Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout5 - Update on Plant Investment Fee (PIF) StudyCITYOFBOULDER WATER RESOURCES ~DVISORY BCIARD aGENDa ITEM 1!'IEETING DATE: 117arch 17, 2008 AGENDA TITLE: Update on the Plant Investment Fee (PIF) Study PRESENTER/S: Joanna Crean, Project Manager Todd Cristiano, Red (~ak Consulting EYECUTIVE SUMII~ZARY: The February 25, 2008 ~~~R~B meeting served as an opportunity to update the board on the Plant Investment Fee (PIF} study. The March 17 meeting will serve as an opportunity to provide some additional information on the PIF study based on further analy~sis that Red C7ak Consulting has completed. In addition, staff ~~ill be able to update WRAB on the outcome of the PIF stakeholder meeting scheduled for March 12. B~CKGROUND: _~s contained in Attachment A(Analysis of PIF Characteristics Nlemo), Red Oak has completed some additional analy~sis as a result of the January 30 stakeholder meeting. The analysis is intended to pro~~ide additional information regarding the characteristics for determining PIFs and theii• irnpact on equity and other city objectives. Red ~ak has also co~npleted the asset valuation and cost allocation for functional categories, which is included in the memo. At the PIF stal~eholder meeting on Niarch 12, Red Oak will present the comparison matrix used in selecting the most appropriate PIF characteristics by comparing them to the goals and objectives of the PIF study. The stakeholder members will provide feedback on the ~natrix ~nd on Red ~~k's preliminaiy recomtnendation. All of the feedback from the stakeholder meeting «~ill Ue presented to t~~R~-1B at the March 17 meeting. NEZT STEPS: It is anticipated that the stal~eholder group will haj~e its final meeting on March 12. Ho«~ever, if it is determined at the March meeting that additional information is needed in order to complete their evaluation and provide feedback, then the stakeholder group will reconvene on April lb and the results will be presented to ~'RAB at the April 21 WRAB meeting. AGEND~ ITEM # P~GE 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. In addition to the PIF study, three other development-related fees (development excise tax, development review fees and building plan review, permit & inspection fees) are being evaluated for possible changes. The City Council will review and consider the full impact of the development-related fees during the 2009 budget process. Any PIF changes should be implemented January 1, 2009. Prior to implementation, any PIF changes and financial impacts ~~-ill 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 Analysis of Plant Investment Fee Characteristics AGENDA ITEM # PAGE TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM • fZ~~~l ~ I I I`-.~ To: Joanna Crean Date: March 4, 2008 Public Works Administrator From: Todd Cristiano Carol Malesky Red Oak Consulting Re: Analysis of Plant Investment Fee Characteristics This technical memorandum contains additional analyses as a result ofthe January 3Q 2008 Stakeholder meeting and subsequent discussions with Staff. This memo is organized into the five sections detailed below. 1. Introduction 1.1 Study objective review 1.2 PIF methodology discussion 2. Capacity and Asset V aluations 2.1 Capacity valuations 2.2 Assets valuation and functionalization 23 Fire protection functional cost component 3. Development of PIF Assessment Schedules 3.1 Regression analysis 3.2 Water budget basis 4. PIF Calculation Comparison 4.1 Existing PIF Comparison 4.2 Single Family 43 Multifamily 4.4 Commercial 4.5 Imgation 43 Stormwater PIF Calculations 5. Matrix Evaluation 5.1 Criteria weighting 5.2 Assessment characteristic scoring 53 Recommendations The analyses presented in this memo are intended to provide additional information regarding the characteristics for determining PIFs and the impact on equity and other City objectives. Tables referenced in this memo are attached in the Appendices. 1.0 Introduction Red Oak, with assistance from Staff, has issued 2 technical memorandums over the course of this study. The memorandums analyzed a number of characteristics for each customer class. Through the Stakeholder meetings and discussion with Staff, Red Oak has conducted additional analysis on certain characteristics to assist in determining the most appropriate set of parameters to assess PIFs that meet the City's goals and objectives. 11 Study Objective Page 2 of the City's scope of work document listed the objectives for the PIF study. These objectives are summarized below: • Equitably recover costs • Administered simply and effectively • Understood by the customer community • Ensure a solid legal foundation for PIFs and • To reinforce the goals and objectives of the new water budget rate structure The characteristics presented in this memorandum and previous memorandums are designed to assist Stakeholders and Staff in determining which characteristics meet the study's goals and objectives. 1.2 PIF Methodology The calculation of the Plant Investment Fees (PIFs) is based on the buy-in approach where customers connecting to the system are asked to pay aone-time capital charge to compensate current customers for past investments. The buy-in method uses a historical perspective, i.e., is based on the current value or investment in the utility system. The original cost ofthe system's existing fixed assets is a critical component ofthis analysis. Costs are identified by year with the original costs escalated to current values using an adjustment index such as the Engineering News Record Denver Construction Cost Index. Further adjustments are generally made to account for outstanding debt service principal and accumulated depreciation. The result represents an estimate of current system equity held by the existing customers of the system. Because Boulder is a mature community with significant past investment that can be used to serve future growth, the buy-in approach was determined to be the most appropriate and equitable methodology. 2.0 Capacity and Asset Valuations Asset valuation and capacity valuations serve as the basis for determining PIF unit costs. These unit costs are then applied to the selected parameters to determine a customer's individual PIF. Analysis of Plant Investment Fee Characteristics Page 3 21 Capacity Valuations Typically, current system equity is converted to a unit charge by dividing total equity by the number of customers connected to the system or by a similar measure of existing system capacity. This study evaluated the design capacities of the water and wastewater plants. Stormwater capacity is based on the current impervious area of the system. 2.2 Asset Valuation and Functionalization Valuation of system assets can be calculated a number of ways. • Original cost (OC) • Original cost less depreciation (OCLD) • Replacement cost (RC) • Replacement cost less accumulated depreciation (RCLD) Each method has advantages and disadvantages. With OCLD, new customers are able to buy into the system at a lower cost relative to customers who previously bought into the system. This methodology also yields the lowest PIF. The OC methodology also creates an inequity between new and existing customers. New customers are buying into the system at historical years' costs and are implicitly charged for accumulated depreciation. The RC method typically yields the highest PIF and implicitly includes a return on investment at a construction-based inflation rate. RCLD values the system at current costs however, it includes accumulated depreciation. The reduction of RC value by accumulated depreciation recognizes that facilities have been `used up' and their value is less than the full replacement cost. Red Oak recommends the RCLD methodology as it best satisfies intergenerational equity requirements. The RCLD methodology places new customers in the same equity position as existing customers. Water Uti&ty The asset valuation allocation to customer service characteristics varies with the allocation methodology used. This study relies on the base/extra-capacity cost allocation method as outlined in the Principles of Water Rates, Fees, and Charges Manual MI by the American Water Works Association (AWWA). This method assigns costs to the following customer service characteristics: • Base (average day) • Extra Capacity -Maximum Day • Extra Capacity -Maximum Hour Base costs vary with water consumption under average load conditions. Base costs are those costs that would be incurred if water consumption occurred evenly from day to day and hour to hour, so that the utility did not need to invest in additional capacity to meet peak demand. Analysis of Plant Investment Fee Characteristics Page 4 Extra capacity costs are costs incurred to meet water demands that exceed average levels of water usage by customers. Extra capacity costs are incurred because of water usage variations and peak demands imposed on a water system. Such demands depend on customer water consumption characteristics. Extra capacity costs are typically divided into costs incurred to meet maximum-day and maximum-hour water demands of system customers. The table below summarizes the water system asset valuation and capacity across functional costs components. Water System Functional Distribution of Asset V slue and Capacity Description RCLD Capacity Raw Water $394,073,000 30,650 acre-feet Infrastructure Peak 349,354,602 33,000,000 gpd a' Infrastructure Base (Average Day) 417,288,177 20,000,000 gpd Total Facilities $1,160,715,779 (a) Represents capacity above average day. Peak day is 53 mgd; Average day is 20 mgd. (b) Peak month capacity is 35,000, 000 gpd. Used for water budget-based PIPS. Each customer contributes to the peak demand of the system. Peak demands for the City of Boulder typically occur in the summer months of June or July. This peak day represents the maximum water delivered in one 24 hour period. Regardless of how customers use this water within the 24 hours period, the system must be capable of meeting this demand. Water system infrastructure is designed to meet a peak day capacity requirement of 53 million gallons per day (mgd). The average day rated demand is 20 mgd. The resulting peak day peaking factor for the City's water system is 2.70. This peaking factor can be used as a proxy for estimating a new customer's potential 1-day demand, regardless of what month this potential peak will occur. Including system peak demand factors as part of the PIF assessment schedule provide an estimate of a customer's peak demand potential. Customer class peak factors can be an alternative to using system peak demand factors to estimate a new customer's potential peak demand. Customer class peaking factors are based on a relationship of customer class monthly billing data and system average day and peak day production. Customer class peaking factors are designed to show the demand differentials between classes. For example, a residential and commercial customer could have the same annual water requirements; however, the peak demand they place on the system could vary significantly which may require different facilities to serve them. Peak demand factors are one of many design criteria for water systems. The design peak demand factors are typically stated in master planning documents; annual production records also record peak demands. Customer class peaking factors, on the other hand, are not directly measured and are subject to more potential for error since billing data used to calculate the factors are recorded monthly Analysis of Plant Investment Fee Characteristics Page 5 rather than daily. System design peak factors are fairly static and may change only with a change in the design of