~O
1,000 gallons
Account Usage Distriboon Cumulative Distribution
Page 55 of 60
APPENDIX D
Pervious Area Distribution
Single Family
5000 100%
4500 90%
4000 80%
3500 70°l0 ~
0
3000 60°l0 -Q
~ N
02500 50°l0 ~
U >
Q ~
2000 40°l0 ~
E
1500 30% U
1000 20°l0
500 10%
0 0°{0
0 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00
`Lo ~Q b~ 1~ 0~ ~O~ ~~O ~~O ,~'lo ~~o goo ~d0 ~~O ~O ~~O ~txo ~~O ~~O ~~O ~g0 boo
Pervious Area (sq ft}
Page 56 of 60
Pervious Area Distribution
Multifamily
soo 1 oo°fo
so°io
700
so°io
600 ~
70%
500 60°Jo C
.yr N
~4oa 5o°ro
~ ~
Q300 40% ~
30°fo ~
200 V
20%
100
10%
0 0%
0 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00
0 0 ~ ,~ti ti~ oo o~' o~ ~ti y~. h~ o0 0~ o~' o~ ,~ti ~h ~o ~o
Pervious Area (Sq Ft}
Page 57 of 60
Pervious Area Distribution
Commercial
100 100%
90%
80 80%
70% ~
Y
ut 60 60% ~
Y ~L
O
V 50% ~
Q
Y
40 40% R
I_
30% U
20 20%
10%
0 0%
0 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000
p• 0. 0. 1 • o• o• ,~o• ^p• ^h, ^6, ^7 • ^0, ^g, ,yo, ,y~• ,y~,, ,y~y, ,yp, ,yh, ,y6, ,y1, ,yo, fig, ,yo•
Pervious Area (Sq Ft)
Page 58 of 60
Pervious Area Distribution
Industrial
5 90%
80%
4 70%
c
0
60%
~ 3
~ 50°l0
v ~
ti d
Q 40%
2 ~
30% ~
U
~ 20%
10%
0 0%
O 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00
~O ~O 00 ~O ~O 00 ~O 00 00 00 ^O O 00 ~O ~O 00 ,,O 00 00 00 ~O O 00 ~O ~O 00 ,,O ~O 00 00
Pervious Area (Sq Ftj
Page 59 of 60
Pervious Area Distribution
12o Sprinkler s0!°
°
ao%
100
70%
C
~ ~
~ 50% y_
~ 60 0
V d
Q 40%
7
40 30°!0 ~
U
20%
20
10%
0 0%
o X00 000 X00 000 X00 000 X00 00o h0o 00o h0o 000 X00 000 X00 000 X00 00o h0o 0°o h0o 00o h0o 00o y0o 00o h0o 000 X00 000
o~ a, ,~o, ,~ti, ,h, ,0, ~0, 00, 00, 0~, 0~,, o~~ ~o~
Pervious Area {Sq Ft)
Page 60 of 60
• RLD ~ I ~.,t MEMORANDUM
To: Joann Crean Date: January 23, 2008
Public Works Administrator
From: Todd Cristiano, Senior Consultant
Red Oak Consulting
Re: Plant Investment Fee System Characteristics and Sample Calculations
I. Introduction
This draft memorandum has been prepared specifically for the City of Boulder Staff and
the Plant Investment Fee (PIF) Stakeholder Advisory Group (SAG). The findings
presented are designed to assist the City in selecting an appropriate PIF assessment
schedule that:
Recovers the cost of capacity required tp serve new development
Is equitable
Is policy compliant
The memo is separated into the following sections, with the referenced tables contained
in the Appendix:
I. Introduction
II. Abbreviations
III. Assessment Schedule Approaches
IV. Peaking Factors
V. Unit Cost Calculations
VI. New Connector Calculation Options
VII. PIF Usage Characteristics and Capacity Requirements
VIII. Preliminary Findings
Appendix
Sample PIF calculations are included in this memo to demonstrate the various factors that
can be used to develop assessment schedules. Infrastructure costs, capacity values, and
certain usage characteristics used to calculate the sample PIFs in this memo are still under
consideration and review by City Staff. The fees contained herein are subject to change,
and as such, use of this documentfor making final decisions is inappropriate unfil all
assumpfions ccm be verified.
Plant Investment Fee System Characteristics Page 2
This memorandum summarizes customer class characteristics for the development of
water, wastewater, and stormwater PIFs. To accomplish this, Red Oak analyzed the
following characteristics for each class:
• Average day usage
• Peak day peaking factors by customer class
• Average winter consumption (AWC) -single family and multifamily
• Lot size
• Pervious area
• Meter size
• Bedrooms
• Bathrooms
• Building square footage
Source data for this analysis was aggregated from the several sources including:
• 2005 utility billing data
• City permit database
• Boulder County Assessor database
II. Abbreviations
• AF -acre-feet
• AWC -average winter consumption
• BOD -biochemical oxygen demand
• gpd -gallons per day
• NH3N -ammonia nitrogen
• mg/1-milligrams per liter
• MGD -million gallons per day
• TSS -total suspended solids
• PPD -pounds per day
III. PIF Assessment Schedule Approaches
Water Utility
Red Oak developed sample calculations for each PIF assessment basis. The water PIF
approaches utilize the following:
Plant Investment Fee System Characteristics Page 3
• Pervious Area Characteristics -PIF is calculated based on identifying the
pervious area and the corresponding annual usage, peak day peaking factors, and
peak day usage by customer class. In a similar manner, this approach can be
applied by identifying the pervious area and the associated characteristics by
meter size.
