Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutVII (B) Discussion/ Action re: Water Rates in City of Ocoee Agenda 10-20-98 Item VII B • r��0 as©/ JAMES W. SHIRA,P.E. CITY ENGINEER/ITTILMES DIRECTOR 150 N.LAKESHORE DRIVE•OCOEE,FLORIDA 34761 PHONE(407)656-2322 EXT. 142•FAX(407)656-7835 MEMORANDUM DATE: October 16, 1998 TO: The Honorable Mayor and Board of City Commissioners FROM: David Wheeler, P.E.,. 44,.1/ Assistant City Engineer/Utilities Director SUBJECT: Water Rates in the City of Ocoee Since the revised water rates went into effect for the billing cycle of March 15i11 to April 15i'' and was included on the April invoice, there has been a significant number of telephone calls concerning this change. Many of those telephone calls were customers complaining about the increased amount of their bill and many conversations were customers asking questions about why the change in rates was enacted and what could they do to reduce their water consumption and their bill. The change in water rates was the result of a condition of the renewal of the City's Consumptive Use Permit(CUP) with the St. John's River Water Management District(SJRWMD). SJRWMD controls the amount of water each utility and other users is allowed to withdraw from the Floridan aquifer, which is the source of supply for all of Central Florida. During the permit renewal process SJRWMD determined that the City's consumption per resident exceeded the established limits. Therefore, they required the City to reduce this consumption to below the SJRWMD limit. '[here are many options which could have been enacted to force the reduction in consumption. Many are voluntary, some require Building Code regulations and enforcement, and some use variable water rates to affect the customers monetarily. The only option which provides for a lasting effect is the variable water rate approach. Voluntary options are normally only effective with constant reminders and arc usually not followed by a majority of customers. The changes in housing construction arc only effective for new houses and may not be followed depending upon the residents desires; and long term enforcement would require enactment of new City Codes and staffing of the Code Enforcement Department to constantly inspect houses for the long term usage of the required devices. THE PRIDE OF WEST ORANGE PEC. Inc. was tasked with the project of reviewing the SIRWMD requirements and proposing a solution that would meet the conditions of CUP. Their recommendation to go to a inclined block rate was based upon other utilities attempt to meet the same condition in their CUP renewal. Attached are Ocoee's previous rates and the current inclined rate structure. The change to the inclined block rate was not intended to increase the overall revenue that the City received; assuming our customers would reduce consumption as a result of the change in rates. The City did not need a rate increase to offset increases in system operation and maintenance; the City needed to reduce consumption by its customers and ultimately reduce withdrawals from the Floridan Aquifer. The revised rate structure was proposed for approval at the November 18, 1997 Commission Meeting. The action item was tabled for further review and analysis. At the December 16, 1997 Commission Meeting the rate structure was discussed and ultimately approved for enactment. As a condition of the approval, the City included "stuffers" in the next few water bills to inform the customers about the revised rate structure and to propose ideas where each customer could reduce its consumption. "I'he revised rates went into effect with the March 15i' to April 15'" billing cycle. Unfortunately, the revised rates affected the customer consumption as the drought started and many customers were increasing the amount of irrigation on their lawns. The drought and the increased irrigation magnified the effect of the inclined rate structure. As the drought subsided and the summer rains picked up the amount of irrigation decreased and the intent of the inclined rate structure to decrease water consumption began to take effect. 'the attached charts show pumpage volumes from the City's three water treatment plants (WTP) and consumption for various customers around the City. The WTP chart shows the pumpage over the last four years. Please take note of the pumping from September 1997 until October 1998,the period of time when we first had a significant amount of rain followed by the drought and then followed by the summer rains. With the inclined rate structure in effect the pumping has decreased to below the previous years volume; please note the September 1998 vs 1997 volumes. We are just now starting to sec the effect of the rate change. The other charts of various customer consumption volumes is for your review and comparison. The two commercial customers are using excessive volumes for irrigation; and this type of usage is a reason for the inclined block rate structure. There are some residential customers who have a domestic and irrigation meter and their respective usages. Please compare this to the other residential customers who only have one meter for irrigation and domestic usage. The majority of the water usage which the customers of the City need to reduce is the irrigation demands. The low flush toilets, toilet bricks and low volume shower heads will reduce some of the volume but will not have as significant an effect as changing the run times on irrigation systems to only run from 15 to 30 minute per zone every other day. The attached table shows average consumption for residential customers for various neighborhoods around the City. Depending upon the age of the development, there is a wide variance in water consumption. In reviewing the WTP records for pumping rates, the largest demand time period on the plants is normally from 3:00 am to 7:00 am. Initially, this is when most sprinkler systems run which is the ideal time to water for the maximum effect to plant growth and later when we all begin to wake up. Already this year, the South Plant in particular has peaked out the pumping capacity approximately 100 days. 'Ike Engineering and Utility Departments are working towards providing reuse water to some of our customers in the north side of town besides the Forest Oaks Golf Course. In addition, contact has been made with the City of Orlando and Orange County about the possibility of becoming a customer of theirs and taking water from their Consery pipeline which runs through the south end of the City and serving that area. Both of these utilities have agreed in principle to the concept and we are in the process of formalizing the agreement for service. This will allow the reuse water to be used for irrigation, reduce demand on the WTPs, reduce the metered consumption of our customers thereby reducing our withdrawal of water from the Floridan Aquifer and therefore satisfying the SJRWMD's conditions in the CUP. Representatives of PFC. Inc. will be present to answer any questions about their analysis to proposing the inclined rate structure and representatives of SJRWMD will he present to provide explanation of the CUP condition requirements. In addition, SJR WMD may be able to propose an analysis of our rate structure and customer consumption to see if there are other ways in which we could encourage consumption. Attachments v 1000 of Colons S 0 1000 of Colons o a o a o a 8 & g * 3 Jon-97 o w o v, 8 a 8 & g g Jon-97 Feb-97- ? Feb-97- Alor-97 T a Afor-97- Apr-97- R Apr-97- May-97- 3 0 Afoy-97- Jun-97- Jun-97- 0 .♦ Jul-97- m g. Jul-97- Aug-97to $ A. Aug-97- 1. Sep-97- E. S Sep-97- Oct-97 - co n f) Oct-97o /X - ig f) Nov-97- _ Nov-97- co Dec-97- 1103 3 « Dec-97- A v CO Jon-98 c Jan-98- Feb-98 A Feb-98- f3 to Alor-98- Mor-98 4 . g I Apr-98- Apr-98- May-980 - Moy-98- _ Jun-98- Jun-98- f Jul-98- Jul-98- Aug-98- Aug-98- Sep-98- Sep-98- _i f II o 0 N J ii' 1000 of Gallons 1000�+ 1000 of Gallons � y� a Jan-97 0 25 g $ 25 0 $ $ $' 25 1 Jan-97 ' 3 Mar-97 Mar-97 I 8. May-97 May 97 = Jul-97 Jul-97 n n .a Sep-97 Sep-97 71. 3 Nov-97 ; 3 Nov-97 I a. Jan-98 = aJan-98 Cl) O = Mar-98 Mar 98 i 3 Z O Z May-98 N May-98 C Jul-98 Jul-98 i Sep-98 Sep-98 f f0 3. $ f �. o -D 1000 of Gallons 3 1000 of Gallons o 0 9' $' $ K' $ - Jan-97 i I i Jan-97 , , 1 1 i _ ff - Mar 97 Wi. Mar-97 — May-97 — N► - May-97 — y - O n — O Jul-97 — m Jul-97 — m fat In Sep-97 — a f Sep-97 — to 4E. is. to s Nov-97 = ; Oo 0 1 1 Nov-97 — n C) bi — C CS Jon-98 — G Jon 98 — (p — 9 4 Mar-98 — a Mor-98 — a — Z May-98 — May-98 — — Ip Jul-98 — Jul 98 — . g • Sep-98 — 1 Sep-98 — ii f ii f 3 3 3 3 Z Z z z 0 o Z Z N a O O N Sheet5 • Residential Customer Domestic and Irrigation 20 18 16 14 12 Domestic 10 § 8 —III—Hue6on 6 4 •-- -- 2 -- - OMEN II 111111 • 117\11- Months Two Residential Customers in Eastern Ocoee too 80 70 60 5° Family No. 1 "6 --II—Family No.2 § 4° ;184111N Act 20 - 10 -- 0 11111111111111111111 r, r•-. r•-• CO CO 00 CO CO Cr, 0, 0, C73 03 0, 03 en cr) cn Months Plot of Combined Domestic and Irrigation Consumption , I 'i II Section 4 . A new Section 2$-4 of Chapter 22 of the Code of Ordinances of the City of Ocoee is hereby adopted as follows : Section 22-4 . Water and Sewer Monthly Charges and Billing . (a ) The following shall be the schedule of monthly rates and charges for water and sewer .service provided by the City: Water Base Facility Charge Effective Effective Effective ( zero consumption ) 10/1/89 10/1/90 10/1/91 5/8 inch meter1 $ 6 . 86 $ 7 . 25 / 7 . 64 dt 1 inch meter. 17 . 15 18 .13✓ 19 . 10 1 1 inch meter., 34 . 30 36 . 25'� 38 .20 2 inch meter., 54 . 88 58 . 00 ✓ 61 . 12 3 inch meter. 109 . 76 116 . 00 ✓ 122 . 24 4 inch meter.? 171. 50 181. 25� 191 . 00 6 inch meter 343 . 00 _ 362 . 50 382 . 00 8 inch meter-5 548 . 80 580 . 00✓ 611 . 20 10 inch meter 788 . 90 833 . 75 878 . 60 12 inch meter 1 , 474 . 90 1 , 558 . 75 1 , 642 . 60 PLUS : Charge per 1000 gallons $ 0 . 46 $ 0 . 48, $ 0 .51 Sewer Base Facility Charge Effective ( zero consumption ) 10/1/89 5/8 inch meter ) $ 13 . 81. 1 inch meter a jiJ3 1 lg 1.ncli meter 4) 69 . 05 2 inch meter $ 110 . 48 3 inch meter G 220 . 96 4 inch meter 7 345 . 25 6 inch meter 690 . 50 8 inch meter 3 1. , 104 . 80 10 inch meter 1, 588 . 15 12 inch meter 2 , 969 . 15 PLUS : Charge per 1000 gallons $ 1 . 47 8 . Deposit Amount : The amount of deposit is determined by the type of residency and the size of the meter as follows . * Residential : 1 . 3/4" x 5/8" METER WATER SEWER OWNER OF RESIDENCE $60 . 00 $60 . 00 RENTER OF RESIDENCE $80 . 00 $80 . 00 2 . 1" METER 8140 . 00 $140 . 00 c CITY OF O C O E E , FLORIDA UTILITY BILLING RATES, DEPOSIT REFUNDS, PENALTIES WATER RATES Base rate (availability of service) $7.00 per month Consumption rate .60 per 1,000 gallons from 1 to 15 .92 per 1, 000 gallons from 16 to 25 1.25 per 1,000 gallons from 26 and up WASTEWATER RATES Base rate (availability of service) $13.81 per month Usage rate 1.47 per 1,000 gallons Wastewater has a ceiling of 12, 000 gallons for residential accounts. Therefore, your total wastewater charges will not exceed $31.45 per month. STORMWATER DRAINAGE RATES To manage stormwater runoff the City of Ocoee charges a Stormwater Drainage fee. Residential properties are currently charged $4.50 per month. SOLID WASTE RATES Two (2) Class 1 pick ups, one (1) yard waste pick up and one (1) recycling pick up $16.00 per month* *See attached solid waste information sheet for further rates on special bulk pick ups. LATE FEE All past due accounts will be charged a $5.00 late fee each month if there is any outstanding balance due on the account five (5) working days after the due date printed on the bill. NO EXCEPTIONS. DEPOSITS REFUNDS The deposit will be returned after twenty-four (24) consecutive months of service without water service being shut off or a notice of lien being filed for non- payment. Effective October 1, 1994 interest will accrue monthly on deposits. Accounts closed prior to twelve (12) consecutive months of service without water service being shut off or a notice of lien being filed for non-payment forfeit any accrued interest. In the event of any unpaid amount to the City of Ocoee, this deposit and accrued interest will be applied to the satisfaction of such amount, and the balance, if any, will be refunded. PENALTIES In the event that the water service is shut off or a notice of lien is filed for non-payment: 1. If the deposit has been refunded, a new deposit will be required. 2. If the deposit has not been refunded, all interest will be forfeited as a penalty. After service is reconnected or lien is released, the deposit will once again begin to accrue interest and be refundable after twenty- four (24) consecutive months of service without water service being shut off or a notice of lien being filed for non-payment. CONFIDENTIALITY Section 119.09(3) (k)2. of Florida Statutes provides that an agency that is not the employer of a law enforcement officer, or other person entitled to confidentiality is only required to maintain the confidentiality of the exempt information if the law enforcement officer or other person, submits a written request for confidentiality to the agency. Sheetl • / 998 Month City Wide Silver Glen Lake Olympia Club Temple Grove Cross Creek Prairie Lakes Peach Lake Brentwood Sawmill Pioneer Key Old Section Jan 82,428 4,076 1,502 1,498 3,013 1,507 2.162 3,354 3,778 2,363 1,615 Feb 66,657 3,359 1,168 1,250 3,388 1,152 1,404 1,888 2,572 1,575 1,346 Mar 77,928 4,187 1,472 1,755 3,051 1,225 2,018 2,462 3,933 1,664 1,414 Apr 127,731 7,745 2,703 3,742 5,622 2,324 2,485 4,507 5,772 2,403 2,094 May 166,026 8,544 2,456 4,797 6,705 2,907 3,500 6,790 11,243 2,279 2,506 Jun 163,881 8,224 2,719 4,942 5,829 3,719 3,370 5,371 8,578 2,323 2,631 Jul 232,474 11,126 3,385 6,254 11,579 4,597 4,878 8,376 13,704 3,042 3,548 Aug 119,070 6,379 2,156 2,779 6,202 2,527 2,783 3,905 6,180 2,335 1,910 Sep 141,606 7,096 2,612 3,514 7,609 3,432 3,230 4,581 6,949 2,573 2,113 Oct 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Nov 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Dec 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total 1,177,801 60,736 18,671 30,531 52,998 23,390 25,830 41,234 62,709 20,557 19,177 avg 9 mos 130,867 6,748 2,334 3,392 5,889 2,599 2,870 4,582 6,968 2,284 2,131 #customers 7,810 244 62 133 266 85 247 326 405 244 188 avg/cust 16.76 27.66 37.64 25.51 22.14 30,58 11.62 14.05 17,20 9.36 11.33 Page 1 Appendix B • `kc\ New Subdivisions Older Subdivisions Month City Wide Silver Glen Lake Olympia Club Temple Grove Cross Creek Prairie Lakes Peach Lake Brentwood Sawmill Pioneer Key Old Section Jan 134816 8003 2010 2238 2435 197 1926 3622 4519 1724 1948 Feb 122672 4944 1789 2132 2682 127 1883 3017 4282 1481 1536 Mar 124360 4944 1982 2753 2734 199 2161 3473 5798 1586 1605 Apr 192509 5858 1871 3145 3159 453 2531 4261 5805 1811 1807 May 154844 6104 2199 3271 4173 524 3101 4959 6942 2269 2278 Jun 168057 6771 2749 3340 14141 835 2821 4443 7142 2113 2205 Jul 141535 6163 2380 3071 4140 1282 2973 4590 6065 2807 2415 Aug 101509 5908 2139 2038 3645 838 2684 3604 4740 2373 2398 Sep 114807 6289 2168 3104 4895 1184 2613 3818 5992 2690 2096 Oct 150843 8421 3026 4130 4831 2332 3613 5578 7420 2295 2650 Nov 102795 5752 1952 2576 4208 1535 1897 3516 4430 2277 1797 Dec 96846 5054 1812 1888 4049 1857 1980 3173 4431 1980 1616 Total 1605593 74211 26077 33686 55092 11363 30183 48054 67566 25406 24351 avg 1 yr 133,799.42 6,184.25 2,173.08 2,807.17 4,591.00 946.92 2,515.25 4,004.50 5,630.50 2,117.17 2,029.25 #customers 7178 231 61 131 208 51 248 325 403 244 190 avg/cust 18.64 26.77 35.62 21.43 22.07 18.57 10.14 12.32 13.97 8.68 10.68 Special Publication SJ98-SP15 WATER SUPPLY NEEDS AND SOURCES ASSESSMENT: ALTERNATIVE WATER SUPPLY STRATEGIES INVESTIGATION: IMPLEMENTATION OF WATER CONSERVATION RATE STRUCTURES by Post, Buckley, Schuh &Jernigan,Inc. in association with Burton and Associates,Inc. St.Johns River Water Management District Palatka,Florida 1998 Executive Summary EXECUTIVE SUMMARY As part of St. Johns River Water Management District's (SJRWMD's) Investigation of Alternative Water Supply Strategies, Post, Buckley, Schuh &Jernigan, Inc (PBS&J) in association with Burton and Associates,Inc. was tasked with evaluating the impact of implementation of water conservation rate structures. Water conservation rate structures are used by water utilities to moderate consumption through a pricing mechanism that increases the price of water as usage increases. This practice is based upon general economic theory, which holds that the demand for a commodity decreases as its price increases. This theory is supported by empirical research specifically related to water usage. Florida utilities generally employ conservation rate structures in an attempt to reduce per capita water consumption in response to regulatory requirements. This study was divided into two phases. In Phase I (Lockridge and Jackson 1996) an assessment of data availability and development of methodologies for evaluating water conservation rates were conducted. In Phase II, the subject of this report, data were collected and the analysis was performed. In Phase I, the WATERATE computer software (Brown & Caldwell and Whitcomb 1993)was selected. A questionnaire was sent to 25 utilities to assess data availability for running the model and collecting as much of the data as feasible. In Phase I, complete data were received from only one utility;however,it was believed that data could readily be obtained from a total of 16 utilities based on follow-up telephone calls and expressions by utilities of a willingness to cooperate in the study. It was determined that data from property appraiser's offices would be needed to supplement the utility-provided data. In Phase II,the first step was to develop a research design. Based on a meeting with a group of selected utilities in the study area,it was determined that a modification of the recommended research design proposed in Phase I would be appropriate. Three scenarios were established that would be evaluated for each utility to determine the effectiveness of water conservation rates structures: Phase 11-Implementation of Water Conservation Rate Structures Final Report Executive Summary • Scenario 1 - effect of current conservation rates (or for utilities with uniform rates, a three-block structure based on Orange County Utilities' structure). • Scenario 2- effect of eliminating fixed charges. • Scenario 3- effect of a four-block conservation rate structure. In Phase I, the importance of property value data in properly calculating elasticity response for each utility was emphasized, but the difficulty in acquiring accurate information was pointed out. In Phase II, the data collection effort on property values was successful and property value averages in the three ranges required in the WATERATE model were obtained for all 25 utilities. Data collection from utilities was not as successful, however. Only eight utilities fully responded to the data collection efforts. They are Daytona Beach, New Smyrna Beach, Orange County, Port Orange, Sanford, Sanlando Utilities,Titusville, and Winter Park. The eight utilities include one investor-owned utility regulated by the Public Service Commission (Sanlando Utilities). Current fixed