|
JOURNAL'OF
<br />Property Manalgement
<br /># C
<br />Elm 11 1
<br />"Illillill'' 117tVii "i,
<br />,j2' r
<br />ith increasing water costs and a
<br />water shortage mi y parts of
<br />the country, our company tDok
<br />a hard look at ways to reduce water and
<br />sewer charges on apartment protects
<br />where the owners paid the water bills.
<br />The properties we evaluated were us-
<br />ing more water each year. Water. costs
<br />also were increasing due to higher
<br />rates. After evaluating several methods
<br />for reducing water and sewer charges,
<br />we installed a system that has reduced
<br />those costs by over 20 percent.
<br />We evaluated several possible ways
<br />of reducing water use and decided on
<br />a toilet conversion technology, which
<br />could be installed easily M' the prop -
<br />erties' toilet tanks. This devke, called
<br />Select- A-Flush, reduced the grater used
<br />for flushing liquid waste from ,5,5 gal-
<br />lons per flush to 1.5 to 2.0 gallons. Solid
<br />waste flushes still used 5.5 gallons. Be-
<br />cause liquid waM* flushes nt
<br />85 percent of all use, this sad over 20
<br />gallon of water per resident, per day.
<br />The system was installed by the dis-
<br />tributor,, so it did not create a mainte-
<br />nance problem for the on -site main -
<br />tenance personnel. This system was
<br />installed on three Houston -area gard-
<br />en -style apartment complexes 3 to 12
<br />months ago with the following results;
<br />In proper one, a 152 -unit apartment
<br />project, water usage before installation
<br />of the low -flow device was 235 gallons
<br />per day, per unit. Water rates were $1. '
<br />per 1,M gallons, and sewer rates were
<br />$2.59. The average monthly water and
<br />sewer cost per unit was $32.83.
<br />lud
<br />COUM woe
<br />bpd F"&Y aewr
<br />nth Iffliis Pff unit
<br />Sepben 1990 141 2b6.3 $4,815.95
<br />fiber 1990 138 227.9 46174.40
<br />November 1990 139 212.5 4,729.50
<br />December 1990 138 214.2 4,329.10
<br />Janus 1941 139 270.6 4,815.95
<br />February 1991 140 55�20�.7 4x813.95
<br />March 199'1 140 f r.6 4.265.40
<br />AmW 139 235.5 $4,563.75
<br />Results from the same 152 -unit apart-
<br />ment prol't, after the low-flow toilet
<br />device was installed in April IM:
<br />May 19%
<br />13B
<br />160.3
<br />$3,241.85
<br />June 19%
<br />135
<br />IWA
<br />3,0'91.50
<br />J* 1991
<br />13?
<br />160.6
<br />2,727.50
<br />August 1991
<br />1m
<br />1M.4
<br />3,478.25
<br />September 1991
<br />137
<br />188.4
<br />4,147.10
<br />Oetaber 1991
<br />in
<br />168.2
<br />2,4,59.05
<br />Nummber 1991
<br />144
<br />179.5
<br />31905.95
<br />December 1991
<br />147
<br />201,0
<br />4,065.20
<br />Average
<br />139
<br />173.0
<br />g3f389.53
<br />The average water and sewer cost per
<br />occupied unit after the tow -flow device
<br />was installed were $24.30, or $8.44 less
<br />than prior to the installation. This was a
<br />25.7 percent ssivirtgs in water and sewer
<br />costs, providing a six -month payback
<br />on the units, including installation.
<br />The same ration was made on a
<br />312 -unit Houston -area garden apart -
<br />ment project with similar results.
<br />June
<br />20
<br />478.7
<br />s15,926.61
<br />July 1990
<br />206
<br />500.7
<br />16,842.80
<br />August 1990
<br />218
<br />447.6
<br />11+824.36
<br />September 1990
<br />215
<br />424.0
<br />12,987.76
<br />Ober 1990
<br />21s
<br />422.0
<br />13,729.18
<br />November 1990
<br />-224
<br />4133
<br />13,245.47
<br />Decembft 1990
<br />.230
<br />414.2
<br />1301.75
<br />Average
<br />216
<br />422.6
<br />$13,8N.27
<br />Before installation, average monthly
<br />water and surer costs were $63.84 per
<br />occupied unit. It should be noted that
<br />the low occupancy (69 percent) in-
<br />creased the cast per occupied unit. This
<br />was because a certain amount of the
<br />propertys water was used for land -
<br />s'cap and common, areas, no matter
<br />what the occupancy was.