• Indoor/Outdoor Characteristics -PIF is calculated by identifying indoor water
usage by customer class. Indoor water usage can be characterized through number
of bedrooms, bathrooms, or building square feet. Outdoor usage is based on
pervious area and can be determined using two methods:
o Actual billing data averaging outdoor usage by different thresholds of
pervious area (e.g. 0- 2,500 sq ft, 2,500 - 5,000 sq ft, etc.)
o Water budget rate structure For the purposes ofthis memo, the correlation
between pervious area and outdoor usage was based on outdoor water
usage
These approaches may apply to residential or nonresidential. Building square footage
may be the most suitable indicator for indoor usage for commercial and industrial
accounts. For irrigation-only accounts, no indoor usage is required therefore the average
usage based on the pervious area thresholds or the water budget rate structure allotments
would be most appropriate in determining their PIF requirements.
Wastewater Utility
The wastewater PIF for each customer class considers their anticipated hydraulic flow
adjusted for wet weather events, and projected organic loading requirements. Loading
categories include BOD, TSS, NH3N. Hydraulic flow includes customer contributed
volume and volume associated with wet weather events. The wet weather event
contributed volume which is in excess of the customer contributed wastewater volume is
excluded from the organic loading capacity component. This is based on the assumption
that the wet weather flows' organic loading has a minimal effect on a customer's specific
loading requirements. The City may wish to review wet weather event organic loading to
determine impact to a new connectors' organic loading requirement.
Stormwater Utility
The stormwater PIF for each customer class is based on impervious area The pervious
area percentage is based on the 2007 Stormwater Master Plan Final Report. Projected
gross acreage is from the 2005 billing database.
IV. Peaking Factors
Plant Investment Fee System Characteristics Page 4
Water systems should be designed to have sufficient resources to meet average and peak
service demands of its customers. The water use profile for customers or customer
classes vary on a daily, seasonal, and annual basis. For example, residential customers
daily use profile typically contains diurnal peaks while commercial customers' profile
may be relatively constant throughout the day. These demands on the system may be
represented through the use of customer class peaking factors.
Peak day peaking factors are not typically available on a customer class level.
Nonetheless, an estimation of peaking factors by customer class can serve as a proxy for
assigning capacity costs in an equitable manner. The derivation of customer class
peaking factors uses the following information:
• System average day production
• System peak day production
• System peak month
• Customer class average month and peak month
Red Oak developed peak day peaking factors by subdividing the customer classes based
on pervious area. Table 1 below summarizes the peaking factor analysis for each class
based on pervious area. Table 2 shows the peaking factors based on meter size for each
customer class and for the total water system. Table A-1 in the appendix details the
calculation of customer class peak day peaking factors.
Table 1
Peaking Factors Summary by Class by Pervious Area~'~
Pervious Area Single Pervious Area
(sq ft) Family Multifamily Commercial Sprinkler Industrial Industrial
0 To 2,500 1.81 1.58 1.58 3.61 0 To 25,000 1.58
2,500 To 5,000 2.28 1.58 1.65 3.55 25,000 to 50,000 1.89
5,000 To 7,500 2.41 1.75 1.84 334 50,000 to 100,000 2.78
7,500 To 10,000 2.41 1.70 1.70 3.19 >100,000 1.77
10,000 To 15,000 2.45 1.69 1.93 3.45
15,000 To 20,000 2.44 1.79 1.92 3.29
>2Q,000 2.52 1.74 2.57 3.49
(a) Based on 2005 billing data.
Plant Investment Fee System Characteristics Page 5
Table 2
Peak Day Peaking Factors Summary by Meter Siz e~''e'
Meter Size Single
(inches) Family Multifamily Commercial Sprinkler Industrial All Classes
5/8" 238 1.84 1.65 4.61 N/A 2.41
3/4" 229 1.54 1.72 327 2.54 229
P' 2.50 1.65 1.61 320 1.71 237
1 Y~" 332 ` 1.58 1.47 3.63 1.45 1.89
2" 3.87 ` 1.54 1.56 3.52 2.00 1.82
3" N/A 1.68 1.92 3.95 1.70 1.89
4" N/A 1.88 1.83 5.96 1.72 1.91
6" N/A 1.92 1.91 5.50 N/A 1.81
8" N/A 2.00 1.82 N/A 1.84 1.78
Customer Class 2.36 1.64 1.60 3.49 1.67
(a) 2005 billing data
(b) 2005 system peek day = 37.84 mgd
(c) 2005 system average day =17.55 mgd.
(d) The Lfty doesnot issue residenfial meters less than'/<-inch.
(e) The Lfty does not issue residenfial meters greater than I-inch.
V. PIF Unit Cost Calculations
The PIF calculations are based on the system buy-in method. This method is based on the
concept that existing customers, through rates and other assessments, have developed a
valuable system. Anew customer must "buy-in" to this system by making a contribution
equal to the amount of equity a similar existing customer has in the system.
To compute the plant investment fees using the system buy-in method, the following
general procedure is used:
• Determine existing system equity.
• Estimate system capacity.
• Calculate unit cost.
• Calculate PIF.
Plant Investment Fee System Characteristics Page 6
PIF Unit Cost Calculations
Table 3
Development of Water PIF Unit Cost
Unit of
Facility RCN''"i Capacity~~ Measure Unit Cost~~
Raw Water ` $363,419,000 30,650 AF/Year $11,857
Peak Day 407,506,275 47.00 MGD 8.67
Average Day 330,251,079 17.55 MGD 18.82
Total $1,101,176,354
(a) Replacement cost new. Replacement cost basis is currently under evaluation..
(b) Prom asset data warksheets
(c) Prom "Valuation of the City of Boulder's Water Rights Partfolio and Water Source
Lands" planning document.
(d) 2005 production data.
(e) Values contained in this table may vary slightly than appendix values due to rounding.