charges for water for these utilities range from insignificant (4 percent of the total revenue) to extremely significant (60 percent of the total revenue). The percentage of single-family water consumption ranges from 32 percent to 89 percent of total consumption. Housing values in the medium to high ranges vary from over 90 percent for two utilities and less than 50 percent for one. Because of this variability, the eight utilities provide a good cross section of the study area for conducting the analysis. Each of the three scenarios established in the research design were run using WATERATE for the eight utilities. The conclusions of the analysis are: • Individual circumstances have a high degree of influence on the effectiveness of conservation rate implementation. No standard solution emerged as a useful model for all utilities. A case-by- case empirical approach that experiments with different structures to reach an optimal solution is needed. Phase II-Implementation of Water Conservation Rate Structures Final Report ii Executive Summary • The conservation effect of inclining block rate structures varies considerably based on the utility's current rate structure. In general,little effect can be gained by requiring a utility with a three-block structure to change to a four-block structure. • The sewer usage rate can interfere with the effects of conservation rates for water. This was seen in the analysis of City of Sanford data, where dissavings in potable water may result from implementation of block rates. • For utilities with high fixed charges, the greatest conservation effect can be achieved by reduction of that charge. However, this creates more volatility in annual revenue streams. • Conservation rates for the sample utilities tend, overall, to result in long-term water savings. However,these savings are not extremely large, tending to maximize at about five percent of total water consumption. • The effects produced by the model are long-term,structural changes in the level of water consumption. Immediate short- term effects can vary significantly depending on intervening effects, such as weather and, in all probability, the general state of the economy. Based on this analysis, it is recommended that SJRWMD use caution in requiring water conservation rates in the Consumptive Use Permitting process. If a utility can provide evidence (possibly using the WATERATE model as a basis) that water conservation rates provide no significant water savings, then they should not be required to implement the rates. Water savings from other water conservation approaches can be considered in such cases. SJRWMD may want to promote reduction of fixed charges as an alternative to conservation rates. However, since reduction of the fixed charge will increase the sensitivity of a utility's total revenue to changes in consumption caused by weather or the general state of the economy, this approach should be suggested as an optional alternative to implementation of conservation rates rather than mandated as a requirement of the permitting process. Phase II-Implementation of Water Conservation Rate Structures Final Report Executive Summary SJRWMD should continue to monitor the professional literature to identify further evidence of the effects of water conservation rates on water usage in the context of other alternative approaches and periodically evaluate the status of conservation rate implementation by utilities in SJRWMD to determine the usefulness of future promotion through the regulatory process. Phase II-Implementation of Water Conservation Rate Structures Final Report iv Contents CONTENTS Executive Summary List of Tables vii List of Figures vii INTRODUCTION 1 Background 1 Purpose 2 Scope of Services 3 METHODOLOGY 4 Determination of Water Conservation Rate Structures to be Used and Primary Modeled Results to be Reported 4 Collection of Data from Participating Utilities and Other Sources 4 Data Provided by the Utilities 4 Property Value Data Collection 6 Data Analysis Using the WATERATE Model 7 Empirical Basis for the WATERATE Model 7 Design of the WATERATE Software 8 Research Design 11 DISCUSSION 14 Results of Data Collection 14 Property Value Data 14 Data Provided by the Utilities 14 Simplifying Assumptions 14 Characteristics of the Sample 15 Results of Analysis 20 General 20 City of Daytona Beach 21 New Smyrna Beach 24 Orange County 25 City of Port Orange 26 City of Sanford 28 Sanlando Utilities 29 City of Titusville 30 City of Winter Park 30 Phase II-Implementation of Water Conservation Rate Structures Final Report V Contents CONCLUSIONS 34 RECOMMENDATIONS 36 REFERENCES 37 APPENDIX A- Specific Property Value Data Collection 38 APPENDIX B- Complete WATERATE Model Output for Each Utility 76 Phase II-Implementation of Water Conservation Rate Structures Final Report vi Contents TABLES 1 Summary of Phase I Follow-Up Results 5 2 WATERATE Model Scenarios 13 3 Significant Input Data and Results from WATERATE Model 16 FIGURES 1 Number of Meters and ERUs 17 2 Calculated Revenue 17 3 Annual Water Consumption 18 4 Housing Values 18 5 Water Savings (Dissavings) 19 6 Effect of Fixed Charge Elimination on Water Savings 22 Phase II-Implementation of Water Conservation Rate Structures Final Report Introduction INTRODUCTION BACKGROUND St.Johns River Water Management District (SJRWMD) is responsible for managing ground water resources in a nineteen county area of northeastern Florida. Ground water aquifers are currently the primary sources of potable water supply in SJRWMD. The most dependable ground water source is the Floridan aquifer. However, Vergara (1994) projected shortfalls in available water supply in certain critical areas throughout SJRWMD boundaries by the year 2010. Areas with existing or 2010 projected water supply problems were designated as priority water resource caution areas (PWRCAs). As a result,SJRWMD embarked on an Investigation of Alternative Water Supply Strategies. Strategies being investigated include using lower quality water supplies, surface water,reclaimed water, aquifer recharge, aquifer storage and recovery,mitigation and avoidance, and various water conservation techniques. SJRWMD contracted with Post, Buckley, Schuh &Jernigan, Inc. (PBS&J) to perform various tasks for the purpose of assessing water conservation and the reuse of reclaimed water as effective alternative water supply strategies. This report,prepared in association with Burton&Associates, Inc., specifically addresses Task III - Implementation of Water Conservation Rate Structures. Water conservation rate structures are used by water utilities to moderate consumption through a pricing mechanism that increases the price of water as usage increases. This practice is based upon general economic theory,which holds that the quantity of a commodity demanded decreases as its price increases.This theory is supported by empirical research specifically related to water usage. Florida utilities generally employ conservation rate structures in an attempt to reduce per capita water consumption in response to regulatory requirements. The purpose of Task III is to determine the potential impacts of water conservation rate structures on reducing potable water consumption and thereby extending the viability of current water supply sources. Phase II-Implementation of Water Conservation Rate Structures Final Report 1 Introduction Phase I (Lockridge and Jackson 1996)was undertaken to assess the availability of data, develop methodologies, and estimate the budget for performing the analysis to determine the potential impacts of water conservation rate structures. In Phase II, the subject of this report, data were collected and the analysis performed. The Phase I study determined that the WATERATE computer software, developed by the Southwest Florida Water Management District (SWFWMD) as part of an empirical study of the effects of water price on customers' demand for water, is an appropriate tool for estimated potential impacts of water conservation rate structures for utilities within SJRWMD. Based on information provided by a questionnaire sent to 25 utilities and on follow-up telephone calls, it was estimated that the data required to perform the analysis could be obtained from 16 utilities, supplemented by property value data from property appraisers' offices and, in some cases, by sewer service rate data from other utilities serving the same customers. In Phase I, it was determined that the primary indicators of the effectiveness of water conservation rate structures would be the estimated percentage change in water consumption by customer class achieved through implementation of the rates, holding revenue constant. On an aggregate basis, this information can be used to estimate the overall expected effectiveness of the use of water conservation rate structures in conserving water resources in the region. PURPOSE The purpose of this study is to determine the potential impacts of water conservation rate structures for selected public supply utilities in SJRWMD. The study is divided into two phases: • Phase I - Assess data availability, develop methodologies, and determine costs for collecting data and performing analyses required to achieve the purpose of the study. • Phase II- Collect and analyze required data and project impacts of various pricing structures on water use. Phase II-Implementation of Water Conservation Rate Structures Final Report 2 Introduction Phase I was completed and reported upon in 1996. This report documents the results of Phase II. SCOPE OF SERVICES Specific services performed were as follows: 1. Determine, in consultation with SJRWMD staff and concerned utilities, the water conservation rate structures to be used as a basis for estimating consumption effects. 2. Determine the primary modeled results to be reported. 3. Collect data from participating utilities and other sources. 4. Analyze the data using the WATERATE model. 5. Prepare a report documenting the results of the WATERATE analysis, including a tabular summary of data and modeled results. Phase H-Implementation of Water Conservation Rate Structures Final Report 3 Methodology METHODOLOGY DETERMINATION OF WATER CONSERVATION RATE STRUCTURES TO BE USED AND PRIMARY MODELED RESULTS TO BE REPORTED On September 20, 1996, a meeting was held with SJRWMD staff and representatives of several utilities to be included in the study. The group determined that the recommended research design proposed in the Phase I report was satisfactory, including the identification of percentage change in water consumption as the primary modeled result. After discussion of alternatives, the group recommended the use of the conservation rate structure used by Orange County Utilities as a basis for determining conservation effects. COLLECTION OF DATA FROM PARTICIPATING UTILITIES AND OTHER SOURCES Data Provided By The Utilities Phase I included a survey of each utility identified in the scope of service to determine the availability of required project data and the willingness of each utility's staff to provide the data for the purpose of the project. Table 1, originally included in the Phase I report, summarizes the status of expected participation for each of the 25 utilities contacted. Indications at that point in time were that there were 16 total probable participants in Phase II. During Phase II, a more in-depth survey was developed and submitted to a contact person from each utility identified during Phase I. Follow-up calls were made to utilities failing to respond or providing an incomplete response. A third survey was then conducted which used printed data input screens from the WATERATE model. This was done in an attempt to ensure that contact persons at each utility clearly understood the data needs and were reassured that data were not being requested unless Phase 11-Implementation of Water Conservation Rate Structures Final Report 4 Methodology Table 1. Summary of Phase I follow-up results Call Contact Probable Respondent Made_ Made Results of Follow-Up Contact Participant 1 Altamonte Springs Yes No 2 Apopka Yes Yes Willing to participate in Phase II X 3 Casselberry Yes Yes They believe they returned questionnaire,we have no record X 4 Cocoa No No Large number of customers on separate sewer-impractical 5 Dayton Beach Yes No 6 DeLand Yes Yes Will assess data availability and call back 7 Eustis Yes No 6 Leesburg Yes No 9 Maitland Yes Yes Willing to participate in Phase II X 10 Mt Dora Yes No 11 New Smyrna Beach Yes Yes Willing to participate in Phase II X 12 Ocoee Yes Yes Billing statistics not available by customerclass 13 Orange County Yes Yes We have fun billing statistics from recent rate sludy X 10 Orlando Utilities Commission Yes Yes Willing to participate in Phase II X 15 Ormond Beach Yes Yes Willing to participate in Phase II X 16 Oviedo Yes Yes Willing to participate in Phase II X 17 Pon Orange N/A N/A Original data is complete X 18 Sanford N/A N/A Onginal data is essentially complete X 19 Sanlando Utilities N/A N/A Original data is complete X 20 Seminole County - No No Letter sent indicates willingness to participate X 21 Florida Water Services(Deltona) Yes Yes Willing to participate in Phase II X 22 Titusville - N/A N/A We have full billing statistics from recent rate study X 23 Village Center Yes Yes Willing to participate in Phase II X 20 Winter Park Yes Yes Willing to participate in Phase II X 25 Winter Springs -Yes Yes Billing statistics not available by customer class 111 Total Probable Participants 16 N/A=Not applicable. No need to make additional contact because original data provided complete or nearly complete. Source: Lockridge and Jackson(1996) Phase II-Implementation of Water Conservation Rate Structures Final Report 5 Methodology they were actually required by the model. This survey was sent to each contact, and copies were sent to each utility's engineering department and to the office of the utility director. Ten days after the third survey was sent, it was resubmitted to each utility. Follow-up phone calls were made to confirm receipt and ensure an understanding of the request. After an appropriate period of time, information received from each utility was reviewed to identify missing data. These data were requested specifically from each utility and, where necessary, the scope of contact was expanded to include other departments such as customer service. Additionally, the City or County Clerk's office for each government- owned utility was contacted to obtain all water,wastewater, and reclaimed water ordinances. Each ordinance was reviewed and a rate schedule was developed for each utility's service area. This provided authoritative references to confirm the accuracy of survey data. Finally, the latest consumptive use permit applications submitted by utilities in the sample were reviewed to determine whether useful data could be obtained from that source. Property Value Data Collection Using service area maps and other information available from each utility, the geographic service area of each of the 25 utilities was roughly defined. With the assistance of appropriate planning departments and engineering staffs, a more precise definition was developed of the service area outside of the utility's particular political jurisdiction. The percentage of single-family properties falling within each of the WATERATE model's valuation categories (low [below $55,001 assessed value], medium [$55,001 through $81,300], and high [greater than$81,300]) were obtained from county property appraisers' records. Appendix A, "Specific Property Value Data Collection," presents the data gathered in this process. Phase II-Implementation of Water Conservation Rate Structures Final Report 6 Methodology DATA ANALYSIS USING THE WATERATE MODEL Empirical Basis For The WATERATE Model The WATERATE model is based on a recent study of price elasticity prepared for the Southwest Florida Water Management District (Brown & Caldwell and Whitcomb. 1993) (hereinafter referred to as the "SWFWMD study"). While the study covered both residential and commercial water customers, it focused on single-family residential users. Using a multiple regression model, the authors identified variables that explained approximately 60 percent of the variance in water usage among 1,200 residential customers of ten utilities over a period of one year. Then,by holding other variables constant (such as weather, irrigation restrictions, well depth, and property values), the effect of price differences on water usage was isolated and used to determine price elasticity,measured in terms of expected percentage change in water usage for each percentage change in water price. A similar procedure was followed for nine commercial classes and for multifamily residential customers. To test the validity of the relationships determined from the cross-sectional analysis (analysis of water use differences among customers at the same point in time) when applied to a single utility over time, the authors compared average water usage in Winter Haven before and after a 27 percent rate increase. The most salient conclusions of the study for purposes of this project were: • Elasticity varies significantly by property value, with customers residing in higher-value homes exhibiting more sensitivity to price changes. For this reason, the price elasticity factors incorporated into WATERATE are divided into high,medium, and low property value groups. • Multifamily customers are generally price inelastic,probably because individual apartments are seldom metered. • Estimates of elasticity for commercial classes are less reliable than those for residential,since the number of customers in the Phase II-Implementation of Water Conservation Rate Structures Final Report 7 Methodology analysis is considerably smaller and the variance explained by the regression equation is generally much lower. • The results of the longitudinal analysis for Winter Haven implied elasticity of demand factors by customer class reasonably close to those determined by the short term analysis. However, the authors caution that factors other than price could have affected the change in demand after the rate increase. More obviously, since in this aggregate analysis there is essentially only one observation (the unit of analysis being the utility), the results must be considered anecdotal in nature. However, it is important that the results did not contradict the cross-sectional analysis; this provides an additional element of strength to the elasticity estimate developed in the study. Design Of The WATERATE Software The WATERATE software implements an analytical model based on parameters determined during the SWFWMD study described above. The user enters base year data about a specific utility relevant to the calculation of elasticity of demand responses to changes in water prices. The software produces reports documenting the input data and projecting results for a three-year period after the base year, consisting of revenue requirements and revenue received from water rates, changes in consumption for each class of customer, and changes in consumption for each class of customer for each conservation rate block. The actual WATERATE data input screens and reports of results are included in their