The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2012-10-09 WSB AGENDA" ' WATER& SEWER BOARD AGENDA TUESDAY, OCTOBER 9, 2012 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CONFERENCE ROOM 1. MINUTES OF THE SEPTEMBER 12, 2012 WATER BOARD MEETING. PHONE VOTE-SEPTEMBER 18, 2012. (ATT. 1) 2 . REACTIVATION OF CERTAIN INSIDE CITY INTERCEPTOR BASIN AGREEMENT MAINTENANCE CHARGES. (A TT. 2) 3. MOFFAT COLLECTION SYSTEM PROJECT ISSUES: TALKING POINTS MEMO FROM ANN RHODES, SPECIAL WATER COUNCIL. (ATT. 3) 4. SEWER UTILITY RATES . (ATT. 4) 5. WATER CONSERVATION PROGRAM ELEMENTS. (ATT. 5) 6. MEMO DATED 9-26-12 TO STU FONDA REGARDING ADVANCED BILLING FOR SANITARY SEWER SERVICE. (ATT. 6) 7. LETTER FROM CHARLES NICHOLS -2808 E. WEAVER PL. (A TT. 7) . ' 8. REQUEST TO REMOVE LATE FEE -7272 S. COLORADO BLVD. (A TT. 8) 9. INFORMATIONAL ARTICLES: "USA TODAY ANALYSIS: NATIONS WATER COSTS RUSHING HIGHER." (ATT. 3) 10. OTHER " ' Present: Absent: WATER& SEWER BOARD MINUTES WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 12, 2012 PUBLIC WORKS CONFERENCE ROOM Wiggins , Waggoner, Oakley, Penn, Burns, Woodward, Habenicht Olson, Lay, Moore Also present: Tom Brenna, Utilities Engineer IV The meeting was called to order at 5:04 p.m . ·~ 1. MINUTES OF THE AUGUST 14, 2012 WATER BOARD MEETING. PHONE VOTE-AUGUST. 22 , 2012. The Minutes of the August 14, 2012 meeting were approved as written, per the phone vote on August 22, 2012. ·~ 2. ALLEN PLANT ULTRA VIOLET (UV) SYSTEM DESIGN. Tom Brennan discussed the bids received for the Allen Plant UV project. The project is required for the City to comply with the Long Term Two Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule, which requires that the Englewood water system meet additional cryptosporidium removal requirements. The Utilities Department received seven bids. CDM Engineers reviewed the bids, and found Asian Construction to be the lowest acceptable bid in the amount of $3,952,439.00. Motion: To recommend Council approval, by motion to award the bid for construction of the Allen Filter Plant Ultraviol et (UV) system to Asian Construction in the amount of $3,952,439.00. /-/ c ' Moved: Bums Seconded: Habenicht Motion passed unanimously. 3. INFORMATIONAL ARTICLES: The Board received the following informational articles: ARTICLE FROM THE AUGUST 21 , 2012 DENV ER POST, "HICKENLOOPER TO OBAMA: COLORADO FACES GAP IN WATER." ARTICLE FROM THE COLORADO DEPARTM ENT OF LAW, "ATTORNEY GENERAL ANNOUNCES INDICTMENT OF CENTENNIAL BUSINESS SUSPECTED OF DEFRAUDING WESTERN SLOPE RESTAURANTS. 4. DENVER WATER NEGOTIATIONS. On-going negotiations with Denver were discussed. Mr. Fonda discussed water softening solutions . A response regarding the Denver Water Moffat Tunnel Project will be sent to the Denver Water Board within two weeks. It was noted that the South Platte Working Group II supports requiring Denver to increase Chatfield releases in the South Platte River. It was noted that current releases from Chatfield are minimal. Mayor Penn will keep the Bo ard informed of new developments. The meeting adjourned at 5:25 p.m . The next Water and Sewer Board meeting will Tuesday, October 9, 2012 at 5:00 p.m. in the Community Development Conference Room. Respectfully submitted, Cathy Burrage Recording Secretary /-2 . . WATER & SEWER BOARD PHONE VOTE -TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 18, 2012 Phone Vote Roll Call. Contacted: Clyde Wiggins , Chuck Habenicht, Tom Bums, Kells Waggoner, Jim Woodward, Linda Olson, Joe Lay, Wayne Oakley, John Moore, Randy Penn 1. MINUTES OF THE SEPTEMBER 12, 2012 MEETING. Motion: Approve minutes of the September 12, 2012 Water and Sewer Board meeting. Moved: Woodward Seconded: Penn Abstain: Olson , Moore, Lay Motion passed unanimously. The next Water and Sewer Board meeting will be Tuesday, October 9, 2012 at 5:00 p.m . in the Community Development Conference Room. Respectfully submitted, Cathy Burrage Recording Secretary l -3 MEMORANDUM To : Stu Fonda, Utilities Director n From: John Bock, Utilities Manager of Administration~~ Date: September 13 , 2012 Subject: Reactivation of Certain Inside City Interceptor Basin Agreement Maintenance Charges An area of Englewood, the sanitary sewer from which drains to the Big Dry Creek Interceptor, has not been charged IBA fees since about 2007. These residents will now begin to see the resumption of those charges on their quarterly bills. In 2007 the City received a refund from the Big Dry Creek Interceptor Basin Agreement Fund (IBA) and elected to use those funds to pay the IBA maintenance fees on behalf of those Englewood residents who are connected to it, but do not belong to an outside City sanitation district. These customers number about 1500. On August I , 1990, the City of Englewood, Southgate Sanitation District, South Arapahoe Sanitation District, and South Englewood Sanitation District entered into an agreement: the Big Dry Creek Basin Interceptor Agreement (IBA). This agreement provided for the maintenance of and capital improvements to the Big Dry Creek Interceptor. Under the terms of the agreement, Englewood collected Base Line and Advanced Line tap fees for capital projects, and routine maintenance charges from all properties tributary to this sewer interceptor. The money was used for routine maintenance and to build capital improvements on the interceptor. Leading up to 2007 , a re-evaluation of the Big Dry Creek Interceptor was conducted by the Southgate Sanitation District. It was the conclusion of this reassessment that the capital capacity needs of the Interceptor had been met, and that any remaining, proposed capital projects did not need to be constructed. However, the routine maintenance needs of the Interceptor would continue. Therefore , the Base Charge and maintenance fee continued to be collected, but the collection of Advanced Fees stopped and any Advanced Fees being held by the fund were returned to the district from which they were collected. As set forth in the Agreement, unused Base Line capital funds are returned annually to the sanitation district from which they were collected. Englewood elected to use its unused Base Line tap fees , as well as its refunded Advanced Line tap fees , to pay the Big Dry Creek Interceptor maintenance fees on behalf of those Englewood residents who are connected to it, but do not belong to an outside City sanitation district. 