the water plant or water facilities. Wastewater Utility As with water utilities, the allocation of revenue requirements to customer service characteristic for wastewater service varies among utilities. Generally, revenue requirements are allocated to the following customer service characteristics: • Flow • Biochemical oxygen demand • Total suspended solids • Total nitrogen Flow costs are costs that vary with the hydraulic flow of sewage. Therefore, the relative strength of sewage does not affect flow costs. Typically, flow costs include the cost of operating lift stations and the capital costs for assets that are designed based on hydraulic flow requirements. Sewage strength costs, including biochemical oxygen demand (BOD), total suspended solids (TSS), and total nitrogen (TN), represent costs incurred to treat wastewater of various qualities. Examples of strength-related costs are certain chemicals and electrical costs associated with operation of the aeration basins. The distribution of costs among customer service characteristics varies from one sewer utility to the next and can be determined only after an engineering analysis of the utility's makeup and operating history. City Staff completed the analysis of Boulder's wastewater system to address these cost allocations. Wastewater System Functional Distribution of Asset Value and Capacity Descri tion RCLD Ca acit (a) Volume $87,073,414 25,000,000 gpd BOD 33,783,885 36,000 ppd TSS 4,305,336 39,000 ppd TN 14,604,898 4,060 ppd Total Facilities $139,767,533 (a) gpd =gallons per day; ppd =pounds per day. Analysis of Plant Investment Fee Characteristics Page 6 Stormwater Unlike water and wastewater, stormwater assets are not allocated to functional components and are based on total system impervious area The total stormwater RCLD is $254,727,507 with a total impervious area of 3,728 acres. 2.3 Fire Protection Functional Cost Component The cost for water demand for fire protection is typically small in a system serving mid- to-large size cities because the total water needed for fire protection is very small compared with the annual water demands for domestic/potable use. The fire flow demands are usually estimated using a formula with the population size as the predominant factor. Insurance Services Office (ISO) formulas are also used to determine how much water is needed in the design of the system to meet the demand for fighting several simultaneous fires. Thus, from a water source viewpoint, fire protection capital costs are minimal. However, from a water distribution viewpoint, the oversizing of distribution pipelines and storage facilities is handled as an extra-capacity cost (i.e. maximum day/maximum hour). In cities of 100,000 population and larger, fire related represent approximately 20 percent of total capacity costs. Using the base/extra-capacity method to allocate costs, the corresponding unit costs used to determine a PIF include all ofthe fire protection costs. For the purposes of this study, fire protection infrastructure is captured in the base/extra- capacityfunctional cost allocations. 3.0 Development of PIF Assessment Schedules Red Oak calculated PIFs using two methods: • Regression analysis • Water budget rate structure The regression analysis analyzed different variables to estimate indoor and outdoor usage; usage by meter size and building square footage, and pervious area. 31 Regression Analysis Red Oak used data from the Boulder County Assessor Office and 2004 and 2005 City billing data to analyze parameters that best describe the potential demand a new connector can place on the water system. The characteristics analyzed included: Analysis of Plant Investment Fee Characteristics Page 7 Customer Type Parameter (variables) Analysis~a~ Source Data Indoor usage Bedrooms Residential Assessor records Bathrooms Residential Assessor records Building square feet Residential, Nonresidential Assessor records Outdoor usage Pervious area Residential, Nonresidential City billing records Other Meter Size Nonresidential City billing records (a) Residential includes: single family and multifamily Nonresidential includes: commercial, industrial, and institutional Data were not available for fixture units. As fixture units are currently used by the City to size water meters, it was determined that the meter size for these accounts is a proxy for fixture units. A regression analysis assists in determining usage patterns based on a selection of usage parameters. Red Oak performed regression analysis for single family, multifamily, commercial, and irrigation. For example, to estimate single family indoor usage, Red Oak developed regression equations varying the combination ofthe independent variables; bedrooms, bathrooms, and building square footage. Changes to the independent variables result in a change in the dependent variable or in this case, indoor usage. As an example, below are the seven combinations ofthe independent variables used to estimate indoor usage for single family and multifamily residential: • Bedrooms, bathrooms, building square feet • Bedrooms • Bathrooms • Building square feet • Bedrooms, bathrooms • Bathrooms, building square feet • Bedrooms, building square feet Single family indoor usage and multifamily indoor usage were estimated with these seven equations. Separate regression equations were developed for single family and multifamily outdoor usage. Commercial usage was estimated based on meter size and building square footage. The irrigation regression analysis considered pervious area. 3.2 Water Budget Rate Structure Red Oak calculated PIFs using the City's water budget rate structure. The water budget PIF calculation is based on the annual budget allotment by class and an estimated Analysis of Plant Investment Fee Characteristics Page 8 customer peak demand. The estimated peak demand is based on a customer's maximum monthly budget allotment. Red Oak compared the total budget for the peak demand month to the water treatment plant capacity to determine if the total budgets exceeded the peak capacity. The July budget, based on 2007 data, represents the largest budget for any month. The total July budget is 37.05 mgd. Peak day capacity at the plant is approximately 53 mgd. The total July budget is sufficiently below the peak day capacity for the water treatment plant. Peak Demand Calculation The City's peak day water production typically occurs in June or July. In a similar manner, the single family, multifamily, and irrigation water budget rate structures allocate the most usage in June and July. Red Oak reviewed with Staffthe most appropriate system design parameter to link the unit cost of peak facilities to the peak month budget allotment. Red Oak determined that using the system average day of the peak month to calculate the peak facilities unit costs. This unit cost can then be applied to a new customer's average day of peak budget month demand. A new commercial customer's PIF can be based on AMU. Since AMU does not distinguish between indoor and outdoor usage, the new commercial customer will need to provide (or the City will need to estimate) the peak month usage. This will be used to calculate the peak related PIF costs for a commercial customer. The water budget allotment structure can also be applied to the wastewater PIF. The indoor allotment for single family and multifamily can be used to calculate the wastewater PIF. The commercial AMU can be used to determine the wastewater PIF. 4.0 PIF Calculation Comparison For comparison purposes, Red Oak developed graphs to compare the range of PIFs that result with different calculation and assessment approaches. PIFs for each customer example for each class are presented in Appendix A. Compared PIFs are included for the following approaches: • Existing structure • Regression analysis • Water budget calculations 41 Existing PIF Comparison Red Oak included a comparison of the existing PIF schedule to proposed PIFs. The existing PIFs are calculated in three ways; however, the current (2008) structure is maintained: • 2008 adopted PIF • 2008 PIF updated for current replacement costs and capacity valuations. Analysis of Plant Investment Fee Characteristics Page 9 The existing PIF is based on an equivalent residential unit. For comparison purposes, Red Oak used the `average' residential PIF and the base nonresidential PIF. In these cases, the values for the residential and commercial PIFs are the same. 4.2 Single Family The table below lists the parameters used to estimate a single family PIF using the regression analysis and the water budget calculation structure. Description SF Customer #1 SF Customer#2 Regression Analysis Bedrooms 3 5 Bathrooms 2 3 Bldg Sq Ft 2,500 5,000 Pervious Area, sq ft 2,500 6,250 Water Budget Indoor usage 84,000 gaUyr 84,000 gaUyr Outdoor usage 37,500 gaUyr 75,000 gaUyr Peak Month Demand 468 gpd 806 gpd Single family wastewater PIFs are calculated using only the indoor regression analysis and the indoor component of the water budget rate structure. The strength components are assumed to be 250 milligrams per liter BOD, 250 mg/1 TSS, and 15 mg/1 TN. 4.3 Multifamily The table below lists the parameter used to estimate a multifamily PIF using the regression analysis and the water budget rate structure. Description MF Customer #1 MF Customer#2 Number of Units 40 24 Bedrooms 80 24 Bathrooms 40 24 Bldg Sq Ft 36,920 8,656 Pervious Area, Sq Ft 56,817 2,227 Water Budget Indoor usage 1,920,000 gaUyr 1,152,000 gaUyr Outdoor usage 852,255 gaUyr 33,405 gaUyr Peak Month Demand 10,660 gpd 3,312 gpd Comparison of Existing and Proposed PIFs Single Family -Customer #1 $25,000 $20,498 $20,000 $18,317 $16,405 $15,000 $14,183 $14,104 $9,995 $10,000 $5, 000 $0 Current Fee Current Fee @ Beds, Baths, Bldg Beds, Bldg Sq Ft Peak Month Ave Day 2008 Asset Value Sq Ft Existing Structure ? Regression Analysis Water Budgets Comparison of Existing and Proposed PIFs Single Family -Customer #2 $30, 000 $24,857 $25,137 $25, 000 $20,498 $20, 000 $16,357 $16,372 $15, 000 $9,995 $10, 000 $5, 000 $0 Current Fee Current Fee @ 2008 Beds, Baths, Bldg Sq Beds, Bldg Sq Ft Peak Month Ave Day Asset Value Ft Existing Structure ? Regression Analysis Water Budgets Comparison of Existing and Proposed PIFs Multifamily -Customer #1 $14,000 $12,299 $12,000 $9,357 $10,014 $10,000 $s,aoo $5,995 $6,397 $6,493 $6,000 $4,000 $2,000 $0 Current Fees Current Fee @ Beds, Baths, Beds, Bldg Sq Peak Month Ave Day 2008 Asset Bldg Sq Ft Ft Value Existing Structure ? Regression Analysis Water Budgets Comparison of Existing and Proposed PIFs Multifamily -Customer #2 $14,000 $12,299 $12,000 $10,000 $8,000 $5~gg5 $6,150 $6,000 $4,000 3,016 $2,796 $2, 000 $a Current Fees Current Fee @ Beds, Baths, Beds, Bldg Sq Peak Month Ave Day 2008 Asset Bldg Sq Ft Ft Value Existing Structure ? Regression Analysis Water Budgets Analysis of Plant Investment Fee Characteristics Page 10 The wastewater PIFs are calculated using only the indoor regression analysis and the indoor component of the water budget rate structure. The strength components are assumed to be 250 milligrams per liter BOD, 250 mg/1 TSS, and 15 mg/1 TN. 4.4 Commercial The commercial regression is based on meter size and building square footage. The water budget is based on average monthly usage (AMU). This value is similar to the results provided by the regression analysis. The characteristics of the two example commercial customers are as follows: Description Com Customer #1 Com Customer #2 Regression Analysis Meter Size 3/4" 2" Bldg Sq Ft 5,000 15,000 Annual Demand 112,000 gaUyr 1,507,077 gaUyr Water Bud et AMU 112,000 gaUyr 1,507,077 gaUyr Peak Month Demand 552 gpd 7,432 gpd Red Oak used the same water demands