entirety for each utility in Appendix B, "Complete WATERATE Model Output for Each Utility". In summary, they are: Input Data Table I. General Information • Customer classes • Identification of customer classes paying block rates • Whether rates are annual or seasonal • Default rates of(1) account growth and (2) economic inflation Phase II-Implementation of Water Conservation Rate Structures Fowl Report 8 Methodology • Type of year (fiscal or calendar) • Identification of base year • Water unit used to measure consumption(100 cubic feet or 1,000 gallons) Table 2. Water Accounts • Equivalent Meter Units and number of meters for each meter size (for each customer class, if fixed charges vary by customer class) Table 3a. Annual Water Use (for each customer class) Table 3b. Water Use Distribution (for each customer class) For customer classes paying block rates, the total number of bills within each rate block used in the model, divided between sewer and non-sewer customers, is required. However, if this information is not available the user can select a default distribution based on the SWFWMD study. Table 4. Revenue Requirements Total revenue required from water rates by the utility and the amount of that total revenue that varies with changes in consumption. Table 5. Price Elasticities Elasticity of demand for each customer class. For the single-family residential class, elasticity can be calculated by the model based on the SWFWMD study if the user enters the percentage of single-family properties in low,medium and high ranges (see discussion above). If the percentage of commercial customers falling into specified industry groupings is known, a similar calculation can be made for commercial customers. The model recommends elasticity factors of zero for multifamily customers with master meters,-0.25 for commercial customers absent detailed information on industry groupings, and -0.40 for irrigation meters. Phase II-Implementation of Water Conservation Rate Structures Final Report 9 Methodology In addition, the user enters the expected degree to which the long-run elasticity response is recognized in any given year in the model's projections. Table 6. Fixed Charges (monthly fixed fees charged per month to each account and to each customer based on the number of Equivalent Meter Units,by customer class if necessary) Table 7. Water and Sewer Prices (water and sewer prices by block for each customer class, entered for the year preceding the base year, the base year, and the three years following the base year) Output Data Table 8. Revenue Summary For the base year and three following years, the model calculates • the base year water rate revenue requirement, as defined by the user • the price elastic change in the revenue requirement from one year to the next, based upon the user's specification of the amount of total water rate revenue that varies with changes in consumption • Revenues from proposed rates: - Fixed charge revenue- meter size independent (charged per account) Fixed charge revenue- meter size dependent (charged per Equivalent Meter Unit Quantity (usage) charge revenue for each customer class • Revenue surplus or shortfall (revenue required less revenue received) Phase II-Implementation of Water Conservation Rate Structures Final Report 10 Methodology Table 9. Water Summary For three years following the base year, the model calculates percentage change in consumption for each customer class and in total. Table 10. Water Change by Block For each customer class, the model calculates percentage change in consumption for each rate block in each of the three years following the base year. RESEARCH DESIGN In normal use, the WATERATE model would be used to forecast changes over time in consumption and revenue for a utility implementing changes in water pricing structure,given best estimate assumptions regarding growth, inflation, elasticity responses of each customer class, and the degree to which long-term elasticity responses are recognized in the short run. The purpose of this analysis, however, is to determine the long-term elasticity effect(change in consumption) of alternative water pricing structures, given current rates for a sample of utilities within SJRWMD. This information can be used by SJRWMD to compare water conservation rate structures to other approaches available for reducing potable water consumption and determine which methods are likely to be more effective as part of an overall regulatory strategy. The following research design was used to achieve this purpose: • Customer growth and inflation were set to zero to eliminate their effects. • Revenue requirements were set equal to calculated base year revenue. • Elasticity factors were set at the default calculation for the single family class, and were therefore calculated based on the property value distribution of each utility. Multiple family elasticity was set at zero,commercial at-0.25,and irrigation at -0.4, as recommended in the WATERATE software instructions. Phase II-Implementation of Water Conservation Rate Structures Final Report 11 Methodology • Since the purpose of the analysis is not to forecast consumption and revenue but to determine long-term elasticity response, 100 percent of the long-term response is assumed to occur in the first year of rate implementation. • Each utility's actual rates were entered for the base year. Three alternative rate scenarios were then entered into the three subsequent years to determine their effect on consumption when compared to base year rates. Each scenario is described in detail in Table 2. In summary, they are: - Scenario 1 - effect of current conservation rates (or for utilities with uniform rates, a three block structure on the Orange County model) - Scenario 2 - effect of eliminating fixed charges Scenario 3 - effect of a four block conservation rate structure • Each scenario defines the number of blocks and the relationships among them. The actual rate level in each block is set so that the revenue generated approximates base year revenue. In keeping with the practice of most utilities, rates are rounded to the nearest penny, producing immaterial differences in revenue. This procedure effectively holds revenue constant for each scenario. This research design has the effect of holding all factors other than rate structure and consumption constant, allowing a true long-term elasticity effect to be calculated in a manner that allows comparison among the utilities in the sample. While actual consumption and revenues will be affected on a year-to-year basis by extraneous variables such as weather, growth, and inflation, it is this long-term effect that represents the actual response to changes in rates and which should, therefore, drive regulatory policy. Phase 11-Implementation of Water Conservation Rate Structures Final Report 12 Methodology Table 2. WATERATE model scenarios Model Year Scenario Number Scenario Description 1994/95 Baseline Base Year Each utility's actual rates are entered and revenue requirements are calibrated to calculated revenue. For all subsequent scenarios rates are set to ap•roximate revenue requirements in the base ear. 1995/96 1 Effect of Conservation Rates-3 Blocks If the utility used block rates in the base year,this scenario measures the change in consumption caused by those rates versus a uniform rate. If the utility used a uniform rate in the base year,this scenario measures the change in consumption caused by changing to a 3-block conservation rate structure based on the Orange County model° 1996/97 2 Effect of Elimination of Fixed Charge This scenarios measures the change in consumption caused by eliminating all fixed charses and raisins the uniform rate to make up the lost revenue. 1997/98 3 Effect of Conservation Rates-4 Blocks This scenario measures the change in consumption caused by changing to a 4-block conservation rate structure based on the Orange Coun model.° • The WATERATE model is designed to determine the progressive effects on consumption of a change or series of changes in rate structure for a single utility over a period of years. In this analysis we have used the first year as a baseline against which several alternative structures are measured as if they occurred in the same year. This approach filters out the effects of growth and inflation,thereby holding revenue requirements constant in order to examine the effect of rate structure changes on an average customer's monthly bill. °The Orange County rate structure was selected by the SJRWMD Water Utility Advisory Group as a common basis for experimenting with the effects of conservation rates on consumption'. Block 1 = Base Rate Block2 = 133%of Block Block = 175%of Block Block4 = 125%of Block Phase II-Implementation of Water Conservation Rate Structures Final Report 13 Discussion DISCUSSION RESULTS OF DATA COLLECTION Property Value Data The Phase I report emphasized the importance of property value data in properly calculating elasticity responses for each utility, but also pointed out the difficulty of acquiring accurate information in this category. However, the results of the Phase II data collection effort were successful. Property value averages in each of the three required ranges were obtained for all 25 utilities in the original sample. These are documented in Appendix A. Data Provided By The Utilities In the Phase I report, it was estimated that 16 of the 25 utilities would provide sufficient data to run the WATERATE model. However, only eight utilities responded fully to the data collection efforts. The eight utilities provide a good representation of all the utilities. Simplifying Assumptions In some cases where incomplete data were provided, simplifying assumptions were made that allowed the analysis to be completed. The most material of these were: • Few of the utilities were able to provide a detailed bill frequency analysis. In order to maintain consistency, the WATERATE default values were used for all utilities modeled. • Where outside-jurisdiction accounts were a small proportion of other accounts, and property values did not differ significantly, inside and outside customers were combined for purposes of the analysis. For those utilities with significant numbers of outside customers and/or significant differences in characteristics, only inside customers were used in the model. Phase II-Implementation of Water Conservation Rate Structures Final Report 14 Discussion • The portion of total revenue requirements varying with changes in usage was set to 10 percent for each utility, because few utilities could provide accurate information. CHARACTERISTICS OF THE SAMPLE Data sufficient both in quality and quantity to successfully run the WATERATE model were obtained from eight of the 25 utilities in the target population: Daytona Beach,New Smyrna Beach, Orange County, Port Orange, Sanford,Sanlando Utilities,Titusville, and Winter Park. Sanlando is an investor-owned utility regulated by the Florida Public Service Commission; all others are owned and operated by local governments, of which one (Orange County) is a charter county and all others are cities. For four of the utilities, differences between inside-City and outside-City customer characteristics and/or the relative large number of outside-City customers required that only Side-City customers be modeled in order to avoid distortion of results. With one exception,in the base year the utility's rates from Fiscal Year 1994-95 were used as a basis from comparison with alternative rate structures. In the case of Daytona Beach,which is currently preparing a comprehensive rate study that will result in significant rate structure changes, the projected test year unit costs based on standard allocations were used to represent a baseline uniform rate. Since all results are expressed in relative terms, this approach provides comparable data while showing a more realistic scenario for that particular utility. Significant input data and results from the WATERATE analysis are summarized in Table 3 and graphically presented in Figures 1 through 5. These utilities represent a broad range of characteristics that influence elasticity of demand. They range in size from approximately 60,000 to less than 10,000 customers,and from almost 10 billion gallons per year to less than 1 billion gallons per year in total water consumption. Based on the customers included for each utility, Phase II-Implementation of Water Conservation Rate Structures Final Report 15 .c O F Table 3. Significant Input data and results from WATERATE model 0 c N O yComum.lion ••d Calculated Revenue r Hoseln•Values Conaum.iton sevn•e SUeavin•s' Equivalent Gr ph Residential Single Fixed Low Medium High Scenario t Scenario 2 Scenario 3 9 N Until Meters Unll Faml Other Total Total Charm % % % % % % Oa one Beach IN 19902 32.999 993651 2009160 New Sm na Beech ti1,692 1]159 ]B9AN 468641 Cren.e Count 05644d Port Oran., 1 e Sanford IN 9,595 14.051 659.996 875.757 5 1 Titusville I n s a a q °Defined in accordance with each utility's rate structure. Referred to as"Equivalent Meter Units'(EMUs)in the WATERATE model. `^ "Includes Irrigation. ,� `Scenarios are defined as follows: °` a Scenario 1 -Effect of current conservation rate vs.a uniform rate;if the utility does not currently use conservation rates,the effect shown is a 3-block rate on the Orange County model vs.a uniform rate. Scenario 2-Effect of elimination of the fixed charge vs.a structure with the current fixed charge and a uniform rate. Scenario 3-Effect of a 4-block conservation rate structure on the Orange County model vs.current rates. °Averages for consumption changes are weighted by total consumption. Note: (IN)indicates that only inside-City customers were modeled. kri 5' x • 1 io n c N N O R s g s 3 80 METERS DERU'S I $20 I "FIXED CHARGE ❑USAGE CHARGE I a 1 I .6„--4, 60 - $15 .e x 0 CO C Ery 0 40 on t SW 'Lai $10 t 4 .ry 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Utility (see key) Utility (see key) Figure 1. Number of meters and ERU's Figure 2. Calculated revenue KEY: S. 1 DAYTONA BEACH (IN) 4 PORT ORANGE (IN) 7 TITUSVILLE (IN) 2 NEW SMYRNA 5 SANFORD (IN) 8 WINTER PARK 1 3 ORANGE COUNTY 6 SANLANDO 9 AVERAGE b sT O n X o It J 3 12 _._ _-F__ _—.__-_ _ 150% , ■LOW ®HIGH _J ❑SINGLE FAMILY ®ALL OTHER F. 0 MEDIUM 0 CO 10 t'. rl a O _ 8 piq 100h , , -, 1 1)4 2 4 E. ..illir iii:..:fir : - j d s g " 50h k i 2 1 2 3 4 5 8 7 8 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Utility(see key) Utility(see key) Figure 3.Annual water consumption Figure 4. Housing values KEY; 1 DAYTONA BEACH(IN) 4 PORT ORANGE(IN) 7 TITUSVILLE(IN) 2 NEW SMYRNA 5 SANFORD(IN) 8 WINTER PARK 3 ORANGE COUNTY 8 SANLANDO 9 AVERAGE b S' b 0 Eti o 0 N 3 0 b c I s KEY; 3 20% 1 DAYTONA BEACH (IN) a 3 BLOCKS o 4 BLOCKS 2 NEW SMYRNA 3 ® UNIFORM / NO FIX - 3 ORANGE COUNTY w 4 PORT ORANGE(IN) Ng 5 SANFORD(IN) o D o 6 SANLANDO Z 10% m w g 7 TITUSVILLE(IN) zLit 8 WINTER PARK e G , S AVERAGE 0% t ; / -/ /1 , ' I �® i�/ III II i, _1 0% k / 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Utility (see key) b Figure 5. Water savings (dissavings) • 1 Discussion calculated revenue from water rates ranges from almost$16 million to less than$2 million annually. In terms of variables directly influencing the modeled consumption changes, these utilities also vary significantly. The current fixed charge ranges from insignificant (Titusville and Daytona Beach, 4 percent and 20 percent respectively of total revenue) to extremely significant (New Smyrna Beach, 60 percent of total revenue). The percentage of single-family residential water consumption ranges from 32 percent(Daytona) to 89 percent (Sanlando). Housing values in the medium and high ranges vary from over 90 percent (Winter Park and Sanlando Utilities) to less than 50 percent (Titusville). RESULTS OF ANALYSIS General Results of alternative rate structures shown in Table 3 are presented as Consumption Savings, expressed as a positive percentage of total base year consumption, or Consumption Dissavings, expressed as a negative percentage of total base year consumption. The ranges of results reveals the importance of the utility's specific current rate structure and customer characteristics in determining the outcome of a change in rate structure. Scenario 1 modeled the effect of a conservation rate structure consisting of either (1) the utility's base year conservation rate structure,or (2) if the utility used uniform rates in the base year, a 3- block conservation rate structure based on the Orange County model. The average reduction in consumption for this alternative,weighted by each utility's total annual water consumption,was 3.5 percent. Consumption changes ranged from a 4.2 percent increase (dissavings) to a 5.1 percent decrease. The increase in consumption(Sanford) results from the interference of large usage charges for sewer,capped at 12,000 gallons of water consumption per month. Water conservation rates producing the same revenue as a uniform rate fall so low that relative to a uniform rate, demand for water increases. In the case of the largest decrease in consumption (Titusville),very high rates in the upper blocks produce a relatively significant effect. Pharr II-Implementation of Wafer Conservation Rate Structures Final Report 20 Discussion Scenario 2 modeled the effect of eliminating the fixed charge for each utility and setting a uniform usage rate that produces the same amount of revenue as the base year rates. Consumption changes among the sample utilities for this alternative range from 4.4 percent dissavings to 16.5 percent savings in water consumed. As shown in Figure 6, these results are highly correlated (R-squared = 0.75)with the percentage of total water rate revenue generated by the base year fixed charge: the lower the base year fixed charge, the greater the effect of its elimination, and vice versa. Scenario 3 modeled the effect of implementing a 4-block conservation rate structure based on the Orange County model. Not surprisingly, the average results closely track the effects of the three-rate structure in Scenario 1. The relative results of Scenario 1 and Scenario 2 are somewhat clouded by the fact that actual conservation rates in place were used in Scenario 1 for those utilities employing them. In general, it is reasonable to conclude that the 4-block structure has a slightly greater conservation effect than the 3-block structure, all other things being equal. City Of Daytona Beach Rates. As discussed under Characteristics of the Sample, the City of Daytona Beach is currently preparing a comprehensive rate study that will result in signficant rate structure changes. For this reason, the utility's actual Fiscal Year 1994-95 rates were not used as a basis for comparison with alternative rate structures. Instead, the projected test year unit costs,based on standard cost allocations, were used to represent a baseline uniform rate. Since all results are expressed in relative terms, this approach provides comparable data while showing a more realistic scenario for the City of Daytona Beach. A uniform rate structure for the City of Daytona Beach would consist of a fixed charge per account per month of$2.57,plus a fixed charge per Equivalent Meter Unit (EMU) of$0.74. The uniform monthly charge per 1,000 gallons of water usage would be$1.11 for water service and $3.95 for sewer service. The sewer volume charge would be capped at 12,000 gallons per month usage for single family Phase II-Implementation of Water Conseroatimi Rate Structures Final Report 21 b 0 3 C, 2 . y O b = 32 KEY: 100% R-SQUARED = 0.75 1 DAYTONA BEACH(IN) a 2 NEW SMYRNA 80% -- -- - - -'---- 3 ORANGE COUNTY 4 PORT ORANGE(IN) 2 — PERCENT REVENUE FROM FIXED CHARGE b SANFORD(IN) E CHANGE IN CONSUMPTION 6 SANLANDO N . 