Laserfiche WebLink
City of <br />Greeley <br />DATE: January 18, 2006 <br />MEMO <br />TO: John Kolanz, Environmental and Water Resources Counsel <br />FROM: Dan Moore, Water Systems Engineer <br />SUBJECT: Methods to Calculate Single Family Tap Equivalents <br />ISSUE: At your request I have evaluated four different methods of determining Single Family Tap <br />Equivalents (SFTE's). It is my understanding that purpose of this exercise is to determine a fair and <br />equitable way to calculate SPWRAP member assessments. <br />BACKGROUND: The four methods that I reviewed can be used to determine SFTEs, however <br />each has its own characteristics that can affect its accuracy and equitability. Three of those methods <br />are outlined in a memo dated December 13, 2005, from Greg Dewey, and the other method was <br />proposed during the meeting at which the others were discussed. I'll discuss the characteristics of <br />the first three methods as they are developed in that memo. <br />Method #1 is often used by water purveyors to establish tap fees and relies on the AWWA maximum <br />meter capacity possible to determine potential system impacts. This is used because tap costs have <br />to be predicted before the user can establish real impact as no real data is yet available. <br />Method #2 is similar except it allows for variances in meter brands since some meters actually can <br />outperform AWWA standards. Basing SFTE calculations on meter size does not represent actual <br />water use and can create inconsistencies when comparing other water systems that use different <br />meters and different meter size requirements. <br />Method #3 uses real data in an attempt to normalize various tap sizes and rate classes to the average <br />Single Family Residential use. Our results derived using this method were somewhat inconsistent <br />because in some cases the sample size per category was not large enough to yield a consistent result. <br />This method required a significant breakout of the metered accounts and some water systems may <br />not breakout their accounts in the same manner. <br />The fourth method is very simple and accurate and is based on actual production. In contrast, <br />Method #3 uses meter consumption records that do not consider unaccounted for losses. One could <br />assume that each system has the same percentage of loss but that is not usually the case. Method #4 <br />S E A V I N C O U A C O M M U N 1 T Y • I T' S A T R A D I T 1 O N <br />?)e promi'se lo preserue ¢ndimpFoue lFe 9uaf,?(of?felor S'reeley /FrouyFi /ime y, courleous and cos/ eecliue seruice.