Table 4
Development of Wastewater PIF Unit Cost
Unit of
Facili RCN''"i Ca acit Measure Unit Cost~~
Hydraulic $100,217,500 25 MGD $4,008,700
BOD 169,089,700 23,366 PPD 7,237
TSS 72,370,600 22,066 PPD 3,280
NH3-N 62,020,600 830 PPD 74,724
Total $403,698,470
(a) Replacement cost new. Replacement cost basis is currently under evaluation.
(b) Prom asset data warksheetr
(c) Values contained in this table may vary slightly than appendix values due to rounding..
Table 5
Development of Stormwater PIF Unit Cost
Impervious Unit of
Facili RCN''"i Area Measure Unit Cost~~
Manholes $25,827,890
Drainage Pipes 115,889,081
Total $141,716,971 172,671,840 Square Feet $0.82
(a) Replacement cost new.
(b) Prom asset data warksheetr
(c) Values contained in this table may vary slightly than appendix values due to rounding.
Plant Investment Fee System Characteristics Page 7
VI. New Connector PIF Calculation Options
Red Oak calculated sample PIFs using the approaches discussed in Section II of this
memo. Appendix A details the water PIF calculation for the pervious area and
indoor/outdoor approach. Appendix B details the wastewater PIF calculation and
Appendix C details the stormwater calculation. Below are select PIF calculations, some
of which are also presented in the appendix. The samples presented in this section and
the appendix are designed to compare the cost difference between PIF under different
approaches. The PIF costs shown for each sample are for discussion only and are not
final.
Water PIF -Pervious Area Sample
Table 6
Water PIF Sample
Single Family Characteristics
Description Units Reference Table
Usage Identifier: Pervious Area 6,250 sq ft
Peak day PF 2.28 Table A-3
Annual Usage 0.26 acre-feet; or Table A-4
85,000 gallons;
or 233 gpd
Peak day usage 531 gpd Table A-5
Table 7
Water PIF Sample
Single Family Residential~'i
Projected
Facility Usage
and Unit
Demand Cost Unit of Measure TotaIPIF~~
Raw Water 0.26 $11,857 AF/Year $3,090
Facilit Costs
Peak Day 531 8.67 gpd $4,605
Average Day 233 18.82 gpd 4,385
Total Facili Costs $8,990
Total PIF $12,080
(a) Single family residential with 6,250 sq ft pervious area.
(b) Annual water demand based 2005 billing data.
(c) Values contained in this table may vary slightly to values presented in appendix due to
rounding.
Plant Investment Fee System Characteristics Page 8
Water PIF -Indoor/Outdoor Sample
Table 8
Siugle Family Characteristics
Description Units Reference Table
Indoor Usage Identifier: Building Sq Ft 2,500 sq ft
Indoor Usage 5,000 gallons per month Table A-8
Outdoor Usage Identifier: Pervious Area 6,250 sq ft
Outdoor Usage 33,000 gallons per year Table A-9
Annual Usage: Indoor + Outdoor 0.29 acre-feet
93,000 gallons
255 gpd
Peak Day PF 2.16 System peak day
Peak Day Usage 550 gpd
Table 9
Water PIF Sample
Siugle Family Residential~'i
Projected
Facility Usage
and Unit
Demand Cost Unit of Measure TotaIPIF~~
Raw Water 0.29 $11,857 AF/Year $3,439
Facility Costs
Peak Day 550 8.67 gpd $4,769
Average Day 255 18.82 gpd 4,799
Total Facility Costs $9,568
Total PIF $13,007
(a) Single family residenfial with 6,250 sq ft pervious area.
(b) Annual water demand based 2005 billing data.
(c) Values contained in this table may vary slightly to values presented in appendix due to
rounding.
Plant Investment Fee System Characteristics Page 9
Water PIF -Indoor/Outdoor Sample -Water Budget Basis
Table 10
Siugle Family Characteristics
Description Units Reference Table
Indoor Usage Identifier: Building Sq Ft 2,500 sq ft
Indoor Usage 5,000 gallons per month Table A-8
Outdoor Usage Identifier: Pervious Area 6,250 sq ft
Outdoor Usage 90,000 gallons per year Water Budget Structure
5,000 sq ft * 15 gaUsq ft+
1,250 sq ft * 12 gaUsq ft
Annual Usage: Indoor + Outdoor 0.46 acre-feet
150,000 gallons
411 gpd
Peak Day PF 2.16 System peak day
Peak Day 888 gpd
Table 11
Water PIF Sample
Siugle Family Residential~'i
Projected
Facility Usage
and Unit
Demand Cost Unit of Measure TotaIPIF~~
Raw Water 0.46 $11,857 AF/Year $5,454
Facility Costs
Peak Day 888 8.67 gpd $7,699
Average Day 411 18.82 gpd 7,734
Total Facility Costs $15,433
Total PIF $20,887
(a) Single family residenfial with 6,250 sq ft pervious area.
(b) Annual water demand based 2005 billing data.
(c) Values contained in this table may vary slightly to values presented in appendix due to
rounding.
Plant Investment Fee System Characteristics Page 10
Water PIF -Pervious Area Sample - Irriaation
Table 12
Water PIF Sample
Irri anon
Description Units Reference Table
Usage Identifier: Pervious Area 6,250 sq ft
Peak day PF 3.34 Table A-2
Annual Usage 0.50 acre-feet; or Table A-3
163,000 gallons;
or 447 gpd
Peak day usage 1,491 gpd Table A-4
Table 13
Water PIF Sample
Irrigation~'i
Projected
Facility Usage
and Unit
Demand Cost Unit of Measure TotaIPIF~~
Raw Water 0.50 $11,857 AF/Year $5,930
Facility Costs
Peak Day 1,491 8.67 gpd $12,926
Average Day 447 18.82 gpd 8,413
Total Facility Costs $21,339
Total PIF $27,269
(a) Irrigation customer with 6,250 sq ft pervious area.