0% -20% 1 1 1 I I I I I 7 5 1 3 8 6 4 2 Utility (see key) Figure 6. Effect of fixed charge elimination on water savings b I Discussion residential customers. This utility presents an interesting case because it currently stands at a real decision point, and the baseline and three alternative rate structure options are a matter of actual choice. Housing values. Housing value data collected for Daytona Beach can be found on page 71 of Appendix A. With 45 percent of its single- family housing in the medium range, 27 percent in the low range, and 28 percent in the high range, Daytona Beach presents the most balanced housing value profile in the sample. This means that elasticity of demand will be moderate when compared to the other utilities, neither inelastic (predominantly low property values) or extremely sensitive to price changes (predominantly high property values). Results. WATERATE model results for the City of Daytona Beach begin on page 77 of Appendix B. In Scenario 1, the rate structure changes from the baseline unform rate described above to a three- block structure based on the Orange County model described above. In addition, irrigation meters are burdened with the highest rate(Block 3) for all consumption. Multiple-family and commercial consumption continues to be billed at the average cost per 1,000 gallons. This results in a reduction in total consumption for the system of 2.7 percent, consisting of a 6.6 percent reduction for single family, a 15.1 percent reduction for irrigation customers, and no change for multiple-family or commercial. In Scenario 2,all fixed charges are eliminated and the volume charge is increased from$1.11 to $1.50 per 1,000 gallons in order to produce the baseline amount of revenue. Overall, there is a 3.4 percent increase in consumption. This occurs because the effective rate for single-family users in the third block drops significantly, overcoming the conservation effect on large consumption commercial customers as they respond to an increase in their rate. In Scenario 3, a fourth block rate is added. This slightly improves the elasticity effect compared to Scenario 1, with the reduction improving from 2.7 percent of total system consumption to 3.9 percent. Phase 11-Implementation of Water Conservation Rate Structures Final Report 23 Discussion Summary. This utility illustrates the relative effects of the conservation rate scenarios on a utility that has made the decision to change its rate structure and is choosing among various alternatives. In this case, a four-block structure offers the largest overall reduction in consumption. New Smyrna Beach Rates. In the baseline case,New Smyrna Beach uses a three-block rate structure consisting of a fixed charge per account per month of$1.90, plus a fixed charge per EMU of$9.75. It should be noted that the EMU factors for each meter differ from the standard EMU factors used in the WATERATE model,which are based on Florida Public Service Commission rules. The monthly charge per 1,000 gallons of water usage is $1.05 through 7,000 gallons per month; $1.25 from 8,000 through 14,000 gallons per month, and $1.70 for all consumption over 14,000 gallons per month. The charge for sewer service is $1.55 per 1,000 gallons of water consumed monthly, with no cap for single- family residential customers. Housing values. Housing values for New Smyrna Beach customers, as shown beginning on page 73 of Appendix A, are almost equally distributed among the low, medium and high groupings. Like Daytona Beach, this means that elasticity of demand will be moderate when compared to the other utilities, neither inelastic (predominantly low property values) or extremely sensitive to price changes (predominantly high property values). Results. WATERATE model results for New Smyrna Beach begin on page 100 of Appendix B. In Scenario 1, the rate structure changes from the three-block structure described above to a uniform rate of$1.19 per 1,000 gallons. This change produces an increase in overall consumption of 2.4 percent, indicating that the utility's current conservation rate structure is providing a consumption reduction of that amount when compared to a uniform rate. In Scenario 2, all fixed charges are eliminated and the volume charge is increased from $1.19 to $3.52 per 1,000 gallons in order to produce the baseline amount of revenue. Overall, there is a 16.5 percent decrease Phase II-Implementation of Water Conservation Rate Structures Final Report 24 Discussion in consumption. This occurs because the fixed rate for larger meters is extremely high. When the fixed charges are eliminated,these costs must be recovered from the volume charge, which increases significantly, shifting the burden from the larger to the smaller meters. Most of these are residential customers displaying high elasticity responses. In Scenario 3, a fourth block rate is added. While this reduces consumption at the higher levels,it also provides additional revenue that reduces the rate at lower levels of consumption. The effects are roughly offsetting, and the total reduction in consumption is 2.3 percent, compared to 2.4 percent for the three-block structure. Summary. This utility illustrates the effect of a high fixed charge on consumption. New Smyrna Beach's fixed charge revenue in the base year is about 60 percent of total calculated water revenue,the highest in the sample. For utilities with this sort of rate structure, reduction of the fixed charges will often be more effective in encouraging conservation than simply distributing the smaller amount of volume charge revenue among a number of blocks with increasing rates. Orange County Rates. In the baseline case, Orange County uses a two-block rate structure consisting of of a fixed charge per account per month of $2.64, plus a fixed charge per EMU of$2.83. The monthly charge per 1,000 gallons of water usage is $1.19 through 15,000 gallons per month and $1.79 for all consumption over 15,000 gallons per month. The charge for sewer service is $3.18 per 1,000 gallons of water consumed monthly, capped at 15,000 gallons per month for single-family residential customers. Housing values. Housing values for Orange County customers are shown beginning on page 63 of Appendix A. Like New Smyrna Beach, the values are almost equally distributed among the low, medium, and high groupings, with a slight skewing toward the medium, (37 percent) and high (35 percent) categories. Once again, this means that elasticity of demand will be moderate when compared to the other utilities, neither inelastic(predominantly low property Phase I!-Implementation of Water Conservation Rate Structures Final Report 25 Discussion values)or the extremely sensitive to price changes (predominantly high property values). Results. WATERATE model results for Orange County begin on page 136 of Appendix B. In Scenario 1, the rate structure changes from the two-block structure described above to a uniform rate of$1.20 per 1,000 gallons.This change produces an increase in overall consumption of 4.3 percent, indicating that the utility's baseline conservation rate structure is providing a consumption reduction of that amount when compared to a uniform rate. In Scenario 2, all fixed charges are eliminated and the uniform volume charge is increased from $1.20 to$1.69 per 1,000 gallons in order to produce the baseline amount of revenue. Overall, there is a 0.9 percent decrease in consumption.. In Scenario 3, Orange County's current four-block system is implemented. An additional consumption reduction of 3.9 percent over the baseline is realized. Summary. The Orange County WATERATE model results illustrate that utilities with only moderate amounts of revenue allocated to the fixed charges (about 25 percent in this case)will not realize a signifcant effect from reduction or elimination of the fixed charge. Block rates, however, do have a positive effect: about 4.3 percent water savings for a two-block system, and an additional 3.9 percent for the current four-block system. City of Port Orange Rates. In the baseline case,Port Orange uses a three-block rate structure consisting of a fixed charge per account per month of$7.25, with no fixed charge per EMU. The monthly volume charge per 1,000 gallons of water usage is $0.75 through 2,000 gallons per month; $2.10 from 3,000 through 4,000 gallons per month, and $2.50 for all consumption over 4,000 gallons per month. The charge for sewer service is $3.25 per 1,000 gallons of water consumed monthly, with no cap for single-family residential customers. However,there is no sewer charge for the first 2,000 gallons of water consumption. Phase 11-Implementation of Water Conservation Rate Structures Final Report 26 Discussion Housing values. Housing values for Port Orange customers, as shown beginnig on page 75 of Appendix A, cluster in the medium range (54 percent), with only a small proportion (11 percent) in the low range. Compared to the utilities discussed thus far, there should be a relatively higher elasticity of demand in response to price changes for Port Orange. Results. WATERATE model results for Port Orange begin on page 153 of Appendix B. In Scenario 1, the rate structure changes from the three-block structure described above to a uniform rate of$1.98 per 1,000 gallons.This change produces essentially no change in comsumption. Upon close examination, it can be seen that Port Orange's three-block structure applies to very narrow ranges of consumption,essentially creating a flat rate after 2,000 gallons per month. Consequently, a change to a uniform rate has very little effect. In Scenario 2, all fixed charges and the volume charge is increased from $1.98 to$3.97 per 1,000 gallons in order to produce the baseline amount of revenue. Overall,there is only a 1.6 percent decrease in consumption., although Port Orange's fixed charge revenue constitutes approximately 50 percent of the total calculated water revenue. However, there is no fixed charge component that increases with meter size and consequently is directly correlated with consumption. Therefore removal of the fixed charge tends to have its most significant effect on the smaller meters, at low levels of consumption,where there is little elasticity of demand. The effect on larger meters, and therefore at higher levels of consumption, is very small. In Scenario 3, a fourth block rate is added with no perceptible effect on consumption. This anomaly occurs because of the high sewer volume charge, which makes the additional water charge at higher levels of consumption relatively small in comparison to the original baseline. Summary. This utility illustrates the importance of sewer volume charges in a conservation rate structure. In cases where the sewer volume charge is extremely high, the introduction of a moderate inclining block structure for water may have little or no effect on overall water consumption. The high sewer rate has,in effect, created a marginal price level for water consumption to which the customer Phase II-Implementation of Water Conservation Rate Structures Final Report 27 Discussion has already responded. All the elasticity of the system has been utilized. City Of Sanford Rates. In the baseline case, Sanford uses a two-block rate structure consisting of a fixed charge per account per month of$2.40, with a fixed charge per Equivalent Meter Unit (EMU) of$3.14. The monthly volume charge per 1,000 gallons of water usage is zero through 2,000 gallons per month and $1.45 for all consumption over 2,000 gallons per month. The charge for sewer service is $2.20 per 1,000 gallons of water consumed monthly through 2,000 gallons per month and$3.31 thereafter,with a cap for single-family residential customers at 12,000 gallons per month. This structure is essentially what is known as a "lifeline rate", with a low rate at low levels of consumption and a uniform rate thereafter. Housing values. Housing values for Sanford customers, as shown beginning on page 50 of Appendix A, cluster in the low range (51 percent), with only a small proportion (12 percent) in the high range. Compared to the utilities discussed thus far, there should be a relatively lower elasticity of demand in response to price changes. Results. WATERATE model results for Sanford begin on page 179 of Appendix B. In Scenario 1, the rate structure changes from the "lifeline rate" structure described above to a three-block structure based on the Orange County model (it should be noted that this structure incorporates a "lifeline rate concept at the lower levels of consumption in order to shelter essential domestic consumption). The introduction of a volume charge in the first two thousand gallons per month range produces enough revenue to drive down the upper block rates below the uniform rate; consequently the change produces an increase in water usage of 4.2 percent. In Scenario 2, all fixed charges are eliminated. Once again,the introduction of a charge in the first 2,000 gallons per month of consumption produces sufficient revenue to drive down the uniform rate, even without a fixed charge, to a level below the baseline case, resulting in an increase in water usage of 2.7 percent. Phase II-Implementation of Water Conservation Rate Structures Final Report 28 Discussion In Scenario 3, a four-block rate is introduced. Although this results in a higher rate than the baseline case for consumption above 25,000 gallons per month, only 3.4 percent of the single-family consumption falls in this range. For all lower consumption, the rate is lower than the uniform rate in the baseline case, causing water consumption to increase by 3.6 percent. Summary. The Sanford case illustrates a problem with applying a pre- determined conservation rate structure and using a "revenue neutral" approach for a utility with a "lifeline rate" structure. Care must be taken to ensure that any conservation rate structure results in higher rates at the upper levels of consumption where irrigation can be assumed to occur. This argues for a highly empirical approach that experiements with various conservation rate structures,perhaps using the WATERATE model,to identify a structure that sends the desired price increase signals to a large group of customers with the discretion to change their consumption habits. "Cookbook" approaches can produce effects contrary to the goal of consumption reduction, as illustrated here. Sanlando Utilities Rates. In the baseline case, Sanlando uses a uniform rate structure consisting of a fixed charge per EMU per month of$4.23,with no fixed charge per account. The volume charge per 1,000 gallons of water usage is $0.38. The charge for sewer service is $1.33 per 1,000 gallons of water consumed monthly, with a cap for single-family residential customers at 10,000 gallons per month Housing values. Housing values for Sanlando customers are shown beginning on page 51 of Appendix B. They are skewed strongly to the high range(56 percent), with only a small proportion (9 percent) in the low range. Compared to the utilities discussed thus far, there should be a relatively higher elasticity of demand in response to price changes. Results. WATERATE model results for Sanlando are presented beginning on page 199 of Appendix B. In Scenario 1, the rate structure changes from the structure described above to a three-block Phase II-Implementation of Water Conservation Rate Structures Final Report 29 Discussion conservation rate structure based on the Orange County model. This produces water savings of 4.6 percent. Although Sanlando's rates are very low, high housing values result in relatively higher elasticity of demand. This higher elasticity applies to a single-family residential customer group that represents an extremely high proportion of total consumption (90 percent). In Scenario 2,all fixed charges are eliminated and the volume charge is increased from$0.38 to$0.76 per 1,000 gallons in order to produce the baseline amount of revenue. Overall, there is a 10.4 percent decease in consumption. This large effect results from a relatively high fixed charge revenue base (45 percent of total water revenue) driving the uniform rate to a level where significant numbers of single family residential customers in the high property value range receive a strong price signal. Scenario 3 introduces the four-block rate,with the expected incremental improvement over the three-block rate: savings increase from 4.6 percent to 5.2 percent of total consumption. Summary. This utility provides what appears to be an ideal profile for the implementation of conservation rates: high property values for a single family residential customer group that represents a significant proportion of the utility's total consumption. Even though rates are very low on an absolute basis when compared to other utilities, the conservation rate program can be expected to produce a successful result. Coupled with a reduction in fixed charges to a level that produces 20-25 percent rather than 45 percent of total revenue, the results could be fairly dramatic. However, Sanlando is an investor- owned utility regulated by the Florida Public Service Commission, and may be unable to implement conservation rates unless that agency changes its position on this matter. City Of Titusville Rates. In the baseline case, Titusville uses a four-block rate structure consisting of a fixed charge per account per month of$0.26, with a $0.54 fixed charge per EMU. The monthly volume charge per 1,000 gallons of water usage is $1.62 through 3,000 gallons per month; $2.41 Phase II-Implementation of Water Conservation Rate Structures Final Report 30 Discussion from 3,000 through 15,000 gallons per month, $6.14 through 25,000 gallons per month, and $9.22 thereafter. The charge for sewer service is $5.25 per 1,000 gallons of water consumed monthly for the first 3,000 gallons per month and $6.85 thereafter. Sewer charges are capped at 15,000 gallons per month for single-family residential customers. Housing values. Housing values for Titusville customers are shown beginning on page 69 of Appendix A. They cluster in the low range (50 percent),with only a small proportion (13 percent) in the high range. Compared to the utilities discussed thus far,there should be a relatively lower elasticity of demand in response to price changes. Results. WATERATE model results for Titusville begin on page 219 of Appendix B. In Scenario 1, the rate structure changes from the four- block structure described above to a uniform rate of$2.43 per 1,000 gallons. This change back to a uniform rate indicates that the current Titusville rate structure has resulted in a 5.1 percent savings in water consumption. In Scenario 2, all fixed charges are eliminated and the volume charge is increased from $2.43 to $2.56 per 1,000 gallons in order to produce