6/22/1999 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

BOOK iOa FAGE 537 Further input was received on February 4, 1999 and on March 4, 1999 the Utilities Advisory Committee voted to approve an equity enhancing scenario and asked the staff to bring the item forward to the Board of County Commissioners for review and approval. On April 13, 1999, the Utility staff and Hartman & Associates, Inc. presented the draft Rate Resolution and rate schedules and sought permission to proceed with the appropriate revisions of the County Code after scheduling a public hearing. Originally scheduled for'May 18, 1999, the public hearing was rescheduled for June 22, 1999, to allow staff more time to develop the recommendations tendered by the Utilities Advisory Committee during it's May 3, 1999 meeting. On May 7, 1999, Hartman and Associates suggested new language consistant with their Utility experience, that would more clearly define the newly created residential designations. Subsequent stat� County Attorney and Committee comment has been incorporated on page 2 and 3 of the attached Ordinance revisions. On June 3, 1999, the Utilities Advisory Committee voted to send the attached Code language to the Board for Public Hearing and adoption. ADDITIONAL BACKGROUND The most recent user charge study was performed by CH2M Hill in 1991 using FY 1989/90 as the test year. Normally such charges are evaluated at a minimum of once every five (5) years making this study long overdue. Over the last year, the Utility staff and Advisory Committee have heard significant public input regarding user charge concerns. Chief among them are as follows: 1. "Base facility charges are too high. Because of this, customers do not have control over their bill creating a conservation dis-incentive." 2. "Small volume users are paying a disproportionately larger bill than the service they are receiving." 3. "The $2.00 billing charge for water and wastewater is too high The charge is an irritant and should not be itemized separately on the monthly bill." The User Charge Study recommendations have incorporated all these concerns and although the following recommendations will not satisfy every concern, the proposed changes go a long way to improve the inequities in the current rate structure. ANALYSIS It is recommended that the Board of County Commissioners approve the rate recommendations finalized by the Utility consultant and the Utility Advisory Committee. A copy of the Comprehensive Water and Sewer Systems Rate Study final report is available in the Offices of the County Commission and the Department of Utility Services for inspection. The primary goals of the user charge study were: * To achieve greater equity among user classes and maintain all rate scenarios as revenue neutral (no excess revenue generated) - * That revenue sufficiency be achieved for the five year planning period (debt service plus coverage equaled or exceeded) User charge model assumptions: • ERU growth factor for single-family, manufactured homes, multi -family and commercial customers would equal 1%, 0%, 1% and 0.75% per annum respectively, commencing October 1, 1999 and ending September 30, 2003. ERU growth is assumed to be added evenly throughout the twelve months of each fiscal year. • Fiscal year 1998/1999 O&M expenses and non operating revenue based upon 1998/1999 approved budget. • Inflation for O&M expenses assumed 3% per year. JUNE 229 1999 W