2 -/ MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor Randy Penn, Stu Fonda, Dan Brotzman, City of Englewood FROM: Ann M. Rhodes , Special Water Counsel, City of Englewood DATE: 9/14/2012 RE: Moffat Collection System Project Issues: Talking Points Memo 1. There is less and less water in the South Platte River below Chatfield Reservoir, especially in the winter. a . Charts 1-3 are based on recorded Chatfield releases from 1975-2011. The trend lines for releases from Chatfield to the South Platte slope downward, indicating diminishing releases over time. This is true for both yearlong data and winter data. See Charts 1-2 . b. The number of winter low flow days where the Chatfield release is 3 cubic feet per second (cfs) or less, has risen sharply since 1990. See Chart 3. c. The lower flows impact water quality for Engl ewood and others. Englewood experiences water hardness problems during the winter when Chatfield releases are low or non-existent. Low flows also impact temperature and other pollutants and can affect wastewater treatment plant operations that depend on dilution flows. d. Low flows also impact recreation and aesthetics. For example, Littleton and Englewood have recreational boat chutes on the South Platte below Chatfield that cannot operate safely under reduced fiver flows. 2. Denver needs more water and plans to divert more water out of the South Platte. a. Denver projects a demand for an additional 78,000 acre feet of water per year by 2030. b. The Moffat project is just one of many projects Denver is pursuing to meet its needs . Denver's projects increase its ability to take more water from the South Platte at or above Chatfield, which reduces flows below Chatfield. See Table 1, which only shows some of Denver's projects. c. The average annual natural inflow to Chatfield Reservoir from 2001-2008 was approximately 73 ,000 acre feet. With its downstream gravel pits, Denver has the exchange capacity to divert the average natural flow of the South Platte at or above Chatfield in most years. See Table 1. This concern is discussed in detail in Englewood's Comment Letter on the Chatfield Reallocation Project. 3 -/ 3. The Moffat Collection System project will cause r educed flows in the South Platte below Chatfield. a . The Moffat project EIS states that it will res lt in lower flows in the South Platte. The reduction in flow will exceed 10% in some months. See the Moffat System EIS Table 3 .9-4 and Appendix H . b . The Colorado Division of Wildlife raised co ncerns about how the Moffat System project would reduce flows below Chatfield, e specially in the critical winter months . See Table 2 . Englewood also raised these concerns in a comment letter on the Moffat System Project. c. While Denver currently cannot use return flo w s from the Moffat System water due to a 1940 Agreement, it may exchange to Chatfield the first use of the additional 18,000 acre feet of Moffat water. d . Also , Denver is actively litigating to nullify th e 1940 Agreement, which would provide it with 20,000 acre feet of new exchange water, including the Moffat System return flows . See Denver Case No. 12 CW005 . 4. Miti2ation is required to protect the river below C atfield. a. See Figure 1 which is a copy of the figure from the Chatfield Reallocation EIS showing that flows below Chatfield will be reduced 11 months out of the year with greatest impacts in winter if the preferred alternative for the Chatfield Reallocation is selected. The Moffat project combined with the Chatfield Reallocation will further deplete the South Platte. 2 b . The Chatfield Reallocation EIS states that 10 cfs continuously released from Chatfield would mitigate many of the negative downstream impacts of that project. See Chatfield EIS at 4-52, Appendix D. The Moffat project only adds on to those impacts, so 10 cfs or more should be r equired to offset the negative environmental impacts of these projects and of Denver's other flow-depleting projects. c. Currently, no downstream mitigation is required for either project-which is why Englewood opposes them. Copies of letters, reports, and data supporti.ng Englewood's concerns may be obtained from Englewood's Special Water Counsel, Berg Hill Greenleaf & R uscitti, LLP 3 -2 Charts of Chatfield Releases to the South Platte 1 Chart 1: Total Dail Outflow (cfs) from Chatfield to South Platte-1975-2011 3500.00 3000.00 2500.00 2000.00 1500.00 1000.00 500.00 0 .00 ' ' .,.., co -.... s t::. ~ ~ ---.g .g .g .g ...... ...... ...... ...... 0 0 0 0 -1------1---------,, ' ' _;,, ...... 0 ......, "' ..... ....., 00 ~ "' ~ m .g .g -------..... ...... ...... -...... -0 0 0 .g .g 0 0 ----------...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 .g ...... 0 --...... 0 ----...... .g ...... 0 --Total Outrlow from Chatfield Reservoi r -cfs --Trend (Linear) Chart 2: Total Winter Outflow ov. -Mar. from Chatfield to South Platte -1975-2011 1200.00 1000.00 800 .00 600.00 400.00 1-·---·-·--- I ·----Total Outflow from Chatfield Reservoir -cfs --Trend (Linear) Chart 3: Total Winter Low Flow Da sat Chatfield releases less than 3 cfs : 1976-2011 100 r---------- 90 i---·-----·-· -------------------------------------------------------------- 80 1-------------------1 70 !__ ________________ ------- 1 60 I . £ :: f= ____ ·-=--=-----.---4-·-------- --Number Low Flow Days --Trend (Linear) I 20 10 0 1 Data from Chatfield Reservoir accounting provided by U.S. Army Corps of Engin eers , Denver Water, and Colorado Division Engineer. 3-3 3 Denver Water's Need and Water Projects Chart 4: Denver's Projected Water Demand (from Moffat Draft EIS) The folJowing figure displays forecasted growth in Denver Water's average annual water demands. · Denver Water's Average Annual Woter Demand 363,000 / 345,000 0 w z < ...... :E w ~ e5 < 285,000 / ~ ~,ro ,, rp'>P Curr ent Full Use of the Full Use Condi tions Existing System (w/ Project) Cw/o Project) Tl MELINE NOTTO SCALE T bl 1 SI dD w s I I p . Affi tin Ch tfi Id a e . e ecte enver ater upp LY mprovement ro.1ects ec I~ a 1e . Project Information Description Projected Impact on 4 Source Yield (acre South Platte feet) flows? Moffat System Moffat EIS, Exp and Gross Reservoir by 18,000 Yes Denver Water 72,000 acre feet (18,000 acre Case No. feet is the minimum yield, 12CW005 averaJ;!;e vield will be hi!!her) Gravel Pits Denver Water Gravel pits store effluent that 64,000 Yes Case Nos. can be exchanged to or above 01CW286, Chatfield; total storage is 07CW322, approximately 32,000 acre feet 09CW264, but each pit can be filled and re- 09CW139 filled during the year Chatfield Denver Water Allows more water to be Unknown Yes Pump Station Case No. removed from Chatfield and 09CW139 expandsexchanJ;!;ecapacity Strontia Fish Denver2002 Pumps water out of South Platte 3,000 Yes Flow Recovery Integrated between Strontia and Chatfield Resource Plan TOTAL 85,000 3 -'-/ 5 Table 2: Excer ts of Colorado Division of Wildlife Comments on Moffat S stem Pro'ect Table 3.9-4: This table shows that the expected change in monthly flow between Chatfield Reservoir and Bear Creek may be larger than 10% during some months. Winter flows in this reach are often critically low and flow changes in excess of 10% may be significant. CDOW is concerned that the ro osed action ma exacerbate conditions in an alread flow d leted reach. 