the baseline amount of revenue. Because Titusville s fixed charges are so low, this has less of a conservation effect than the current inclining block rate structure. Shifting to this approach would increase water consumption by 4.4 percent. Scenario 3 introduces a four-block rate following the Orange County model, with no perceptible effect on consumption. The higher charge at lower levels of consumption essentially offsets the lower rates at higher levels of consumption under this scenario. Summary. Consumption under the experiemental scenarios produces the expected effects. A four-block system produces about a 5 percent reduction in consumption, and the low fixed charges make elimination or reduction of the fixed charge an ineffective approach. Phase 11-Implementation of Water Conservation Rate Structures Final Report 31 Discussion City Of Winter Park Rates. In the baseline case, Winter Park uses a three-block rate structure including a fixed charge per Equivalent Meter Unit(EMU) of $4.78. The monthly volume charge per 1,000 gallons of water usage is $0.54 through 6,000 gallons per month; $1.06 from 6,000 through 12,000 gallons per month, and$1.56 for all consumption over 12,000 gallons per month. The charge for sewer service is $3.11 per 1,000 gallons of water consumed monthly, with a 12,000 gallons per month cap for single-family residential customers. Housing values. Housing values for Winter Park customers are shown on page 66 of Appendix A. They are highly skewed to the high range(71 percent), with only a small proportion (9 percent)in the low range. Compared to the utilities discussed thus far, there should be a relatively higher elasticity of demand in response to price changes. Results. WATERATE model results for Winter Park begin on page 245 of Appendix B. In Scenario 1,the rate structure changes from the three-block structure described above to a uniform rate of$0.86 per 1,000 gallons. This change back to a uniform rate indicates that the current Winter Park rate structure has resulted in a 5 percent savings in water consumption In Scenario 2, all fixed charges are eliminated and the volume charge is increased from $0.86 to $1.36 per 1,000 gallons in order to produce the baseline amount of revenue. Overall, there is a 1.6 percent additional decrease in consumption compared to the baseline. Although the uniform rate is lower at the higher levels of consumption, it is higher at the mid-to low levels, where more consumption occurs. As expected, this change is significant enough to slightly improve on the fixed charge/conservation rate combination in the baseline. In Scenario 3,a four-block rate based on the Orange County model is introduced. The increase in rates at the higher level of consumption is significant enough to produce a slightly favorable result,with consumption dropping another 1 percent compared to the baseline. Phase II-Implementation of Water Conservation Rate Structures Final Report 32 Discussion Summary. The results for this utility produce no significant surprises. Conservation rates tend to produce about a 5 percent overall savings in consumption and,where fixed charges are significant, as in this case, elimination or reduction of the fixed charge can equal or exceed this effect. Phase II-Implementation of Water Conseroation Rate Structures Final Report 33 Conclusions CONCLUSIONS The results of the analysis, as described in the previous section,lead to the following conclusions: • The primary lasting conclusion that can be drawn from a utility- by-utility review of the modeled results is that individual circumstances have a high degree of influence on the effectiveness of conservation rate implementation. No standard solution emerges as a useful model for all utilities;rather, the importance of a case-by-case empirical approach, experimenting with different structures to reach an optimal solution,becomes clear. • The conservation effect of inclining block rate structures varies considerably based on the utility's current rate structure. In general, little effect can be gained by requiring a utility with a 3- block structure to change to a 4-block structure. • The sewer usage rate can interfere with the effects of conservation rates for water. This can be seen in the Sanford case, where dissavings in potable water actually result from block rate implementation. • For utilities with high fixed charges, the greatest conservation effect can be achieved by elimination of that charge. However, this creates more volatility in the annual revenue stream. • Conservation rates for the sample utilities tend, overall, to result in long-term water savings. However, these savings are not extremely large, tending to maximize at about 5 percent of total water consumption. • The effects produced by the model are long-term,structural changes in the level of water consumption. Immediate short- term effects can vary significantly depending upon intervening effects such as weather and,in all probability,the general state of the economy. Effects on the utility's revenue stream will vary Phase II-Implementation of Water Conservation Rate Structures Fatal Report 34 Conclusions depending upon the effects of inflation on costs and growth in the customer base. Phase 11-Implementation of Water Conservation Rate Structures Final Report 35 Recommendations RECOMMENDATIONS In the context of overall regulatory policy, SJRWMD should consider the following: • In the permitting process,make the requirement for implementation of conservation rates a "rebuttable presumption." That is,a utility would be required to implement conservation rates unless evidence is presented showing that no significant water savings would result. The WATERATE model could be used as the basis for this determination. • Consider the promotion of fixed charge reduction as an alternative to conservation rates. This option produces significant long-term conservation effects for utilities whose current fixed charges are relatively large. However, since reduction of the fixed charge will increase the sensitivity of the utility's total revenue to changes in consumption caused by weather or the general state of the economy, this approach should be suggested as an optional alternative to implementation of conservation rates rather than mandated as a requirement in the permitting process. • Compare expected water savings from conservation rate implementation to expected savings from other conservation- promoting approaches, which may be more deserving of promotion by SJRWMD. • Continue to monitor the professional literature to identify further evidence of the effects of conservation rates on water usage, in the context of other alternative approaches, and periodically evaluate the status of conservation rate implementation by utilities in SJRWMD to determine the usefulness of future promotion through the regulatory process. Phase II-Implementation of Water Conservation Rate Structures Final Report 36 References REFERENCES Brown&Caldwell and Whitcomb,J.B. 1993. Water Price Elasticity Study. Southwest Florida Water Management District. Brooksville, FL. Lockridge,Robert and Jackson,Jo Ann. 1996. Phase I: Implementation of Water Conservation Rate Structures. Burton and Associates,Inc. and Post, Buckley,Schuh &Jernigan,Inc. for St.Johns River Water Management District, Palatka,FL. Vergara,Barbara(ed.). 1994. Water supply needs and sources assessment: 1994. St.Johns River Water Management District.Technical Publication SJ94-7. Palatka,Fla.: St.Johns River Water Management District. Phase II-Implementation of Water Conservation Rate Structures Final Report 37 Appendix A Specific Property Value Data Collection 38 Specific Property Value Data Collection Prepared for St. Johns River Water Management District by Cynthia Griffin - Burton &Associates January 1997 39 1 Objective The objective of this portion of the Study was to collect and analyze specific property value data necessary for the price elasticity computations required for PHASE II of this Study. Scope The scope of this portion of PHASE II of this Study included the review and analysis of selected potable water utility service areas and the determination for each utility's service area's percentage of single family property values for the following three ranges: 1)Less than$50,000;2)between$50,001 and $81,300, and 3)greater than$81,301. Methodology The methodology utilized in this portion of the PHASE II of this Study included: I) The review and analysis of each of the following utilities' water system service areas, their configuration and service area boundaries; Altamonte Springs Utility Orlando Utilities Commission Apopka Utility Ormond Beach Utility Casselberry Utility Oviedo Utility Cocoa Utility Part Orange Utility Daytona Beach Utility Sanford Utility Deland Utility Sanlando Utility Corporation Eustis Utility Seminole County Utilities Leesburg Utility Florida Water Services(So. States Utilities) Maitland Utility Ttusville Utilities Mount Dora Utility Villages of Lake Utility New Smyrna Beach Utility Winter Springs Utility Ocoee Utility Winter Park Utility Orange County Utilities Specific Property Value Data Collection 40 2) The utilities listed on the previous page were then analyzed as to the percent of single-family homes within each utility's service area whose property values fell within the following valuation ranges: Valuation Range I = less than $50,000 Valuation Range 2 = $55,001 to 581,300 Valuation Range 3 = Greater than $81,300 To the extent that any or all of these utilities' service area boundaries included accounts outside of the city limits within which they were located,or did not include all accounts within the city limits, determination of such inclusions or exclusions were noted and further analyses were conducted. These additional analyses included an assessment, by each utility, of the percentage of total customers served who were located outside city limits,and a determination of how many of those customers were residential single family customers. Then,with the assistance of the relative city and county planning departments and engineering staffs,a more precise description of the outside- city area served by each utility (where applicable)was obtained. This description of the mix of valuation and property-type in these outside-city service areas were then provided to the county property appraisers to analyze as to the range of single family home property values within each out- side city service area and the percent of single family property values within the above mentioned ranges. A comparison was then made between the out-side city service area single family property value analysis results and the results of the analysis of unincorporated county single family property values to make the final determination as to the percent of single-family property within each utility's service area whose property values fell within the valuation ranges stated in 2)above. Results The results of this portion of PHASE 11 of this Study are presented below and on the following pages. Single Family Property Value Categories > $55,000 $55,001 to$81,300 >$81,300 Seminole County Altamonte Springs Utility %For Each Category Inside City Limits: 07% 39% 54% Outside City Limits: 06.5% 30% 63.50% Specific Ncy.ny Value Data Collection 41 Single Family Property Value Categories > $55,000 $55,001 to$81,300 >$81,300 Casselberry Utility %For Each Category Inside City Limits: 25% 52% 23% Outside City Limits: 15.50% 36.50% 48% Longwood Utility % For Each Category Utility Service Area: 14% 45% 41% Lake Mary Utility % For Each Category Utility Service Area: 05% 07% 88% Oviedo Utility % For Each Category Inside City Limits: 03% 28% 69% Outside City Limits: 04.5% 24.50% 71% Sanford Utility % For Each Category Inside City Limits: 51% 37% 12% Outside City Limits: 34.35% 31.08% 34.57% Sanlando Utility Corporation %For Each Category Utility Service Area: 09% 35% 56% Seminole County %For Each Category 06% 21% 73% Utility Service Area: Winter Springs Utility %For Each Category Inside City Limits: 09% 20% 71% Outside City Limits: 07.50% 20.50% 72% Lake County - Eustis Utility % For Each Category Inside City Limits: 09% 35% 56% Outside City Limits: 10% 38.50% 51.50% Leesburg Utility %For Each Category Inside City Limits: 07% 39% 54% Outside City Limits: 09% 40.50% 50.50% Specific Property Value Data Collation 42 Single Family Property Value Categories > $55,000 $55,001 to$81,300 >$81,300 Mount Dora Utility % For Each Category Inside City Limits: 21% 13% 66% Outside City Limits: 24.50% 24% 50.50% Villages of Lake Utility % For Each Category Utility Service Area: 20% 52% 28% Orange County - Apo ka Utility %For Each Category Inside City Limits: 26% 43% 31% Outside City Limits: 27% 40% 33% Maitland Utility %For Each Category Inside City Limits: 21% 13% 66% Outside City Limits: 24.50% 24% 50.50% Ocoee Utility %For Each Category Inside City Limits: 37% 33% 30% Outside City Limits: 32.50% 35% 32.50% Orange County Utilities %For Each Category Utility Service Area: 28% 37% 35% Orlando Utilities % For Each Category Inside City Limits: 37% 35% 28% Outside City Limits: 32.50% 36% 31.50% Florida Water Services Utilities % For Each Category Utility Service Area! 00% 00% 00% Winter Park Utility % For Each Category Inside City Limits: 09% 20% 71% Outside City Limits: 07.50% 20.50% 72% Ore yard County — Cocoa Utility %For Each Category Inside City Limits: 50% 37% 13% Outside City Limits: 32.50% 38.50% 29% Wholesale Customers: 21% 52% 27% Titusville Utility % For Each Category Inside City Limits: 50% 35% 15% Outside City Limits: 33.72% 29.82% 36.46% Specific Pup cy Value Data Collection 43 Single Family Property Value Categories > $55,000 $55,001 to$81,300 >$81,300 Volus/a County — Daytona Beach Utility %,For Each Category Inside CityLimits: 2702% 44.78% 28.20% Outside City Limits: 28.83% 41.37% 29.80% Deland Utility % For Each Category Inside City Limits: 66.39% 20.84% 12.77% Outside City Limits: 48.52% 29.40% 22.09% New Smyrna Beach Utility % For Each Category Inside City Limits: 31.45% 33.58% 34.97% Outside City Limits: 31.05% 35.77% 33.19% Ormond Beach Utility %For Each Category Inside City Limits: 17.51% 36.30% 46.19% Outside City Limits: 08% 20% 72% Port Orange Utility % For Each Category Inside City Limits: 10.83% 54.29% 34.88% Outside City Limits: 20.74% 46.12% 33.14% Specific P q.,ry Value Data Collection 44 ST. JOHNS RIVER WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT Investigation of Alternative Water Supply Strategies Evaluation of Water Conservation Rate Structures -Phase II Study Participants By County Seminole County Orange County Volusia County Altamonte Springs Apopka Daytona Beach Casselberry Mafand Deland Oviedo Ocoee New Smyrna Beach Sanford Orange County Utilities Ormond Beach Sanlando Utility Corporation Orlando Utilities Commission Port Orange Seminole County Southern States Utilities Winter Springs Winter Park Lake County Brevard County Eustis Cocoa Leesburg Titusville Mount Dora Villages of Lakes Utility BURTON & ASSOCIATES 45 ST. JOHNS RIVER WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT Investigation of Alternative Water Supply Strategies Evaluation of Water Conservation Rate Structures-Phase II County Property Appraisers Seminole County Orange County Volusia County H.W. "Bill" Suber Richard Crotty Morgan B. Gilreath,Jr. 110I E. First Street 100 E. Pine Street I 23 W. Indiana Avenue Sanford, Florida 32771 Orlando, FL 32801 Deland, FL 32720-4270 (407)321-1 130 x 7500 (407)836-5000 (904)736-5901 (407)330-9542 • (407)836-5029 (904) 822-5063 Lake County Brevard County Ed. Havill Jim Ford P O Box 7800 P O Drawer 0 Tavares, FL 32778-7800 Titusville, FL 32781-0429 1. (352) 343-9655 (407)264-6700 1 (352)343-9638 1 (407)264-5187 URTON ASSOCIATES 46 SEMINOLE COUNTY • • • •••••• • • • Utilities Within Seminole County 47 yr c iz:.:4:igF;r4Ntrogata) "gall .. 44._.4 Investigation of Alternative Water Supply Strategies Evaluation of Water Conservation Rate Structure -Phase II Utility Name: Altamonte Springs Utility Potable Water System Service Area Description: The Altamonte Springs potable water system service area includes all of Altamonte Springs and some portion of unincorporated Seminole County-primarily to the west-northwest of Altamonte Springs. The mix of single family homes within the unincorporated county portion of the service area is varied and is best represented by the mix of valuations for single family homes presented on the Seminole County Unincorporated County data sheet of this Section which is as follows: The Altamonte Springs potable water system Percent Of Single Family Homes Located Within The Service Area Which Fall Within The Following Valuation Ranges: Outside-City Limits: Percent o Service Area ingle Valuation Range Family Homes Less Than$55,000 6.50% $55,001 to$81,300 30.00% Greater Than$81,300 63.50% Inside-City Limits: Percent o Service AreaSingle Valuation Range Family Homes Less Than$55,000 7.00% $55,001 to$81,300 39.00% Greater Than$81,300 54.00% Sources: City of Altamonte Springs Utility City of Altamonte Springs Planning/Building/Zoning Departrnent(s) Seminole County Property Appraiser Burton&Associates 48 Fr v � � � . ice : Investigation of Alternative Water Supply Strategies Evaluation of Water Conservation Rate Structure-Phase II Utility Name: Oviedo Utility Potable Water System Service Area Description: The Oviedo Utility%potable water service area is within the city limits of Oviedo, except for one enclave of which makes up less than 1% of the service area and is almost all single family homes valued under$55,000. The City is currently attempting to annex this small enclave. Percent Of Single Family Homes Located Within The Service Area Which Fall Within The Following Valuation Ranges: Outside-City Limits: Percent o Service AreaSingle Valuation Range Family Homes Less Than$55,000 4.50% $55,001 to$81,300 24.50% Greater Than$81,300 71.00% Inside-City Limits: Percent of Service Area Single Valuation Range Family Homes Leas Than$55,000 3.00% $55,001 to$81,300 28.00% Greater Than$81,300 69.00% Sources: City of Oviedo Utility City of Oviedo Planning/Building/Goning Deparbnent(s) Seminole County Property Appraiser Burton&Associates 49 3 titer - . F ��? �. P ET W A l n g Investigation of Altemative Water Supply Strategies Evaluation of Water Conservation Rate Structure-Phase II Utility Name: Sanford Utility Potable Water System Service Area Description: The City of Sanford Potable Water Utility Service Area's boundaries are Seminole Boulevard to the North, Lake Jessup to the South, 1-4, Lake Mary Road, Mayfair Country Club and Seminole Community College to the West, and SR 48 to the St.Johns River to the East. The Utilitys service area includes all of the customers within the City limits and customers outside the City limits primarily to the SE of Sanford. The Utility serves 8,185 single family wafer customers inside the City limits and approximately 1,000 single family water customers outside City limits. Percent Of Single Family Homes Located Within The Service Area Which Fall Within The Following Valuation Ranges: Outside-City Limits: Percent of Service Area Single Valuation Range Family Homes less Than$55,000 28.50% $55,001 to$81,300 29.00% Greater Than$81,300 42.50% Inside-City Limits: Pemento Service Area Single Valuation Range Family Homes Less Than$55,000 51.00% $55,001 to$81,300 37.00% Greater Than$81,300 12.00% Sources: City of Sanford Utility City of Sanford Planning/Building/Zoning Department(s) Seminole County Property Appraiser Burton&Associates 50 ionon ivt Watt E: arms : a ass, aC �.