Laserfiche WebLink
BOOK 88 PD F. 075 -7 <br />Comparison of Combined Water &Sewer Monthly Billing With & W/O <br />Base Facility Charge - Seasonal Resident - 3,000 Gals. Av. Usage <br />sea <br />sso <br />so <br />S30 <br />S2o <br />$10 <br />so <br />J F M' A M J J A S O N D <br />— WITH BASE FAC - $403.14 <br />— W/O BASE FAC - $322.80 <br />Decrease of 19.9% <br />Commissioner Adams asked why our water costs are higher than <br />those in cities up north such as Milwaukee, and Director Pinto <br />pointed out that she was comparing our system to those which have <br />been in place for a long time and*were built at lower costs. In <br />the initial stages, we went out and borrowed almost $20 -million <br />that has to be paid back. Then we changed to an impact fee system. <br />In addition, there is the operation cost of the reverse osmosis <br />process. He emphasized that more and more communities in Florida <br />are going to the R.O. process because the water quality is not good <br />in this state. To meet those standards, the operating costs are <br />substantial. In New Jersey where he came from, you merely drew <br />water out, chlorinated it, and distributed it. That was the extent <br />of it, and it met all standards. Unfortunately, the quality of <br />water starts out much less in Florida and costs more to treat. <br />Commissioner Eggert recalled that during the workshops back in <br />November and December, people suggested that we decrease our rates <br />during the summer when people are away. <br />Director Pinto referred to the following worksheet and gave a <br />very technical explanation of why that would not be feasible: <br />C=V7 <br />