(b) Annual water demand based 2005 billing data.
(c) Values contained in this table may vary slightly to values presented in appendix due to
rounding.
Water PIF -Indoor/Outdoor Sample -Irriaation
All irrigation usage is outdoor, so no indoor allotment needs to be determined.
Calculation will be the same as the above example.
Plant Investment Fee System Characteristics Page 11
Water PIF -Indoor/Outdoor Sample- Irriaation -Water Budget Basis
Table 14
Irrigation Characteristics
Description Units Reference Table
Indoor Usage Identifier N/A
Indoor Usage N/A
Outdoor Usage Identifier: Pervious Area 6,250 sq ft
Outdoor Usage 94,000 gallons Water Budget Structure
6,250 sq ft * 15 gaUsq ft
Annual Usage: 0.29 acre-feet
94,000 gallons
258 gpd
Peak Day PF 2.16 System peak day
Table 15
Water PIF Sample
Irri ation~'i
Projected
Facility Usage
and Unit
Demand Cost Unit of Measure TotaIPIF~~
Raw Water 0.29 $11,857 AF/Year $3,439
Facility Costs
Peak Day 557 8.67 gpd 4,829
Average Day 258 18.82 gpd 4,856
Total Facility Costs $9,685
Total PIF $13,124
(a) Irrigafron with 6,250 sq ftpervious area.
(b) Annual water demand based 2005 billing data.
(c) Values contained in this table may vary slightly to values presented in appendix due to
rounding.
Plant Investment Fee System Characteristics Page 12
Wastewater PIF Sample
Table 16
Wastewater PIF Sample
Sin le Famil Residential~'i
Projected
Facility Usage
and
Demand Unit Cost Unit ofMeasure TotaIPIF~i
Hydraulic 0.000275 $4,008,700 MGD $1,102
BOD 0.48 7,237 PPD 3,474
TSS 0.48 3,280 PPD 1,574
NH3-N 0.029 74,724 PPD 2,167
Total PIF $8,317
(a) Single family residenfial with normal strength of250 mg/1 BOD and 250 mg/1 TSS, I S mg/1 NH3-N.
(b) Values contained in this table may vary slightly to values presented in appendix due to
rounding.
Stormwater PIF Sample
Table 17
Stormwater PIF Sample
Sin le Famil Residential~'i
Impervious
Facility Area Unit Cost Unit of Measure Total PIF~'i
SW Infrastructure 3,620 $0.82 Square feet $2,968
(a) Values contained in this table may vary slightly to values presented in appendix due to
rounding.
VII. PIF Usage Characteristics and Capacity Requirements
Establishing the parameters that best measure usage characteristics for purposes of PIF
assessment schedule calculations can be accomplished by first identifying the range of
measures, then determining which data most clearly describe water use.
The following presents system characteristics that are proposed for determining the PIF
assessment schedule. The system characteristics should contain parameters that define
usage of the system. In turn, these characteristics should equitably depict a new
connector's capacity requirements and usage characteristics for purposes of assessment
schedule development.
Water System PIF
Anew connector's requirements can be divided between indoor use and outdoor use.
The impact on the system for indoor usage can be represented by average winter water
consumption. Measures of indoor usage include:
Plant Investment Fee System Characteristics Page 13
• Plumbing fixtures
• Bathrooms
• Bedrooms
• Building square footage
• People per household
Fixtures, bedrooms, and bathrooms can be considered as proxies for the number of
people per household. People per household drive indoor water use; however, for various
reasons, data on people per household can be volatile and difficult to collect.
In the absence of people per household information, data on the number of bedrooms per
dwelling unit can be found in permitting data or County assessor data The number of
bedrooms is believed to be a measure of the maximum number of people that can be
accommodated in a dwelling unit. Bathrooms can be used in the absence of fixture unit
counts. However, not all bathrooms are equivalent. Full, three-quarter, and half baths
have different fixture unit counts and therefore different impacts on indoor water use. In
addition, kitchen units, laundry units, and outdoor spigots are excluded from the fixture
units if number of bathrooms is used.
Building square footage may indicate the potential for more fixture units and therefore
water use. As for bedrooms, square footage information of the dwelling unit can be
obtained from assessor information.
For outdoor usage, peaking characteristics describe a customer's impact on the water
system. Peaking factors by pervious area are calculated to determine if a relationship
exists between larger pervious areas (implying larger irrigable area) and peaking factors.
Table 18
PIF Usage Determinates
Factor Advanta es Disadvanta es
Plumbing fixtures Currently used to size meter Difficult to get a current count
Bathrooms Related to plumbing fixtures Different sizes of bathrooms have
different fixture counts
Bedrooms May be a good indicator of potential Assumptions needed when using
demand as demonstrated by people multifamily data per unit.
per household Difficultly on assessing incremental
PIF to existing customers.
Building square footage Greater area may indicate higher Correlation on people per
water use household and square footage is
unclear
People per household Estimates of usage per person should Not a static value per household;
be available not tracked in billing or assessor
data
Plant Investment Fee System Characteristics Page 14
Wastewater System PIF
Wastewater system impacts can be divided into hydraulic (flow) impacts and loadings
impacts. Estimates of a new customer's flow can be based on the following factors:
• Plumbing fixtures
• Bathrooms
• Bedrooms
• Building square footage
• People per household
• Loading characteristics
Red Oak's analysis will use the AWC data gathered for the water analysis to estimate
average annual flows to describe the hydraulic impacts on the City's wastewater system.