4-109: Under the proposed action, water would be moved within the Denver water system between Strontia Springs , Chatfield and Marston reservoirs differently than is the current practice. Current Denver water operations result in zero flow days below Chatfield dam. It is unclear how the proposed action for operations at Chatfield Reservoir will impact average daily flows released from the reservoir. 5-14: Denver Water's proposal to install pumps at Chatfield Reservoir is not included in the cumulative effects analysis . Flows downstream of Chatfield Reservoir may be impacted due to Denver's proposed action and the Chatfield Reallocation Project. CDOW believes that the FEIS should fully document the cumulative impacts on stream flows of the Chatfield Reallocation Pro· ect, articular I in winter months. Appendix H-1: This appendix discusses how the flow regime would change from Current Conditions and Full Use Existing System below Chatfield Reservoir, and states that flow would be reduced b 11 % on an avera e ear, 10% on a d ear, and 5% on a wet ear. Figure 1: Chatfield Reallocation EIS Estimated Effect of on Downstream Flows 1DOQ c: i 40D 200 1--... '!OCMnge"" FbM I Figure 4-12 Percent Change in Aow from Baseline in the South Platte River Below Chatfield Reservoir if Alternative 3 Were Implemented 3 -S- 25 What is an Exchange? An exchange is an upstream diversion of water replaced one-for-one with a downstream introduction of water called a "substitute supply." In this example, Denver exercises its exchange by taking water out of the South Platte upstream of Chatfield Reservoir and providing a substitute supply from its Gravel Pits. The pink shapes indicate the elements of the exchange. The unaffected areas of the South Platte are shown in blue. They are unaffected because whatever water Denver takes out at the Diversion Point is replaced in identical amount at its Substitute Supply Introduction Point. The uncolored area between the Diversion Point and the Substitute Supply Introduction Point is depleted by the amount of the diversion. Englewood is in the depleted stretch of the River. Chatfield Reservoir South ,Platte River Diversion Point Denver Water System Substitute Supply Introduction Point Gravel Pits 6 COUNCIL COMMUNICATION Date Agenda Item November 5, 2012 STAFF SOURCE Subject Resolution for Sewer Rate Increase INITIATED BY Utilities Department Stewart H. Fonda , Director of Utilities COUNCIL GOAL AND PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION Council approved a sewer rate increase that was implemented January 1, 1999 . The last rate increase before that was in 1982 by Council Bill #56 . On July 8, 2003 Council approved annual increases for a five year period . The last increase was implemented January 1, 2008 . November 3, 2008 Council approved a resolution for annual sewer rate increases for 8% in 2009, 8% in 2010 and 8% in 2011. RECOMMENDED ACTION The Englewood Water and Sewer Board recommended Council approval of the proposed resolution. The recommended increases in sewer charges are 4% in 2013, 4% in 2014 and 4% in 2015. The proposed increases would provide revenues that maintain an adequate fund balance and meet bond requirements . BACKGROUND, ANALYSIS, AND ALTERNATIVES IDENTIFIED The attached Sewer Utility Revenue report and cash flow present a series of rate adjustments that provide adequate funds to operate and maintain the Bi-City Plant as well as the Englewood sewer collection system . This would also allow adequate funds to allow completion of several capital projects at the Bi-City Plant. FINANCIAL IMPACT It is proposed to increase sewer rates 4% in 2013 , 4% in 2014 and 4% in 2015. All rounding of fract ions of cents shall be down, and in favor. of the customer. LIST OF ATIACHMENTS 1. Resolution 2 . Cash Flow L/ -I TO : FROM: DATE: RE: MEMORANDUM Englewood City Council Stewart Fon~Utilities September 18, 201 2 Sewer Utility Rates The results of numerous cash flows for the Sewer Utility are presented in the attached table. The results show the rates required to maintain an unencumbered balance of about $2,500,000 in 2015 under various conditions. These conditions include different projected incomes ($13,537 ,441 and $13 ,837 ,441) and different borrowing in 2013 ($2 ,000 ,000; $3 ,000,000 and $-0-). In 2016 it is anticipated that the wastewater treatment plant will be required to build facilities that meet the new adopted nutrient regulations . This will require substantial rate increases from 2016 to 2020. The amount of the expense is not known at this time. A long range master plan will be completed in 2013 to address this issue. The capital requirements anticipated through 2015 are to maintain the current infrastructure of the sewer plant and are small compared to what will be required to remove nutrients. The table shows combinations ofrate increases from 2013 to 2015 from 0% to 7% in each year. The table shows that higher rates of borrowing result in lower rate increases. The table also shows larger increases in the early years result in lower increases in the later years . After considering the information presented, the Water and Sewer Board recommended that Council consider increases of 4% in 2013 , 4% in 2014 and 4% in 2015. The Board also recommended borrowing $3,000,000 in 2013 because interest rates are so low at this time. It is anticipated that interest rates could rise before the nutrient project is built. LJ -2 '. Two cash flows are attached which show the effects of the 4% rate increase. They show a 2015 balance of$4,091,406 if$3,000,000 is borrowed and a 2015 balance of $3,210,832 if $2,000,000 is borrowed. Both cash flows show a steady increase in rates of 4% as opposed to lower increases followed by much larger increases in later years. If a rate increase is to occur in 2013, it should become effective January 1, 2013. Council could also consider passing multiple year increases at this time. '-/ -3 ·-· ·---------------·------------1---- Case# 1 5 9 2 3 7 6 8 10 11 ----··-·--· ·--· ---------------·--------··--·-··--------- ------------------------------------------- ~co ~~-__ l _ 13,537,441 _ 13,53. 7 ,i4~--__ 1. 3,53 ?,~ Barro!' _______ 1 q_oo,o_g_Q___ ___ _ __ _g_' _ 2,000,000 -----13,837,441 -13,837,441 ' 13,837,441 ____ _Q_____ --2,0Q0,000 2,000,000 13,837,441 13,837,441 ; 13,837,441 ---- -~ ._ 3,000,000 _____ _},000,000_ 3,000,000 2,593,828 2,521,147 2,558,580 ------------------2,554,976 2,542,947 -------2015 balance --------~---~,586,048 ____ ~7 ~22~_· __ ;_567 ;!65 2,542,631 2,523,147 -------------- 4 7 5 ---------------- 4 7 5 --------------------- 3 0 -------- 3.5 5 --------· Rates 2013 ------ Rates 2014 ------ 2 0 0 2.5 3 --------------------2 ---~ ------~-1- ____ ----_6 _··---~-'- Rates 2015 3 6 4 3 8 10 6 5 4 10 ------ --------- ---------------- -----···---·---------------- ·---------------------·------ -------------- ,_ ---· -------------------- ------------ ------------- --------·-----·--- " ::J- I :r O&M Increase 12,017,131 12,017,131 83,1118 39,800 12,139,919 (1,821.129) (8,819,979) (1, 184,974) 9,410 2,144,427 (949.177) (2,092,743) (897,493) 468,818 15,041,883 14,612,808 (220.874) 3"0,218 13,284,241 13,284.241 103,099 39,800 13,429.940 (1,577.271) (8.