Change water budget rules, board urges

BOULDER – The city of Boulder’s Water Resources Advisory Board is recommending changes to the city’s new water-budget rate structure, including revamping commercial and industrial charges and offering credits to water uses eligible for adjustments that would be retroactive to January.

The changes were proposed at a water advisory board meeting May 21 attended by Ned Williams, director of Boulder’s Public Works for Utilities.

SPONSORED CONTENT

How dispatchable resources enable the clean energy transition

Platte River must prepare for the retirement of 431 megawatts (MW) of dispatchable, coal-fired generation by the end of the decade and address more frequent extreme weather events that can bring dark calms (periods when there is no sun or wind).

“The water board has certainly provided their clear advice,” Williams said.  “I’ll need to consult with the city manager and the city attorney’s office before any changes are made.”

City Manager Frank Bruno said he had yet to see the recommendations as of press time on May 22, but he would review them soon.

The city’s new water billing method went into effect Jan. 1 and charges a higher rate per gallon as more water is used. The new structure has become a controversial issue among business owners, landlords and residents.

The water advisory board is recommending that rule changes be made to the water budgets as soon as practical to provide for monthly variations in commercial, industrial and institutional water budgets, allow for variation in commercial/industrial/institutional irrigation use for accounts not having irrigation meters, and that the city provide retroactive credits to all users that receive adjustments to their budgets calculated from the beginning of January.

The city’s water advisory board consists of five members with five-year terms. The board’s duties include reviewing and offering advice on utilities master plans and policy issues on operating programs.

Advisory board member Jim Knopf said the recommended changes will address the lack of water budgets for city owned right-of-ways (such as sidewalk to curb landscaping); a flaw in the implementation of water budgets for commercial and industrial customers; errors in the use of aerial photography to develop water budgets; a lack of retroactivity in some billing adjustments; and limited communication about some aspects of new water rate system.

Of particular concern to some commercial and industrial water users, he said, were water budgets based on yearly use divided by 12, rather than allowing for seasonal ups and downs in water use where some months require more water.

“The board didn’t intend for that to happen,” Knopf explained. “It simply was an error in the way the water staff was implementing the rule … commercial and industrial buildings have had the biggest number of problems with the new water rate structure, particularly buildings that use a single meter for both inside and outside water.”

Knopf indicated that a lack of awareness of certain aspects of the new water budget was troubling.

“People can be given credit for public right-of-ways next to their properties that need to be watered, and there was an additional winter water allocation made that many people are unaware of … single-family residences actually did get an increased water allotment of 2,000 gallons per month, for a total of 7,000 gallons per month during winter months … many people just weren’t aware of either of these.”

Williams said a response to the water board’s recommendations would likely take more than a week.

“Some changes might be done quickly in a public process, on the other hand, other types of changes may require a lot more public involvement.”

In the meantime, the new water budget will remain in effect, Williams said.

“It’s unlikely that we’ll stop the water budget and go back to the old system.”

Linda Huntsman, a property owner and Realtor with the Colorado Group, said the current water budgeting system doesn’t seem to account for a number of use factors, especially when it comes to the summer months.

“We have water allotments in excess of what we use in months when we don’t need so much water, but our July allotment – for the hottest month – is 56,000 gallons, which is half of what we’ve used historically.”

Huntsman argued that the city seems to have contradictory goals that leave property owners caught in the middle, trying to satisfy two incompatible Boulder city objectives at the same time.

“On one hand, the city dictates how much grass, what sorts of shrubs and what kind of trees that property owners need to plant. On the other we’re not being given enough water to keep those green areas watered like they need to be … if we use the amount of water needed to keep those areas green, we’re being pushed into the penalty category and excessively charged,” Huntsman said. “I believe it’s very heavy-handed and unfair.

They’re essentially making us pay one hand (of city government) while we’re getting slapped with the other.”

 During a presentation to the business leaders group Boulder Tomorrow on May 17, Williams stressed that people who think the water rate system is treating them unfairly can appeal to have their case reviewed by the city. Williams said the city has received 1,182 appeals from property owners to date and has processed all but 95 of them. Williams added that 89 percent of the appeals for adjustment have been approved, with the two largest types of property adjustment being for irrigable areas, 57 percent, and household size, 17 percent.

“We have a rules and regulations document that outlines the criteria used in establishing water budgets and what staff may have flexibility in adjusting,” Williams said. “Staffwise, we have an individual in our finance and analysis group – and a person in GIS – that both work full time in processing these appeals.”

Williams added that there are also two to three people, including himself, who help resolve adjustment issues on a part-time basis.

Knopf recognized these recommended changes as a positive step to addressing many of the issues customers have had with the new system.

“If we can really pull this off, this would be a great example of democracy in action,” Knopf said. “It’s encouraging that most people see water budgeting as a good idea but just find fault with the way the current system is implemented.”

Staff Writer David Clucas contributed to this report.