Loadings measured by the City include:
• Total suspended solids (TSS)
• Biochemical oxygen demand (BOD)
• Total ammonia nitrogen (NH3-N)
Typical domestic (residential) loadings are often defined in milligrams per liter (mg/1),
pounds, or in the City's case, pounds per day (ppd). Red Oak proposes to use average
domestic loadings in ppd obtained from City Staff.
Table 11 lists various types of customers and their associated wastewater strength
parameters. This data is based on the 1998 Revenue Program Guidelines for Wastewater
Agencies by the California State Water Resources Control Board. The guidelines exclude
total nitrogen values.
Plant Investment Fee System Characteristics Page 15
Table 19
User Strength Characteristics
EPA Revenue Guidelines
Standard Classifications BODs (mg/1) TSS (mgA)
Residential (average varies 175 175
depending on average water to to
usage per capita) 250 250
Auto Steam Cleaning 1,150 1,250
Bakery, wholesale 1,000 600
Bars without dining facilities 200 200
Car Wash 20 150
Department and Retail Store 150 150
Hospital and Convalescent 250 100
Hotel with dining facilities 500 600
HoteUMotel without dining 310 120
Industrial Laundry 670 680
Laundromat 150 110
Laundry, commercial 450 240
Market with garbage grinders 800 800
Mortuary 800 800
Professional Office 130 80
Repair Shop and Service Station 180 280
Restaurant 1,000 600
School and College 130 100
Septage 5,400 12,000
Soft Water Service 3 55
Plant Investment Fee System Characteristics Page 16
Stormwater System PIF
Impacts on the stormwater system are best predicted based on peak runoff of a parcel.
While several factors contribute to peak runoff, the best indicator is the amount of
impervious area of a parcel. Impervious area data are readily available from the City.
Red Oak's analysis will apply impervious area statistics to calculate the stormwater
system PIF.
VIII. Preliminary Findings
There are many advantages and some disadvantages associated with each approach; some
of these are identified below.
Water PIF -Pervious Area
Advantages:
• Associates a unique peak day peaking factor to each customer. Since peak
day factors are driven primarily by outdoor usage, the amount of pervious area
can serve as a proxy for determining the peak demand placed on the system
• Data is relatively available from City billing records
• Attempts to align peaking requirements with water budgets through the use of
pervious area.
Disadvantages
• Customer class peaking factors are estimates only and are based on a
relationship to system average day and peak day production. System peaking
factors change annually which may require adjustments to pervious area
peaking factors
• Data currently available is based on 2005 billing information prior to the
water budget rate structure implementation. Adjustments to customers'
pervious area may skew the peaking factors.
Water PIF -Indoor/Outdoor
Advantages:
• Allows PIF to be designed based on two criteria -indoor and outdoor usage.
Indoor usage can be estimated from the number of bedrooms, bathrooms, or
building square feet using AWC.
• Outdoor usage is based on average billing data for a range of pervious areas.
• Outdoor usage may also be estimated by applying the City's outdoor water
budget structure for each customer class.
Plant Investment Fee System Characteristics Page 17
Disadvantages:
• The use of bedrooms may result in inaccurate estimates for indoor water use.
Defining a room as a den or `bonus room' when in fact is being used as a
bedroom may be difficult to ascertain from permit information.
Wastewater PIF
Advantages:
• Defining customer characteristics by hydraulic flow and organic loading is a
detailed method of calculating a wastewater PIF.
• Applicable for all customer classes
Disadvantages:
• Organic loading for commercial customers using the standard user
classifications may not accurately reflect wastewater composition.
Stormwater PIF
Advantages:
• Easy to understand and implement
• Each customer class assigned impervious area percentage
Disadvantages:
• May not reflect water quality issues
Summary
Regardless of the assessment schedule or parameters used to develop PIFs, all of the
parameters discussed are often limited in precision in capturing potential differences in
system requirements across customer classes. For example, the demands of two
residential customers with the same fixture units may vary significantly. In a similar
manner, the calculation of water PIF unit cost is based on peak day design capacity.
However, Assessment schedules to determine individual PIFs are typically calculated on
usage-based theoretical peak day characteristics since peak day information on customers
classes is not measured. Standard scaling criteria is still necessary because ofthe lack of
information on a new connector's demand characteristics. As a result, the scaling criteria
discussed are designed to achieve reasonable estimates of different users' requirements
for growth-related capacity.