•.. C. xAanF x.,, x it ' Investigation of Alternative Water Supply Strategies Evaluation of Water Conservation Rate Structure -Phase II Utility Name: Sanlando Utility Potable Water System Service Area Description: Sanlando Utility is a private utility which serves unincorporated Seminole County customers bordering Longwood and Altamonte Springs. More specifically the general service area runs North from 1-4 across to Tequeta Investment Co., Inc. and GND Development Properties#22,then South to Markham Road, turning West to Wekiva Circle., then South again to Sand Lake Road to encompasses the Florida Conference Association of Seventh-Day Adventists properties and Post Lake LTD, continuing Northeast again to Wekiva Springs Drive, turning North again at Longwood Island back to the 1-4 starting point. Based on information from the Utility, and from the Seminole County Property Appraiser, and the Seminole County Planning/Growth Management Department, single family property value mix within the Utilitys potable water service area is approximately that of unincorporated Seminole County. Percent Of Single Family Homes Located Within The Service Area Which Fall Within The Following Valuation Ranges: Utility Service Area: Percent of Service Area Single Valuation Range Family Homes Lees Than$55,000 9.00% $55,001 to$81,300 35.00% Greater Than$81,300 56.00% Sources: Sanlando Utility City of Altamonte Springs and Longwood Planning/Budding/Zoning Departimnt{s) Seminole County Property Appraiser Burton&A.sociattr 51 t*t9t 3� 1 s a,. Investigation of Alternative Water Supply Strategies Evaluation of Water Conservation Rate Structure - Phase II Utility Name: Seminole County Utilities Potable Water System Service Area Description: The County Utility serves approximately 16,071 single family potable water customers. Percent Of Single Family Homes Located Within The Service Area Which Fall Within The Following Valuation Ranges: Percent of Service Area Single Valuation Range Family Homes Less Than$55,000 6.00% $55,001 to$81,300 21.00% Greater Than $81,300 73.00% Sources: Seminole County Utility Seminole County Property Appraiser Burton fi Associates 52 tni Ib f `y 1.4 f ,_: Investigation of Alternative Water Supply Strategies Evaluation of Water Conservation Rate Structure -Phase II Utility Name: Winter Springs utility Potable Water System Service Area Description: Percent Of Single Family Homes Located Within The Service Area Which Fall Within The Following Valuation Ranges: Outside-City Limits: Percent of Service Area Single Valuation Ranee Family Homes Less Than$55,000 7.50% $55,001 to 581,300 20.50% Greater Than 581,300 72.00% Inside-City Limits: Percent of Service Area Single Valuation Range Family Homes Less Than$55,000 9.00% 555,001 to S81,300 20.00% Greater Than$81,300 71.00% Sources: City of Winter Springs Utility City of Winter Springs Planning/Building/Zoning Department(s) Seminole County Property Appraiser Burton&Associates 53 LAKE COUNTY • • • •••••• • • • Selected Utilities Within Lake County 54 4 �a' ` ef an ^rt tL Ya.S'{.. � �"� :24 geg \�a.."�A ,u ., p r ita .. ""t1 Investigation of Alternative Water Supply Strategies Evaluation of Water Conservation Rate Structure -Phase II Utility Name: Eustis Utility Potable Water System Service Area Description: The Eustis Utility serves customers inside as well as outside the City limits. The Eustis Utilitys Serve Area is described as follows: The boundary to the North runs along Orange Avenue between Oak Lane and S.R. 19. across to Florida Central Railroad,west along C.R. 452 and over to Sugarsand Road. The boundary to the West runs from C.R. 452 south on Fish Camp Road,then east Grand Island Shores Rd (including Indian Trail)to C.R.44, heading southeast to C.R 452, turning south to SR 19, out Lake Shore Drive to Lake Hermossa, south to U.S. HWY.441. U.S. Hwy 441 primarily makes up the Southern boundary of the Utilitys Service Area,turning north at Gables Drive to begin the Eastern boundary. Moving up Gables to Waycross and over to Abrahms Road the boundary continues back to the north. Then it swings to the east at Lake Joanna Drive,and includes Parkview Avenue area, back north to Estes Road,west on Bates Avenue to C.R.44,the north, northwest to Pine Meadows Golf Course Road, then east to Fairway Drive. North on Fairway Drive to Oak Lane. The Utilitys service area extends over the city limits to the east and to the west, primarily. Total single family customers served within the city limits are approximately 6,924 with approximately 944 single family customers served who are in unincorporated Lake County. Percent Of Single Family Homes Located Within The Service Area Outside-City Limits: Percent of Service Area Single Valuation Range Family Homes Less Than$55,000 31.00% $55,001 to$81,300 32.50% Greater Than$81,300 36.50% Inside-City Limits: Percent of Service Area Single Valuation Range Family Homes Less Than$55,000 33.00% $55,001 to$81,300 41.00% Greater Than$81,300 26.00% Sources: City of Eustis Utility City of Eustis Planning/Building/Zoning Deparanent(s) Lake County Property Appraiser Button&Associates 55 a f l i w\atb, a g exit t E a` t �S mt- Investigation of Alternative Water Supply Strategies Evaluation of Water Conservation Rate Structure-Phase II Utility Name: Leesburg Utility Potable Water System Service Area Description: Leesburg Utility serves customers inside and outside the City limits. Approximately 8,246 single family customers are provided water by the Utility 5,343 of which reside inside the City limits with 2,903 residing in unincorporated county. Percent Of Single Family Homes Located Within The Service Area Which Fall Within The Following Valuation Ranges: Outside-City Limits: Percent of Service Area Single Valuation Range Family Homes Less Than$55,000 54.50% $55,001 to$81,300 20.50% Greater Than$81,300 28.00% Inside-City Limits: Percent of Service Area Single Valuation Range Family Homes Lein Than$55,000 80.00% $55,001 to$81,300 17.00% Greater Than$81,300 29.00% Sources: City of Leesburg Utility City of Leesburg Planning/Building/Zoning Department(s) Lake County Property Appraiser Burton&Associates 56 t � S �ate� xtx� ..n ? a@ yet a\ _ � ! �f Investigation of Alternative Water Supply Strategies Evaluation of Water Conservation Rate Structure-Phase II Utility Name: Mount Dora Utility Potable Water System Service Area Description: The Mount Dora Utility's potable water service area includes all of Mount Dora city limits as well as several enclaves outside the city limits. The Mount Dora Utilitys potable water service area is as follows: The North boundary runs along US 441 including spurs of Crooked Lake Dr., Fidora Rd., 19A, and Kurt Street. The Western boundary includes the eastern shore of Lake Saunders , including Sounders Circle and Fairview Avenue. The Southern boundary runs from where Fairview Avenue connects with S.R.452, east along the northern shore of Lake Dora,then south again to the City Limits. The Eastern boundary begins where Crane Avenue intersects with US 441 and runs north to the northeast corner of the city. Percent Of Single Family Homes Located Within The Service Area Which Fall Within The Following Valuation Ranges: Outside-City Limits: Percent of Service Area Single Valuation Range Family Homes Less Than $55,000 24.50% $55,001 to$81,300 21.50% Greater Than$81,300 54.00% Inside-City Limits: Percent of Service Area Single Valuation Range Family Homes Less Than$55,000 20.00% $55,001 to$81,300 19.00% Greater Than$81,300 61.00% Sources: City of Mount Dora Utility Lake County Property Appraiser Burton td Associates 57 • j ,f Investigation of Alternative Water Supply Strategies Evaluation of Water Conservation Rate Structure -Phase II Utility Name: Villages of Lake Utilities Potable Water System Service Area Description: The Villages of Lake Utilities is a private utility which primarily serves the retirement. village called"The Villages located in the town of Lady Lake. The Villages of Lake Utilities serve approximately 7,902 single family water customers. Percent Of Single Family Homes Located Within The Service Area Which Fall Within The Following Valuation Ranges: Town of Lady Lake: Percentc of Ar ea rea Single Valaation Range Family Homes Less Than $55,000 33.00% $55,001 to$81,300 41.00% Greater Than$81,300 25.00% Unincorporated Lake County: Percent of Service Area Single Valuation Range Family Homes Less Than $55,000 29.00% $55,001 to$81,300 24.00% Greater Than$81,300 47.00% Utility Service Area: Percent of Service Areangle Valuation Range Family Homes Less Than$55.000 31.00% $55,001 to$81,300 32.50% Greater Than$81,300 36.50% Sources: Villages of IA,- Utility City of Lady Lake Planning/Building/Zoning Department(s) Lake County Property Appraiser Burton Fe Associates 58 ORANGE COUNTY ........ • • Selected Utilities Within Orange County 59 st, t Quin s ,' iettWkr t ttaglert le 3t Dist t 14 Investigation of Alternative Water Supply Strategies Evaluation of Water Conservation Rate Structure -Phase H Utility Name: Apopka Utility Potable Water System Service Area Description: The Apopka Utility provides potable water to all of the City of Apopka and a small portion of unincorporated Orange County. Approximately 75% of the Utilities water customers are located within the City limits while approximately 25%are located in unincorporated County. The Apopka Utility Urban Service Area is bordered to the North by W. Pokan Road, to the West by Plymouth Sorrento Road, Schopke Lester Road, Boy Scout Blvd., Orange Avenue, and State Road 437. The Southern Boundary runs along Keene Road and then Foxcreek Lane, and finally turning North again along Mink Drive, across Big Lake Lane and Semoran Blvd.,the up Thompson Road, across Pine Shadow Drive and finally connecting again to the starting point at Pokan Road. The Utility serves a total of 10,753 residential customers, of which approximately 8,744 are single family units. Therefore,approximately 6558 single family customers are inside the City limits, leaving approximately 2,186 single family customers outside the City limits. Percent Of Single Family Homes Located Within The Service Area Which Fall Within The Following Valuation Ranges: Outside-City Limits: Percent o Service AreaSingle Valuation Range Family Homes Less Than$55,000 27.00% $55,001 to$81,300 40.00% Greater Than$81,300 33.00% Inside-City Limits: Percent o Service AreaSingle Valuation Range Family Homes Less Than$55,000 26.00% $55,001 to$81,300 43.00% Greater Than$81,300 31.00% Sources: City of Apopka Utility City of Apopka Planning/Building/Zoning Department(s) Orange County Property Appraiser Burton&Associates 60 t � il6h ns r ter "wen; ....n P Investigation of Alternative Water Supply Strategies Evaluation of Water Conservation Rate Structure -Phase II Utility Name: Maitland Utility Potable Water System Service Area Description: The Maitland Utility's water system service area is the same as Maitland's city limits. The total single family customers that the Utility serves is currently 3,039. Percent Of Single Family Homes Located Within The Service Area Which Fall Within The Following Valuation Ranges: Inside-City Limits: Percent o Service Area at Valuation Range Family Homes Less Than$55,000 21.00% $55,001 to$81,300 13.00% Greater Than$81,300 66.00% Sources: City of Maitland Utility Orange County Property Appraiser Burton&Associates 61 imprit nallIP {. ' IS: .. `�,,� .e ra. g ,: :`,.`� _. .. , Investigation of Alternative Water Supply Strategies Evaluation of Water Conservation Rate Structure-Phase II Utility Name: Ocoee Utility Potable Water System Service Area Description: The Ocoee Utility Service Boundary only extends outside the city limits of Ocoee along East Crown Point Road up to Lake Apopka. This outside city service area extension includes segments of the following: Ocoee-Apopka Road; Demastus Road;CDG Landing; Fullers Cross Road,Ocoee-Clarcona Road; Greenwood; Butler;Anderson Place; Second, Third. Forth and Fifth Avenues; and 10th, 11th, 12th, 13th 15th, 16th and 17th Avenues. The Ocoee Utility Potable Water System serves approximately 5,148 single family water customers Approximately 4,122 of those single family water customers are located inside city limits with 1.026 single family water customers outside the city limits. Percent Of Single Family Homes Located Within The Service Area Which Fall Within The Following Valuation Ranges: Outside-City Limits: Percent o Service Area Ingle Valuation Range Family Homes Less Than $55,000 32.50% $55,001 to$81,300 35.00% Greater Than$81,300 32.50% Inside-City Limits: Percent o Service Area ingl Valuation Range Family Homes Less Than$55,000 37.00% $55,001 to$81,300 33.00% Greater Than$81,300 30.00% Sources: City of Ocoee Utility City of Ocoee Planning Department Orange County Property Appraiser Burton&Associates 62 E tF �� C , W" IteA;iiiiiciiiBii Investigation of Alternative Water Supply Strategies Evaluation of Water Conservation Rate Structure -Phase II Utility Name: Orange County Utility Potable Water System Service Area Description: The Orange County Utilities Water Service Area includes all of unincorporated Orange County. The Utility served 62,434 single family water customers as of 12/31/96. Percent Of Single Family Homes Located Within The Service Area Which Fall Within The Following Valuation Ranges: Percent of Service Area Single Valuation Range Family Homes Len Than$55,000 28.00% $55,001 to$81,300 37.00% Greater Than$81,300 35.00% Sources: Orange County Utility Orange County Property Appraiser Burton&Associates 63 ear,.J 1 t "%mac Wita,,,,,,t1,,Fhi,:,-,..:;:1011, lc 11 Investigation of Alternative Water Supply Strategies Evaluation of Water Conservation Rate Structure-Phase II Utility Name: Orlando Utilities Potable Water System Service Area Description: The Orlando Utilities'Potable Water System's Service Area includes the following: Northern Boundary includes Hiawassee Road, Clarcona Ocoee Road, Edgewater Drive, Interstate 4. and Forthsyth Rd.; The Eastern Boundary includes Forsyth, Narcoosee, Eastern Beltway, and Kirby Smith Road; the Southern Boundary runs along the Orange County Line, up Boggy Creek Road and across John Young Parkway, South Orange Blossom Trail,and the Florida Turnpike;And the Western Boundary includes portions of Apopka Vineland Road, Dr. Phillips Blvd.,the Florida Turnpike. and Hiawassee and Silver Star Roads. The Orlando Utilities Potable Water System's service area includes the city limits of Orlando, and much of unincorporated Orange County. It also includes several wholesale customers (Such as portions of Winter Park)and other enclaves like Belle Isle. The Commission provides potable water to approximately 37,679 single family customers within the City limits and approximately 51.161 customers outside the City limits. Percent Of Single Family Homes Located Within The Service Area Which Fall Within The Following Valuation Ranges: Outside-City Limits: Percent of Service Area Single Valuation Range _ Family Homes Less Than$55,000 32.50% $55,001 to$81,300 36.00% Greater Than$81,300 31.50% Inside-City Limits: Percent o Service Area Single Valuation Range Family Homes Less Than$55,000 37.00% $55,001 to$81,300 35.00% Greater Than$81,300 28.00% Sources: Orlando Utilities Commission City of Orlando Planning Department Orange County Property Appraiser Burton&Associates 64 i yy f f 5+ l Y JJJyyy iiiy777 � Investigation of Alternative Water Supply Strategies Evaluation of Water Conservation Rate Structure - Phase II Utility Name: Florida Water Services Potable Water System Service Area Description: Florida Water Services Utilities(previously known as Southern States Utilities) Percent Of Single Family Homes Located Within The Service Area Which Fall Within The Following Valuation Ranges: Inside Service Area: Percent of Service Area Single Valuation Mange Family Homes Less Than$55,000 0.00% $55,001 to$81,300 0.00% Greater Than$81,300 0.00% Sources: Florida Water Services Burton&Associates 65 st johns Rivtx ' iate t Man 3 t tk Investigation of Alternative Water Supply Strategies Evaluation of Water Conservation Rate Structure -Phase II Utility Name: Winter Park Utility Potable Water System Service Area Description: The Winter Park Utility service area for potable water includes the city limits of Winter Park as well as a considerable about of surrounding unincorporated Orange County. The Utility serves approximately 7,319 water customers inside the city limits of Winter Park and approximately 9,473 customers outside the city limits. Percent Of Single Family Homes Located Within The Service Area Which Fall Within The Following Valuation Ranges: Outside-City Limits: Percent o Service Area Single Valuation Range Family Homes Less Than$55,000 22.50% $55,001 to$81,300 20.00% Greater Than$81,300 51.50% Inside-City Limits: Percent of Service Area Single Valuation Range Family Homes Less Than$55,000 17.00% $55,001 to$81,300 15.00% Greater Than$81,300 68.00% Sources: City of Winter Park Utility City of Winter Park PlanningBuilding2oning Department(:) Seminole County Property Appraiser Burton&Associates 66 BREVARD COUNTY • • • •••••• . • • Selected Utilities Within Brevard County 67 4 3 l C '. C `S Investigation of Alternative Water Supply Strategies Evaluation of Water Conservation Rate Structure-Phase II Utility Name: Cocoa Utility Potable Water System Service Area Description: The Cocoa Utility's potable water system serves over 60,000 customers. In addition to customers inside the City limits of the City of Cocoa,the Utility also serves customers in several surrounding Cities,as well as other wholesale customers. The list of account is as follows: City of Cocoa 5,825 Unincorporated County 14,005 Suntree Development 5,085 Cocoa Beach 3,652 Cape Canaveral 1.830 Port St.John 5,641 Rockledge 7,103 Merritt Island 12,730 Total 36,040 Wholesale Customers: NASA commercial Canaveral Air Force Station wholesale Patrick Airforce Base wholesale Titusville wholesale Combined To Total Approx. 24.000 Percent Of Single Family Homes Located Within The Service Area Which Fall Within The Following Valuation Ranges: Outside-City Limits: Percent of Service Area Single Valuation Range Family Homes Less Than$55,000 32.50% $55,001 to$81,300 38.50% Greater Than$81,300 28.50% Inside-City Limits: Percent of Service Area Single Valuation Range Family Homes Less Than$55,000 50.00% $55,001 to$81,300 37.00% Greater Than$81,300 13.00% Wholesale Customers: Percent of Service Area Single Valuation Range Family Homes Less Than$55,000 21.00% $55,001 to$81,300 52.00% Greater Than$81.300 27.00% Sources: City of Cocoa Utility City of Cocoa Planning/BuildingRoning Department(s) Brevard County Property Appraiser Buxton tot Associates 68 .