for the regression calculations and the water budget calculations. This provides a means of comparing the difference in fees resulting from the two methodologies. The wastewater flows assigned to each commercial customer are based on actual water demand. The strength components are assumed to be 250 milligrams per liter BOD, 250 mg/1 TSS, and 15 mg/1 TN. 4.5 Irrigation The irrigation regression is based on pervious area. The water budget is based on the outdoor water budget. Descri tion Irr Customer #1 Irr Customer #2 Regression Analysis Pervious Area Sq Ft 15,400 50,000 Annual Demand 64,472 gaUyr 75,432 gaUyr Water Bud et Outdoor 237,930 gaUyr 772,500 gaUyr Peak Month 1,535 gpd 4,984 gpd Comparison of Existing and Proposed PIFs Commercial -Customer #'I $2,000 $20,498 $20, 000 $16,339 $16,335 $16,182 $15, 000 $9,995 $10, 000 $5, 000 $0 Current Fees Current Fee @ Bldg Sq Ft, Meter Peak Month Ave Day 2008 Asset Value Size Existing Structure ? Regression Analysis Water Budgets Comparisan of Existing and Proposed PIFs Commercial -Customer #2 $250, aoo $219,930 $219,808 $217,747 $2oo,ooa $150, 000 $100, 000 $50, 000 $20,498 $9,995 $0 Current Fees Current Fee @ Bldg Sq Ft, Meter Peak Month Ave Qay 2008 Asset Value Size Existing Structure ? Regression Analysis Water Budgets Comparison of Proposed PIFs Irrigation -Customer #1 45000 40000 $38,312 $34,377 35000 30000 25000 20000 15000 $10,274 10000 5000 0 - Regression -Pervious Area & Mtr Water Budget -Peak Month Water Budget -Average Day Size Facilities Only ? Regression Analysis Water Budgets Comparison of Proposed PIFs Irrigation -Customer #2 $140,000 $124, 391 $120,000 $1oo,oao $so,ooo $60,000 $40,000 $2o,aao $a Regression -Pervious Area & Water Budget -Peak Month Water Budget -Average Day Mtr Size Facilities Only ? Regression Analysis Water Budgets Analysis of Plant Investment Fee Characteristics Page 11 4.6 Stormwater PIF Calculations The stormwater PIF calculation detailed in appendix B shows the unit cost per square foot of impervious area Red Oak converted the single family residential and multifamily customers' fees to be assessed on the number of units. Data on the number of single family and multifamily units were used to estimate an average impervious area per unit. All nonresidential customers are assessed a unit cost per square foot of impervious area The stormwater PIF is $1.57 per square foot. 5.0 Matrix Evaluation To assist in the recommendation and selection of the most appropriate PIF characteristics for the City, a matrix was created for each system. The matrix included the City's goals and objectives which included equity, implementation, and financial categories. The following is a brief description of each criterion used in the matrix. • Recover Proportionate Share of Capacity in Facilities. Use of the PIF characteristic should result in a proportionate estimate of the capacity required of the facilities. This criterion measures the connection between the demand on the system and the capacity required in the facilities. • Intraclass Equity. This type of equity recognizes that alternative PIF characteristics will vary in their ability to describe demands on the City's systems to customers equitably within the same customer class. • Interclass Equity. This type of equity assures that the PIF characteristics describe the demands on the City's systems across customer classes proportionately to each class. • Intergenerational Equity. This type of equity puts new customers on an equal footing with existing customers. It ensures that the calculated PIF does not subsidize growth nor does it provide a subsidy to existing customers. • Legally Defensible The characteristic used in the PIF must comply with the rules and regulations of the City and with Colorado State Statutes. • Customer Understanding. The public's ability to understand the use of a characteristic is imperative to successful implementation of a PIF. Since the City is seeking to pioneer a PIF more predictive of actual use, a certain level of complexity may be seen as an opportunity to educate its customers. • Administrative Effort The amount of administrative effort required to implement a new PIF can vary greatly among alternatives. Additional data collection needs, changes to the billing system, additional staff needs and training, Analysis of Plant Investment Fee Characteristics Page 12 and consistency with the philosophies of the City's other utilities are a few examples of how administrative effort among alternatives can differ. • LinkPlFs to Water Budgets. This criterion connects the PIF and characteristics used to determine the PIF to the City's water budget-based rate design. The connection accomplishes the desire to require the new connection's PIF to be assessed in a similar manner to its monthly water rates. • Match PIFs to Actual Demand A PIF characteristic that most closely matches the total PIF paid to the actual demand placed on the system scores highest. This ensures that the demands estimated using the particular characteristic are close to what the account will require of the facilities. • Match PIFs to Actual Costs. A PIF characteristic that results in a total PIF paid that matches the actual cost ofthe impact of a new connection on the facilities scores highest for this criterion. What a new connection pays in its PIF should most closely reflect the cost of the City's facilities. • City's Affordability and Sustainability Goals. This criterion connects the PIF calculation to the City's goals for ensuring affordable and sustainable service to its customers. A characteristic that ranks highest for this criterion is one that most closely matches the City's desire to encourage water conservation and lessen its impact on water resources. 51 Criteria Weighting Each of the above criteria was assigned a weight according to the importance on a scale of 1 to 10, 10 being the most important to the City. Red Oak applied its weightings based on previous meetings and discussions with City Staff. The weighting and scoring of criteria and characteristics is a highly subjective process. The City should review the analysis to determine if it is acceptable; however, this exercise is intended to assist the City and Stakeholders in evaluating the many PIF characteristics in a quantitative manner. It is not intended to be exact. 5.2 Assessment Characteristic Scoring Each PIF characteristic was assigned a score based on Red Oak's assessment of how well that characteristic satisfied the criterion. The scoring was on a scale of 1 to 10; 10 being a score assigned if the characteristic satisfied the criterion to a high degree. Again, this scoring is subjective and was completed using professional judgment. By weighting each score, each PIF characteristic's total score was calculated and ranked among the characteristics. The ranking provides a general guideline for determining which characteristics may be most appropriate for determining a new customer's PIF. SINGLE FNMILT RESIOENTINL sl"GLE FNALVRF CxPMCRasil6 sEWIIY sEpulrv Ix Puv oEFExsI x ~VmNllm.e~~ Ottlvmi.e~~ EpmiY~mrmitlJ X"EasiONaM EFFORT BaaGEls PCiaPLCOSis sCORE nrn.Wmax~ sYSiEM we~.mo",m. amma.~,m,re;,re...~.~~.a.m~ 8 6 2 8 9 3 4 9 8 8 2 iuaonxoe~, m,o,,o e:~aaK V OmsoN ~s",n"`„"~~„ ,tee 6 4 6 6 9 6 7 1 3 7 5 358 6 re~~~~mo air w~am m~eb ~g~am m.re~oreem. ®irea~~eore s.,a.~re.NNVe ~m .o .m e~~.~ aoreu.~.m ra"NNGr.-"asrN Pro~~ro¢m.R ~ 6 =im g~ef 6 8 6 5 9 6 6 8 459 1 Nio~m m~ . gR.m ~ amN~ mom" imp ".e e.~ sti° ~ reawose°~ ".mN ~m a~..a xlOEwll loos ~ud$ PIF 9enepiaypelx rws.GS Nooa 8 7 2 4 8 8 4 4 7 5 5 396 3 amim e r .,.re ~a a~ai~°.~~a area n~ mw~.m~.' c~ " Dos rerev.m remm mo,r~ea~~~ m. aorersen .ao~~a~®a~s ~~nwo~area~~oo. 7 6 3 4 8 7 4 6 6 4 5 383 4 ~i~~:~~a Da~~ am w'am re ~m~ream,rem re " ao,~e a~.rea .aN~.apo p~®a os ~~nwo~area~~oo. 7 6 3 4 8 7 4 6 6 4 5 383 4 amim erl ejNerl " slm indmr~m e i bor~wlopugel depend eppied oreooMr °ooa 6 5 2 4 8 6 4 6 5 3 5 348 7 amim nN am~u.9 erl ejNerl nrmvdslm tle nd pilarlalendo bor~wlo PUge1 depend ePgied ."reooMr ooa 6 5 2 4 8 6 4 6 5 3 5 348 7 ~i~~:~~a Da~~ reb~~"~ am w'am re "~s~ ~dim~reaair~ " .aN~.apo p~®a os ~~nwo~arear roo. 6 5 2 4 8 5 4 6 5 3 5 345 9 amim reb~~"~ m~w'am ~dim~reaair~ .aN~.a oar arre"Darr"ono 8 4 2 2 5 7 2 5 4 2 4 283 10 reHOar.arA oa 8 7 4 3 8 8 5 9 7 7 6 459 1 re rem.rea"o"pare o M~~a"~~n m Mre~rerero~i ~a,~° mN ~,re~.~ ~.re~o~~.~ MULTIFNMILT NESIOENTINL MILiIFFMLY PIF CHFRFCiERISiICS RECOVER INiRFCLFSS Eppltt INiERCLFSS EppIiY INTER- LE6FLLY DEFENSIBLE NsiOMER FOMINISiRFiNE LINX PIFS iO WFiER MFiCH PIFS iO MFiCH PIFS iO CIiYS WEI6HiE0 MNX PROPORiIONFiE (xXM1ln mclaffi5) (bNwe:n class) 6ENERFiIONFL pNOERSiFNOIN6 EFFORT BpO6Eis FCipFL OEMFNO ON FCipFL COSis FFFOROFBILIttB sCORE sHFRE OF CFPFCIiY EppliY (bNwren oltl SYSTEM spsiFINFBILIiY IN FFCILIiIES antl new eu9oma5) 6OFLs elemea anent Rmmgsum m; etas mosr lmxonam~ 8 6 2 8 9 3 4 9 8 8 2 Evalaatloa score U m m: +o as bas stlsls cMeNOa) EXISiIN65iROCipRE MILiIFFMLY small, Metllam, ~aree~ 6 4 6 6 9 6 7 1 3 7 5 358 6 Aaerege eF Goa comet airentb aaoq~ea bs coy erialvmeaiLaree Reeogorresartmuoq a~e~ea ame ree won legal suggon ola~naboo bared oo ElFSare based oo go~ental aemana or A~umee go~ental Ep Rwnim greames No rentbomo wamr Deriaoa maretlenria nntoualioaesmemm Mas be leseonssent ousomere aemana ame ame rem good essia~e or buagem mange oaerbme one ssem wnnsunairemuN eoam memr aemana nieR puopEaenseo waoo~mmaoor nlmcmmas 7 6 ame8 6 8 6 5 9 6 6 8 459 1 wTE SSSaea on apacM A4uming butlgeLSare Sigm(¢aM tlepaxu~e Butlg515Nalare olaoeage tlry antl peak Wa~e~butlge~bass AllmrvstlMerences alloa~etl miretlly, eacM1 Ma~mspremisSN Cusiome~swa~e~ngM1LS eresiima~etl may tlay holiLes ovvsieM wilM1 CAy's rrem a; ii~g stitlare among lo~srres buage~reoogoaeea oaereme, mrouage~ wamrouage~sretlure eea airetlb~o re~e eoaeireowen io maoonowaooroos areugnt glad Goa cunomer Nqe and pIF5loEmllmaase budget ~buaget Eb almaeon isnot Gesso svtamabuM Goals aemana panems based PIF WITH OTHER MILiIFFMLY INOOOR O O C CHFRFCiERISiICS -BEDROOMS $ 7 2 4 V V 4 y 7 5 5 414 3 -BATHROOMS -BVILDINO Sp VARE FOOT Remgnnas M1Ome s¢es RemgnnasrehLOnsJnp McNOtloloa usetl in Deeelopers~ypially mull Applietl ansslentb~ Cll antl mgaLOn bN tloesnN avvtle~ Some pareme~ere between sriaueraoa ntnercommuomesaoa adore ma Nqe or maoorwa~er~..