Laserfiche WebLink
<br />phasing is believed to assure a degree of affordability to city residents as the secondary <br />system is gradually expanded over time. <br /> <br />Figure 3 shows a distribution of estimated demand for secondary water usage, once the <br />system is fully built out. The estimated demand is based on a combination of type of lot <br />and size of lot. This estimation of water use does not include such potentially important <br />factors as differences in irrigation practices, differences in landscaping, and income. <br />However, Figure 3 shows that potential demand, based on the type of lot and size of lot, <br />tends to increase consistently from Phase 1 through Phase 6. <br /> <br />Figure 4 shows the distribution of lot size. The City of Lamar has a considerable number <br />of mobile homes. These comprise a large portion of the smaller lot sizes in the city. <br />Most of these smaller lots are located in proposed phases 4, 5 and 6. It is believed that <br />these properties will make minimal initial use of secondary water, as a result of both lot <br />size and for reasons of income. Their usage could increase over time as landscaping is <br />increased. <br /> <br />It would seem reasonable that properties of this nature be phased in once a proven and <br />sustainable revenue base has been established for the secondary system. These <br />proposed later phases are also characterized by more industrial and commercial <br />properties, property types that are expected to be low users of secondary water. <br /> <br />Figure 5 shows the distribution of owner-occupied housing in the city. Low owner- <br />occupancy is often associated with less than median income. Many of the properties <br />located in the proposed phase 5 and 6 are clearly of this nature. Although their use of <br />the secondary system may be expected to be significant once the system is fully <br />developed, it would appear more equitable for these properties not to shoulder the <br />burden of the initial development of the secondary system. It can be explained to these <br />residents that phasing in their properties at a later date will ensure affordable rates for <br />secondary water when it is made available, whereas to initiate secondary service in their <br />area would place an unacceptable burden on household incomes. <br /> <br />Since higher income and owner-occupancy is likely associated with larger lots as well, it <br />appears reasonable and equitable for these properties to bear the initial developmental <br />costs of the system. Phase 1 and 3 are of this nature. Phase 1, 2 and 3 are located in <br />areas of estimated higher water usage as well, based on the type of lot and size of lot. <br />These areas will guarantee sufficient use, and thereby sufficient revenue, to finance the <br />initial development of the system. <br /> <br />Aqua Engineering, Inc. <br />and Colorado State University <br />May 19, 2004 <br /> <br />Secondary Supply Feasibility Study <br />-18- <br />