My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
A, Utility Rates
ArdenHills
>
Administration
>
City Council
>
City Council Packets
>
2010-2019
>
2012
>
02-27-12-R
>
A, Utility Rates
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
10/24/2024 11:15:11 AM
Creation date
2/24/2012 3:24:00 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
General
Document
Feb 27, 2012 City Council Meeting
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
9
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
Memo <br />City Council <br />Water Rates and Meter Charge Discussion <br />2 <br />Total Residential_Accounts _ _ J ___� _ ;___ 2,426 <br />�Accounts below 5,000 � „341 <br />_ �_. _ _ <br />�Accounts below 10,000 __� 764( _ _ _ __ _ <br />_?__.._Subtotal __. ��� _. �._.�.___�__ _� 1,105 <br />1 Accounts over 10, 000 � 1, 321 <br />This shows that 46% of our accounts in this last billing period were under 10,000. When we did this <br />analysis last summer it showed on a yearly average that 35% of our users were under 10,000. Using the <br />December figures, giving a$2.00 discount would amount to about $8,840 a year and the actual staff cost <br />involved in implementing this would be $2,091 a year totaling $10,931. <br />Staff does not recommend this option as we do not feel this would solve the complaints that we are <br />currently hearing and it would increase staff workloads and the ability to get the statements out on time. <br />Adjustin��the Meter Cha�e and change to chargin for all water used <br />One of the biggest complaints we have received is that "we are paying for water we do not use." A way <br />to correct this would be to charge for all water used and to adjust the meter charge. Staff has done a <br />number of calculations and has attached a proposal that seems to address this concern while still keeping <br />our conservation rate system in place. <br />This option reduces the meter charge by $4.08 which (using December numbers) would reduce revenues <br />far fixed costs (meter charges) by $39,592 a year, but would generate $55,722 more in revenues for <br />variable costs (water usage). Of course this variable revenue could vary from quarter-quarter depending <br />upon the type of year we have and how many snow birds we have. It would, however, achieve the <br />objective of everyone paying for the water they use and reasonably keep our fxed costs covered with <br />minimal impacts to the customer. This option would not be labor intensive to our staff and would only <br />require that we change the tiers in the system. <br />Based on the analysis that have been run by staff, to do any further configurations will require an in- <br />depth rate study to look at the total revenues generated, total consumption, and needs of the funds. <br />Council Direction: <br />Discussion on how Council would like staff to proceed. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.