-aPe Esimsasmi~aoorwa~er rer~bomnib bNwee~ cunomere use amerem newaremoent tenure easurea by cMmrne lareernomesaotl mema~o evaluate Ngesornewooooemons aseoaea io iommaboo auuoq mgem,n agquabomo esiria~esaggream usage maiate aaerege paametersanbe subsequent po~entxl intloo~usage inefii[ieM Oltl BreckenntlgPlKiupps PertniVmviiutlion upgretle la[OLes intloo~wAe~butlge~ tlemantl onrysiem applietl to tlevelop msi wa~e~tlemantl nnetlioms Cas process basaspe~paame~e~ MILiIFFMLY INOOOR -aEDROOms 7 6 3 4 8 7 4 6 6 4 5 383 4 -eDI~DINO epDARE Fool Reoogorresrentboosniq Memoaoloa usaam Deuelogerewgially etas Aggeea ooosislentb, CII antl imgaLOn Boma pareme~ere belwaen smallerantl Ramgn¢es relaliovJnp ntbe~ammunAiesantl tlisclose ~M1m NPe o! Intloo~wa~e~uage May pretluce less rehLO VJiip belwaen cunomere use amerem easurea by cM mr ne lareernomesaotl mema~o eaalua~e wo nome saeeaoa aseoaea io iommaboo auuoq mgem,n agquabomo esiria~esaggream ure~e esimsem pareme~ereaobe subrequent go~ental indoor ueage go~ential ioaooraemaoa ereoseouagburegps Eem,moonrremoo ugqreae mambas maoorwnerouage~ o aemana agquea ~o aeaeloq nos wamraeriaoa case bases e memr MILiIFFMLY INOOOR -EATHROOMS 7 6 3 4 8 7~ 4 6 6 flare 5 383 4 -eDI~DINO epDARE Fool Reoogorresrentboosniq Fmure uoimaoa lnt Deuelogerewgially etas Aggeea ooosislentb, CII antl imgaLOn Boma pareme~ere belwaen smallerantl Ramgn¢es relaliovJnp snalbwltling square tlisclose ~M1m NPe o! Intloo~wa~e~uage May pretluce leg rehLO VJiip belwaen cunomere use amerem easurea by cM mr ne lareernomesaotl mema~o eaalua~e wo nome saeeaoa morzge area reeogorrea iommaboo auuoq mgem,n agquabomo esiria~esaggream ure~e esimsem pareme~ereaobe subrequent go~ental indoor ueage go~ential ioaooraemaoa memoa oramuntboq Eem,moonrremoo ugqreae mambas maoorwnerouage~ o aemana agquea ~o aeaeloq nos wamraeriaoa EIFS bases e memr rtuLnFnMLr lxoooR 6 5 2 4 8 6~ 4 6 5 3are 5 348 7 eeoaooms Reoogorresrentboosniq Memoaoloa usaam Deuelogerewgially etas Aggeea ooosislentb, RemgnnasrehLOnsJnp Boma pareme~ere Measunng tlemantl wiN belwaen smallerantl NN mmpaable acres bin M1Ome snasmtliretlb NM1e~ammunAiesantl tlisclose ~M1m NPe o! easuretl by CM (one Intloo~wa~e~uage May pretluce leg rehLO VJiip belwaen Bogle omretlenrioa lareernomesaoa esaentalaoa Goa gntemal indoor aseoaea io iommaboo auuoq mgem,n agquabomo esiria~esaggream ure~e esimsem pareme~ereaobe oo~asrebus subrequent go~ental oresaential ent~es aemana ereoseouagburegps Eem,moonrremoo ugqreae mambas maoorwnerouage~ o aemana agquea ~o aeaeloq nos wamraeriaoa case bases e memr eerlHeoomexoooR 6 5 2 4 8 6~ 4 6 5 3are 5 348 7 Reoogorresrentboosniq Deuelogerewgially etas Aggeea ooosislentb, CII antl imgaLOn Boma pareme~ere Measunng tlemantl wiN belwaen smallerantl FWUre umLSarea tlisclose ~M1m NPe o! rehLO VJiip belwaen cunomere use amerem Notasreng mairnorm easurea by cM mrne Bogle omretlenrioa lareernomesaoa eoogoaea memm of iommaboo aunng paremetereanbe mema~o eaalua~e borne s¢e gem,n appuabonm oo~asrebus subrequent go~ental indoor ueage amuntboq ElFS Eem,moonrremoo ugqreae moueies agquea ~o aeaeloq nos wamraeriaoa greas basagergarememr eo~~oi MmSQxoooROO 6 5 2 4 8 6 4 6 5 3 5 348 7 Reoogorresrentboosniq Deuelogerewgially etas Aggeea ooosislentb, CII antl imgaLOn Boma pareme~ere Measunng tlemantl wiN belwaen smallerantl eusiomere use tlme~ent Bwltlmg square loNage tlisclose ~M1m NPe o! u~etl by CM lone rehLO VJiip belwaen Bogle cMatleviic ~s Iaige~M1Omesantl mem¢~o evaluate aremgnnatl meNOtl in(omxLOn tlunng mepertnA appliaLOnm pareme~ereanbe oo~asrebus subrequent go~ental indoor ueage mamulsioq ElFS Eem,moonrremoo ugqreae moueies agquea ~o aeaeloq nos wamraeriaoa greas basagergarememr rtu~nFnM~r lxoooR 8 4 2 2 5 7 2 5 4 2 4 283 10 -PEOP~ PER Ho VsEHOSD meomialN bas meomialN bas Nnt ampareble acmes SignmantvanabilM over Notes common maunre Too mumvanabeny Drtneun ~oameasure, ae remioaoorwamr etas remioaoorwamr esaentalaoa erne ie oouege memoa or amunt~mq me Degeoasoommure or ~esaential ent~es esaeoas EIFS aaunsaoa muareo MILiIFFMLY OpiOOOR -PERmoos AREA 8 7 4 3 8 8 5 9 7 7 6 459 1 CII antl mgaLOn May pretluce more Besimasure o! Besimasure o! Imgable area an [Hoge Simih~~o usng lo~sns, Simih~~o usng lo~sns, ONtloo~poNion of Na~e~ ousomere are amerem Ean orwamrouage~ aure~e esimsem prepoNOn o(peakwa~e~ prepoNOn o(peakwa~e~ mem¢~o evaluate ve~~ime basetl on mgable area anbe mgable area anbe analyss butlge~isbastl on apeak tlemantls on intloo~uage estlent antl boNCUAUre usetl More vam6ON usetl More vam6ON perviousarea ryslem COMME NCIN L/INNIGNTION COMAERCMNRRI6FilON PIF CHFMCiERISiICS RECOVER INiRFCLFSS EppIiY INiERCLFSS Eppltt INTER- LE6FLLY DEFENSIBLE CpsiOMER FOMNISiMiNE LINX PIFS iO WFiER MOiCH PIFS iO MOiCH PIFS iO CIiY's NEI6HiE0 MNX PROPORiIONFiE (wllbinmclass) (bdweei tlasres) 6ENERFiIONFL pNOERSiFNOIN6 EFFORT BpO6Eis FCipFL OEMFNO ON FCipFL COSis FFFOROFBILIiYB SCORE sHFRE OF CFPFCIiY Eppltt (bdweei oltl SYSTEM spsiFINFBILIiY IN FFCILIiIES antl new o~slomers) 6OFL5 Welemea cmeNa Rmmgsum+q masmeslm"enam~ 8 6 2 8 9 3 4 9 8 8 2 Evaluallon smre (t to iq ID asbsl sllNescnlalon) EXISTING siROCipRE COMM1ERCML garee ase aaa'ISPe e"ml 6 4 4 6 9 8 7 1 3 7 5 360 5 aiamb aaoP~ea by aN HiESaa bases o~ wnmePaisiPPOn No arabomo weer pema~a maaae~si6 mso~aowesmem i~ may be ie~massem budgets mange werbme one ssem min suslamabuM POais IRwenilox 6 4 4 6 9 8 7 1 3 7 5 360 5 cM appbesa 8 pergpm adopted by cny wnmon ate ureotrnnesan Fee ~aaesma lowana Fee ~aaesma lowana te~implemenrzbon sauce aPaoiy nPn esaPe nPn esaPe agmr ants vmieR eupe ECensep coMn>ERan~nbu ~ 3 5 6 8 6 5 9 6 6 8 435 2 asomerswner aPnbs eeaPess~na~aa wa~eroeaPtl bass bea aiatlb ~o me we'ss~'nro~ea nrov oassem wpm aN's beaPtl eoa eooaen is saaePm Praaaaa us bea a~~Eb sisainamm oab I"wenilo" 7 6 8 6 8 6 5 9 6 6 8 459 1 ButlgeLS~M~aa Wa~e~butlgel bass asomerswner aPnbs weresiria~ea nroy ooassem wpm aN's bea aiatlb ~o me oaer, is aaePm Praaaaa beaPtl ~b~aga~Pb sisainabbnv POab PIF WITH OTHER COMM1ERCML cxngnciEwsilcs -METER SaE 8 7 3 4 8 7 4 6 7 5 5 413 3 -eoi~piNO epoaRE Eooi a mtlers¢e msme a~miaP mtlers¢es same PO~emai aemaaa eome me~ers¢e as ao Mele~s¢e gootl measua M1owave~uss Wnvanes o(po~eMxl apaoN applietl mnssleMb~o sgnRiaMly Bltlg sma longe~s¢etl or Commonb usetl aemaaa Pame mmPaas PO~emai a~abwea ms<aPaasy Boa aePae IRw6nilON -METER e~~E 8 6 3 4 8 6 4 6 6 4 5 388 4 -PERJIO VB AREA WASTEWATER PIF PIF CHFRFCiERISiICS RECOVER INiRFCLFSS EppIiY INiERCLFSS EppIiY INTER-6ENERFiIONFL LE6FLLY 0EFEN5IBLE CpsiOMER FOMINISiRFiNE MFiCH PIFS iO MFiCH PIFS iO CIiY's NEI6HiE0 RFNH PROPORiIONFiE (wllbin In classes) (bNween classes) EppliY lbNween oltl pNOERSiFNOIN6 EFFORT FCipFL OEMFNO ON FCipFL COSis FFFOROFBILIiYB SCORE sHFRE OF CFPFCIiY antl new cuslomecs) SYSTEM spsiFINFBILItt IN FFCILIiIES 6OFLs welemea rnleNa RamgSMm m; mas mesr lmxeNamt 8 6 2 8 9 3 4 8 8 2 Evaluallon Score (11010; 1Oa5 bell sallNes mllenon) sinms puo ResmexiM~ 5 4 4 6 9 8 7 3 7 5 343 5 xoxxesmexiM~ IRRI6FilON easea on avenge now auowsnme aatusment auowsnme aatusment cunantly aaoptea by cM maadensecsamerman mrs¢e of unn mrs¢e of unn win legal nppon speonc by ousomenoiasa Plr uxoexwnieRpuopEi 8 ] 3 4 8 7 4 7 5 5 359 3 siROCipRE RESIOENiIFLRApLiI FFMILY Plr wix oixER RESmExiM~mn~nEnMaY 8 ] 3 4 8 7 4 7 5 5 359 3 CHFRFCiERISiICS INOOORIBEDROOhA, BAiHROOhA, BUttDING SQUPRE FOOr) Remgn¢esrehLOnsJiip MelM1Otlology usetl in OeoelopersNPicalb muss Applietl consslenlly, Cll antl mgalion Remgnrzes relalionsJiip Bome paamelers between snallecantl oNecmmmunAiesantl tlisclose NisNPe o! Esiimalesol intlooc Natec rehLOnsJiip belWeen cusiomersuse tliRerenl bin M1Ome saes but tlow easuretl by QN loc naw higec M1Omesantl tlelentletl in in(ortnalion tlunng usage intliale aoeage paameleacan be meln¢lo evaulale intlooc not mnstlecnewec pertnbappliaLOn to subsequent polenixl usage eR¢ienl tldu~e NPes BreckenntlgelKiupps PertnNmnsiiucLOn upgatle la[ilAies tlemantl on rysiem applietl to tlevelop msi tlow Caase pmcess basspecpaamelec ResmexiM~mn~nmmaY 8 6 3 4 8 6 4 6 4 5 334 6 INOOORIBEDROOMS, BUILDING SQ UPRE FOOr) Remgn¢esrehLOnsJiip MelM1Otlology usetl in OeoelopersNPicalb muss Applietl consslenlly, between smallecantl Cll antl imgalion Remgn¢esrehLOnsJiip oNecmmmunAiesantl tlisclose NisNPe of Bome paamelers May pmtluce less rehLOnsJiip belWeen uretl by QN loc naw higec M1Omesantl cusiomersuse tliRerenl bin M1Ome s¢esantl tlelentletl in in(ortnalion tlunng eaz ante estimate of paameleacan be subsequenipolenixl meln¢lo evaulale tlow polenLal tlow BreckenntlgelKiupps PertnNmnsiiucLOn bertnbappliaLOn to c tlemantl applietl to tlevelop msi tlow Caase pmcess upgatle holAies basspecpaamelec ResmexiM~mn~nmmaY 8 6 3 4 8 6 4 6 4 5 334 6 IxoooRlRArNROOMS, BUILDING SQ UPRE FOOr) Remgnaesrer~bonwip Enure unnsana mt oneiopeaNgicaib mus some parameters appuea conslsentlx between smallecantl Cll antl imgalion Remgnrzes relalionsJiq s¢elbutltling square tlisclose NisNPe o! uretl by QN (oc naw May pretluce less rehtlonsJiip belWeen higec M1Omesantl cusiomersuse tliRerenl bin M1Ome s¢esantl (oolage area recogn¢etl in(ortnalion tlunng eaz ante estimate of paameleacan be subsequenipolenixl meln¢lo evaulale tlow polenLal intlooctlemantl meNOtl o(alcuhLng PertnNmnsiiucLOn PertnbappliaLOn to c tlemantl applietl to tlevelop msi tlow PIFS upgatle holAies bass a amelec RESmExiMLRANLiRFMILV 8 5 2 4 8 f e5~ 4 5 3a 5 307 8 INOOORIBEDROOMS) M elM1Otlology usetl in OeoelopeaNPicalb muss Applietl consslenlly, Remgn¢esrehtlonsJiip Boma paamelers Measunng tlemantl wAM1a Nol compaable acres Remgn¢esrehtlonsJiip oNecmmmunAiesantl tlisclose NisNPe o! May pretluce less rehtlonsJiip belWeen between smallecantl easuretl by QN for naw sngle cM1aatlensi¢cs not estlenixlantl bin M1Ome saes intliretlb tlelentletlm in(ortnalion tlunng ante estimate of paameleacan be higec M1Omesantl pertnbappliaLOn to asrebusi subsequent polenLaltlow onrestlenLal classes antl polenLal tlow BreckenntlgelKiupps PertnNmnsiiucLOn upgatlela[ilAies tlemantl applietl to tlevelop msi Caase precess basspecpaamelec RESIOENiIFLRApLiI FFMILY $ 4 3 4 8 ] 2 4 2 4 283 /i INOOORIBAiHROOMS) O J RESIOENiIFLRApLiI FFMILY O ] 4 ] V 5 ] ] 404 2 INOOORIBUtt DING SQUPRE V V V FOOr) oneiopeaNgicaib mus appuea conslsentlx Remgn¢esrehLOnsJiq Cll antl mgalion Bome paameters Measunng tlemantl wAM1a Builtling square !oolage is tlisclose NisNPe o! rehtlonsJiip belWeen between smallecantl cusiomeause tliRerent easuretl by QN loc naw sngle cM1aatlensi¢cs not ecogn¢etl meNOtl of in(ortnalion tlunng paameleacan be higec M1Omesantl meln¢to evaulale intlooc pertnitappliaLOn to as rebusi subsequent potenixl tlow usage antl tlow alcuhLng PIFS PertnNmnsiiucLOn upgatle laolAies applietl to tlevelop msi precess basspecpaamelec RESmExiM~mn~nEnMaY 8 4 2 3 3 2 2 4 2 4 213 10 INOOORIPEOPLE PER HO USEHOLO) TM1eoreLally bell TM1eoreLally bell Notcompaableacress BignRiani vambiliN ovec Notam mnmtlusiry Too mucM1 VambiliN an eon~aoorwner man eon~aoorwner esaemaia~a bme i oouege memm oraiour~tl~q otlnounm maasra oege~as o~mmere or eslaemai oiassas esaa~oee EiES aaw~sa~a onuare~ xoxaesmexilnr lhEiER $ ~ 4 8 8 ed5 7 7 6 410 1 s¢E RunoWp souanE Foort STORMWHTER PIF PIF CHNMCIERISFICS RECOVER INIMCLN55 EppRY INTERCLASS EppRY INTER- LEGNLLT CpSFOMER NOMINISIMTIVE MNTCH PIFS TO MNTCH PIFS TO CRYS WEIGHTED MNN PROPORTIONNIE (wiLM1in in class) (beMreen class) GENEMTIONNL DEFENSIBLE pNOERSFNNOING EFFORT NCFpNL OEMNN00N NCNNL COSFS NFFORONBILRY& SCORE SHNRE OF CAPNCRY EppRY (beMeei oltl SYSIEM SpSFNINNBILRY IN FNCILITIES antl newcnsiomers) GONLS we~ymea cmeaa Ramya 11 m m; m a maumPOrraap 8 6 2 8 9 3 4 8 8 2 Evalnalion Score (1 Lo 10;10 a bai sa1'stia crtlerion) STNTp5 pp0 ResmexTwi 5 5 4 6 9 3 4 6 6 5 338 2 NONRESIOENTL4L IRRIGNl10N Recovers m9s basetl Patlreses tlRlerencesm Comparesall pmpeaies Nl new mnnedions buy CuRenLly atlopLetl by Formula may be viewetl Two tlaLa pomLS neetletl MaLMes PIFSLO moot[ FaoWies msls tlnven by unknown n mno!!me!