Appendix A
Table A-1
Water Utility
City of Boulder
Development of Customer Class Peaking Factors
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5)
Avg. Day Max Estimated
Peak Month Demand Month/Avg. Peak-Day Peak-Day
Customer Class Cons. (MGD) (MGD) Day Factor~a~ Demand
SF Res 10.74 5.60 1.92 2.36 13.23
Commercial 4.22 3.24 1.30 1.60 5.20
Industrial 0.80 0.59 1.36 1.67 0.99
City-Indoor 0.14 0.09 1.57 1.94 0.17
City-Outdoor 1.52 0.53 2.86 3.52 1.87
MF Res 5.24 3.93 1.33 1.64 6.45
Sprinkler 4.77 1.69 2.83 3.49 5.88
System Totals 27.42 15.67 1.75 2.16 33.78
Consumer Usage Data for 2005 (Kgal) 17.5 MGD 37.8 MGD
(a) Est PD Factor =System PD/(System Max Month:Ave Day Ratio) * Class Max Month:Ave Day Ratio
Table A-2
Water Utility
Development of Water PIF Unit Costs
City of Boulder
Unit of
System RCN Capacity Measure Unit Cost
Raw Water 363,419,000 30,650 AF/Year $11,857
Peak Facilities 407,506,275 47.00 MGD 8.67
Average Facilities (a) 330,251,079 17.55 MGD 18.82
Total $1,101,176,354
(a) 2005 producrion data
Draft -For Discussion Purposes Only 1/23/2008
Table A-3
Water Utility
Sumary of Customer Class Peak Day Peaking Factors by Pervious Area
City of Boulder
Area
Pervious Area Industrial
(sq ft) Single Family Multifamily Commercial Sprinkler (sq ft) Industrial
0 - 2,500 1.81 1.58 1.58 3.61 0 - 25k 1.58
2,500 - 5,000 2.28 1.58 1.65 3.55 25 - 50 1.89
5,000 - 7,500 2.41 1.75 1.84 3.34 50 - 100 2.78
7,500 - 10,000 2.41 1.70 1.70 3.19 >100 1.77
10,000 - 15,000 2.45 1.69 1.93 3.45
15,000 - 20,000 2.44 1.79 1.92 3.29
>20,000 2.52 1.74 2.57 3.49
Draft -For Discussion Purposes Only 1/23/2008
Table A-4
Water Utility
Summary of Average Annual Usage by Pervious Area
City of Boulder
Area
Pervious Area Single Family Multifamily Commercial Sprinkler Industrial Industrial
(sq ft) Kgal Kgal Kgal Kgal (sq ft) Kgal
0 - 2,500 56 474 359 106 0 - 25k 535
2,500 - 5,000 85 77 173 138 25 - 50 1,121
5,000 - 7,500 92 172 246 163 50 - 100 580
7,500 - 10,000 120 218 383 208 >100 18,839
10,000 - 15,000 135 460 437 309
15,000 - 20,000 132 697 320 383
>20,000 155 1,207 1,038 905
Draft -For Discussion Purposes Only 1/23/2008
Table A-5
Water Utility
Peak Day (PD) Demand by Pervious Area
City of Boulder
Pervious
Pervious Area Single Fanuly Multifamily Conunercial Sprinkler Area Ind. Industrial
(sq ft) PD gpd PD gpd PD gpd PD gpd (Ksq ft) PD gpd
0 - 2,500 277 2,053 1,558 1,053 0 - 25k 2,311
2,500 - 5,000 531 333 783 1,346 25 - 50 5,793
5,000 - 7,500 606 824 1,238 1,491 50 - 100 4,418
7,500-10,000 791 1,017 1,784 1,814 >100 91,168
10,000 - 15,000 907 2,128 2,310 2,923
15,000 - 20,000 881 3,422 1,682 3,445
>20,000 1,071 5,764 7,322 8,665
(a) Peak day gpd =average day (gpd) * Peak Day Pea7ang Factor
Draft -For Discussion Purposes Only 1/23/2008
Table A-6
Water Utility
Proposed Fees by Pervious Area and Customer Class
City of Boulder
Single Family Multifamily
Pervious Area Infra- Infra-
(sq ft) Water Rights structure Total Water Rights structure Total
0 - 2,500 $2,040 5,290 $7,330 $17,250 42,240 $59,490
2,500-5,000 3,090 8,990 12,080 2,800 6,860 9,660
5,000-7,500 3,350 10,000 13,350 6,260 16,010 22,270
7,500 - 10,000 4,370 13,050 17,420 7,930 20,060 27,990
10,000 - 15,000 4,910 14,820 19,730 16,740 42,170 58,910
15,000-20,000 4,800 14,440 19,240 25,370 65,610 90,980
>2Q000 5,640 17,280 22,920 43,930 112,210 156,140
Commercial Sprinkler
Pervious Area Infra- Infra-
(sq ft) Water Rights structure Total Water Rights structure Total
0-2,500 $13,070 $32,020 $45,090 $3,880 $14,620 $18,500
2,500-5,000 6,300 $15,710 22,010 5,030 18,800 23,830
5,000-7,500 8,950 $23,420 32,370 5,930 21,330 27,260
7,500 - 10,000 13,940 $35,220 49,160 7,560 26,430 33,990
10,000 - 15,000 15,900 $42,560 58,460 11,250 41,280 52,530
15,000 - 20,000 11,650 $31,080 42,730 13,930 49,600 63,530
>2Q000 37,780 $117,000 154,780 32,950 121,810 154,760
Industrial
Pervious Area Ind. Infra-
(Ksq ft) Water Rights structure Total
0 - 25k $19,470 $47,620 $67,090
25 - 50 40,800 108,030 148,830
50 - 100 21,110 68,210 89,320
>100 685,620 1,761,800 2,447,420
(aJ Water Rights PlF=Water Rights Unit CostxAverage Annual Usage
(bJ Infrastructure PIF =Average Day Unit CostxAverage Annual Usage + PeakDayUnit Cost xPeakDay Usage
(cJ Per connecfion.
Dratt -For Discussion Proposes Only 1/23/2008
Table A-7
Water Utility
Development of Customer Characteristics - (Indoor/Outdoor Approach)
City of Boldder
SF Sample SF Sample SF Sample Unit of MF Sample AQF Sample Unit of
Characteristic {a} PIF #1 ro) PIF #2 N) PIF #r31`~ Measure Characteristic PIF #1 PIF #2 Measure
D lex Tri lex per unit
Arulual Usage 96,000 93,000 150,000 Kgal Annual Usage 55,000 51,200 Kgai
Anneal Usage 0.29 0.29 0.46 acre-feet Annual Usage 0.17 0.16 acre-feet
Average Day 263 255 411 gpd Average Day 151 140 gpd
System Peak Day Factor 2.16 2.16 2.16 System Peak Day Factor 2.16 2.16
Peak Day 568 550 888 gpd Peak Day 326 302 gpd
Building Size 2,800 2,500 2,500 square feet Building Size 600 311 square feet
Pervious Area S, 70!/ 6,250 6,250 square feet Pervious Area 2,162 1,500 square feet
Impervious Area 3,620 3,500 3,500 square feet Impervious Area 1,449 1,200 square feet
Bathrooms per Unit Bathrooms per Unit
Bedrooms per Unit 0 Bedrooms per Unit 2.8 2.4
Average Winter Consumption 5,000 5,000 5,000 gallons/month Average Winter Consumption 3,000 3,000 gallons/month
Average Outdoor Usage 36,000 33,000 90,000 gallons/year Average Outdoor Usage 19,000 15,200 gallons/year
(cx) Htghltghied cells with ttaltzed values denaie the inputs to determine total water requirements.