&42.949t (1,198,1119) 403739 ' 3,808,415 (3,231.~) (2,028,008) (1 ,852,636) 313,978 1.t,752,352 13,413,894 (889,820) 200384 s 9/17/2012 13,i37,4:.J1 111,914'. :..,eoo. t);'89'.9115: .... 537 (3.387.871) ft,8?9.6'18) (t .228.815),._...l.:!==Ll-___:=~~-~-==t----=..::.c::.=-i----=-==:....i----'-':.=!..:..:..::.L.J 215.9'74 ,___:.=i.:..=:::-1-_..:.=:~~--=-::.~.::+-_:...::=:::::..+---=-:=~----=:..:.!.:::=-t fZ&M~,__~~=-i~~~:!'.....j...._'..:::?::.'...::?..:....:..::+--___::!_:..:..:.=!=.:...+--=-!..:.::::~+-___'..2=-=~ -(139,734)...____..l:==!.!--___l==:.Ll--~=.::Ll--...l.::.:=:.::!j.-___lC:....:...:=::!!--~=:::.:'.ll 14,752 352 $ 12,vz.4,238 s 1 ' 14,752,352 3,754,a s 9,189,732 $ Cash Flo 8/15/2012 12.017,131 s 13,284,24 1 s 12,017,131 83,1118 39900 12.139,919 (949,177) (2.092.743) (897.493) «618 15.041,183 14,612,808 (220,674) 360.218 14,752352 $ 14,752.352 13,284.24 1 (3,231,045) (2.028.008) (1.652.638) 313,978 14,752,352 13,413,694 (689,820) 3,754 ,soe ,• 9,169,732 ~;;228i8'f5)1-->..:.!...:.C:..=..::=i---'..:..===+----=:..=..::=i-~..:..:..::;.:..:..:._:__+-~-.:..:...!.==-l---->..:..~:..:.Lf 215;1"4 1--~-----''--'--'-+-~--'-'---+-~~-'---+-~~-'---+~~~=------1-~~-'--I 1~·t-1----=.:..=:.:.-=.c'--.j.-___:=-:..:....:..:..;'-'-.j.~'-'-=-'-=~+--'-'-.:...:....;.'-'--'-'-+-~..:....:..!..::....:..-'-!...:...:....:.--1-~'-'--'-'..:..:..;_~ ash Flo WATER CONSERVATION PROGRAM ELEMENTS This section of Water Conservation Plan describes past, current and ongoing water conservation efforts in the City of Englewood. The City of Englewood does not have a dedicated conservation staff member and their conservation program is coordinated by the Utility Engineer and other staff members. The City has demonstrated a real commitment to water use efficiency, and even without a staff member dedicated to water conservation , has implemented many of the most essential water conservation program measures. In 1997, the City of Englewood approved their first Water Conservation Master Plan. This plan however did not contain all of t he necessary elements to meet approval by the CWCB, and Clear Water Solution was contracted to develop this 2012 plan. A full evaluation of a broad number of conservation meas ures is presented in the following sections. • Metering o Source water o Non-residential o Residential • Conservation Oriented Water Rate Structure o Billing Period o Non-residential o residential • Water Efficient Processes o Tap size o Service charges o Others • Water Loss Reduction o Leak detection/identification o Analysis ~f un-accounted-for water o Leak repairs • Public Outreach, Education and Information • Residential Outdoor Water Efficiency • Commercial, Institutional , and Industrial Water Efficiency • Customer Water Use Audits • Regulatory Measures o Pressure reducing valves o Others • Water Reuse and Recycling • Fixtures , Appliances , a nd Incentives s-1 MEMORANDUM To: s1u Fonda, utilities Director (\(>-]~/ From: John Bock, Utilities Manager of Administration '&.../ Date: September 26, 2012 Subject: Advanced Billing for Sanitary Sewer Service The City of Englewood began the practice of billing in advance for sanitary sewer service in the early l 950's when the sewer system was first established. There is no one left who is aware of the discussion at the time. The Utilities Department has, in the past, looked at the possibility of switching to billing in arrears but the changes to the billing system, business practices and the effect it would have on the cash flow make it impractical. It is anticip ated that significant rate increases would be needed to make up for the lost revenue. When a home or business is connected to Englewood's sewer system, or a sanitation district tributary to Englewood's sewer system, the applicant agrees to Englewood's rules and regulations. The continued use by a residence or business of Englewood's sewer system is implied consent of Englewood's rules and regulations as set for in the follo wing State of Colorado Revised statute: C.R.5. 31-35-706. Continuing annual charges: The rates and charges so established shall be annual charges and shall be continuing annual charges from year to year until such ordinance is amended or repealed .. The use of sa id sewerage system on or after the passage of said ordinance shall be conclusive evidence of the assent of the owner of the property to the provisions of said ordinance and of the acceptance of such service on the conditions and terms imposed thereby not in conflict with this part 7. The City of Englewood is aware of the ever increasing cost of sanitary sewage treatment and offers our customers a number of ways to spread out payment of the annual bill over a number of months. A customer can even use the Departmen t's online payment system to make monthly payments. The customer should contact the Utilities D epartment to discuss these options. If any waiver of late fees is to be made, it should be approved by the Water and Sewer Board. Mr. Derby could make an appeal to the Board at their meeting on October 9, 2012. lfhe wishes to do so, he can call Cathy Burrage at 303-762- 2636 to be placed on the agenda. Mr. Derby is currently a year behind on paying the sewage treatment charges because, to pay for the charges in arrears, he is paying last year's bill this year and not paying the new bill. This results in late charges on each year's bill. Both the C olorado State Revised Statutes (C.R.S. 31-35-708) and the Englewood Municipal Code (12-2-30) allow and require the addition oflate fees and the eventual certification of past due charges to the County as a tax lien, the charges to be added to the property taxes. Past due charges are certified to Arapahoe County on October 31st of each year. G:, -I 12-2-3: -Fees and Charges.~·· A. Purpose . It is the purpose of this section to provide for the payment of all POlW costs , including costs of the City. The total annual cost of operation and maintenance shall include, but need not be limited to, labor, repairs , equipment replacement , maintenance, necessary modifications , power, sampling , laboratory testing and a reasonable contingency fund. The charges will be based upon the quality and quantity of user's wastewater, and also upon the capital and operating costs to intercept, treat, and dispose of wastewater. The applicable charges shall be as set forth herein . B. General. There is hereby levied and charged on each lot, parcel of land and premises served by or having sewer connection with the sanitary sewer of the City or otherwise discharging sanitary sewage , industrial wastes or other liquids , either directly or indirectly , into the City sanitary sewer system an annual service charge which shall be computed and payable as follows : 1. The charge for sewage treatment shall be based on the gallonage of water delivered to the premises during the lowest water meter reading period falling between October 1 and May 15. This gallonage converted to an annual equivalent and multiplied by the annual rate per one thousand (1 ,000) gallons provides the annual treatment charge . 