(ioenLS imperviousarea waM1in Loa base sea antl moot! mLO Sy9em apawLy QLy wiN legal suppoa as ompLmLetl LoLal sLe area antl moot! base aLe on ]p00 sgfl quanWy of mnoR daces coel(iwenL coel(iwenL may noL always be naLe PIF wTH OTHER IMPERVIOpS NREN $ 7 6 6 8 7 5 a 7 6 5 393 1 CHNMCFERISFICS PatlresestlRlerencesm NlowstlRlerenms Nl neamnnedionsbuy AppmaM USetlmoNer GimpleappmaM OaLa neetletl impervious FaoWies mslstlnvenby unknown imperviousarea waM1in between noo-restlenLial mLO Sy9em apawLy 9ortnwaLer WJNes area quanWy of mnoR antl restlenLial Analysis of Plant Investment Fee Characteristics Page 13 5.3 Preliminary Recommendations Based on the weighted scoring of each PIF characteristic, Red Oak proposes that Staff and the Stakeholder committee consider applying the water budget-based PIF for single family residential, multifamily, commercial and irrigation water PIFs. We recommend the same for wastewater PIFs. The water budget approach is consistent with the City's water rate design. It improves the equity among customers and within a customer class by requiring new customers to pay for the water that is predicted they will need. It also satisfies intergenerational equity by eliminating subsidies among customers new customers will pay for their anticipated water use just as existing customers are required to pay for their current water use. In summary, the water budget approach to assessing PIFs: • Meets the original objectives of the PIF study • Matches the purchased capacity in the system with a customer's budgeted amount • Recognizes that customers place peak demands on the system, regardless of the peaking factor applied to predict demand For commercial customers, the current approach to determining water budgets is under review by the City. The current approach calculates a customer's average monthly water use as its budget. Alternative approaches are an historical monthly use based on a three- year average for that month and an indoor/outdoor budget calculation similar to single family residential. While Red Oak encourages the application of the water budget approach to assessing wastewater PIFs, the approach should be updated if the City implements an alternate methodology for calculating commercial customers' PIFs. For stormwater PIFs, Red Oak supports the approach of determining the PIF using a square foot basis for all customers, or a per unit basis for single family and multifamily residential. All other customers would be based on a per square foot basis. APPENDIX A Water, Wastewater, and Stormwater Capacity Valuations Table A-1 City of Boulder Water System Cost Allocations Water Demands: Maximum hour demand/peaking factor information from 2000 Treated Water Master Plan Chapter 7, Page 140. Extra Demand Pealang Capacity mgd Factor mgd Average Day 20.0 1.0 Maximum Day 53.0 2.7 33.0 Maximum Hour 90.0 4.5 37.0 Cost Allocation Factors: For items designed to meet average day demands, assign the cost to base: Base 100% For items designed to meet maximum day demands, assign the cost to base and max day: Base 37.7% =Avg Day Demand/Max Day Demand Max Day 62.3% =(Max Day -Avg Day) / Max Day Demand For items designed to meet maximum hour demands, assign the cost to base, max day, and max hour: Base 22.2% =Avg Day Demand / Max Hour Demand Max Day 36.7% =(Max Day -Avg Day) / Max Hour Demand Max Hour 41.1 % =(Max Hour -Max Day) / Max Hour Demand Peak day facilities and peak hour facilities have been combined to represent total peak facilities. The summarized allocation is listed below. Base 22.2% Peak Facilities 77.8% Table A-2 City of Boulder Wastewater System Cost Allocations Headworks and Headworks Bypass: Allocate based on design, which is flow. Therefore, allocate costs as follows: Flow 100% Primary Clarifiers: Allocate based on function, which is BDD &TSS remo~~al. Total "pollutants" removed by clarifiers: Infl, ppd Eff, ppd Removed, ppc % Removed BCD 38,720 25,230 13,490 65% TSS 41,470 24,156 17,314 58% Total 80,190 49,386 30,804 Influent =Site Application Report 2005 B&C page 4-25 Effluent =Site Application Report 2005 B&C page 4-36 Total pollutant load removed = 30,804 BAD Removed, as % of total removed = 44% TSS Removed, as % of total removed = 56% Therefore, allocate costs as follows: BOD 44% TSS 56% Primary Pumping: Allocate based on design and function. Design basis =Move flow from one process to the next Function basis = BAD &TSS removal in primacy clarifier 1 of 5 Table A-2 City of Boulder Wastewater System Cost Allocations Use a 50150 split bet«~een design and function. Therefore, allocate costs as follo~~s: Flo«~ 50% BOD 22% = 50% of primary clarifier allocation fi•om above TSS 28% = 50% of primary clarifier allocation fi•om above Note: Used only for very high flows or when other units are off line for maintenance Primary Sludge Pumping: Allocate based on function, which is BAD &TSS removal. Use same approach as primary clarifier allocation. Therefore, allocate costs as follo~i~s: BOD 44% TSS 5&% Nitrogen Reinvoal: Allocate based on function, which is nitrogen removal Unit processses included in the Nitrogen removal process Anoxic Tanks Total "pollutants" removed in secondary process: Nitrate, Nitrite Therefore, allocate costs as follo~~s: Total Nitroge 100% Secondary Treatment Process: Allocate based on designed function, which is Hydraulic Loading, 2of5 Table A-2 City of Boulder Wastewater System Cost Allocations Total Nitrogen, and BAD removal. Unit processes included in the Secondary Treatment Process: Aeration Tank Solids Contact Basins Secondary Clarifiers Gallery (RAS, WAS, Scum Pumping & Blowers) Values taken from Brown and Caldwell memo date 12-6-07 Therefore, allocate costs as follows: Hydraulic Lo 31 BOD 42% Total Nitroge 27% Secondary Pumping: Allocate based on design and function. Values taken from B&C memo date 12-6-47 Therefore, allocate costs as follo~i~s: Flow 53% BOD 27% Total Nitroge 2U% Clilorine Contact Basin: Allocate based on design and function. Design basis =Detention time at peak flow Function basis =disinfect flowstream Therefore, allocate costs as follows: Flow 1(1(1% Sulfur Dioxide Building: 3of5 Table A-2 City of Boulder Wastewater System Cost Allocations Allocate based on design and function. Use same approach as chlorine contact basin. Therefore, allocate costs as follows: Flow 144% Centrate Equalization Basin: Allocate based on function, which is to equalize Total Nitrogen load to Secondary Treatment process. Therefore, allocate costs as follows: Total Nitroge 144% Solids Handling Process: Allocate based on function, which is BOD &TSS removal. Unit processes included in the Solids Handling Process: DAF's Gravity Thickeners Anaerobic Digesters Digester Control Building Sludge Processing Building Sludge Storage Tanks Solids to solids handling process: ppd % of total Primary sludge 34,844 43% TSS & BOD Secondary sludge 44,443 57% TSS & BOD & Total Nitrogen Total 74,847 144% Primary =ppd removed from primacy clarifier Secondary =ppd removed from secondary clarifier 4of5 Table A-2 City of Boulder Wastewater System Cost Allocations Based on Brown & Caldwell dated December 6, 2447 of total Secondary sludge, TSS from BOD 95% Secondary sludge, TSS from TN 5% Total TSS fiom Secondary sludge 144% Therefore, Primacy Sludge: TSS 43% Secondary Sludge: BOD 54% = 95% * 57% Total Nitroge 3% = 5% * 57% Therefore, allocate costs as follo~~s: BOD 54% TSS 43% Total Nitroge 3% SafS Table A-3 Stormwater Utility Capacity Units (Lot Size) City of Boulder Impervious Customer Class Lot Size Area Units Single Family 213,982,996 sq ft 47% 21,855 Mutlifamily 42,364,550 sgft 58% 29,168 Commercial 42,220,314 sq ft 65% Industrial 20,845,872 sq ft 45% Sprinkler 0 sq ft 7% Total Lot Size 319,413,732 sq ft Tab@ A-4 ctry or anmaer Allorztion of 9ystan RCLD Assets! ILnctl®al COS[COmponents Asset 3luatlon Functl®al Allorztl® AD on Replacem®[ M um Munum aginal Replacan®[ Replacemeu[ Cos[LUS Raw Day Pezk Raw Day Peak Des¢iptlon Cos[ Cos[ Cos[ RCLD YCU Fatilities FacilRies NVec FacilRies Facilitlu To[l Weta Rights Lend 30,654,000 $3Q654,000 $30,654,000 1000% OW/o 00% $30,654,000 $0 $0 $30,654,000 Weta Rights 363,41Q000 363,41Q000 363,41Q000 1000% OW/o 00% 363,41Q000 0 0 363,41Q000 To[l $394,093,000 $394,093,000 9J $394,093,000 $394,093,000 $0 $0 $394,093,000 Lend 238,022,704 238,022,704 23$022,"]C1 00% 100 W/o 00% 0 23$022,"]04 0 23$022,"]C1 Weta Services 96,908,414 12Q25Q939 21,890,692 98,36Q2A"] 00% 222% "T18% 0 21,85Q833 76,509,414 98,36Q2A"] Bwlder Resavov WTP 2$129,023 SQ234,126 25,0]5,"]20 34,158,406 00% 377% 6L3% 0 12,88Q965 21,268,442 34,15$40] 8torege Reservovs 7,180,093 42,"]"]4,165 25,0]2,46] 1"],"]01,699 00% 100 W/o 00% 0 1"],"]01,699 0 1"],"]01,699 HydroelecNCPlants 13,558,209 51,61Q110 33,43$"]85 2A, 231,325 00% 100 W/o 00% 0 2A,231,325 0 2A, 231,325 Befesso WTP 42,"]34,514 106,066,814 51,423,486 54,613,328 00% 377% 623% 0 20,62Q12A 34,023,204 54,613,328 Hydrev6 5,426,832 14,SSQ252 6,43"],"]C1 $112,549 00% 100 W/o 00% 0 8,112,549 0 $112,549 Vehmles 0 0 0 0 00% OW/o 00% 0 0 0 0 Valves 3,"]28,665 Q"]61,4"]0 4,340,560 5,423,910 00% 222% "T18% 0 1,205,313 4,218,55] 5,423,910 Treated Datribnhov Mems 165,053,358 480,759,569 226,"]4Q10] 254, O1Q46L 00% 222% "T18% 0 56,446,"]69 15],563,692 254, O1 Q461 Treated Weta Btorege Tevkx 4,"]81,553 29,685,3T 2Q582,3T 9,103,000 00% 377% 6L3% 0 3,435,095 5,662,906 9,103,001 Treated Weta Pump Bfehovs 415,303 1,398,135 1, 02A,939 3]3,196 00% 222% "T18% 0 82,932 29Q264 3]3,196 Nov Plevt Fgmpmmt 0 0 0 0 00% OW/o 00% 0 0 0 0 Bmldmgs 1,050,765 3,325,622 3G'],2A2 3,018,380 00% 100 W/o 00% 0 3,018,380 0 3,018,380 CompvGrs 0 0 0 0 00% OW/o 00% 0 0 0 0 Rew Weer Trevsmasmv Lmes 50,340,446 62,492,305 11,899,940 SQ592,365 00% 377% 623% 0 19,091,458 31,500,906 SQ592,361 Total Backb®e FacilRies $659,330,339 $1,226,003,582 $425,243,011 $999,960,591 00% 685/0 311% 9J $426,918,146 $391,042,425 $999,960,591 Less: Dev eloper COntribvhovs 9,789,838 28,710,120 2,983,828 25,"]26,292 00% 222% "T18% 0 5,716,954 20,009,338 25,"]26,292 OvLAevdmg Prmc~pel 5,391,500 5,391,500 00% 685/0 311% 0 3,"]13,015 1,6]8,485 5,391,500 Total COnCtibutl®s and Liabilitles $15,181,338 $25,910,120 $2,983,828 $31,119,992 9J x,42$969 $21,689,823 $31,119,992 Ne[9ystem Investrn®[ $1,036,222,001 $1,591,366,462 $425,259,183 $1,160, 915,9A $394,093,000 $419,288,199 $349,354,602 $1,160, 915,9A Table A-5 City of Boulder Wastewater System Allocation of System RCLD Assets to Functional Cost Components Asset Category RCNLD Flow BOD TSS TN Total Flow BOD TSS TN Total Land $58,266,266 66.50% 21.43% 2.74% 9.23% 100.00% $33,745,951 $12,515,032 $1,595,547 $5,409,686 $58,266,266 Buildings (CityYarxls} 431,494 100.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 100.00% 431,494 0 0 0 481,494 Headwottzs Bypass 45,084 100.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 100.00% 45,084 0 0 0 45,084 Headworks 845,918 100.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 100.00% 845,913 0 0 0 845,918 Primary Pumping 1,129,419 50.00% 22.00% 23.00% 0.00% 100.00% 564,709 248,472 316,237 0 1,129,418 Primacy Clarifiers 0 0.00% 44.00% 56.00% 0.00% 100.00% 0 0 0 0 0 Primary Sludge Pumping 193,767 0.00% 44.00% 56.00% 0.00% 100.00% 0 85,258 108,510 0 193,768 Secondary Pumping 214,128 53.00% 27.00% 0.00% 20.00% 100.00% 113,483 57,815 0 42,826 214,129 Interstage Pumping 424,518 53.00% 27.00% 0.00% 20.00% 100.00% 224,994 114,620 0 84,904 424,518 Solids Contact Basins 374,265 0.00% 31.00% 42.00°/a 27.00% 100.00% 0 271,022 367,191 236,051 374,264 Gallery 600,942 40.00% 35.00% 0.00% 25.00% 100.00% 240,377 210,330 0 150,236 600,943 Secondary Clarifier; 1,581,243 50.00% 47.50% 0.00% 2.50% 100.00% 790,624 751,093 0 39,531 1,581,248 Chlorine Contact Basin 1,176,140 100.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 100.00% 1,176,140 0 0 0 1,176,140 Sulfur Dioxide Building 183,567 100.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 100.00% 183,567 0 0 0 183,567 Non-Potable Water Pump Stations 253,291 100.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 100.00% 253,291 0 0 0 253,291 Filter Building 250,654 66.50% 21.48% 2.74% 9.28% 100.00% 166,680 53,338 6,864 23,272 250,654 Grauity Thickeners 335,954 0.00% 54.00% 43.00% 3.00% 100.00% 0 181,415 144,460 10,079 335,954 Anaerobic Digesters 925,517 0.00% 54.00% 43.00% 3.00% 100.00% 0 499,779 397,972 27,766 925,517 Digester Control Building 135,503 0.00% 54.00% 43.00% 3.00% 100.00% 0 73,171 58,266 4,065 135,502 Mechanical Building 109,160 66.50% 21.48% 2.74% 9.28% 100.00% 72,589 23,447 2,939 10,135 109,160 Sludge Processing Building 771,268 0.00% 47.50% 47.50% 5.00% 100.00% 0 366,353 366,353 38,563 771,269 Sludge Storage Tanks 691,530 0.00% 47.50% 47.50% 5.00% 100.00% 0 328,500 328,500 34,579 691,579 Centrate Equalization Basin 129,961 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 100.00% 100.00% 0 0 0 129,961 129,961 Septage Receiving Facility 87,532 66.50% 21.43% 2.74% 9.28% 100.00% 53,207 18,801 2,397 8,127 87,532 Lab/Admin Building 1,096,202 66.50% 21.43% 2.74% 9.28% 100.00°/a 723,953 235,455 30,013 101,776 1,096,202 IBM Lift Station Pumping System 356,570 100.