Laserfiche WebLink
68 The following chart depicts the percentage of single - family homes that fall into each water rate category <br />69 based on current usage and the proposed 3- tiered rate structure. <br />70 <br />PROPOSED <br />ater Rate Tier <br />% of SF Homes: <br />Winter <br />% of SF Homes: <br />Summer <br />0 — 16,000 gallons per quarter <br />70% <br />60 <br />16,000 — 2ns er uarter or more <br />j <br />15 % <br />20 <br />Over 24,00per quarter <br />15% <br />20% <br />Total <br />100% <br />100% <br />71 <br />72 Underthe proposed 3- tiered rate structure, approximately 30 -40% of single - family homes will be impacted <br />76 by the higher tier rates, compared to 10 -15 %today. Under this scenario, approximately 2,100 homes will <br />74 pay more for water services than they currently do as a direct result of the change in rate structure. <br />75 <br />76 As noted above, the PWET Commission has advocated that the new 3- tiered rate structure be revenue <br />77 neutral. Under the current 2- tiered structure the lowest tier is set at an amount that is commensurate with <br />78 the cost to purchase water from the City of St. Paul. This ensures that in the event ALL homes fell into the <br />79 lowest tier, the City would not be financially jeopardized. Therefore, any incremental revenue derived from <br />80 the higher tier is set aside for contingency purposes and to promote long -term stability of the rates. <br />81 <br />82 If on the other hand we move to a revenue neutral rate structure, the premium charged for usage at Tiers 2 <br />86 and 3 will allow the lowest tier rate to decline. As aresult, 60 -70% of single - family homes would pay less <br />84 than they currently do. In effect, homes with lower usage will be subsidized by those with higher usage. <br />85 This is in sharp contrast to the current philosophy where all homes pay the same pass - through cost of water <br />86 purchased from St. Paul. <br />87 <br />88 It should be noted that many of these same low usage homes that would benefit from this new approach <br />89 already receive a subsidy through the senior discount program. <br />90 <br />91 Another consideration on whether to move to a 3- tiered rate structure is whether such an approach actually <br />92 promotes water conservation. We have observed that water usage has declined in the past couple of years <br />96 despite most households never reaching the threshold for the higher tier. One could argue that education <br />94 and awareness has been the leading factor in discouraging homeowners from excessive water use, rather <br />95 than the financial incentive (penalty) that accompanies higher tiers. <br />96 <br />97 One can assume that each household has a threshold for which a financial incentive would cause them to <br />98 modify their water use behavior. Arguably however, it would take more than just a few dollars per month <br />ss which is the case under both the current and proposed water rate tier structure. <br />100 <br />1o1 A final point for discussion involves the fairness that tiered water rates can have on larger families. For <br />102 example, let's assume that the per - person water usage for someone that follows moderate water <br />1o3 conservation measures is 5,000 gallons per quarter. A 3- person household would use 15,000 gallons per <br />104 quarter and would not hit the higher tier. However, a 4- person household would use 20,000 gallons per <br />105 quarter and hit the higher tier simply because there are more people living in the house. On an individual <br />106 basis the 4- person household is just as conservative in their water use, but they pay a higher rate <br />107 nonetheless. <br />108 <br />log Taking this example further, let's assume that the 4- person household is even more conservative and uses <br />11 o only 4,500 gallons per quarter, per person. This amounts to 18,000 gallons per quarter which once again <br />Page 3 of 3 <br />