2 . A charge for sewer collection system maintenance shall be established annually by action of the City Council where premises are served by the City collection system. Where the City does not own and maintain the collection system, the City will collect charges for maintenance of same only when authorized by the terms of contract between the City and the sanitation district. 3. Where water at any premises is taken through multiple meters, the charge for sewage treatment shall be based on the gallonage of water delivered to the premises through all of the meters during the appropr iate water meter reading period falling between October 1 and May 15, or the sum of the minimum charges for each meter, whichever is greater. However, one (1) bill for all .sewage treatment, composed of the sum of minimum charges for each meter used , or a single quantitative charge for all sewage treatment may be issued in the following cases: a . Where water service is taken through a combination of meters or through meters on two (2) or more service pipes , if water serviced through each of such meters and service pipes is delivered and used on the same property for one general purpose , or the premises is a single enterprise on an Co -2 integrated holding of land, undivided by public streets , roads or alleys ; and b. For each public school entity, even though the meters may be situated on separate properties . 4 . Where water usage information is not available sewage service charges shall be computed using the current rate per one thousand (1 ,000) gallons and based on the following normal usage by class , as follows : ........ .. Normal usage by cla ss will be checked by tabulation and averaging at least every five (5) years to detect and adjust for changes in patterns of water usage . 5 . The minimum charge per year for sewage treatment service , by custo mer class, shall be a percentage of flat rate charge , this amount representing the fixed portion of operation and maintenance (O&M) costs . 6 . Outside City customers will be charged one hundred five percent (105%) of the amount charged inside City customers for similar serv ice to compensate for additional infiltration from the longer interceptor lines . This factor has been included in the flat rate and minimum rate tables in subsection B 9 below. 7 . Charg e s for service to customers inside the City limits shall be billed in qua rter-annual installments in advance. Charges for sewer only service outside the City may, at the discretion of the City, be billed annua ll y where this would not conflict with special provisions of a connector's agreement. All bills are due and payable as of the billing date and become delinquent thirty (30) days after the billing date . 8. User charges shall be reviewed annually and revised periodically to reflect actual treatment works O&M costs. 9 . The foll ow ing rates shall become effective January 1, 2003 : l> -3 c T y October 1, 2012 Mr. Charles Nichols 2808 E. Weaver Place Centennial, CO 80121 0 F Re: Sewage Treatment Charges Dear Mr. Nichols, ENGLEWOOD Thank you for taking the time to submit your request in writing. Because of the possible precedent setting nature of the request it will be necessary for you to present this to the Water and Sewer Board at their next meeting. Their next meeting is Tuesday, October 9th, at 5:00 PM at Englewood Civic Center. If you are interested in meeting with the Board, please call Cathy Burrage at 303-762- 2636 to be place on the agenda as a visitor. If you have any questions or need assistance, please feel free to contact me. ~~ Utilities Manager of Administration 303-762-2643 Fax 303-783-6894 jbock@englewoodgov.org 7-/ 1000 Englewood Parkway Englewood, Colorado 8011 O Phone 303-762-2300 - ~"f.cl ~ y.€.cu .. £Nn . _Rl_/1 J:,..r.. tk-z'"J.ei.6 .. .Jd_-:!! 5!QQ.32L~.3 ·--. . . -·-. -. -3. "j_/_!J. ?,,..,'l{(lff<f /).geu,. 71.1.A_ f]p_c.,j/,7 ------- i ' . ' ' . ' c:l ( J..~ Y, m ,-""""-9i :.._e 'lf,P w~ // k. . ~'7 ~ ,.,,-;-~ . . . . Y~~ 1 v,u ~/ 7-3 cl ~l!i_, Al,Juu .. '2Zt-2K ?., W~~L . fl _ . ('2 !Yt~ .. !:1 !! L'f'i cf c <6.0.1. a: ( CITY OF ENGLEWOOD ENGLEWOOD CIVIC CENTER• 1000 Enalewood PL IAIV. •enalewood CO ACCOUNT NUMBER BILLING DATE 00050816 31221072724 09/01/2012 JOSHUA SIMPSON ELIZABETH SIMPSON 7272 S COLORADO CT CENTENNIAL CO 80122-2249 DUE DATE 10/15/2012 80110 WHEN PAYING BY MAIL INCLUDE TOP PORTION OF BILL WITH FULL PAYMENT. ACCOUNT NUMBER 00050816-31221072724 BILL NUMBER MAKE CHECK OR MONEY ORDER PAYAB1e4QP.1 CITY OF ENGLEWOOD. THERE WILL BE A $25.00 CHARGE ON ALL RETURNED CHECKS. $360.41 SERVICE LOCATION 7272 S COLORADO CT ll~~l~llRllllll~llll~~m~~lllll~ 0 0 0 5 0 8 1 6 3 1 2 2 1 0 7 2 7 2 4 0 0 0 0 3 6 0 4 1 SERVICE LOCATION 7272 S COLORADO CT BILLING DATE DUE DATE PREVIOUS READING PRESENT CONSUMPTION TYPE OF SERVICE PREVIOUS BILLING PAYMENT-THANKYOU LATE FEES WATER CHARGE SEWER CYCLE BILLING IBA CYCLE BILLING SOUTH ARAPAHOE SANITATION BIL ING 0 FROM SERVICE DATES TO 09/01/2012 09/01/2012 09/01/2012 09/01/2012 09/01/2013 08/31/2013 08/31/2013 08/31/2013 TOTAL AMOUNT DUE AMOUNTS $309.76 $-309.76 $50 .65 0.00 $202 .59 $16.00 $91 .17 $360.41 COMMENTS WATER CONSUMPTION HISTORY DATE DAYS USAGE PLEASE WRITE THE ACCOUNT NUMBER ON THE PAYMENT CHECK PLEASE ENCLOSE THE TOP PORTION OF THE BILL WITH THE FUL PAYMENT. PAY YOUR BILL ONLINE AT WWW.ENGLEWOODUTILITIES.ORG OR OVER THE PHONE 303-783-6930 'ff PAYMENT ARRANGEMENTS ARE NECESSARY PLEASE CALL. PLEASE SEND PAYMENTS AND ANY INQUIRIES TO: UTILITIES DEPARTMENT 303-762-2635 ENGLEWOOD UTILITIES DEPT . CONCRETE QUESTIONS 303-762-2360 1000 Englewood Parkway BILL NUMBER Englewood, CO 80110 B-1 1132061 Created Date/Time : 10/01/2012 01 :07 :10 PM Customer Number: 00050816 Account Number: 31221072724 Service Address: 7272 S COLORADO CT Mailing Address : JOSHUA SIMPSON ELIZABETH SIMPSON 7272 S COLORADO CT CENTENNIAL CO 80122-2249 Customer/Account Transaction History Trans Date Transaction Description 9/1 /2012 0:00 Cycle Billing Due : 10/15/2012 2/22/2012 0:00 Payment 2/1/2012 0:00 Sewer Balance Late Fee 9/1/2011 0:00 Cycle Billing Due : 10/15/2011 1/12/2011 0:00 Payment-TeleWorks 9/1/2010 0:00 Cycle Billing Due : 10/15/2010 10/16/2009 0:00 Payment 9/1/2009 0:00 Cycle Billing Due: 10/15/2009 5/12/2009 