PROJ01898 ‎(2)‎

• Contract/PO #: C153700
• Contractor Name: Norwood, Town of and Norwood Water Commission
• Contract Type: Loan
• Water District: 60
• County: San Miguel
• Bill Number: HB 93-1273
• Loan Projects - Doc Type: Feasibility Study

Colorado Water Conservation Board
October 29, 1992
Page 3

The Town is requesting a loan from the CWCB at no interest. The
Town's current water rates are higher than those of surrounding
towns. The following is a simplified comparative rate study:

15,000 GALLONS OF TREATED WATER

Norwood

Town:
Rural:

$35.00
$61.00

$23.50

$29.00
$30.00

$11. 00

$32.50

Naturita

Nucla

Town:
Rural:

Ouray

Ridgway

To pay back the $50,000 Department of Local Affairs loan, the rates
of Town customers will increase by roughly $0.75 per existing tap
per month. A CWCB loan of $320,000 without interest would further
increase our user's rates by approximately $2.70 per month. As we
previously stated in our letter to the CWCB dated September 29,
1992, the Town's water rates increased by 150% last year. The
water system, which operates solely from user fees, was finally
able to operated in the black. The Town began saving towards the
$80,000 needed for the Phase I project. The additional $2.70 per
month to payoff a CWCB loan without interest and $0.75 per month
to pay of f the Department of Local Af fai rs loan wi 11 further
increase the disparity between Norwood rates and those in
surrounding communities.

TI!e-.!own would be reluctant to absorb the new loan at our preseIJ,t
water rates becal~ 0 t e conarr.ron of tlie ~~ pre~9Rt
aistrl.u ,lon ",v~tem. ~~~e(:-6mrng more frequent
--~--~~
-"'f:)eC'ause the 17 year old system was improperly bedded. Our most
recent break left a major portion of our users without water for
three days. Tool s, equipment, suppl i es, contracted labor and
overtime are increasingly expensive. It costs a minimum of $1,000
every time our Town siren signals a break. The most recent break
cost more than that. There are over 80 miles of line in our
system. The Town is replacing our lines, one 8 foot section at a
time. Where 4-inch reducers should have been placed, we have 2-
inch reducers. Thousands of dollars need to be spent on our
valves. As soon as we renovate our treated water tank, now in
disuse, our existing 500,000 gallon tank needs draining and work.
We also have another tank in our system which requires work. In
addition, new EPA regulations are continually adding to the cost of