(b) Chatdoor water usage based ora average useage forgtvera pervious areax
(c) Ouidoorwaterusagebasedoraouidoorwaterbudgetalloirraeniforresidentialcustomerclass.
Outdoor usage budget = 5,000 sq ft * 1 S gallons/sq ft + 1,250 sq ft * 12 gallons/sq ft
Draft -For Discussion Puaposes Only 11231200&
Table A-8
Water Utility
Development of Iudoor Usage by Siugle Family Characteristics
City of Boulder
Total Bedrooms Iudoor Usage Total Bathrooms Iudoor Usage Building Size Iudoor Usage
(per Siugle Family Unit) (gallons) (per Siugle Family Unit) (gallons) (Sgft per Unit) (gallons)
1 4,000 1 5,000 0 to 2,500 5,000
2 4,000 2 6,000 2,500 - 5,000 6,000
3 5,000 3 6,000 5,000-7,500 7,000
4 6,000 4 7,000 7,500-10,000 9,000
5 6,000 5 9,000 10,000 - 15,000 19,000
6 7,000 6 6,000 15,000 - 20,000 42,000
7 8,000 7 8,000 >2QOOO 3,000
(a) Data compiled
from City permit data, 2005 billing data, and Boulder County Assessor data.
Draft-For Discussion Purposes Only 1/23/2008
Table A-9
Water Utility
Development of Outdoor Usage by Pervious Area Group and Iudoor Usage
City of Boulder
Iudoor Usage = 3,000 gallons per mouth Iudoor Usage = 4,000 gallous per mouth Iudoor Usage = 5,000 gallous per mouth
Outdoor Outdoor
Pervious Area Outdoor Usage Pervious Area Usage Pervious Area Usage
(Sq ft per SF Unit) gallous/year (Sq ft per SF Unit) gallous/year (Sq ft per SF Unit) gallous/year
0 to 2,500 6,000 0 to 2,500 0 0 to 2,500 0
2,500 - 5,000 15,000 2,500 - 5,000 13,000 2,500 - 5,000 12,000
5,000 - 7,500 31,000 5,000 - 7,500 30,000 5,000 - 7,500 33,000
7,500 - 10,000 37,000 7,500 - 10,000 38,000 7,500 - 10,000 39,000
10,000 - 15,000 58,000 10,000 - 15,000 65,000 10,000 - 15,000 57,000
15,000 - 20,000 60,000 15,000 - 20,000 72,000 15,000 - 20,000 76,000
>2Q000 53,000 >2Q000 55,000 >2Q000 83,000
(a) Data compiled
from City permit data, 2005 billing data, and Boulder County Assessor data.
Draft-For Discussion Purposes Only 1/23/2008
Table A-10
Development of Indoor Usage by Multifamily Customer Dwelling Unit Type
City of Boulder
Ave.# AWC Ave.#of Bath AWC Average SOIY AWC
Multifamily Dwelling Type of Bed per Unit (gallons) Multifamily Dwelling Type per Unit (gallons) Multifamily Dwelling Type per Unit (gallons)
Dnplex 2.8 3,000 Dnplex 2.0 5,000 Dnplex 1,204 1,204
Triplex 2.4 4,000 Triplex 1.0 4,000 Triplex 935 935
3 to 8 2.5 3,000 3 to 8 2.0 3,000 3 to 8 865 865
8 to 10 2.0 3,000 8 to 10 1.0 3,000 8 to 10 1,013 1,013
10 to 15 2J 3,000 10 to 15 3.0 3,000 10 to 15 860 860
15 to 30 2.6 3,000 15 to 30 2.0 3,000 15 to 30 899 899
> 30 Units 33 3,000 > 30 Units 1.0 3,000 > 30 Units 1,004 1,004
(a) Dafa compiled
from City permit datq 2005 billing datq and Boulder Coan[yAssessor data
DnR-For Discussion Auposes Only 1/23/2008
Table A-11
Water Utility
Development of Single Family PIF
City of Boulder
SF Sample PIF #1 SF Sample PIF #2 SF Sample PIF #3
Unit of
System RCN Capacity Measure Unit Cost Units PIF Units PIF Units PIF
Raw Water 363,419,000 30,650 AF/Year $11,857 029 $3,439 029 $3,439 0.46 $5,454
Peak Facilities (a) 407,506,275 47 MGD 8.67 568 4,925 550 4,769 888 7,699
Average Facilities (a) 330,251,079 18 MGD 18.82 263 4,950 255 4,799 411 7,734
Total $1,101,176,354 $13,313 $13,007 $2QSS7
Dratt -For Discussion Proposes Only 1/23/2008
Table A-12
Water Utility
Development of Multifamily PIF
CiTy of Boulder
MF Sample PIF #1 MF Sample PIF #2
Unit of
System RCN CapaciTy Measure Unit Cost Units PIF, per Unit Units PIF, per Unit
Raw Water 363,419,000 30,650 AF/Year $11,857 0.17 $2,002 0.16 $1,863
Peak Facilities (a) 407,506,275 47 MGD 8.67 326 2,827 302 2,618
Average Facilities (a) 330,251,079 18 MGD 18.82 151 2,841 140 2,634
Total $1,101,176,354 $7,670 $7,116
Draft -For Discussion Purposes Only 1/23/2008
Appendix B
Table)31
Wastewater Utility
Development of PIF Customer Characteristics
City of Boulder