0:00 Sewer Charge Recover 09 rates 10/13/2008 0:00 Payment 9/1/2008 0:00 Cycle Billing Due: 10/15/2008 10/15/2007 0 :00 Payment 9/1/2007 0 :00 Cycle Billing Due : 10/15/2007 Cycle Billing Due : 10/15/2012 Payment -Thank You Outstanding Sewer Balance Late Fee Cycle Billing Due : 10/15/2011 Payment -Thank You Cycle Billing Due: 10/15/2010 Payment -Thank You Cycle Billing Due: 10/15/2009 Sewer Cycle Billing for 2009 rates recov Payment -Thank You Cycle Billing Due : 10/15/2008 Payment -Thank You Cycle Billi ng Due : 10/15/2007 Amount Balance $309.76 ($309.76 ) $50.65 $309 .76 ($305.60 ) $305 .60 ($296 .14) $287.58 $8.56 ($266 .2 8) $266.28 ($2 56 .19) $256 .19 $360.41 $50 .65 $360.41 $309 .76 $0 .00 $305.60 $0 .00 $296.14 $8.56 $0 .00 $266.28 $0 .00 $256 .19 N CD By Kevin McCoy, USA TODAY USA TODAY analysis: Nation's water costs rushing higher While most Americans worry about gas and heating oil prices, water rates have surged in the past dozen years, according to a USA TODAY study of 100 municipalities. Prices at least doubled in more than a quarter of the locations and even tripled in a few. Robert Deutsch , USA TODAY Fairmount Dam on the Schuylkill River in Philadelphia . The river is the source of much of the city's drinking water. Consumers could easily overlook the steady drip , drip, drip of water rate hikes, yet the cost of this necessity of life has outpaced the percentage increases of some of these other utilities, carving a larger slice of household budgets in the process. "I don't know how they expect people to keep paying more for water with the cost of gas and day care and everything else going up," complains Jacquelyn Moncrief, 60, a Philadelphia homeowner who says the price hikes would force her to make food-or-water decisions. She gathered signatures on a petition opposing a proposed water rate increase in her Qity this year. USA TODA Y's study of residential water rates over the past 12 years for large and small water agencies nationwide found that monthly costs doubled for more in 29 localities. The unique look at costs for a diverse mix of water suppliers representing every state and Washington, D .C . found that a resource long taken for granted will continue to become more costly for millions of Americans. Indeed, rates haven't crested yet because huge costs to upgrade or repair pipes, reservoirs and treatment plants loom nationwide. In three municipalities -Atlanta, San Francisco and Wilmington, Del. -water costs tripled or more. Monthly costs topped $50 for consumers in Atlanta, Seattle and San Diego who used 1,000 cubic feet of water, a typical residential consumption level in many areas. Officials in the three municipalities and elsewhere, however, say actual consumption is often lower. But conservation efforts counter-intuitively may raise water rates in some localities. 9-/ The trend toward higher bills is being driven by: --The cost of paying off the debt on bonds municipalities issue to fund expensive repairs or upgrades on aging water systems . --Increases in the cost of electricity, chemicals and fuel used to supply and treat water . --Compliance with federa l government clean-water mandates. --Rising pension and health care costs for water agency workers. --Increased security safeguards for water systems since the 9/11 terror attacks. Higher rates still ahead The costs continue to rise even though residential water usage dropped sharply nationwide in the past three decades amid conservation efforts . U.S. water systems will need as much as $1 trillion in infrastructure improvements by 2035 to keep up with drinking water needs, according to a survey of industry experts released in June . The bond debt needed to fund those projects' work will be passed on to consumers , including the many Americans struggling with the economic fallout of the great recession . A virtually irreplaceable resource that Americans rely on for health and daily living "could potentially get more and more expensive," says John Chevrette , who heads the management consulting arm of Black & Veatch, the firm that conducted the industry survey. He predicts rate increases of 5% to 15% every few years, saying the cost of water "could take a larger and more significant bite out of otherwise disposable income." "You're talking about greater than inflationary costs," says Doug Scott , managing director for Fitch Ratings , which similarly projects 5% annual rate increases among the many water and sewer agencies his company tracks. Some water agencies, including Philadelphia, have special water programs to help cut costs for those with low incomes. Even so , the economic forecasts frighten Moncrief, a single mother who bought her home in Philadelphia's Mount Airy neighborhood decades ago, and now lives there on a disability income. The monthly cost of 1,000 cubic feet of water in her hometown has jumped 164%, to $39 .22, since 2001 . Even when the costs were lower, Moncrief says at times she had to work out installment payments with the Philadelphia Water Department. Testifying at a July hearing in an ongoing water rate increase proceeding, Ruth Bazemore said she and other Philadelphia senior citizens were astounded that the city's water 9-2 commissioner proposed hikes that would "increase our bills by almost 30% in less than three years ." Community opposition prompted a tentative settlement that would save consume rs at least $80 per year from the ultimate cost of the city's original proposal, says Robert Ballenger, a Community Legal Services attorney who represents the public in the Philadelphia rate hike proceeding . Bazemore , a representative of the Action Alliance of Senior Citizens of Greater Philadelphia , says even a lower increase "would be difficult for a lot of people to pay." Efforts to compare water costs of any given area with another produce misleading or even false results, because of differences in population , geography, geology, bonding debt for infrastructure work and other variables. However, what most water agencies across the nation share is increasing costs that make higher bills all but inevitable . In Baltimore , where water costs are up 140% since 2001, the public works agency in the last decade completed a $65 million upgrade of the water system's Ashburton Filtration Plant. After a series of majo r water main breaks in 2009, the city made plans to speed the pace of pipe cleaning, relining and rehabilitation work to 40 miles per year, a five-fold increase. The cost? About $300 million over five years, says agency spokesman Kurt Kocher. At the same time , Baltimore, like water systems nationwide, was forced to implement costly security upgrades at its facilities . "It's not the world of 1990. It's the post-9/11 security world we have to deal with," says Kocher. 