� a a., a i grittePS al a x;.wNwra„,rmyz g e, ls _ .: Investigation of Alternative Water Supply Strategies Evaluation of Water Conservation Rate Structure -Phase II Utility Name: Titusville Utility Potable Water System Service Area Description: The City of Titusviile's Potable Water Utility Service Area's boundaries Percent Of Single Family Homes Located Within The Service Area Which Fall Within The Following Valuation Ranges: Outside-City Limits: Percent of Service Area Single Valuation Range Family Homes Less Than$55,000 33.72% $55,001 to$81,300 29.82% Greater Than$81,300 36.46% Inside-City Limits: Percent of Service Area Single Valuation Range Family Homes Less Than$55,000 50.00% $55,001 to$81,300 35.00% Greater Than$81,300 15.00% Sources: City of Titusville Utility City of Titusville Planning/Building/Zoning Department(s) Breverd County Property Appraiser Burton&Associates 69 VOLUSIA COUNTY • • • •••••• • • • Selected Utilities Within Volusia County 70 f, ,`. �, s ,� R. ,v� s.�.• . µ,,.. vVg.=1d.'�.= ..........................ti„ ✓. 'PE ... Investigation of Alternative Water Supply Strategies Evaluation of Water Conservation Rate Structure-Phase II Utility Name: Daytona Beach Utility Potable Water System Service Area Description: The Daytona Beach Utility serves customers inside the City limits and outside City limits. Approximately 34%of the total customer base is outside the City limits. Percent Of Single Family Homes Located Within The Service Area Which Fall Within The Following Valuation Ranges: Outside-City Limits: Percent of Service Area Single Valuation Range Family Homes Less Than $55,000 28.83% $55,001 to$81,300 41.37% Greater Than$81,300 29.80% Inside-City Limits: Percent et Service Area Ingle Valuation Range Family Homes Less Than$55,000 27.02% $55,001 to$81,300 44.78% Greater Than$81,300 28.20% Sources: City of Daytona Beach Utility City of Daytona Beach Planning/Building/Zoning Department(s) Volume County Property Appraiser Burton&Associates 71 y3 i�' S7l S♦ A ....ter � aX �N� ns fi ....moo mow. a ..•„ ( W tress E ' Investigation of Alternative Water Supply Strategies Evaluation of Water Conservation Rate Structure-Phase II Utility Name: Deland Utility Potable Water System Service Area Description: The Deland Utility provides potable water to approximately 8,924 single family customers in side the City limits, and 3,982 single family customers in unincorporated Volusia County. Refer to service area maps for specifics regarding service area. Percent Of Single Family Homes Located Within The Service Area Which Fall Within The Following Valuation Ranges: Outside-City Limits: Percent of Service Area Single Valuation Range Family Homes Less Than $55,000 48.52% $55,001 to$81,300 29.40% Greater Than$81,300 22.09% Inside-City Limits: Percent of Service Area Single Valuation Range Family Homes Less Than$55,000 66.39% $55,001 to$81,300 20.84% Greater Than$81,300 12.77% Sources: City of Deland Utility City of Deland Planning/Building/Zoning Department(s) Volusia County Property Appraiser Burton&Associates 72 veCTir 0 y 7E ck- Vi �inY�"0�" .�:w v;m e ,._,...,..1.z._, y 3J,Pj} z ..,x nau,, : Investigation of Alternative Water Supply Strategies Evaluation of Water Conservation Rate Structure-Phase II Utility Name: New Smyrna Beach Utility Potable Water System Service Area Description: The New Smyrna Beach Utility's potable water service area extends South to the City of Edgewater city limits,West to 1-95, North to the city limits of Harbor Oaks. and East to the Atlantic Ocean. This service area extends past the city limits of New Smyrna Beach. The total single family customers that the Utility serves is currently 9.247. of which 7.833 are in side the City limits. Percent Of Single Family Homes Located Within The Service Area Which Fall Within The Following Valuation Ranges: Outside-City Limits: Percent of Service Area Single Valuation Range Family Homes Less Than $55.000 31.05% $55,001 to$81,300 35.77% Greater Than$81,300 33.19% Inside-City Limits: Percent of Service Area Single Valuation Range Family Homes Len Than$55,000 31.45% $55,001 to$81,300 33.58% Greater Than$81,300 34.97% Sources: City of New Smyrna Beach Utility New Smyrna Beach Planning Department Volusia County Property Appraiser Burton&Associates 73 ?0- 74w —saty i aA i o i$t t o eS Y,rr"� tt ag��Diet i a Investigation of Alternative Water Supply Strategies Evaluation of Water Conservation Rate Structure -Phase II Utility Name: Ormond Beach Utility Potable Water System Service Area Description: The Ormond Beach Potable Water Utility serves all customers inside the Ormond Beach city limits and those outside city customers along the Atlantic Ocean across the Granada Bridge from East Granada Blvd north to Ocean Air Terrace. Percent Of Single Family Homes Located Within The Service Area Which Fall Within The Following Valuation Ranges: Outside-City Limits: Percent o Service AreaSingle Valuation Range _ Family Homes Less Than $55,000 8.00% $55,001 to$81,300 20.00% Greater Than$81,300 72.00% Inside-City Limits: Percent o Service AreaSingle Valuation Range Family Homes Len Than$55,000 17.51% $55,001 en$81,300 36.30% Greater Than$81,300 46.19% Sources: Ormond Beach Utility City of onnond Beach Planning Department Volusia County Property Appraiser Bill-kill&Associates 74 r x`Lam :#, Investigation of Alternative Water Supply Strategies Evaluation of Water Conservation Rate Structure -Phase II Utility Name: Port Orange Utility Potable Water System Service Area Description: Percent Of Single Family Homes Located Within The Service Area Which Fall Within The Following Valuation Ranges: Outside-City Limits: Percent o Service Area Single Valuation Range Family Homes Less Than$55,000 20.74% $55,001 to$81,300 46.12% Greater Yuan$81,300 33.14% Inside-City Limits: Percent of Service Area Single Valuation Range Family Homes Len Than$55,000 10.83% $55,001 to$81,300 54.29% Greater Than$81,300 34.88% Sources: City of Port Orange Utility City of Port Orange Planniing/Building/Loning Department(s) Volusia County Property Appraiser Burton&Associates 75 Appendix B Complete WATERATE Model Output For Each Utility 76 Table 1. General Information Enter Customer Block Rates? I Seasonal Rates Default Annual Rate of: Classes 1 Single Family Yes 0 Annual Rates Account Growth 0.0% Multiple Fa ily No C Seasonal Rates Commercial No Res. Irrigati n No CPI Inflation 0.0% Comm. !rig y'iork o No I Year Type? Base Year? Water Unit? O Fiscal 1997 1998 C Ccf(100 Cubic Feet) j C Calendar I IT, TG (1,000 Gallons) File=c:\waterate\daytona\day_in.dat 02-Jun-97 77 Table 2. Water Accounts (All Classes) EMU # Meters Annual # Meters Meter Size Factor 1997/98 Growth % 1998/99 1999/00 2000/01 5/8" 1.0 0 0.0% 0 0' I 0! 3/4" 1.0 16.803 0.0% 16.803 1 031 16.803! 1" 2.5 961 0.0%, 961 1 961 I 961 1.5" 5.0 j 362 0.0% 362 362 362'''' 2" 8.0 1 516 0.0% 516 516 1561 3" 15,0 102 0.0% 1021 1 _102 4" 25.0 I 92 0.0% 92 92 92 6" 50.0 63 0.0% 63 63 6 8" 80.01 0 0.0%! 0 0 ! 01 10" 125.0 3 0.0% 3 3 12" 215.0 0'. 0.0% 0 0 0 Total Meters 1 1 98 02 I 18,902 18,902 I 18,9021 Total EMUs 32,499 1 32,49911 32,499 32,499. 78 Table 3a. Annual Water Use Base Projections 1997/98 Annual 1998/99 1999/00 2000/01 User Class TG Growth % TG TG TG Single Family 793,445 0.0% 793,445 793,445 793,445 Multiple Family 707,793 0.0% 707,793 707,793 707,793 Commercial 1 1 1,381,937 0.0% 11,381,937 1,381,937 1,381,937 Res. Irrigation 34,176 0.0% 34,176 34,176 34,176, ,Comm rrigation 166,030 0.0% 166,030 166,030 166,030' ' 0.0% Totals 3,083,381 3,083,381 3,083,381 3,083,381 79 I Table 3b.Single Family Water Use Distribution(Annual) BIN TG/Month #oBills ' MIN MAX Sewer NonSewerI 1 0 1 875 0 ' 2 1 2 2,851 0 3 2 3 4,272 0 4 3 4 4,291 0 5 14 5 j 4,497 0 6 5 1 6 _ 4,474 0 7 16 7 3,434 0 I8 '17 8 2,931 0 9 I 8 9 2,510 0 10 9 10 1,915 0 11 10 11 , 1,430 0 12 11 12 1,304 ' 0 13 12 13 1,008 j 0 14 13 14 825 0 15 14 15 737 0 16 15 16 614 0 17 16 17 534 0 18 17 18 500 0 '' 19 18 19 430 0 1 20 19 li 20 410 I 0 21 20 21 336 0 22 21 22 269 0 23 22 23 276 0 24 123 24 273 I 0 25 124 25 405 I 0 26 i 25 26 149 0 27 26 1 27 1218 0 28 27 128 155 0 29 28 29 '. 139 '. 0 30 29 30 1156 0 31 130 !. 31 ' 98 : 0 1 32 : 31 ! 32 90 j0 1 33 132 ' 33 108 0 34 33 34 76 0 I 35 34 35 166 0 36 35 36 67 10 37 36 37 63 0 38 37 '. 38 51 0 '. 39 38 39 40 0 40 139 46 1 245 0 80 Table 3b.Multiple Family Water Use Distribution(Annual) Sewer and NonSewer Use 91%jj 9% I�� I 81 Table3b.Commercial Water Use Distribution(Annual) Sewer and NonSewer Use 93% ! 7% 82 Table 3b.Res.Irrigation Water Use Distribution(Annual) I1' Sewer and NonSewer Use 0% I 100% III 83 Table 3b.Comm.Irrigation Water Use Distribution(Annual) Sewer and NonSewer Use 0% 1100% 84 Table 4. Revenue Requirements Annual Base Projections Cost Component 1997/98 Growth % 1998/99 1999/00 2000/01 Revenue $4,294,0821 0.0% $4,294,082 $4,294,082. $4,294,082 Requirements From Rates Direct Short-Ruh$429,408 0.0% $429,4081 $429,408 $429,4081 Revenue Requirements 85 Table 5. Price Elasticities Long-Run Short-Run Elasticity Single Family Elast city Price % of ® Default User Class Elasticity Long-Run Response C User Specified Single Family Default 1st Year 100%' Single Family Multiple Family 0.00 1 2nd Year; 0%'1 Property Values for Default Calculation Commercial -0.25 ! 3rd Year 0% Low Value 27% Res. Irrigation -0.40 4th Year 0%I Medium ValUe15°/d Comm. Irrigatio+0.40 Other 1 OW High Value 28% Years 0.00 Total 100% Total 100%' 86 Table 6. Fixed Charges (All Classes) J Fixed Charge $/Month Meter Size 1997/98 1998/99 1999/00 2000/01 5/8" .3.31 I $3.31 $0.00 3 31 3/4" 3.31 $3.31 $0.00 3.31' 1 1" E .42I $0.00 4.42 1.5" 6.27 6.27I $0.00 6.27 2" 8.49 8. 9 $0.00 8.49 3" MUM 13.67 $0.00 13.67' 4" .2 .07 21.07 $0.00 21.07 6" •.57 39 7 $0.00 39 57 8" . • .77 61. $0.00 61 77 10" 95.07 95.07 $0.00 I $95.07 12" 161.67 161.67 $0.00 $161.67 $/Account/Month $2.57 $2.57 $0.00 L $2.57 $/EMU/Month $0.74 j $0.74 1 $0.00 $0.74 Th II 87 Table 7.Single Family Water and Sewer Prices(Annual) 1 Year " Block TGs Price SA/nit 1 Min i Max 1 Water Sewer '. 1996(97 1 0 1 3 i $1.11 $3.95 2 3 12 $1.11 ! $3.95 13 12 $1.11 14 5 6 1997/98 1 T 0 1 3 $1.11 $3.95 2 1 3 12 $1.11 $3.95 3 12 ' $1.11 4 5 I 6 ;1998/99 1 0 3 $0.83 $3.95 1 2 3 1 12 $1.11 $3.95 1 3 12 1 25 I $1.67 1 4 25 $1.67 5 6 I 1999100 1 0 3 I $1.50 $3.95 2 3 12 $1.51 $3.95 11 3 1 12 I 5 1 1 6 1 2000/01 1 0 1 3 I $0.83 $3.95 2 3 12 $1.10 $3.95 11 3 12 25 $1.93 4 25 I $2.41 5 I 6 1 1 —J 88 Table7.Multiple Family Water and Sewer Prices(Annual) year Block TGs Price$(Unit Min Max Water Sewer i 1996/97 1 0 $1.11 $3.95 2 3 4 I5 I 6 199798 1 I0 1E1.77 I E3.95 2 I 3 4 5 6 I 199899 i I 0 $1.11 $3.95 2 3 i 4 I 5 1 I 1 1999/0D 1 0 $1.50 $3.95 I 2 3 4 5 1 6 1200091 1 ' 0 $1.10 153.95 2 3 1 4 5 I 6 89 Table 7.Commercial Water and Sewer Prices(Annual) "Year I Block TGs Price$IUnit Min Max Water Sewer '1996197 1 0 51.11 $3.95 2 I 3 4 5 6 11997198 1 0 1 I $1.11 $3.95 2 I 3 II45 ! 6 I 1998199 1 10 I $1.11 I $3.95 2 1 3 I 4 I I 5 I I I , 1999/00 1 0 $1.50 $3.95 ' I 2 3 l I 4 I I , 5 I 6 I 2000/01 1 0 $1.10 $3.95 2 3 I 4 I 5 6 90 1 Table 7.Res.Irrigation Water and Sewer Prices(Annual) Year Block TGs Price Mind Min Max Water Sewer 1996197 1 1 0 $1.11 I P2 I i I 1 3 I 4 15 6 1997/98 1 0 $1.11 I 2 j 3 4 5 6 199899 1 I 0 $1.67 2 3 4 I I 5 6 I 1999100 ! 1 0 1 $1.50 I 02 1 p3 I 4 I 15 I 6 200091 1 0 I $1.93 2 I 3 I I 4 5 I 6 I i 91 Table 7.Comm.Irrigation Water and Sewer Prices(Annual) I ',Year Block TGs Price$(Unit 1 Min Max Water Sewer 1 1 ':1996197 1 ' 0 I 91.11 I 13 14 5 I 6 I 11997198 1 0 I 91.11 1 2 3 I 4 I I i 5 I 6 '1998/99 1 J 0 1 91.67 I 2 I I 3 14 5 1 1999100 1 0 $1.50 2 3 4 I 16 I 1 I 2000101 1 0 $1.93 1 2 3 4 5 , 6 92 Table 8. Revenue Summary 1997/98 1998/99 1999/00 2000/01 Base Revenue Reauirement 294 082 4 294 082 294 082 - 294 082 Price Elastic Change 0 11 510 14 484 - 16 744 Adjusted Revenue Require :1_294 082 282 572 4 308 566 277 338 Revenues from Proposed Rates Fixed Mont I ervice Cha . - IMeter iz I de end nt 582 938, 1 $582.9381 0 1 $582.938 Meter ize De ende t 288 591 $288.591 0 I $288.591 Subtotal 871 529 $871,5291 0 1 $871.529, Quantity Charge 1, Single Family 1 880 724 804 264' 970 742, $775.866 Multiple Family 785 650 785 650' 061 690 S778.572 Commercial 1 533 950 1 5 950' $2.026.760' $1.521.075, Res. Irrigation 37 935 8 447 $45.431' $52.832 Comm. Irrigation 184 293 235 361 $220.7061 $256.663 Subtotal 3 422 553 3 407 672' 325 328 $3.385.0081 Total Rate Revenues 4 294 082''. 4 279 201 4 325 3281 $4,256,537 Revenue Surplus (Shortfall) $011 1 ($3,371) $16,76211 I ($20,801)' 93 Table 9. Water Summary (Annual) Base Water Price ElasticPrice Elastic Projection Change Change TG TG % 1998/99 in•le Famil, I 793.445 -52.388 1 -6.6%1 Multi•le Fa lit 707.793' 0 0.0°Commercial 1.381.937 0 0 0° Res. lrri•ati•n 34.176 -5.166 -15.1° Comm. Irri• .ti n 166 030 -25.096. -15.1° Totals 3,083,381' ' -82,649' -2.7% 1999/00 Single Family 793.445 157.5491 19.9°,. �Multi le Fa ily 707.793 1 0 0.0°, 'Commercial 1.381.937 I -30,76411 -2.2°. Res. lrrigati n 34.176 I -3-3.889 Mira Comm. lrrigatipn166.030 18.8931 -11.4°. Totals 3,083,381 104,003 3.4 2000/01 in le Famil 793.445 81.247 -10.2° 1 ulti le Fa ily 707.793 0 ; 0.0% 'Commercial 1.381.937 858 0.1°. Res. Irri ati n 34.176 -6.802 -19.9°. Comm. Irri tion 166.030 —33.044 19.9°° Totals L 3,083,381 -120,2341 1 -3.9%i 1, 94 Table 10. Water Change by Block (Single Family) Year lock' Tps I Base New % Minpliax % Sold% SoldChange 1998/9: 1 0 3 33.8°F 3 9°, 0.1°F Q01F1 47. °• 46.7°• -1.0°• ' 12 25 5.6°A. °.. 27 '0• ' 4 CAI 1.6°F -5 °• 6 MM 1999/0p 1 I 0 3 33.8°F 33.9°• 0.3% 2 3 12 47.2°• @Pi 0.2°• 1 3 12 19.0°.• 38.6°. 103.5°.1 4 . NM. 5 6 i 2000/01 1 0 3 33.8°° ' 33.9°F• '.1°F 2 IF71711 47.2°• 46.3°• -1.8°, 3 inn 15.6' • 9.0°• -42.1°.• 4 ® 3.4°• 0.5°• -84.3°• Off' 95 Table 10. Water Change by Block (Multiple Family) Year loci TQs Base New T ?loci % Sold% SoldChange 1998/93M2 =; 100.0°, 100.0° 0.0°.. I Min =� 1999/0� °.100.0100.0°, 0.0°, 4©M_ 6 ' _ 2000/0 1 0 !MN1100.0°, 100.0°, 0.0% 2 =' 5 a�� i 6 96 Table 10. Water Change by Block (Commercial) Year Block TGs Base New % Min Max % Sold% SoldChange 1998/9. 1 0 100.0°, 100.0°. 0.1° 2 3 11•1 4 5 6 1999/0. 1 0 '100.0°. 97.8°. -2.2°.. 2 Mani 5 I� 6 n= 2000/0n 0 100.0°. 100.1°, 0.1°. QN 5 MIN� 6 97 Table 10. Water Change by Block (Res. Irrigation) Year Block TGs Base New % MinNlax % Sold% SoldChange 1998/9. 1 0 100.0°. 84.9°, ',-15.1°. : 2 =Ell 4 5 It 6 M 1999/0Q 0 100.0°. 88.•°. -11.4°,, 2 Q= Q■� 4 11 Qom' mon 6 2000/01 1 0 !100.0°. 80.1°. -19.9% 2 3 4 5 6 I 98 Table 10. Water Change by Block (Comm. Irrigation) Year Block T s i Base New % I' I MinlMax % Sold% SoldChange 1998/9tU 0 100.0°.•. 84.9°. -15.1°, . 3 MN= 4 Ell6 6� I• 1999/01M: 0 100.0% 88.6% -11.4% 2 S 3 flfl , 6 NM� 2000/01 1 I 0 101 0°.. 80.1°., -19.9°. 2 3 'flit 4 6 99 Table 1. General Information Enter CustomerBlock Rates? 1 Seasonal Ratest Default Annual Rate of: Classes (Single Family ) Annual Rates Irrigation -I Yes Account Growth10.0%1 Yes 0 Seasonal Ratds Multifamily No Commercial- CPI Inflation 10.0%' No SF - Outside Yes brig - Outsid Yes i I 1 Year Type? ! Base Year? Water Unit? O Fiscal 1994/ 1995 0 Ccf(100 Cubic Feet) O Calendar 1 O TG (1,000 Gallons) File=c:1waterate1nsmymalnsmyma.dat 30-May-97 100 Table 2. Water Accounts (Single Family) EMU # Meters Annual # Meters Meter Size Factor 1994/95 Growth % 1995/96 1996/97 1997/98 5/8" 1.0 1i7 331yl 10.0° 7.314 7.314 7.314 3/4" I I 1.0 0I 0.0° 0 0 0 1" 2.5 26 0.0° 26 26 26'. 1.5" 5.0. I 1 0.0° 1'' 1 1 2" 8.0 1 0.0° 1'' 1 1 1 3" 16.0',: 0.0° 0 0: 1 4" 25.0 0.0° 01 6" 50.01 0.0° 0' 1 0 8" 80.0 0.0° j 0 1 II 01 10" 115.0 10.0° 0 0 12" 215.0 1 0.0% 0 I 01 Total Meters 7,342 7,34211 7,342' I 7,342 Total EMUs 7,392 7,392 7,392 7,392 Fixed charges vary by class? O No O Yes I 101 Table 2. Water Accounts (Irrigation) EMU # Meters Annual # Meters Meter Size Factor 1994/95 Growth % 1995/96 1996/97 1997/98 5/8" I 1.0 33� 0.0% 335i r 335 335 3/4" 1.0 0.0% I 0 0 0 1" 2.5 fi 0.0% 60 60 I 60 1.5" 5.0 2 I i 0.0% 25 25, 25 2" 8.0 3 0.0%I 36 36' 36 3" 16.0 0.0% 1 1 1 1 4" 25.0' 0.0% 0 0 0 6" 50.0 0.0% 0. j 0 0 8" 80.0 0.0% 0, 1 0.. 0 10" 115.0 0.0% 0 0 0 12" 1 215.0 0.0%', 0 j 0 0' Total Meters l 457 457 457] 4571 Total EMUs 914 i 914 ! 914 9141 Fixed charges vary by class? C No @ Yes 102 Table 2. Water Accounts (Multifamily) EMU # Meters Annual # Meters Meter Size Factor 1994/95 Growth % 1995/96 1996/97 1997/98 5/8" 11 3.0! 209 0.0% 209 209 2091 3/4" 1.0 0 0.0% 0 0 0 1" •.8!. 17 0.0%. 17 17 17i 1.5" 5 0'' 6 0.0% 6, 6 6 2" 37.8' 26 0.0% 26i 26 26 3" 62.3 26 0.0%, _6 26 26 1 4" 83.2'. ! 12 0.0% 12 12 12 6" i 4 0.0% 4'i 4 4 8" 0.0 0 0.0% 0 0 0 ! 10" 1 0.01 ! 0 0.0% 0 0 0 12" I 0 00] 0 0.0% 0 0 0 Total Meters i 300 3001 r 300 F 300 Total EMUs 1 4,863 4,8631 4,863 4,863 Fixed charges vary by class? ONo ® Yes 103 Table 2. Water Accounts (Commercial) EMU # Meters Annual # Meters _J Meter Size Factor 1994/95 Growth % 1995/96 1996/97 1997/98 5/8" i 1 1.0 873 0.00. 1 873 873 873 3/4" i 1.0 0 0.0°. 0 0, 0 1" 2.5' 118 0.0°, 118 118' 118: 1.5" 5.01 49 0.0°. 49 491 49' 2" I 8.0 92 0.0°, 92I 92 92'1 3" 16.0 11 0.0°, 11 11'. 11 4" 25.0' 5' 0.0°0 1 5, 1 5' 5 6" 50.0' I 1, 0.0°., 1' 11 ! 1 8" 80.01 0 0.0°. 0 0 ' 0 10" 115.0 ' 0'', 0.0°A. 0 0 12" 1 215.0 I 01 0.0% 0 1 0 0 Total Meters 1,149 1,149 I 1,149 1,149 Total EMUs 1 2,500 1 2,500' 2,500 2,500 I Fixed charges vary by class? O No CI Yes 104 Table 2. Water Accounts (SF - Outside) EMU # Meters Annual # Meters Meter Size Factor 1994/95 Growth % 1995/96 1996/97 1997/98 __ 5/8" 1 1.01 1.41 0.0% 1.41 1.411.4141.414 3/4" 1.0I 0.0% 0 0, 1" I 2.5i 0.0% 1 511 5i 1.5" 5.01 0.0% 2 2 2" 8.0 0.0%, 2 2 3" 16.0 i 0.0% 0 0 I 4" 25.0 0.0% 0 01 6" 50.0 0.0% 0 i 0 8" 1 80.0 0.0% 10" 115.0 0.0% 0 0 12" 215.0 i 0.0%1 0 0 Total Meters 1,423 1,423'. 1 1,423 1,423 Total EMUs 1,453 1,453 1,453 1,4531 Fixed charges vary by class? O No OO Yes 105 Table 2. Water Accounts (Irrig - Outside) EMU # Meters Annual # Meters Meter Size Factor 1994/95 Growth % 1995/96 1996/97 1997/98 5/8" 1.0 0.0% 1 1 1 3/4" 10. 1 1.0°,.' 0 0I�"_ 1" 1 2.51 0.0°, 3 3 1.5" , 0I 0.0°. 3 3, 2" 8.0 1 0.0°, 14 14 1 3" 16.0' I 0.0°. _� 0 4" 25.0 0.0',,, 0I 0 50.0' 1 0.0% 01 , 0 8" 80.0 0.0% 0I 0 10" 115.0 _� 0.0° 0 12" 215.0 0.0% 011 0 , Total Meters 1 21 21 I 21 2f Total EMUs 1 1361 136 1 136 1 136 Fixed charges vary by class? C No CO Yes , 106 Table 3a. Annual Water Use Base Projections 1994/95 Annual 1995/96 1996/97 1997/98 User Class TG Growth % TG TG TG Single Family I 438,970 0.0% 438,970 438,970 438,970 Irrigation 1 205,8 0.0%1 205,386 205,386 205,386 Multifamily 190,0441i 0.0%I 190,044 190,044 190,044 Commercial , 2~ 98,597. 0.0% 298,597 298,597 298,597 SF - Outside) I 111,741 0.0% 1 111,741 111,741 111,741 rrig - Outside 33,327 0.0% 33,327 33,327 33,327, Totals 1,278,065 1,278,065 1,278,065 1,278,0651 107 Table 3b.Single Family Water Use Distribution(Annual) BIN I TG/Mont I got ills MIN I MAT Sewer on-Sewer 1 0 1 i675 2 1 2 2,851 3 2 3 4,272 4 3 14 4,291 ' 5 4 15 , 4,497 6 5 ' 6 4,474 7 6 7 3,434 ' 8 i7 8 ! 2,931 [ 2,510 I 8 9 10 9 10 1,915 11 ! 10 ' 11 1430 112 11 12 1,304 113 12 13 1,008 14 13 110 825 15 14 15 737 16 15 16 614 117 16 17 1534 118 1 17 18 500 19 18 19 . 430 120 19 20 ' 410 21 20 21 336 22 21 122 ' 269 23 I22 23 276 j, 24 123 24 1273 I25 24 I25 405 ' 26 ' 25 26 : 149 ' 27 26 27 ' 218 11 28 27 128 ' 155 29 28 ! 29 139 ' 30 29 30 156 31 ' 30 31 98 ' 32 31 31 90 li 33 32 1 33 106 34 33 30 76 I 35 I34 I35 I66 36 35 36 67 37 36 37 ' 63 T 38 37 138 51 T 39 38 '. 39 ' 40 1 00 139 46 1245 82 1 108 Table 3b.Irrigation Water Use Distribution(Annual) BIN • TGIMonth #of ills • MIN MAX —sewer I on-Sewer I 1 0 1 675 2 1 2 2,851 I ' I ! 