SF Sample SF Sample SF Sample Unit of MF Sample MF Sample Unit of
Characteristic (a) PIF #1 PIF #i2 PIF ?t3 Measure Characterisfic PIF #1 PIF #2 Measure
Du lex Tr' lex per unit
Annual Usage 96,000 93,000 150,000 Kga1 t-liuLUa1 Usage 55,000 51,200 Kgal
Annual Usage 0.29 0.29 0.46 acre-feet Annual Usage 0.17 0.16 acre-feet
Average Day 263 255 411 gpd Average Day 151 140 gpd
System Peak Day Factrn• 2.16 2.16 2.16 Systein Peak Day Factor 2.16 2.16
Peak Day 568 550 888 gpd Peak Day 326 302 gpd
Building Size 2,800 2, 500 2,SOD square feet Building Size 600 311 square feet
Pervious Area 8,700 6,250 6,250 square feet Pervious .~~ea 2,162 1,500 square feet
Impeiznous Area 3,620 3,500 3,500 square feet Impenrious Area 1,449 1,200 square feet
Bathrooms per Unit 0 0 0 Batlooms per Lhut 0 0
Bedrooms per Unit 3.0 0 0 Bedrooms per Unit 2.8 2.4
Average Winter Conswnption 5,000 5,000 5,000 Kgallmonth Average Winter Crnismnption 3,000 3,000 gallonslmo~Vh
Average Outdoor Usage 36,000 33,000 90,000 Kgal/month Average Outdoor Usage 19,000 15,200 gallons/year
Highlighted cells with italized values denote the inputs to deternatne total water requirer~aents.
Table B-2
Wastewater Utility
Developmerd of Wastewater Single Family PIF
City of Boulder
SF Sample PIF #1 SF Sample PIF #2 SF Sample PIF #3
Unit of
System RCN Capacity Measure Unit Cost Units (a, b) PIF Units PIF Units PIF
Hydraulic (a) $100,217,500 25,000,000 GPD $4.01 275 $1,102 275 $1,102 275 $1,102
BOD 169,089,700 23,366 PPD 7,237 0.48 3,474 0.48 3,474 0.48 3,474
TSS 72,370,600 22,066 PPD 3,280 0.48 1,574 0.48 1,574 0.48 1,574
NH3-N 62,020,600 830 PPD 74,724 0.029 2,167 0.029 2,167 0.03 2,167
Total $403,695,470 $5,317 $5,317 $5,317
(a) Customer hydraulic volume based on peak day wetweather flow factor of 1.67 applied toAWC.
(b) Organic loading pounds per day based on normal strength values of 250 mg/1 BOD, 250 mg/1 TSS, and I S mg/1 NH3-N, respecfrvely.
Table B-3
Wastewater UtiliTy
Development of Commercial W astewater PIF (Samples)
CiTy of Boulder
Commercial PIF #1 Commercial PIF #1
Restaurant Hotel w/Dining
Unit of
System RCN CapaciTy Measure Unit Cost Units (a) PIF, per Unit Units (b) PIF, per Unit
Hydraulic $100,217,500 25,000,000 GPD $4.01 686 $2,751 686 $2,751
BOD 169,089,700 23,366 PPD 7,237 3.43 24,803 1.71 12,401
TSS 72,370,600 22,066 PPD 3,280 2.06 6,745 2.06 6,745
NH3-N 62,020,600 830 PPD 74,724 0.05 3,842 0.05 3,842
Total $403,698,400 $38,140 $25,739
(a) 150, 000 gallons per year, 1, 000 mg/l BOD, 600 mg/l TSS, I S mg/l NH3-N.
Strength values from Califorraa State Water Resources Board -Revenue Program Guidelines.
(b) 150, 000 gallons per year, 500 mg/l BOD, 600 mg/l TSS, I S mg/l NH3-N.
Strength values from Califorraa State Water Resources Board -Revenue Program Guidelines.
A~'~~ndix ~
Table Gl
6tormwater Utiti/y
Development of 6tormwater PIF
Ci/y of BOnlder
Sys[em RCN
MaMoles $25,82],890
Stonndraivage Pipes 115,889,081
Total $141.'116.9'11
Estunated Gross Acreage (a)
Single Fantily 4,800
Multifantily 1,100
Commerrial 9]1
InrWs[rial 500
Sprinkler 2,800
Tolal Acreage 10,191
Estunated Impervious Area (b)
Single Fantily 47
Multifamily 58%
Commerrial 65
In~s[rial 45
Sprinkler
Impervious Acreage
Single Fantily 2275
Multifamily 634
Commerrial 626
In~s[rial 225
Sprinkler 204
Tolal Acreage 3,964
Impervious Acreage- 6quare Feet (c)
Single Fantily 99,099,000
Multifamily 2],61],040
Commerrial 2]268,560
In~s[rial 9,801,000
Sprinkler 8,886,240
Tolal 6quare Feet 192,691,840
PIF, $ per Bnpervious 6q Ft $0.82
Residential PIF, $ per Unit
Single Fantily $3,]22
Multifamily
Nonresidential, $ per 6gFt $0.82
(a) FYOm 2005 bilAng database
(b) FYOm June 200]Sformwater Master Plan
(c) Impervious Acreage x 43,560 square feetper acre
(d) Impervious area divded by dwelAng unitsx
Daft -For D~swssor~ P~ryoses Orly $ per' square foot impervious area 1/23/2008