<br />After installation, the usage declined
<br />significantly.
<br />January 1991
<br />232
<br />346.4
<br />$12,05s.02
<br />February 1991
<br />233
<br />348.9
<br />11,138.67
<br />March 1991
<br />240
<br />348.4
<br />10,288.97
<br />Apr01"1
<br />253
<br />285.9
<br />11,549.32
<br />May 1941
<br />266
<br />433.5
<br />12,992.69
<br />Jurke 1991
<br />223
<br />364.1
<br />13,885.90
<br />July 19%
<br />274
<br />372.6
<br />12,786.92
<br />August 199'1+
<br />276
<br />379.1
<br />17,9}19.41
<br />}
<br />261
<br />30.5
<br />15,.47x5
<br />Ocaaber 1991
<br />261
<br />4M,O
<br />11,007.97
<br />November 1991
<br />272
<br />346.2
<br />14,,179.22
<br />Averap
<br />259
<br />360.8
<br />$13,005.86
<br />As the occupancy increased to an
<br />percent average, the gallons used per
<br />snit were reduced by 51.6 gallons per
<br />month. Even with the higher occupan-
<br />cy, $13.62 per unit per month was saved
<br />with a 21.3 percent reduction in water
<br />and sewer costs. The installed cost of
<br />about $35.00 per unit was paid back in
<br />water and sewer costs in three months.
<br />The third building tested was a 208-
<br />unit garden -style apartment project in
<br />the Greater Mauston area. The prop-
<br />erty had an average occupancy of 1
<br />units for the entire two-year test period.
<br />The average monthly water and sewer
<br />costs for the 12 -month period of 1
<br />before the low -flow hutallation was
<br />$7 .27, or $3&09 per occupied unit.
<br />The results for the 12 -month period
<br />of 1991 after installation showed an
<br />average monthly cost of $4,914.86 or
<br />$26.15 per month per occupied unit.
<br />Savings were $11.94 per occupied unit
<br />per month -31A percent on the average
<br />monthly water and sewer hill. The sav-
<br />is gam a payback period on the in-
<br />stallation and cost of the program of
<br />less than four months.
<br />These properties were selected be-
<br />cause they had high water usage which
<br />could result in larger savings than oth-
<br />er properties. V* discovered that the
<br />properties with the largest savings were
<br />those with the highest number of peo-
<br />ple per unit and the older projects (built
<br />in the 1970s or earlier), as they have
<br />Luger toilet tanks and use the most wa-
<br />ter. The progratin has been virtually
<br />maintenance free for the on -site staff.
<br />After months of operation, the pro-
<br />gram has been well received by the resi-
<br />dents as it is easy to use, and they view
<br />it as a way to help the environment.
<br />In summary, the dual -flush technolo-
<br />gy
<br />produced water and sewer sating$
<br />in e=ew of 20 percent with high msi-
<br />dent sa ' I and few maintenance
<br />problems.
<br />Garr Langendoen, CPMO is exacutive vice
<br />president of Cytel Corporation in Dallas. The
<br />firm offers real estate and communication
<br />services to property owners. Mr. Langendoen
<br />has purchased over $1.2 billion of apartments
<br />and has managed 20,000 apartment units, He
<br />is a former president of the Los Angeles chap-
<br />ter of IREM and has taught REM's 300-..400-,
<br />and SDO-een4es courses. He is also a member
<br />al the IREM Academy of Authors.
<br />For information on the Select-A-Flush'*, or for the distributor in your area, please contact
<br />Marvin Schmitt, President of the 5-A F Corporation, at 1-800--.W.-0552.
<br />Reprinted wfth permlesion from the May /June, 110 issue of the ,Journal of properf Managem$�
<br />% w W ; w u N m
<br />
|