Laserfiche WebLink
<br />~ <br />~HILLS <br /> <br />MEMORANDUM <br /> <br />DATE: <br /> <br />February 6, 2007 <br /> <br />AGENDA ITEM 3D <br /> <br />TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council <br />Michelle Wolfe, City Administrator <br /> <br />FROM: Sue Iverson, Finance Directo~Y <br />Sandy Byl, Utility Billing Clerk <br /> <br />SUBJECT: Resolution 07-29: Water Standby Utility Rates <br /> <br />BACKGROUND <br /> <br />In 2004, the Council hired Abdo, Eick, and Meyers (consultant) to perform a Utility Rate Study <br />for the City. Based upon the findings of the utility rate study, the City Council adopted a four <br />year (2005-2009) implementation plan to increase the City's utility rates for residential and <br />commercial customers. <br /> <br />DISCUSSION <br /> <br />Council previously approved the Utility Rates for 2007 on December II, 2006. Staff has found <br />through the course of updating utility rates that the Standby rates were not included. After some <br />research, it has been found that the standby rates have not been increased since 2004. The <br />residential rate is an increase of $1.34 per quarter to reflect the 2007 rate schedule. Commercial <br />accounts vary by meter size and charges, the average standby charge per account will be $49.17 <br />for 2007 vs. $45.00 for 2004. <br /> <br />It seems that these rates have never been included on the letter sent to residents, which in turn is <br />the format also used for council approval in the resolution. Due to stafftumover, the previous <br />formats were used and these rates were inadvertently forgotten. To correct this problem, these <br />rates will be included in the resident letters in the future, <br /> <br />FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS <br /> <br />Approximately $133,721.89 in standby charges were collected in 2006, which were billed at the <br />2004 rate. This equates to $9,831.20 in lost revenue for 2005 and $14,375.37 in lost revenue for <br />2006. This represents a cumulative loss of $24,206,57 over the two years. (These amounts were <br />calculated using the increases outlined in the rate study referenced above.) If we do not increase <br />