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 100.00% 356,570 0 0 0 356,570 Mains and laterals 36,276,351 100.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 100.00% 36,276,851 0 0 0 36,276,851 WWTP General Site 2,793,085 66.50% 21.48% 2.74% 9.28% 100.00% 1,357,348 599,930 76,435 259,322 2,793,085 Groundwater Pump Station 2,019 66.50% 21.48% 2.74% 9.28% 100.00% 1,342 434 55 187 2,018 Maintenance Building 158,596 66.50% 21.43% 2.74% 9.28% 100.00% 105,463 34,065 4,343 14,725 158,596 Misc. Electrical 180,632 66.50% 21.43% 2.74% 9.23% 100.00% 120,117 38,798 4,946 16,771 180,632 Landfill Treatment Plant 1,081,113 66.50% 21.48% 2.74% 9.28% 100.00% 718,919 232,214 29,605 100,375 1,081,113 Non-Plant Equipment 171,621 66.50% 21.48% 2.74% 9.28% 100.00% 114,124 36,863 4,700 15,934 171,621 General Utility V ehicles 213,563 66.50% 21.48% 2.74% 9.28% 100.00% 142,016 45,872 5,848 19,823 213,564 Secondary Pumping -New BScC memo 12/06/07 2,010,318 53.00% 27.00% 0.00% 20.00% 100.00% 1,065,468 542,786 0 402,064 2,010,318 Aeration Basnns -New BZC memo 12/06/07 16,545,523 40.00% 35.00% 0.00% 25.00% 100.00% 6,613,209 5,790,933 0 4,136,381 16,545,523 BlovverBuilding -New B~,C memo 12/06/07 6,250,260 0.00% 60.00% 0.00% 40.00% 100.00% 0 3,750,156 0 2,500,104 6,250,260 DAFT' -Nevv BR:C memo 12/06/07 5,348,663 0.00% 95.00% 0.00% 5.00% 100.00% 0 5,031,230 0 267,433 5,348,663 Gallery(RAS, WAS, Scum Pumping} -New BRC memo 12/06/03 1,437,682 40.00% 35.00% 0.00% 25.00% 100.00% 575,073 503,189 0 359,420 1,437,682 Secondary Clarifiers -New B&C memo 12/06/09 2,193,074 50.00% 47.50% 0.00% 2.50% 100.00% 1,096,537 1,041,710 0 54,827 2,193,074 Sludge Processing Building -New Sullivan Nlemo 12/04/07 12,342,000 100.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 100.00% 12,342,000 0 0 0 12,342,000 Centrate Equalization Basin -New Sullivan Memo 12/04/07 1,687,200 100.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 100.00% 1,687,200 0 0 0 1,687,200 Underground Sewer Manholes 4,409,457 100.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 100.00% 4,409,457 0 0 0 4,409,457 166,547,620 112,228,229 34,825,855 4,439,945 15,053,593 166,547,622 Indirect Allocation 67.4% 20.9°/n 2.7% 9.0% Less: Developer Contributions 21,794,588 100.00% $21,794,588 $0 $0 $0 $21,794,588 Outstanding Principal 4,985,500 67.40% 20.90% 2.70% 9.00% 100.00% 3,360,227 1,041,970 134,609 448,695 4,985,501 Total Contributions and Liabilities 26,780,088 25,154,815 1,041,970 134,609 448,645 26,780,089 NetSys[emInvesLnent $139,767,532 $87,073,414 $33,783,885 $4,305,336 $14,604,898 $139,767,533 T able A-6 Stormwater Utility Development of Stormwater PIF City of BoW der System RCLD Land $192,825,745 Manholes 4,807,601 Stortndrainage Pip es 56,608,844 Facilities 13,130,976 Less: Developer Contributions (12,645,659) Less: Outstanding Principal 0 Totsl $254,727,507 Estimated Gross Acreage (a) Single Family 4,912 Multifamily 973 Commercial 969 Industrial 479 Sprinkler 0 Totsl Acreage 7,333 Estimated Impervious Area (b) Single Family 47% Multifamily 58% Commercial 65 Industrial 45 Sprinkler 7% Impervious Acreage Single Family 2,328 Multfamily 560 Commercial 625 Industrial 215 Sprinkler 0 Totsl Acreage 3,728 Impervious Acreage- Square Feet (c) Single Family 101,407,680 Multifamily 24,393,600 Commercial 27,225,000 Industrial 9,365,400 Sprinkler 0 Totsl Square Feet 162,391,680 Nonresid®tiW, $ per SgFt $1.57 From 2005 billing database (b) From.lune 2007 Stormwater Master P[an (c) Zmperveous Acreages 43,560 square jevtper acre (d) Zmperveous ¢re¢dtvded by dwelling uwtss $ per square jootimperveous area APPENDIX B Regression Analysis and Water Budget Based PIFs Table B-1 Existing PIF Methodology City of Boulder Single Family, Alultifamily, and Commercial Customers SF Attached~''b~ MF -Unit 1 EQR 0.6 EQR Water System RCLD Capacity Units Unit Cost Units PIF Units PIF 2001 Calculation Raw Water $381,266,322 30,776,942 GPD $12.39 303 $3,760 182 $2,256 Peak Facilities 131,505,632 50,000,000 GPD 2.63 924 2,431 555 1,458 Average Facilities 149,909,054 20,300,000 GPD 7.38 304 2,245 182 1,347 Total $662,681,008 $8,435 $5,061 Regular Single Family {0.8 EQR) 6,748 Existing Fees (d} Raw Water $451,769,745 30,776,942 GPD $14.68 303 $4,455 182 $2,672 Peak Facilities 155,823,534 50,000,000 GPD 3.12 924 2,880 554 1,728 Average Facilities 177,630,100 20,300,000 GPD 8.75 304 2,660 182 1,596 Total $785,223,380 $9,995 $5,995 Regular Single Family {0.8 EQR) $7,995 Existing Structure ~~ith RCLD Values {d) Raw W"ater $394,073,000 27,358,274 AF/Year $14 303.48 $4,371 182 $2,623 Peak Facilities 349,354,602 33,000,000 GPD 10.59 924 9,784 555 5,870 Average Facilities 417,288,177 20,000,000 GPD 20.86 304 6,343 182 3,806 Total $1,160,715,779 $20,498 $12,249 (a) Average size single family detached (b) Commercial is assessed at same rate of average single family residential (c) Variance due to rouding. (d) Existing fees increased by an annual inflation of approximately 3% from 2001 to 2008. Value of assets increase accordingly from 2001 study. (d) RCLD values based on current study valuation. Valuation increase atributed to significant increase inland valuation, cumulative increase in ENR index from 2001 through 2008 (approximately 25%), and addition of assets after the 2001 study. Table B-2 City of Boulder Expected Influence of Characteristics on Indoor and Outdoor Water Demand (gallons per month) Single Family Residential Equation Moldhs Intercept Bedrooms Bathrooms Building Sq Ft Pervious Area Equation of the Line gallons gallons/bed gallons/bath gallons/sq ft gallons/sq ft 1 Jan-Mar, Nov-Dec 1,957 480 153 0.40 N/A Indoor Usage=1,957+q80*Beds+153*Bath+0.40*B1dgSgFt 2 Jan-Mar, Nov-Dec 1,993 833 N/A N/A N/A Indoor Usage = 1,993 + 833*Beds 3 Jan-Mar, Nov-Dec 3,369 N/A 779 N/A N/A IndoorUsage=3,369+779*Bath 4 Jan-Mar, Nov-Dec 3,137 N/A N/A 0.67 N/A IndoorUsage=3,137+0.67*B1dgSgFt 5 Jan-Mar, Nov-Dec 1,933 623 440 N/A N/A Indoor Usage = 1,933 + 623*Beds + qq0*Bath 6 Jan-Mar, Nov-Dec 2,962 N/A 295 0.53 N/A IndoorUsage=2,962+295*Bath+0.53*B1dgSgFt 7 Jan-Mar, Nov-Dec 1,975 512 N/A 0.46 N/A Indoor Usage = 1,975 + 512*Beds + 0.46*B1dgSgFt 8 April-Oct 4,009 N/A N/A N/A 1.6513 Outdoor Usage = 4,009 + 1.6513*Pervious Area Table B-3 City of Boulder Single Family Residential Development of Example Customer Characteristics Customer #1 Historical Water Demand -Indoor Regression Equation Description Units 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Building Size square feet 2,500 2,500 2,500 2,500 2,500 2,500 2,500 Pervious Area square feet 2,500 2,500 2,500 2,500 2,500 2,500 2,500 Bathrooms per Unit 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Bedrooms per Unit 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 Indoor Usage gal/yr 56,496 53,904 59,124 57,804 56,184 58,620 55,956 Outdoor Usage gal/yr 40,685 40,685 40,685 40,685 40,685 40,685 40,685 Average Day of Peak Month (July) Annual Usage Kgal 97,181 94,589 99,809 98,489 96,869 99,305 96,641 Annual Usage acre-feet 030 029 031 030 030 030 030 Average Day gpd 266 259 273 270 265 272 265 System Peak Day Factor 2.70 2.70 2.70 2.70 2.70 2.70 2.70 Peak Day (Ave Day * Peak Day Factor) gpd 719 700 738 729 717 735 715 Peak Day Extra Capacity (PD - AD) gpd 453 441 465 459 452 463 450 Customer Class Peak Day Factor 236 236 236 236 236 236 236 Peak Day (Ave Day * Peak Day Factor) gpd 628 612 645 637 626 642 625 Peak Day Extra Capacity (PD - AD) gpd 362 353 372 367 361 370 360 (a) Outdoor budget for July equals 20%oftotal outdoorbudgeG Tab@]34 Regrusion Analysis city of 13oulder smg~e Fatily Re<meneal CalmlatA W atr PIF Curtmner#1 Regrusion 1 Reg<essi®2 Reg<essi®3 Reg<usion 4 Reg<essi®5 Regressi®6 Reg<usi® 9 Watu 9ystm RCLD Capatiry Unil Uni[COS[ UnPS PIF UnPS PIF Unil PIF UnPS PIF Units PIF Unil PIF UnPS PIF Reg<usi®Analysis- 9ystan Peaking Fact rs Rew Weta $394,G']3, 000 Z1,35$Z14 AFIYear $1440 266 $3,835 25915 $3,"]33 273 $3,939 Z10 $3,88"] 265 $3,823 272 $3,919 265 $3,814 Ivfiestrudure Peak 349,354,602 33,000,000 6PD 1059 453 4,"]93 441 4,66] 465 4,918 459 4,861 452 4,"]81 463 4,901 450 4,"]66 Ivfiestrudure Bese 41"],28$1"]"] 20,OOQ000 6PD 2086 266 5,555 259 5,40] 213 5,"]05 Z10 5,630 265 5,53] 212 $617 265 $524 Totl $1,160, 915,9A $14,183 $13,9 $14,562 $14,398 $14,141 $14,496 $14,104 Reg<usi®Analysis-CUrtmner Class Peaking Facers Rew Weta $394,G']3, 000 Z1,35$Z14 AFIYear $1440 266 $3,835 259 $3,"]33 213 $3,939 Z10 $3,88"] 265 $3,823 212 $3,919 265 $3,814 IvfiestrudurePeak 349,354,602 33,000,000 6PD 1059 362 3,830 353 3,"]35 372 3,933 36] 3,88"] 361 3,818 370 3,916 360 3,814 Ivfiestrudure Bese 41"],28$1"]"] 20,OOQ000 6PD 2086 266 5,555 259 5,40] 213 5,"]05 Z10 5,630 265 5,53] 212 $617 265 $524 Totl $1,160, 915,9A $13,220 $12,895 $13,5 i8 $13,404 $13,1 i8 $13,512 $13,152 Avuage Day Method Rew Weta $394,G']3, 000 Z1,35$Z14 AFIYear $1440 26625 3,835 25915 3,"]33 2]345 3,939 26983 3,88"] 26540 3,823 Z12O] 3,919 264"]"] 3,814 Ivfiestructre "]66,642,"119 20,000,000 6PD 3833 266 1Q206 259 9,934 PD 10,482 Z10 10,343 265 10,173 Z12 1Q429 265 10,149 Totl $1,160,915,9A $14,041 $1$669 $14,421 $14,230 $13,936 $14,348 $13,963 Table B-5 City of Boulder Single Family Residential Comparison of Water Budget-Based PIFs Customer #1 Based on Peaking Factors and Scaling from: Peak Month Capacity Customer Description RCLD Units Unit Cost Units Total PIF Raw Water $394,073,000 27,358,274 GPD $14.40 332.88 $4,793 Infrastructure Peak 349,354,602 35,000,000 GPD 9.98 467.74 4,668 Infrastructure Base 417,288,177 20,000,000 GPD 20.86 332.88 6,944 Total 1,160,715,779 $16,405 Based on Average Day Demand Only - No Scaling based on Peaking Factors Capacity Customer Description RCLD Units Unit Cost Units Total PIF Raw Water $394,073,000 20,000,000 GPD $19.70 332.88 $6,558 Infrastructure Peak 349,354,602 20,000,000 GPD 17.47 332.88 5,815 Infrastructure Base 417,288,177 20,000,000 GPD 23.16 332.88 7,709 Total 1,160,715,779 $20,082 Table B-6 City of Boulder Single Family Residential Development of Example Customer Characteristics Customer #2 Ilistorical Water Demand -Indoor Regression Equation Water Description Unit of NIeasure 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Budget Building Size square feet 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 Pervious Area square feet 6,250 6,250 6,250 6,250 6,250 6,250 6,250 6,250 Bathrooms per Unit 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 Bedrooms per Unit 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 Indoor Usage gal/yr 81,912 73,896 68,472 77,952 76,416 78,144 82,068 84,000 Outdoor Usage gal/yr 71,648 71,648 71,648 71,648 71,648 71,648 71,648 90,000 Average Day of Peak Month (July) 806 Annual Usage Kgal 153,560 145,544 140,120 149,600 148,064 149,792 153,716 174,000 Annual Usage acre-feet 0.47 0.45 0.43 0.46 0.45 0.46 0.47 0.53 Average Day gpd 421 399 384 410 406 410 421 477 System Peak Day Factor 2.70 2.70 2.70 2.70 2.70 2.70 2.70 Peak Day (Ave Day * Peak Day Factor) gpd 1,136 1,077 1,037 1,107 1,095 1,108 1,137 Peak Day Extra Capacity (PD - AD) gpd 715 678 653 697 689 698 716 Customer Class Peak Day Factor 2.36 2.36 2.36 2.36 2.36 2.36 2.36 Peak Day (Ave Day * Peak Day Factor) gpd 993 941 906 967 957 969 994 Peak Day Extra Capacity (PD - AD) gpd 572 542 522 557 551 559 573 Table B-8 City of Boulder Single Family Residential Comparison of Water Budget-Based PIFs Customer #2 Based on Peaking Factors and Scaling from: Peak Month Capacity Customer Description RCLD Units Unit Cost Units Total PIF Water Rights $394,073,000 27,358,274 GPD $14.40 477 $6,865 Infrastructure Peak 349,354,602 35,000,000 GPD 9.98 806 8,048 Infrastructure Base 417,288,177 20,000,000 GPD 20.86 477 9,944 Total $1,160,715,779 $24,857 Based on Average Day Demand Only - No Scaling based on Peaking Factors Capacity Customer Description RCLD Units Unit Cost Units Total PIF Water Rights $394,073,000 27,358,274 GPD $14.40 476.71 $6,865 Infrastructure Peak 349,354,602 20,000,000 GPD 17.47 476.71 8,328 Infrastructure Base 417,288,177 20,000,000 GPD 20.86 476.71 9,944 Total $1,161,418,927 $25,137 Table Fr9 Regression 9nalysis City of Boulder Single Family Residential Calculated Wastewater PIE' Customer #1 Regression I Regression 2 Regression 3 Regression 4 Regression 5 Regression 6 Regression 7 Wastewater System RCLD Capacity Units Unit Cost Units PIF Units PIF Units PIF Units PIF Units PIF Units PIF Units PIF Volume $87,0%'x,414 25,000,000 GPD $3.48 258 $899 246 $857 270 $940 264 $919 257 $895 268 $933 256 $892 BOD 33,783,885 36,000 PPD 938.44 0.32 303 0.31 289 0.34 317 0.33 310 0.32 301 0.34 314 0.32 300 TSS 4,305,336 39,000 PPD 110.39 0.32 36 0.31 34 0.34 37 0.33 36 0.32 35 0.34 37 0.32 35 TN 14,60+,898 4,060 PPD 3,597.27 0.02 70 0.02 67 G.02 73 0.02 71 0.02 69 G.02 72 0.02 69 Total $139,767,543 $1,307 $1,?A6 $1,368 $1,337 $1,301 $1,357 $1?96 Water Budget - 7ndaor Usage Volume $87,073,414 25,000,000 GPD $3.48 230 $801 BOD 33,783,885 36,000 PPD 938.44 0.32 303 TSS 4,305,336 39,000 PPD 110.39 0.32 36 TN 14,604,898 4,060 PPD 3,597.27 0.03 104 Total $139,767,543 $1,2A3 (a) LS,rstonazr iaydrr~arl rc volume bcsed or peak day wet w>?cther flow fatter of 1.67 appdi,?d to ALYC. (b) Oaganic d cacluyg pounds pzr dap baszd on nomaad strength values of 250 mg/d BUD, 230 mg/l TSS, and I S mg/l TtV respectively. Tab@S10 Regcesswn Analysis city of 13ouldec smg~e xamity R~smeneai Ca1m1aGA WartewaRC PIF Curtmne~#2 Regressionl Regcusims2 Regressi®3 Regressi®4 Regcusims5 Regcession6 Regressi®9 {'Vas@4Pd@[9ystan RCLD Capatity Unil Uni[COS[ Unil PIF Un PS' PIF Units' PIF Unil PIF Un PS' PIF Units' PIF Unil PIF Volume $&],G']3,414 25,OOQ000 6PD $348 314 $1,303 33] $1,1"]4 313 $1,090 356 $1,PA0 349 $1,216 35] $1,PA3 375 $1,306 BOD 33,"]83,885 36,000 PPD 93844 047 439 042 396 039 36] 045 418 044 410 045 419 047 440 T88 4,305,336 39,000 PPD 11039 047 52 042 47 039 43 045 49 044 48 045 49 047 52 TN 14,60.4,898 4,060 PPD 3,591 Z] OG3 101 OG3 91 002 OG3 96 OG3 94 003 96 003 101 Togl $139,96'],543 $1,895 $1,'iC8 $1,585 $1,803 $1,968 $1,808 $1,899 W atu ]3udget-Indooc Usage Volume $&],G']3,414 25,OOQ000 6PD $348 384 $1,336 BOD 33,"]83,885 36,000 PPD 93844 048 451 T88 4,305,336 39,000 PPD 11039 048 53 TN 14,60.4,898 4,060 PPD 3,591 Z] OG3 10.4 Togl $139,96'],543 $1,943 (a) LLSmmer Yrydmule volume based on peak day wztriemirerflowfwtor ofL6Japphed m A4G'C. (b) Orgmse laadmg pamds pzr day based on norvnal sbmgth valves of250 mg/l BOD, 250 mg/l ZSS, msd t Smg/l NK3-N, re ~¢mely. Table B-LI City of Boulder Expected Influence of Characteristics on Indoor and Outdoor Water Demand (gallons per month) Multifamily Residential Building Sq Pervious Equation Months Intercept Bedrooms Bathrooms Ft Area Equation of the Line gallons gallons bed gallons/bath gallons/sq ft gallons/sq ft 1 Jan-Mar, Nov-Dec 12,280 42 297 2.13 N/A Indoor Usage=12,280+42*Beds+297*Bath+2.13*B1dgSgFt 2 Jan-Mar, Nov-Dec 29,251 615 N/A N/A N/A Indoor Usage = 29,251 + 615*Beds 3 Jan-Mar, Nov-Dec 19,502 N/A 1,445 N/A N/A Indoor Usage = 19,502 + 1,445*Bath 4 Jan-Mar, Nov-Dec 13,422 N/A N/A 2.54 N/A Indoor Usage = 13,422 + 2.54*B1dgSgFt 5 Jan-Mar, Nov-Dec 18,566 200 1,212 N/A N/A Indoor Usage = 18,566+ 200*Beds + 1,212*Bath 6 Jan-Mar, Nov-Dec 12,360 N/A 327 2.16 N/A Indoor Usage = 12,360 + 327*Bath + 2.16*B1dgSgFt 7 Jan-Mar, Nov-Dec 13,067 83 N/A 2.40 N/A Indoor Usage = 13,067+ 83*Beds+ 2.40*B1dgSgFt 8 April-Nov 2,302 N/A N/A N/A 1.6500 Outdoor Usage = 2,302 + 1.6500*Pervious Area Table B-12 City of Boulder Multifamily Residential Development of Example Customer Characteristics Customer #1 Historical Water Demand -Indoor Regression Equation Water Description Units 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Budget Building Size square feet 36,920 36,920 36,920 36,920 36,920 36,920 36,920 36,920 Pervious Area square feet 56,817 56,817 56,817 56,817 56,817 56,817 56,817 56,817 Number of Units 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 Total Bathrooms 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 Total Bedrooms 80 80 80 80 80 80 80 80 Indoor Water Usage gal/yr 1,273,236 941,412 927,624 1,2$5,464 996,552 1,263,612 1,299,588 1,920,000 Outdoor Usage gal/yr 480,250 480,250 480,250 480,250 480,250 480,250 480,250 852,255 Average Day of Peak Month (July) 10,660 Annual Usage Kgal 1,753,4$6 1,421,662 1,407,874 1,765,714 1,476,802 1,743,862 1,779,$3$ 2,772,255 Annual Usage acre-feet 5.38 4.36 4.32 5.42 4.53 5.35 5.46 8.51 Average Day gpd 4,804 3,895 3,857 4,838 4,046 4,778 4,876 7,595 System Peak Day Factor 2.70 2.70 2.70 2.70 2.70 2.70 2.70 Peak Day {Ave Day * Peak Day Factor) gpd 12,971 10,516 10,414 13,061 10,924 12,900 13,166 Peak Day Extra Capacity (PD - AD) gpd 8,167 6,621 6,557 8,223 6,878 8,122 8,290 Customer Class Peak Day Factor 1.64 1.64 1.64 1.64 1.64 1.64 1.64 Peak Day {Ave Day * Peak Day Factor) gpd 7,$79 6,388 6,326 7,934 6,635 7,835 7,997 Peak Day Extra Capacity (PD - AD) gpd 3,075 2,493 2,469 3,096 2,589 3,057 3,121 Table Sl3 Regressim Analysis City dBaWder MWtifamily Residential Calculated Water PIF Custaner fkl Regressionl Regression2 Regression3 Regressim4 Regressions Regression6 Regressim9 Water System RCLD Capatity UWts UWt Cost UWts PIF UWts PIF UWts PIF UWts PIF UWts PIF UWts PIF UWts PIF Regression Analysis -System Peaking Factors Raw Watev $394,0]3,000 29,358294 t3PD $14.40 4,804 $69,199 3,895 $56,104 3,859 $55,560 4,838 $69,681 4,046 $58,280 4,9]8 $68,819 4,8]6 $]0139 Infiastmctme Peak 349,354,602 33,000,000 t3PD 10.59 8,169 86,459 6,621 90,094 6,559 69,414 8,223 8],059 6,8]8 92,814 8,122 85y8] 8,190 8],959 Infiastmctme Base 41928$19] 20,000,000 t3PD 20.86 4,804 100234 3,895 81266 3,859 80,498 4,838 100y33 4,046 84,418 4,9]8 99,684 4,8]6 101,940 Total $1,160,915,999 $255,892 $209,463 $205,451 $259,6'12 $215,511 $254,490 $259,938 Total Per UWt $6,399 $5,189 $5,136 $6,442 $5,388 $6,362 $6,493 Regression Analysis- Cmtaner Class Peaking Factors Raw Watev $394,0]3,000 29,358294 aPD $14 4,804 $69,199 3,895 $56,104 3,859 $55,560 4,838 $69,681 4,046 $58280 4,9]8 $68,819 4,8]6 $]0239 Infiastmctme Peak 349,354,602 33,000,000 t3PD 10.59 3,0]5 32,553 2,493 26293 2,469 26,136 3,096 32,980 2,589 29,408 3,059 32266 3,121 33,038 Infiastmctme Base 41928$19] 20,000,000 t3PD 20.86 4,804 100234 3,895 81266 3,859 80,498 4,838 100y33 4,046 84,418 4,9]8 99,684 4,8]6 101,940 Total $1,160,915,999 $201,985 $163,962 $162,194 $203,395 $190,106 $200,869 $205,019 Total Per UWt $5,050 $4,094 $4,054 $5,085 $4,253 $5,022 $5,125 Regressim Arulysis Average Day McMod Raw Watev $394,0]3,000 29,358294 aPD $14 4,804.0] 69,199 3,895 56,104 3,859 55,560 4,838 69,681 4,046 58280 4,9]8 68,819 4,8]6 90239 Infiastmctme $]66,642,9]9 20,000,000 t3PD 3833 4,804 184,150 3,895 149202 3,859 149,854 4,838 185,435 4,046 155,093 4,9]8 183,140 4,8]6 186y18 Total $1,160,915,999 $253,349 $205,406 $203,414 $255,116 $213,3'13 $251,958 $259,156 Total Per UWt $6,334 $5,135 $5,085 $6,398 $5,334 $6,299 $6,429 Table B-14 City of Boulder Multifamily Residential Comparison of Water Budget-Based PIFs Customer #1 Based on Peaking Factors and Scaling from: Peak Month Capacity Customer Description RCLD Units Unit Cost Units Total PIF Raw Water $394,073,000 27,358,274 GPD $14.40 7,595 $109,403 Infrastructure Peak 349,354,602 35,000,000 GPD 9.98 10,660 106,401 Infrastructure Base 417,288,177 20,000,000 GPD 20.86 7,595 158,470 Total $1,160,715,779 $374,273 Per Unit $9,357 Based on Average Day Demand Only - No Scaling based on Peaking Factors Capacity Customer Description RCLD Units Unit Cost Units Total PIF Raw Water $394,073,000 27,358,274 GPD $14.40 7,595 $109,403 Infrastructure Peak 349,354,602 20,000,000 GPD 17.47 7,595 132,671 Infrastructure Base 417,288,177 20,000,000 GPD 20.86 7,595 158,470 Total $1,160,715,779 $400,544 Per Unit $10,014 Table B-15 City of Boulder Multifamily Residential Development of Example Customer Characteristics Customer #2 Historical Water Demand -Indoor Regression Equation Water Description Units 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Budget Building Size square feet 8,656 8,656 8,656 8,656 8,656 8,656 8,656 8,656 Pervious Area square feet 2,227 2,227 2,227 2,227 2,227 2,227 2,227 2,227 Number of Units 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 Total Bathrooms 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 Total Bedrooms 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 Indoor Water Usage gal/yr 466,080 528,132 650,184 424,680 629,44$ 467,184 429,960 1,152,000 Outdoor Usage gal/yr 29,883 29,8$3 29,883 29,883 29,883 29,883 29,883 33,405 Average Day of Peak Month (July) 3,312 Annual Usage Kgal 495,963 558,015 6$0,067 454,563 659,331 497,067 459,$43 1,185,405 Annual Usage acre-feet 1.52 1.71 2.09 1.40 2.02 1.53 1.41 3.64 Average Day gpd 1,359 1,529 1,863 1,245 1,806 1,362 1,260 3,248 System Peak Day Factor 2.70 2.70 2.70 2.70 2.70 2.70 2.70 2.70 Peak Day {Ave Day * Peak Day Factor) gpd 3,669 4,128 5,031 3,363 4,877 3,677 3,402 8,769 Peak Day Extra Capacity (PD - AD) gpd 2,310 2,599 3,168 2,118 3,071 2,315 2,142 5,521 Customer Class Peak Day Factor 1.64 1.64 1.64 1.64 1.64 1.64 1.64 Peak Day {Ave Day * Peak Day Factor) gpd 2,228 2,507 3,056 2,042 2,962 2,233 2,066 Peak Day Extra Capacity (PD - AD) gpd 869 978 1,193 797 1,156 871 806 Table Sl6 Regressim Analysis City dBaWder MWtifamily Residential Calculated Water PIF Custaner fk2 Regressionl Regression2 Regression3 Regressim4 Regressions Regression6 Regressim9 Water System RCLD Capatity UWts UWt Cost UWts PIF UWts PIF UWts PIF UWts PIF UWts PIF UWts PIF UWts PIF Regression Analysis -System Peaking Factors Raw Watev $394,0]3,000 29,358294 t3PD $14.40 1;359 $19,592 1,519 $22,021 1,863 $26,838 1,245 $19y39 1,806 $26,019 1;362 $19,616 1,260 $18,149 Infiastmctme Peak 349,354,602 33,000,000 t3PD 10.59 2;310 24,459 2,599 29,516 3,168 33,536 2,118 22,418 3,0]1 32,50] 2;315 24,510 2,142 22,698 Infiastmctme Base 41928$19] 20,000,000 t3PD 20.86 1;359 28;351 1,529 31,898 1,863 38,8]5 1,245 25y84 1,806 39,689 1;362 28,414 1,260 26286 Total $1,160,915,999 $92,380 $81,435 $99,248 $66,341 $96,216 $92,539 $61,111 Total Per UWt $3,016 $3,393 $4,135 $2,964 $4,009 $3,022 $2,996 Regression Analysis- Cmtaner Class Peaking Factors Raw Watev $394,0]3,000 29,358294 aPD $14.40 1259 $19,592 1,529 $22,021 1,863 $26,838 1245 $19y39 1,806 $26,019 1262 $19,616 1260 $18,149 Infiastmctme Peak 349,354,602 33,000,000 t3PD 10.59 869 9202 9]8 10256 1,193 12,628 99] 8,433 1,156 12234 8]1 9223 806 8,534 InfiastmcNre Base 419288,19] 20,000,000 t3PD 20.86 1259 28251 1,529 31,898 1,863 38,8]5 1245 25y84 1,806 39,689 1,362 28,414 1260 26286 Total $1,160,915,999 $59,125 $64,295 $98,340 $52,356 $95,943 $59,252 $52,961 Total Per UWt $2,380 $2,6'18 $3,264 $2,182 $3,164 $2,386 $2209 Regressim Arulysis Average Day McMod Raw Watev $394,0]3,000 29,358294 aPD $14 1,358.80 19,592 1,528.81 22,021 1,86320 26,838 124538 19y39 1,80639 26,019 1261.83 19,616 1259.84 18,149 Infiastmctme $]66,642,9]9 20,000,000 MaD 3833 1259 52,086 1,529 58,602 1,863 91,420 1245 49,938 1,806 69243 1,362 52202 1260 48293 Total $1,160,915,999 $91,658 $80,624 $98,258 $65,6'19 $95262 $91,818 $66,440 Total Per UWt $2,986 $3,359 $4,094 $2,'139 $3,969 $2,992 $2,968 Table B-17 City of Boulder Multifamily Residential Comparison of Water Budget-Based PIFs Customer #2 Based on Peaking Factors and