'A race against time' In San Francisco , the monthly cost of 1,000 cubic feet of water jumped nearly 211% since 2001 as the city's regional water system ended a seven-year rate freeze and began a massive , five-year infrastructure improvement program . Harlan Kelly Jr., the system's assistant general manager for infrastructure, says the work was vital because the freeze had left little funding for expanding and strengthening the system that serves more than 30 cities and 2.6 million people in the Bay Area . A 2002 city economic study warned that the Bay Area would suffer a $30 billion economic hit if an earthquake severely disrupted the water network for two months. The California Division of Safety of Dams delivered an even more immediate warning in 2001, deeming the Calaveras Dam seismically unsafe. That forced the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission to drain the reservoir created by the dam to a third of its normal level , significantly reducing the system's water storage. '1 -3 "I think everyone realized this work was needed," says Kelly. "It's a race against time. Here in California, it's not if, it's when" the next major earthquake will hit. Consumers have little choice but to pay for infrastructure improvements and repairs to the nation's often aging water systems, says Scott, the Fitch Ratings executive . If they don't, water mains and other parts of the systems "will break, and the breaks will be catastrophic. It would be the equivalent of somebody not replacing their water heater when it is leaking, and then having it fall from the attic and tear up their entire house." Municipal water systems typically fund major repairs and other infrastructure work by issuing bonds that are repaid over time . The annual cost of paying off debt servicing those bonds is passed on to consumers in higher rates. The financial impact is already being felt. Fitch Ratings showed water agencies' debt per customer rose from $1,012 in 2006 to $1,611 in 2011. Diane Clausen, a Seattle Public Utilities official, says her agency has outpaced many other municipal water suppliers by working to place protective coverings over reservoirs, building a filtration plant on one major water source and installing an ultraviolet treatment facility on another major source. "We've pretty much done our major capital projects, 11 says Clausen. "The debt service on those are included in the rates that our customers pay, so the rates for us, we believe, would tend to be higher than the rates for other utilities that aren't as far along in their infrastructure development. 11 Similarly, Atlanta officials say their rates -up 233% since 2001 for monthly usage of 1,000 cubic feet of water -partly result from $1.3 billion in spending to upgrade the city's water supply system in compliance with federal clean water mandates. Conserving, yet costs still rise Unique geographic conditions and other circumstances can also raise costs. In Augusta, Maine, the monthly cost of 1,000 cubic feet of water has topped $40 since 2000 . That's partly because the city has a small base of approximately 5,800 mostly residential customers and lacks major industrial customers that would help share the cost, says Brian Tarbuck, general manager of the Greater Augusta Utility District. "Coupled with our 10 storage tanks, deep frost conditions -pipes are literally 'six feet under' to avoid freezing -low (number of) customers per mile of pipe and lots of granite and hills, it gets expensive," says Tarbuck. q-'-1 U.S. homeowners who reduce their water consumption in an effort to save money can cut their costs. But they may end up raising the rates they're charged. Why? Because water suppliers collect less income as consumption drops, but ongoing costs --such as bonding debt, salaries and chemicals --either increase or, at best, remain stable . A 2010 report by the Water Research Foundation, a non-profit organization that studies drinking water issues , concluded that residential usage per customer dropped more than 380 gallons annually in the last 30 years, a changing era when conservation became more prevalent. Compounded over time, the report says the trend implies that a customer would have used 11,673 fewer gallons in 2008 than an identical customer in 1978, a 13 .2% decline . As a result, many water agencies have been forced to raise rates . "When we explain that part of the reason you're paying more is because you're using less , that doesn't go over real well with a lot of people ," says Joseph Clare, the Philadelphia Water Department's deputy commissioner for finance and administration . The 2012 drought that continues to hold roughly half the nation in its grip has also had an impact on some water rates. In March, the Midland, T~xas, City Council unanimously imposed a five-fold price increase on water customers who use more than 10,000 gallons per month, which surpasses consumption for a typical family. In El Paso, the drought cut the city's ability to draw from the Rio Grande River, the source for about half the area's water. To help make up for the loss , El Paso Water Utilities for about 15 days in late May and early June ran its water desalination plant at its full 27.5 million gallons-per-day capacity, making brackish groundwater fit for drinking, said Christina Montoya, an agency spokeswoman . "This is the first time that's ever happened ," she said . Although Scott and others expect increases in water costs around the nation to remain both regular and high , the good news is that the dollar costs are still relatively low in many municipalities. "It's going to be a pretty good bargain for the foreseeable future," Scott says . Try telling that to Americans hard pressed by the still sluggish economy, including low- income residents and senior citizens living on fixed incomes . Something has to give Philadelphia homeowner Moncrief, who delights in watering her garden into bloom, says she understands her city's water agency faces higher costs for water system projects . That includes the $50 million construction of a 5-million-gallon storage tank to prevent 9-S storm sewers from overflowing into the Schuylkill River-source of about 42% of local drinking water. But she says higher ra tes -even those under the tentative compromise in the Philadelphia water rate increase proceeding -would make it harder for her to pay "my medical costs ... co-pays for medication ," upkeep of her home, even food . "It's been quite stressful just trying to budget. How am I going to maintain all these things on a fixed income that's not going to increase?" said Moncrief, who adds that she's cut back on hot baths and takes shorter showers . Responding to that type of consumer concern, some municipalities have tried to limit or delay rate increases. For instance, Antioch, Calif., officials in May opted to defer some capital spending and use the savings and other measures