Scaling from: Peak Day:Peak Month Demand~s~ Capacity Customer Description RCLD Units Unit Cost Units Total PIF Raw Water $394,073,000 27,358,274 GPD $14.40 3,248 $46,780 Infrastructure Peak 349,354,602 35,000,000 GPD 9.98 3,312 33,062 Infrastructure Base 417,288,177 20,000,000 GPD 20.86 3,248 67,761 Total $1,160,715,779 $147,603 Per Unit $6,150 Based on Average Day Demand Only - No Scaling based on Peaking Factors Capacity Customer Description RCLD Units Unit Cost Units Total PIF Raw Water $394,073,000 27,358,274 GPD $14.40 3,248 $46,780 Infrastructure Peak 349,354,602 20,000,000 GPD 17.47 3,248 56,730 Infrastructure Base 417,288,177 20,000,000 GPD 20.86 3,248 67,761 Total $1,160,715,779 $171,271 Per Unit $7,136 Table SlB Regressim Analysis City dBaWder MWtifamily Calculated Wastewater PIF Custaner fkl Regressionl Regression2 Regression3 Regressim4 Regressions Regression6 Regressim9 Wasterwater System RCLD Capatity UWts UWt Cost UWts PIF UWts PIF UWts PIF UWts PIF UWts PIF UWts PIF UWts PIF Volume $8],0]3,414 25,000,000 t3PD $3.48 5,814 $20250 4299 $14y93 4236 $14,954 5,8]0 $20,445 4,550 $15,849 5,9]0 $20,09] Sy34 $20,668 BOD 33,983,885 23266 PPD 1,445.86 928 10,523 Z28 10,523 Z28 10,523 Z28 10,523 Z28 10,523 Z28 10,523 Z28 10,523 TSS 4,305,336 22,066 PPD 195.11 Z28 1,420 Z28 1,420 Z28 1,420 Z28 1,420 Z28 1,420 Z28 1,420 Z28 1,420 TN 14,604,898 830 PPD 19,59626 0.44 9,684 032 5,681 032 5,598 0.44 9,958 034 6,014 0.43 9,626 0.45 9,843 Total $139,96'1,533 $39,899 $32,598 $32,295 $40,146 $33,805 $39,666 $40,454 Total Per UWt $999 $815 $809 $1,004 $845 $992 $1,011 Water Budget-Indoor Usage Volume $8],0]3,414 25,000,000 t3PD $3.48 13,699 $49,913 BOD 33,983,885 23266 PPD 1,445.86 1098 15,868 TSS 4,305,336 22,066 PPD 195.11 1098 2,141 TN 14,604,898 830 PPD 19,59626 0.66 11,58] Total $139,96'1,533 $99,310 Total Per UWt $1,433 (a) CLstomer hydrauls volwne based on peakday wet wearherfiowfactor ofL6l applied to AdC'C. (6) Organic loadmgpovnds per day based on normal snenglh values of250 mg/l BOD, 250 mg/I TSS and LS mg/l ZN, respecnvely. Table Sl9 Regressim Analysis City dBaWder MWtifamily Calculated Wastewater PIF Custaner fk2 Regrasiml Regressim2 Regressim3 Regressim4 Regrasim5 Regression6 Regression9 Wasterwater System RCLD Capatity UWts UWt Cost UWts PIF UWts PIF UWts PIF UWts PIF UWts PIF UWts PIF UWts PIF Volume $8],0]3,414 25,000,000 t3PD $3.48 2,128 $],412 2,412 $8,401 2y69 $10241 1y39 $6,953 2,8]4 $10,010 2,133 $],419 1y63 $6,839 BOD 33,983,885 23266 PPD 1,445.86 2.66 3,852 3.02 4265 3.92 5294 2.43 3,510 3.60 5,202 2.69 3,861 2.46 3,554 TSS 4,305,336 22,066 PPD 195.11 2.66 520 3.02 589 3.92 925 2.43 494 3.60 902 2.69 521 2.46 480 TN 14,604,898 830 PPD 19,59626 0.16 2,813 0.18 3,18] 022 3,924 0.15 2,563 022 3,999 0.16 2,819 0.15 2,595 Total $139,96'1,533 $14,596 $16,542 $20,364 $13,300 $19,913 $14,631 $13,465 Total Per UWt $365 $414 $509 $332 $493 $366 $339 Water Budget-Indoor Usage Volume $8],0]3,414 25,000,000 t3PD $3.48 5260 $18221 BOD 33,983,885 23266 PPD 1,445.86 6.59 9,521 TSS 4,305,336 22,066 PPD 195.11 6.59 1285 TN 14,604,898 830 PPD 19,59626 0.40 6y52 Total $139,96'1,533 $36,099 Total Per UWt $902 (a) CLstomer hydrauls volwne based on peakday wet wearherfiowfactor ofL6l applied to AdC'C. (6) Organic loading pounds per day based on normal snenglh values of250 mg/l BOD, 250 mg/l TSS and LS mg/l ZN, respecnvely. Table B-20 City of Boulder Expected Influence of Characteristics on Indoor and Outdoor Water Demand (gallons per month) Commercial Months Meter Size Intercept Demand Bldg Sq Ft Equation of the Line inches gaUmonth gallon/month gallon month Jan-Dec 3/4" 3,691 35,678 0.403 Total Usage = 3,691 + 35,678 + 0.403 Bldg Sq Ft Jan-Dec 1" 3,691 41,591 0.403 Total Usage = 3,691 + 41,591 + 0.403 Bldg Sq Ft Jan-Dec 1 1/2" 3,691 50,737 0.403 Total Usage = 3,691 + 50,737 + 0.403 Bldg Sq Ft Jan-Dec 2" 3,691 115,854 0.403 Total Usage = 3,691 + 115,854 + 0.403 Bldg Sq Ft Jan-Dec 3" 3,691 129,004 0.403 Total Usage = 3,691 + 129,004 + 0.403 Bldg Sq Ft Jan-Dec 4" 3,691 284,185 0.403 Total Usage = 3,691 + 284,185 + 0.403 Bldg Sq Ft Jan-Dec 6" 3,691 1,149,100 0.403 Total Usage = 3,691 + 1,149,100 + 0.403 Bldg Sq Ft Jan-Dec 8" 3,691 406,640 0.403 Total Usage = 3,691 + 406,640 + 0.403 Bldg Sq Ft Table B-21 City of Boulder Commercial Development of Example Customer Cliaracteilstics Customer #1, Customer #2 Customer #1 Customer #2 Projected Projected eater Water Description Units Demand Demand Meter Size inches 3/4" 2" Building Size square feet 5,000 15,000 Total Water Demand Kgal 112,000 1,507,077 Annual Usage acre-feet 0.34 4.63 Average Day gpd 307 4,129 Average Day of Peak Month (July) 552 7,432 System Peak Day Factor 2.70 2.70 Peak Day (Ave Day * Peak Day Factor} gpd 828 11,148 Peak Day Extra Capacity (PD - AD) gpd 521 7,019 Customer Class Peak Day Factor 1.60 1.60 Peak Day (Ave Day * Peak Day Factor) gpd 491 6,606 Peak Day Extra Capacity (PD - AD) gpd 184 2,477 Table B-22 City of Boulder Commercial Calculated Water PIF Customer #1, Customer #2 Customer #1 Customer #2 Water System RCLD Capacity Units Unit Cost Units PIF Units PIF Regression Analysis -Pervious Area and Meter Size -System Peaking Factors Raw Water $394,073,000 27,358,274 GPD $14.40 307 $4,420 4,129 $59,474 Infrastructure Peak 349,354,602 33,000,000 GPD 10.59 521 5,517 7,019 74,307 Infrastructure Base 417,288,177 20,000,000 GPD 20.86 307 6,402 4,129 86,149 Total $1,160,715,779 $16,339 $219,930 Regression Analysis -Pervious Area and Meter Size -Customer Class Peaking Factors Raw Water $394,073,000 27,358,274 GPD $14.40 307 $4,420 4,129 $59,474 Infrastructure Peak 349,354,602 33,000,000 GPD 10.59 184 1,950 2,477 26,223 Infrastructure Base 417,288,177 20,000,000 GPD 20.86 307 6,402 4,129 86,149 Total $1,160,715,779 $12,772 $171,846 Average Day Method Raw Water $394,073,000 27,358,274 GPD $14.40 307 4,420 4,129 $59,474 Infrastructure $766,642,779 20,000,000 GPD 38.33 307 11,762 4,129 158,273 Total $1,160,715,779 $16,182 $217,747 Table B-23 City of Boulder Commercial Comparison of Water Budget-Based PIFs Customer #1 Based on Peaking Factors and Scaling from: Peak Month Capacity Customer Description RCLD Units Unit Cost Units Total PIF Raw Water $394,073,000 27,358,274 GPD $14.40 307 $4,420 Infrastructure Peak 349,354,602 35,000,000 GPD 9.98 552 5,513 Infrastructure Base 417,288,177 20,000,000 GPD 20.86 307 6,402 Total $766,642,779 $16,335 Based on Average Day Demand Only - No Scaling based on Peaking Factors Capacity Customer Description RCLD Units Unit Cost Units Total PIF Raw Water $394,073,000 27,358,274 GPD $14.40 307 $4,420 Infrastructure Peak 349,354,602 20,000,000 GPD 17.47 307 5,360 Infrastructure Base 417,288,177 20,000,000 GPD 20.86 307 6,402 Total 1,161,418,927 $16,182 Table B-24 City of Boulder Commercial Comparison of Water Budget-Based PIFs Customer #2 Based on Peaking Factors and Scaling from: Peak Month Capacity Customer Description RCLD Units Unit Cost Units Total PIF Raw Water $394,073,000 27,358,274 GPD $14.40 4,129 $59,474 Peak Day 349,354,602 35,000,000 GPD 9.98 7,432 74,185 Average Day 417,288,177 20,000,000 GPD 20.86 4,129 86,149 Total 1,160,715,779 $219,808 Based on Average Day Demand Only - No Scaling based on Peaking Factors Capacity Customer Description RCLD Units Unit Cost Units Total PIF Raw Water $394,073,000 27,358,274 GPD $14.40 4,129 $59,474 Peak Day 349,354,602 20,000,000 GPD 17.47 4,129 72,124 Peak Hour 417,288,177 20,000,000 GPD 20.86 4,129 86,149 Total 1,160,715,779 $217,747 Table B-25 City of Boulder Commercial Calculated Wastewater PIF Customer #1 Customer #2 Wastewater System RCLD Capacity Units Unit Cost Units PIF Units PIF Volume $87,073,414 25,000,000 GPD $3.48 511 $1,780 6,882 $23,970 BOD 33,783,885 23,366 PPD 1,445.86 0.64 926 8.61 12,456 TSS 4,305,336 22,066 PPD 195.11 0.64 125 8.61 1,681 TN 14,604,898 830 PPD 17,596.26 0.04 676 0.52 9,095 Total $139,767,533 $3,506 $47,201 (a) Customer hydraulic volume based on peak day wet weather flow factor of 1.67 applied to AGVC. (b) Organic loading pounds per day based on normal strength values of 250 mg/l BOD, 250 mg/l TSS, and IS mg/l NH3-N, respectively. Table B-26 City of Boulder Irrigation Development of Example Customer Characteristics Customer #1, Customer #2 Unit of Description Measure Com Ex 1 Com Ex 1 Pervious Area square feet 15,400 50,000 Estimated Outdoor Demand gallons/year 64,472 75,432 Outdoor Water Budget gallons/year 237,930 772,500 Average Day of Peak Month (July) 1,535 4,984 Annual Usage Kgal 64,472 75,432 Annual Usage acre-feet 0.20 0.23 Average Day gpd 177 207 System Peak Day Factor 2.16 2.16 Peak Day (Ave Day * Peak Day Factor) gpd 382 446 Peak Day Extra Capacity (PD - AD) 205 239 Customer Class Peak Day Factor 3.49 3.49 Peak Day (Ave Day * Peak Day Factor) gpd 616 721 Peak Day Extra Capacity (PD - AD) gpd 616 721 Tame a9 wooer Pnagetenatysis city of 13ou16er smg~e Fatily Rrsmeneal CalmlatA W atr PIF Curtmner #2 Reg<ession 1 Reg<essi®2 Reg<essi®3 Reg<ession 4 Reg<essi®5 Regressi®6 Reg<essi® 9 Watu 9ystm RCLD Capatity Unit Uni[COS[ UnPS PIF UnPS PIF Unit PIF UnPS PIF Units PIF Unit PIF UnPS PIF Reg<essi®Analysis- 9ystan Peaking Fact rs Rew Weta $391,G']3, 000 Z1,35$Z14 AF/Yeer $14 047 045 $6 043 $6 046 045 $6 046 047 IvfiestrudurePeak 349,354,602 33,000,000 6PD 1059 715 "],512 618 "],180 653 6,914 6S] "],380 689 "],298 698 "],385 716 "],518 Ivfiestrudure Bese 41"],28$1"]"] 20,OOQ000 6PD 2086 421 $"T18 399 8,320 381 8,010 410 8,552 406 $461 410 $563 421 $"]8"] Totl $1,160, 915,9A $16,359 $15,W6 $14,930 $15,938 $15,968 $15,954 $16,392 Reg<essi®Analysis-CUStmnea' Class Peaking Facers Rew Weta $391,G']3, 000 Z1,35$Z14 AF/Yeer $14 047 045 $6 043 $6 046 045 $6 046 047 IvfiestrudurePeak 349,354,602 33,000,000 6PD 1059 512 6,059 542 5,"]41 522 $SZ] 55] 5,898 551 5,83] 559 5,914 513 6,065 Ivfiestrudure Bese 41"],28$1"]"] 20,OOQ000 6PD 2086 421 $"T18 399 8,320 381 8,010 410 8,552 406 8,461 410 $563 421 $"]8"] Totl $1,160, 915,9A $14,843 $14,069 $13,543 $14,456 $14,309 $14,483 $14,858 Avuage Day Method Rew Weta $391,G']3, 000 Z1,35$Z14 AF/Yeer $14 047 045 6 043 6 046 045 6 046 047 IvGestructre $]66,642,"T19 20,OOQ000 6PD 3833 421 16,12] 399 15,285 381 14,715 410 15,711 406 15,550 410 15,"]31 421 16,143 Totl $1,160,915,9A $16,134 $15,291 $14,922 $15,918 $15,5`6 $15,938 $16,150 Table B-27 City of Boulder Irrigation Development of Example Customer Characteristics Customer #1, Customer #2 Customer #1 Customer #2 Unit of System RCN Capacity Measure Unit Cost Units PIF Units PIF Regression Analysis -Pervious Area and Meter Size -System Peaking Factors Raw Water $394,073,000 27,358,274 GPD $14.40 177 $2,544 207 $2,977 Infrastructure Peak 349,354,602 33,000,000 GPD 10.59 382 4,044 446 4,722 Infrastructure Base 417,288,177 20,000,000 GPD 20.86 177 3,685 207 4,312 Total $1,160,715,779 $10,274 $12,010 Regression Analysis -Pervious Area and Meter Size -Customer Class Peaking Factors Raw Water $394,073,000 27,358,274 GPD $14.40 177 $2,544 207 $2,977 Infrastructure Peak 349,354,602 33,000,000 GPD 10.59 616 $6,519 721 $7,633 Infrastructure Base 417,288,177 20,000,000 GPD 20.86 177 $3,685 207 $4,312 Total $1,160,715,779 $12,749 $14,922 Water Budget -Peak Month Raw Water $394,073,000 27,358,274 GPD $14.40 652 $9,390 2,116 $30,486 Infrastructure Peak $349,354,602 35,000,000 GPD 9.98 1,535 15,322 4,984 49,747 Infrastructure Base $417,288,177 20,000,000 GPD 20.86 652 13,601 2,116 44,158 Total $1,160,715,779 $38,312 $124,391 Water Budget -Average Day Facilities Only Raw Water $394,073,000 27,358,274 GPD $14.40 652 $9,390 2,116 $30,486 Infrastructure Peak $349,354,602 20,000,000 GPD 17.47 652 11,387 2,116 36,969 Infrastructure Base $417,288,177 20,000,000 GPD 20.86 652 13,601 2,116 44,158 Total $1,160,715,779 $34,377 $111,613