to delay previously announced plans for an 8% water rate increase. Clare, Philadelphia's deputy water commissioner, notes that his agency held rates stable from 1993 until 2001. But, ultimately, costs had to go up to maintain crucial water supply and delivery systems, he says . "It's going to be a hardship for me; I think it's going to be a hardship for a lot of people," says Moncrief. "But there's a greater sense of hope and possibility ... when you know the increase is not going to be as high" as originally proposed . "I may not be able to eat meat five days a week, but maybe I can eat meat three days a week." Contributing: Oliver St. John , Tom McGarrity About this report How project was done To document the rising cost of drinking water, USA TODAY started by obtaining periodic municipal water-cost surveys conducted since 2000 or 2001 by Black & Veatch and Raftelis Financial Consultants , private firms that advise water agencies on financial issues . USA TODAY verified those companies' data with each municipality and also gathered 2012 costs from the localities. Reporters then independently collected the same information from dozens of other municipalities to cover 100 in all, spanning all 50 states and Washington, D.C. More about the data Local water costs vary widely because of geography, climate, population, a water company's borrowing costs and other factors . That makes it virtually impossible to compare one city's water costs to another's. For its survey , USA TODAY defined a typical household as one using roughly 7,500 gallons (1 ,000 cubic feet) a month and having a meter size of about 5/8 inch , or the closest equivalent. Actual average consumption may vary. Weighted averages were used for locations where rates change seasonally . The percentage change in rates shown is based on the change from 2000 or 2001, depending on the location. 9-(p Water costs getting more expensive A USA TODAY survey of 100 municipalities found residential water bills in at least one in four places have doubled in the past 12 years : .RtNO +37% HELENA . +23% Water costs getting more expensive ROCttES TE R +34% I • GREEN BAY +27% I • • I PORTLAND +14% AUGUSTA \J +15%. BURLINGTON •• +27% • ROCHESTER +21% GRAND RAPIDS AKRON • +35% +35% .TULSA +34% LAfAYHTE . +22% .VIRGINIA BEACH CARY . +25% +29% .CONWAY GEORGETOWN COUNTY. +36% MOBILE + l%. SAVANNAH +35% +34% I • ORANGE COUNTY . MIAMI-DADE +16% +37% I • 0 --37'rt 38%--70% 71%--89% 90%--129% 130%-233% Comparing utility costs A USA TODAY survey of 100 municipalities found residential water bills in at least one in four places have doubled in the past 12 years · .BISMARCK +61% MANCHESTER +57% I .OAKLAND +68% .FRESNO +61% • BOISE +41% h~~-· ALBUQUERQUE . TUCSON . .CHEYENNE +64% .AMARULO 64% +64% I PHOEN1x-•1 66% 69% +47% • El PASO ~i1;ms MESA +65% wMJ9 48% +67% +67% • • MILWAUKEE +56% HARRISBURG +49% • ST . LOUIS +68% WHEELING . +70% NASHVILLE . • KNOXVlllE +46% +45% .SHRtVEPORT 58% • HOUSTON +57% I e e I MORRISTOWN +41% • MT . PLEASANT +45% 0--37% 38 % --70% . 71%-89% 90% -· 129°.4 130%--233% Comparing utility costs Note : Local water costa vary widaty becauH of geography , cilmate. populsti:m, a water company°s borrawin~ G05t l .snd other factor&. That rT•ekBli It \fl rtuelJ impossible to fsiriy compare one city'~ water GO!ts to an ,Jt.har. ~ar its 6urvey USA TODAY de.fined a typical houtehold sa oDe U&ing roughly 7 ,50D gellona (1,000 eubfo feet) a month and ha ving s melef" 6ize of .... IS inch or the nasr&6t equi•Jalent. Actual 1werage consumption may very Weighted avGrsge rsfes were uaed ror lo::sij ona whera rB!8! Change seea.onsfl\r Municipalities' change in rates i6 b&&ed on the charva from 2000 or 2001 dapeidng on the location. 9-7 .. .. Water costs getting more expensive A USA TODAY survey of 100 municipalities found residential water bills in at least one in four places have doubled in the past 12 years : • SACRAMENTO • +79% I SANJOSE +89% .HONOLULU +73% MINNEAPOLIS . +77% • SAlT lAK E CITY +80% PROVIDENCE . +81% .NEWARK e oESMOINES +75% +78 % • WASHINGTON,DC. .ANCHORAGE +78% .DENVER +78% INDIANAPOLIS . • CINCINNATI +81% +80% +71% • RICHMOND OKtAHOMA cnv • +77% DALI.AS . 75% • SAN ANTONIO 85% lOUISVILtE . +88% +76% .MEMPHIS +88% • GREENSBORO +79% • JACKSONVILLE +71% Water costs getting more expensive I 0 •• 37% 38% •• 70% 71 % •• 89% 90% •• 129% 130".4 •• 233% Comparing utility costs A USA TODAY survey of 100 municipalities found re sid enti al water bills in at least one in four places have doubled in the past 12 years : • SEATTLE +109% • AlAMEDACOUNTY • +102% I SANTACRUZ • LASVEGAS +113% +129% 0MAHA . +92% lANSING +113% I CHICAGO . +116% • .DETROIT +119% .COLUMBUS +118% BOSTON +119% I • .HARTTORO l27% .ALLENTOWN +108% ·~i?ii~2~~0 • KANSAS CITY +92% +97% .AUSTIN 96% JACKSON . +110% e cHARlOTTE SPARTANBURG . + 112% -t107% .TAMPA 1173 9-8 ' ' 0 •• 37'.4 38% •• 70% 71% ·-89% 90% •• 129% 130".4 -233% Comp-1rlng utility costs Water costs getting more expensive A USA TODAY survey of 100 municip alities found res identia l water bills in at least one in four places have doubled in th e past 12 yea rs : • PORTLAND +161% • SAN FRANCI SCO +211 % • SAN DIEGO +141 % SIOUX FALLS . +140% • I WATC RLOO +145 % W IC HITA. +153% BINGHAMTON +14 3% CLEVELAND +130 % I • NEW YOR K +151% I ATlANTA . +233% I • • • PHl lADELPHIA BALTIMOR E.. + 164% +140% I • 4UGUSTA +141 % WILMINGTON +200% 0-37% 38% •• 70% 71% •• 89% 90% •• 129% 130% --233% c omparin g utility costs Neta Loca l ~veter cosu very w._,ely bacause of geography , c.lirnete, popu latfon. a water COf'Jlpe ny·a borrowing coata end othe1 factort . That malf.ss it vt rtualf lmpcssi blB to fa irly compare one city'a waler coot.a to another. For i1 s survey. USA TODAY defined a lyplcsl houaeho!d a& one using rough ly 7 .50 0 ga Uona (1,000 cu bto fa.et) a month and hav ing a metar 'ize of ..JS incl; orlba nea rest oquivalent. Actuat ever ag a consump tion may very. Walghte-d evemge retaa ware u&ed for loas tions where rates cha ng e 5eaaonelly Munl aipe litts s' change in rates ls based on th& ahB oge fro m rooo or 2001 dependin g on the loc ation. Water costs getting more expensive A USA TODAY su rvey of 100 municipaliti es fo und res ide nt ial wat er bill s in at least one in four pl aces have doubled in the past 12 yea rs : Consumer prices overa ll have men 33 \ since 2000 . Ho w ave roge resi dentia l utl lr ty costs' have change d in cu rrent dollars an d ad1 ust ed for inf lation from 2000 to 2012 : ··1, •r .n 1· -r 1 50% ,_,t..TURALGAS . 12 ~ 'Natural gs• price baS«I an 1,000cu bic1 ... t. Eleciricity price I• ba~ on cent• pe r klam1tt hou r. Hea ting oil in dolls .. ptr gallon. Wa\8' is sverega mon1hly cost lor 1,000 cubi c feel be&ed on USA TODAY sum>y ol 100 municips litlas' rate s. 9-9 168% 0 ··37% 38%-70% 71%-· 89 % 90% ·-129% 1301/. •• 233% comparing utility costs