3 2 3 4,272 I 3 4 4,291 5 14 I 4,497 6 5 6 4,474 7 6 7 3,434 ' 8 7 8 2,931 9 8 9 2,510 j 10 9 10 1,915 111 10 11 1,430 12 111 12 1,304 13 112 13 1,008 14 13 14 825 15 14 15 737 I 16 15 16 1614 17 16 I 17 534 ' 18 17 I 18 500 19 18 1 19 1430 1 20 19 lI 20 1410 I 21 20 21 1336 ' 22 21 I22 269 23 22 123 276 I 24 23 I14 273 25 24 25 405 26 I 25 26 ' 149 27 126 ' 27 218 28 27 28 155 i 29 1 28 29 139 30 29 30 156 31 . 30 31 98 1 32 31 32 90 33 32 33 106 ' 34 33 34 76 I 35 34 35 66 36 35 36 I67 37 36 37 63 38 37 38 51 I 39 38 39 40 40 1 39 46 245 I -I' 109 Table 3b.Multifamily Water Use Distribution(Annual) I Sewer and NonSewer Use 90% I 10% 110 Table 3b.Commercial Water Use Distribution(Annual) Sewer and NonSewer Use 75% 25% 111 Table 3b.SF-Outside Water Use Distribution(Annual) BIN TGIMont #of Bills MFN MAX )- r Fro 1 1 0 1 675 0 2 1 12 2,851 0 3 2 1 3 4,272 i 0 li 4 3 4 4,291 0 5 4 15 14,497 0 6 5 I 4,474 0 I 16 ' 7 3434 0 ' 8 " 7 8 2,931 0 9 B 9 2,510 0 10 9 10 1,915 0 11 10 11 1,430 0 12 11 112 1,304 0 13 12 13 1,008 0 14 13 14 825 I 0 15 114 15 737 0 16 15 16 614 0 17 16 17 534 0 18 17 18 500 0 19 18 19 1 430 0 20 19 20 410 0 lI 21 _...I 20 21 336 I O 1122 21 122 269 0 123 ". 22 23 276 0 24 23 24 1273 0 25 24 25 405 0 26 25 26 149 0 27 . 26 27 1 218 0 28 27 28 155 . 0 29 28 29 139 1 0 30 29 ',130 1156 0 31 30 131 1 98 0 32 1 31 32 1 90 0 33 132 33 1106 0 134 33 34 176 0 35 34 35 I66 I 36 35 36 67 0 37 36 37 63 0 38 137 38 51 0 li 39 138 39 40 0 1'1 40 39 46 1 245 0 112 Table 3b.Irrig-Outside Water Use Distribution(Annual) BIN TGIMonth dot Bills MIN MAX Sewer Nonewerl 1 0 : S 1 675 0 2 1 2 I 2,851 0 3 2 3 4,272 0 , 4 3 : 4 4,291 0 5 4 I5 4497 0 6 5 6 4,474 0 7 6 7 3,434 0 18 7 8 2,931 0 • ' 9 6 9 2,510 10 10 9 10 1,915 1 0 11 i 10 11 1a730 0 12 li 11 12 1,304 0 L, 13 I12 13 1,008 0 14 13 I 14 825 0 !, 15 14 115 737 0 18 15 16 614 0 1 17 16 17 534 i 0 18 17 18 , 500 ' 0 19 18 19 j 430 0 20 19 120 410 10 21 20 i 21 336 I 0 22 21 122 1 269 : 0 23 22 23 276 0 124 23 24 1, 273 0 25 24 25 1405 ' 0 26 , 25 26 149 . 0 27 126 27 , 218 0 28 27 28 155 I 0 29 28 1 29 139 0 30 29 : 30 156 0 31 30 1 31 1 98 0 I 32 31 32 90 0 33 32 33 106 0 1134 33 34 76 0 135 34 35 66 0 36 I35 36 67 I • 37 136 ' 37 63 0 38 ' 37 38 51 0 39 38 39 40 0 • 40 139 46 245 0 II I 113 Table 4. Revenue Requirements Annual Base Projections Cost Component 1994/95 Growth % 1995/96 1996/97 1997/98 Revenue 3,913,880 0.0% ! $3,913,880! $3,913,880 $3,913,880 Requirements From Rates Direct Short-Ruh$391,388 0.0% ' $391,388' $391,388! $391,388: Revenue Requirements • 114 Table 5. Price Elasticities Long-Run Short-Run Elasticity Single Family Elasticity Price % of OO Default User Class Elasticity Long-Run Response 0 User Specified Single FamihtEFAULt 1st Year 100% Single Family Irrigation -0.40 2nd Year 0% Property Values f r Default Calculation Multifamily 0.00 3rd Year I 0% Low Value I 31% Commercial L -0.25 4th Year 0% Medium Vah1S6% SF - Outside 1 -0.32 Other 10%1 High Value 33%I Years Irrig - Outside -0.40 Total 100% Total 100% 115 Table 6. Fixed Charges (Single Family) Fixed Charge $/Month Meter Size 1994/95 1995/96 1996/97 1997/98 5/8" .11.65 11 65 $0.00 11.65 3/4 11.65 11.65 $0.00 11.65' 'I 2628 26.28, 0.00i $26.28 50.65' 0.65 $0.00 50.65' 2" .79.90 $79.90! $0.00, -.79.90 3" .157.90 $157.90'! 0.00 '.157.90 245.65 $245.65 0.00 245.65 6" 489.40 $489,40 $0.00 89.40 8" 781.90 $781.90' $0.00 781.90 10" .1123.15 112 .15 $0.00 '1MW i 12" $2,098.15 2 098.15 $0.00 ; 2 098.15 5/Account/Month 1 $1.90 $1.90 1 $0.00 $1.90 $/EMU/Month $9.751 I $9.751 ' $0.001 $9.75 116 Table 6. Fixed Charges (Irrigation) Fixed Charge $/Month Meter Size 1994/95 1995/96 1996/97 1997/98 5/8" $11.65 $11.65 $0.00 11.651 3/4" $11.65 $11.65 $0.00 11.65' 1" $26.28 $26,28 0.00 26.28 1.5" $50.65 $50.65 i 0.00 50.65 1 2" 1 $79.90 $79.90 $0.00 79.90. 3" $157.90 _$157.90� $0.00 157.90': 4" $245.65 $245.65 $0.00 245.65 6" $489.40 $489.40 $0.00 489.40, 8" $781.90 $781.90 $0.00 781.90' 10" $1,123.15 $1.123.15 $0.00 1123.15 12" $2,098.15 $2,098.15 i $0.00, 2,098.15i $/Account/Month F $1.90 $1.90 $0.00 $1.90 $/EMU/Month $9.75 $9.751 j $0.00' $9.75 117 Table 6. Fixed Charges (Multifamily) Fixed Charge $/Month Meter Size 1994/95 1995/96 1996/97 1997/98 5/8" .31.151_1 31.15 $0.00 3115 3/4" 11.65. 1 $11.65 $0.00. 1165 1" 68.20 68.20 $0.00; 68.20 1.5" 50.65 $50.65 $0.00 50 5 2" 370.45', 370.45 $0.00 $370.45 3" .609.32'. 609.32 $0.00. $609.32 4" 813.10 813.10 $0.00 $813.10 6" 1 194.33 1.194.33, $0.00, 1 194.33 8" $1.90 $1.90 $0.00 1 1.90 10" 1.90 $1.90 $0.00 1.90 12" I $1.90' 1 $0.00 I $1.90 $/Account/Month $1.901 $1.901 1 $0.0 $1.901 $/EMU/Month i $9.75 $9.751 I $0.001 $9.75 118 Table 6. Fixed Charges (Commercial) Fixed Charge $/Month Meter Size 1994/95 1995/96 1996/97 1997/98 5/8" 1 $11.65 .11.65 0.00 11.65 3/4" $11.65 11.65 0.00 11.65 1" $26.28 .26.28 .0 • I 26.28 1.5" $50.65 .50 .5 .0.00 $50.651 2" $79.90 79.90 .0 00 $79.90 $157.90 $157.90, 0.00 $157.90 4" 1 $245.65 $245.85 0.00 $245.65 6" 1 1 $489.40 $489.40 0 00 $489.40 8" $781.90 $781.90 0.00 $781.90 10" 1.123.15 $1.123.15 • 00 $1.123.15 12" 2,098.15 $2,098.15 $O.00i $2,098.15 $/Account/Month $1.901 $1.90 1 $0.00 $1.90 $/EMU/Month $9.75 I $9.75 $0.00', $9.75 119 Table 6. Fixed Charges (SF -Outside) Fixed Charge $/Month Meter Size 1994/95 1995/96 1996/97 1997/98 5/8" .14.57 4.57 $0.001 I $14.57 3/4" .14 57 EitL1 $0.001 I $14.57 1" 32.86 32.86 $0.00 $32.86 1.5" 63.33 63.33 $0.00 $63.33 2" 99.90 99.90' $0.00 $99.90 3" � '.197.42 197.42 $0.00, $197.42 4" 30713! 307.131 $0.00 $307.13 !, 6" $611.88 611.88 $0.00 $611.88 8" 977.58 977.58 $0.00 $977.58 10" 1404.23 1404.23 $0.00 �$1.404.23 12" 2,623.23 2 623.23 $0.00 $2,623.23 $/Account/Month 1 $2.381 $2.38 I $0.00. $2.38 $/EMU/Month $12.19 $12.19 $0.00 $12.19 120 Table 6. Fixed Charges (Irrig - Outside) Fixed Charge $/Month Meter Size 1994/95 1995/96 1996/97 1997/98 5/8" $14.57i Elf $0.00 14.57 3/4" $14.57I EiirEu $0.00 14.57 1" 3 :6 3 .86 $0.00 $32.86' 1.5" 63.33 ' 63.33 $0.00 $63.331 2" • •.90 99.90 $0.00 $99.901 3" 197.42 $0.00 $197.42 4" 307.13 307.13 $0.00 $307.13 6" 611.88 611.88, $0.00 $611.88 8" 977.58 97 58: $0.00 977.58 10" ; 1 404.23 <1 404.23 $0.001 404.231 12" 1 ; 2 623.23 ;•2 623.23 $0.00 2,623.23, $/Account/Month $2.38 $2.381 I $0.00 1, $2.381 $/EMU/Month $12.19 1 $12.19 $0.00', $12.19 121 Table 7.Single Family Water and Sewer Prices(Annual) Year r Block TGs ' Price ElUnit Mln Max Water Sewer 11 1993194 1 0 7 $1.05 $1.55 2 7 14 $1.25 $1.55 1 14 25 $1.70 I $1.55 4 i 25 ! $1.70 $1.55 5 6 t I 11994/95 1 0 7 ' $1.05 $1.55 2 3 4 7 _ 14 $7.25 $1.55 14 25 $1.70 $1.55 25 $1.70 $1.55 5 $ I 11995/96 1 0 17 $1.19 $1.55 2 7 14 $1.19 $1.55 3 14 25 $1.19 $1.55 4 25 I $1.19 $1.55 5 16 199697 ' 1 I 0 I $3.52 $1.55 !, 2 1 7 14 $3.52 I $1.55 I 3 14 25 $3.52 $1.55 4 1 25 $3.52 $1.55 I5 C6 1199798 11 0 I7 $0.97 $1.55 2 7 I 14 $1.29 $1.55 ' 1 14 25 $2.26 $1.55 i 4 25 I $2.83 ' $1.55 6 122 Table 7.Irrigation Water and Sewer Prices(Annual) 11 Year Block TGs Price$Ainit Min I Max Water Sewer 1993/94 1 0 1 7 151.05 21 7 14 j $1.25 3 i 14 25 $1.70 4 25 $1.70 5 6 1 1994/95 1 1 0 7 $1.05 2 17 14 $1.25 3 114 25 $1.70 4 125 1 $1.70 5 I I6 1 199596 11 0 17 $1.19 1 2 7 1 14 $1.19 3 14 125 1 $1.19 4 ' 25 $1.19 11 5 16 1 1996/97 1 0 i. 7 $3.52 2 17 114 I $3.52 3 14 25 $3.52 . 4 25 $3.52 5 I6 1199798 1 0 7 $0.97 I ' 2 7 14 $1.29 3 14 25 $2.26 4 25 I $2.83 1 5 1 6 i I 123 Table 7.Multifamily Water and Sewer Prices(Annual) !Year l Block I TGs Price SIUnit aMin I Max Water 1 Sewer pi 1993/94 I 1 0 5125 151.55 ! 2 13 I !4 5 I ' 6 I 1994)95 1 0 $1.25 51.55 2 l I 3 4 5 6 I 11995/96 1 1 0 I $1.19 51.55 2 I 3 4 I 5 6 I I 1996/97 11 I p $3.52 $1.55 1 3 4 5 16 1I $3.26 ' 11997/98 1 I 0 ' $1.29 1 $1.55 � 2 i 3 I 5 6 I 124 Table 7.Commercial Water and Sewer Prices(Annual) :Year 1 Block TGs Price5/Unit 1 Min Max Water Sewer 1993194 1 0 $1.25 $1.55 2 3 1 4 1 I 5 I L6 1994195 1 0 $1.25 $1.55 1 2 I 3 - 5 6 11995196 1 10 I $1.19 I $1.55 1 2 ' 3 4 s I 6 1996197 1 1 0 $3.52 $1.55 2 I 3 4 1 i I 5 1 I 6 I 1 1 1997198 1 0 $1.29 $1.55 2 1 3 1 1 4 I 5 i 6 I I 125 Table 7.SF-Outside Water and Sewer Prices(Annual) (Year Block T TGs Price S/Unit Min Max Water Sewer 11993/94 1 0 7 $1.31 $1.94 2 7 14 41.56 $1.94 3 14 125 $2.13 I $1.94 4 25 $2.14 $1.94 5 6 1994/95 1 1 0 7 $1.31 I 57.81 2 7 14 $1.56 $1.94 3 114 25 E2.13 I $1.94 4 I 25 $2.13 1 51.94 5 6 1995/96 i 0 17 I $1.49 $1.94 2 7 14 $1.49 $1.94 3 : 14 I 25 1 91A9 $1.94 14 I25 I 41A9 $1.94 5 6 I I 1998/97 1 0 17 $4.40 i $1.94 2 ' 7 1 14 $4.40 $1.94 3 14 I 25 S4A0 $1.94 4 25 144.40 I $1.94 ' 5 I 6 , 11997/98 1 10 7 I $121 $1.94 2 I7 14 $1.61 $1.94 )3 1 14 25 I $2.83 $1.94 4 25 I $3.54 $1.94 1 5 6 J 126 Table 7.brig-Outside Water and Sewer Prices(Annual) (Near Block TGs Price Kind I Min I Max Water 1 Sewer 1993/94 1 10 7 $1.31 I 2 7 14 51.56 3 14 25 $2.13 4 25 $2.13 I 5 I 16 1994/95 1 10 7 I $1.31 2 ' 7 14 51.56 3 14 25 $2.13 4 25 $2.13 5 6 1 1995196 1 0 7 $1.49 2 7 1 14 51.49 3 14 25 $1.49 4 25 i 51.49 I 16 11996/97 1 p 7 54.40 2 7 14 54.40 3 14 25 $4A0 14 25 • $4A0 5 1 6 11997/98 1 0 1 7 $1.21 2 7 114 $1.61 3 14 i 25 $2.83 14 25 $3.54 5 i8 127 Table 8. Revenue Summary 1994/95 1995/96 1996/97 1997/98 Base Revenue Requirement 3 9 3 880 $3.913,880 .3 913 880 3 913 880'' Price Elastic Change $9.387 - 64 553 - 9 019' Adjusted Revenue Require > -913 880 $3,923,267 3 849 327 3 904 861 ' Revenues from Proposed Rates Fixe o thl ervice Charge eter ize dent $252,095 252 095 I $0, I $252.0951 Meter ize De ende t $2.065.712 2 065 712' ', $0' - $2,065.712' Subtotal $2,317,807 $2,317,807, $01 $2,317,807, Quantity Charge Single Family $525.352. .537968I ' $1,302.745 522171 Irrigation $244,368' .257 888 $493.703 229 682 Multifamily ! $237.555, .226152 $668,955 245157, Commercial $373.246( 357 886 8181.828. I 383 406 SF - Outside $166.032, 169 858 411 803 165 346 !Mg - Outside $49.519, .52 362 $100141 I $46,544, Subtotal $1,596.073 .1 602 115 3 859176, , 1 592 307 Total Rate Revenues $3,913,8801 .3 919 922 3 859 176 3 910114 Revenue Surplus (Shortfall) , $0 II ($3,345) $9,8491 $5,253 128 Table 9. Water Summary (Annual) Base Water Price ElasticPrice Elastic Projection Change Change TG TG % 1995/96 Single Family438.970 13.104 3.0°., Irrigation 1I 205.386 11,32T 5.5°. Multifamily 190.044 0'; 0.0°. Commercial 298 597 2.148 • 7° SF - Outside' ' 11 741 2.258I 2.0°, Irria - Outside 3 3 7 j 1.8151 5.4°,,I Totals 1 1 278 065 30,652' 2.4%' 1996/97 Single Family 438 970 -68.872 15.7%1 Irrigation 205 65.129 1 -31.7%1 Multifamily 190 044 0 0.0%'. Commercial 29: 597 -48.078 16.1%I SF - Outside 111 7411 -18,149 16,2%' Irrig - Outside ' 33,3271 -10.568 31.7° 'Totals 1,278,065 -210,796 -16.5%. 1997/98 ',Single Family 438.970 -13.164 -3.0°°I I "•ation 205.386 -10.408 -5.1°k. IMultifamil 190.044 0 Commercial 1 298.597 -1.383 -0.5° F - •utside 111,741 -2.811 -2.5°, �s - 33.327 -1.684 Totals 1,278,065 -29,451 -2.3% 129 Table 10. Water Change by Block (Single Family) (Year !lock! TGs Base New % Minfax % Sold % SoldChange 1995/9n 0 7 ' 62.5°. 61.9°. -0.9°. 2 EN 14 21.6°. 21.9°, 1.7°, 3 14 25 11.8°,, 13.6°, 15.4°.. ' 4 ®EM 4.2°, 56°.. 32.7° 6 MI — 1996/9 70, 7 62.5°°. 56 -9.6°. IMMOn1 14 2 6°, 16.6°, -22.8°. 3 14 25 11.8°. 9.0°. -23.3°, 6 1997/9: 1 0 0 62.5°. 62.8°, 0.5°. ©i714 21.6°, 213°. -1.1°. Q 14 25 i 11.8°. 10.3°. -12.3°... 4 25 4.2% 2.5% -39.3% 5 6 L 1 130 Table 10. Water Change by Block (Irrigation) Year Block T9s Base New % MinMax % Sold% SoldChange ' 1995/9Ma 0 7 63.5% 62.2% -2.0% Otani 21.7% 22.3% 3.1% 3 m® 11.5% 14.8% 29.2% 4 Fa= 3.4% 6.1% 81.7% WM= 6 � 1996/9 0 7 63.5% 49.8% -21.5%' fl 14 21.7% 12.3% -43.1% 3 Rin 11.5% 5.5% -52.2% 4 FTh 3.4% 0.6% -81.2% 5 6 fl 1997/9K 0 7 63.5°, 64.2°,, 1.2°. WE 7 14 i 21.7°, RIM -2 °.• 3 14 25 11.5°. 8.4°, -26.5° Q® 3 4°.. 1.1°, -6. °. 5 ! 6 =MN 131 Table 10. Water Change by Block (Multifamily) Year Block' :fps Base New % IMinMax % Sold% SoldChange 1995/9 0 1100.0°J10� 0.0°. 3 MIN WON 6 1996/9'fl '100.0%100.0% 0.0% 4 fl 5 I I 6 1997/9 1 0 I '100.0%100.0% 0.0%-]I 2 3 1 4 5 l 6 I 132 Table 10. Water Change by Block (Commercial) Year Block TCas Base New % MiniMax % Sold% SoldChange 1995/95 1 0 100.0°,'''100.7°0.. 0.7°, 2 3 4 6I 1996/9 n 0 100.0°, :3 9°. - 6 °, 2 Nia 3 n ME1111 4 5 Ell 6 I 1997/96 1 0 :100.0°,, 99.5°, 0.5°.. 2 �I 3 4 5 6 i 133 Table 10. Water Change by Block (SF - Outside) ,Year Block TGs Base New % I MinMaxl % Sold% SoldChange 1995/95 1 0 7 63.5% 63.0% -0.7% 2 7 14 1 21.7% 21.9% 1.0% 3 14 25 11.5% 12.8% 11.6% 4 25 3.4% 4.3% 27.3% 5 6 1996/9n 0 7 63.5°0 57.4°0 -9.6°. 2 7 14 21.7°. 16.4°, RWP2i 3 14 25 ''. 11.5°. 8. °o I.28.1° 4 Fa 5 3.4 .• -50.9° 6 1997/90 1 0 7 I 63.5% 63.7% 0.4% 2 ", 7 i 14 21.7% 21.5% -0.8% I 3 114 ' 25 . 11.5% 10.1% -11.6% 4 125 1 3.4% 2.2% -36.3% 5 6 !. 134 Table 10. Water Change by Block (Irrig -Outside) Year Block TQs Base New % MinMax % Sold% SoldChange 1995/95 1 0 7 63.5°0 62.2°. -2.1°. I 2 7 14 21.7° IFROI 2.9°, 3 14 25 1.5°. 14.8°, 29.3°. 4 25 3.4°, [M : 9°, 5 6 1996/9? 1 0 7 163.5°.. ,9 8°.. IFIEM 2 7 14 21.7° 12.3°, -43.1°. 1 3 14 25 11.5°.. 5.5°. -52.1°. 4 25 13 •0. 0.6°. -81.1°.. 5 6 1997/9f 63.5°. M °.• 2 it 14 21.7°. 21.1°. -2.5°. 3 m 25 KIM 8.4°, -26.5°., 4 25 3.4°, MirIM-66.1°. 1 6 I 135 Table 1. General Information Enter Customer Block Rates? Seasonal Rates Default Annual Rate of: Classes Single Family Yes O Annual Rates Account Growth 0.0%I Multiple Family Yes O Seasonal Rate, Commercial Yes No CPI Inflation iti. No i No Year Type? Base Year? i Water Unit? C Fiscal 1994/ 1995 O Ccf(100 Cubic Feet) 0 Calendar O TG (1,000 Gallons) File=c:1wateratelorange1orange.dat 01-Jun-97 136 Table 2. Water Accounts EMU # Meters Annual # Meters Meter Size Factor 1994/95 Growth % 1995/96 1996/97 1997/98 5/8" 1.0 0 0.0% 0 0 01'1, 3/4" 1.0 58.670 0.0% 58,670 58.670 58.670' 1" .5 429 0.0% 4291 429 429 1.5" 5.0 194 , 0.0% 1941, I 194 194 2" 8.0 290 0.0%, 290 290 290 3" 16.0 75 0.0%' 75i 75 , 75 4" 2 0 19 0.0% 19', 19 19 8" 80.0' 13 � 13' 13 13 8" 80.0 3' � 0.0% 3'' 3 3 10" 25.0 — 0' 1 0.0° 0 0 00 12" 15.0. 0 0.0% 0 0 0 Total Meters 59,693 59,693 59,693 59,6931 Total EMUs 65,598 65,598 65,598 65,598 137 Table 3a. Annual Water Use Base Projections 1994/95 Annual 1995/96 1996/97 1997/98 User Class TG Growth % TG TG TG Single Famil 6,477,334 0.0% 6,477,33. 6,477,33. 6,477,334 Multiple Family' 733,429' 0.0%1 733,429 733,429 733,429' Commercial 2,323,014, 0.0% 2,323,01 . 2,323,01 . 2,323,014' 0.0% _ 0.0% _ 0.0% _ Totals 9,533,7771 9,533,777 9,533,777 9,533,7771 138 Table 3b.Single Family Water Use Distribution(Annual) BIN TG/Month #of ills MIN l MAX Sewer , on-Sewer 1 0 I I675 2 1 I 1 2,851 3 2 3 4,272 4 , 3 4 4,291 5 14 5 14,497 6 'I5 6 4,474 I I6 7 'I 3,434 8 7 8 2,931 1I 9 I 8 9 i 2,510 10 19 10 1,915 I11 10 11 11,430 I 12 11 12 11,304 13 12 13 1,008 14 13 14 825 15 L 14 15 737 16 15 16 614 17 I 16 j 17 534 1 18 17 1 18 500 19 18 , 19 430 20 19 120 410 21 20 21 !, 336 22 21 22 J 269 23 22 23 1276 24 23 14 273 25 24 25 405 26 25 26 149 27 26 27 218 128 27 L 28 155 29 28 28 139 I30 29 30 156 31 30 31 98 32 31 132 90 133 32 133 106 34 33 34 j 76 35 34 , 35 166 136 35 36 I 67 37 36 37 63 1 1I 38 37 138 1, 51 I 139 38 139 140 40 39 ; 46 245 139 Table 3b.Multiple Family Water Use Distribution(Annual) BIN TGIMonth F #of Bills MIN MAX- Sewer Ikon-Sewer 1 0 1 675 2 ..! 1 2 2,851 3 2 3 4,272 4 3 4 4,291 5 4 5 14,497 6 5 6 14,474 7 6 17 3,434 ' I 7 ': 8 2,931 9 8 I 2,510 I 10 9 1 10 1,915 11 10 ' 11 1,430 12 ! 11 12 1,304 13 112 13 1,008 14 13 I 14 825 15 14 15 737 I 16 15 16 614 17 I 16 17 534 I 18 17 18 500 19 18 19 1430 20 19 20 1 410 21 20 21 I 336 I22 21 22 269 23 22 , 23 1276 ' 24 123 124 273 25 24 25 405 I 26 25 j 26 , 149 27 ''. 26 27 ' 218 28 27 28 155 I 29 28 29 139 30 29 30 156 31 30 31 98 ' 32 131 32 90 33 32 33 '1106 I 34 33 I 34 I76 35 34 35 166 36 35 , 36 167 I I " 37 36 37 163 I 38 37 38 151 ' 39 38 139 40 I 40 39 46 1245 I 140 Table 3b.Commercial Water Use Distribution(Annual) BIN TGIMonth #of ills Art MAX I, Sewer SonSewer 1 0 11 875 2 1 12 2,851 3 2 13 4,272 4 3 14 4,291 5 4 5 4,497 6 5 6 4,474 7 6 7 3,434 8 7 8 2,931 9 8 9 2,510 10 9 10 1,915 1 11 10 11 1,430 12 ! 11 12 1,304 13 12 113 1,008 1 14 13 14 825 I I 115 14 15 737 i 1 ', 16 15 : 16 6U 1 ' 17 16 117 534 18 17 I18 500 19 18 19 430 ' I 120 19 20 410 1 21 • 20 21 336 22 21 122 269 f 13 22 23 276 11 24 23 I 24 273 ' 25 24 125 ' 405 26 25 ' 26 149 27 26 127 218 28 27 ; 28 155 1 1 29 1 28I 29 139 30 29 130 156 31 ' 30 31 198 1 32 31 32 90 • 33 1 32 133 106 'I 34 i 33 134 1 76 1 35 : 34 II 35 66 36 , 35 ' 36 I67 37 36 37 63 1 38 I 37 38 51 39 138 39 40 40 j 39 46 245 141 Table 4. Revenue Requirements Annual Base Projections Cost Component 1994/95 Growth % 1995/96 1996/97 1997/98 Revenue $15,973,819 0.0% $15,973,819$15,973,819$15,973,819! Requirements From Rates Direct Short-Ru01,597,382 10.0% $1,597,382 $1,597,382 $1,597,382: Revenue Requirements 142 Table 5. Price Elasticities Long-Run Short-Run Elasticity Single Family Elasticity Price % of User Class Elasticity Long-Run Response 0 Default b User Specified Single Family Default 1st Year 100% i Single Family Multiple Family 0.00 2nd Year 0% Property Values f r Default Calculation Commercial -0.25 3rd Year 0% Low Value 28% 0.00 ! 4th Year I 0% Medium ValUS7% I 0.00 Other I 0% High Value 35%1 Years 0.00 I Total 100% Total 100%d I 143 Table 6. Fixed Charges (All Classes) Fixed Charge $/Month Meter Size 1994/95 1995/96 1996/97 1997/98 5/8" i 5.47 5.47 $0.00' =Ma 3/4" 5.47 MUM $0.00 5.47 1" $9.72 9 72 1 $0.00 9.72 1.5" 16.79 16.79 0.00, 1. 79 2" $25.28' 25.28 $0.00' 25.28 3" $47.92 47.92 i $0.00 47.92i 4" 73.39' $73.39, 0.00' 73.39 6" $144.14 .1 , -.14� $0.00I -.144.14 8" $229.04, '.229.04 0.00 ' 229 04 10" 356.39' 356.39 0.00' 356.39 12" $611.09 611.09 $0.00 $611.09, $/Account/Month $2.64 $2.641 $0.00, $2.64I $/EMU/Month $2.831 $2.82 $0.00 $2.83, 144 Table 7.Single Family Water and Sewer Prices(Annual) IYear Block TGs Price$!Unit i Min Max Water I Sewer 1 I.1993/94 1 ! 0 3 $1.19 $3.18 2 13 15 $1.19 $3.18 3 15 30 $1.79 4 30 1 $1.79 5 6 1 1994195 1 0 1 1 3 1 S1.19 $3.18 2 3 15 1 $1.19 $3.18 3 ' 15 30 $1.79 4 30 $1.79 5 8 1995/96 ! 1 I 0 3 $1.20 1 $3.18 2 1 3 15 $1.20 i $3.18 3 15 30 $1.20 1 4 30 $1.20 I 16 1996/97 1 0 3 $1.69 $3.18 2 3 1 15 $1.69 $3.18 3 15 30 $1.69 4 30 $1.69 5 6 ,:1997/98 1 0 3 $1.01 $3.18 2 3 15 1 $1.34 $3.18 3 15 30 $2.35 4 130 $2.94 5 I 6 145 Table 7.Multiple Family Water and Sewer Prices(Annual) Year Block 1 TGs Price$A1n8 IMin Max I Water Sewer 1993/94 1 0 l 3 I $1.19 $3.18 2 3 15 $1.19 $3.18 I 3 15 30 $1.19 $3.18 4 130 $1.19 $3.18 5 I 1994495 1 I 0 3 $1.19 $3.18 2 3 15 $1.19 $3.18 3 15 30 I $1.19 $3.18 4 30 $1.19 $3.18 5 I 6 1995(96 I 1 0 13 I $1.20 $3.18 12 3 ' 15 ; $1.20 $3.18 1 15 130 I $1.20 $3.18 4 30 1 $1.20 $3.18 15 16 11996)97 1 0 3 $1.69 I $3.18 2 3 15 $1.69 I $3.18 3 115 30 $1.69 I $3.18 - -- 4 ! 30 $1.69 $3.18 5 6 1997/98 1 0 3 l $1.01 $3.18 2 3 15 1 $1.34 $3.18 1, 3 115 30 $1.34 $3.18 4 30 $1.34 $3.18 , 6 146 Table 7.Commercial Water and Sewer Prices(Annual) I Year Block TGs Price Slunk Min 1 Max Water d Sewer I 1993N4 1 0 3 51.19 $3.18 2 3 15 51.19 $3.18 3 15 30 $1.19 $3.18 4 30 1 $1.19 153.18 I 5 6 .1994195 1 1 0 1 3 I $1.19 j $3.18 III. 2 1 3 115 I $1.19 153.18 3 i 15 130 I $1.19 153.18 4 1 36 $1.19 $3.18 5 16 1 I 1995196 1 1 0 3 I $1.20 I $3.18 2 3 15 I $1.20 I $3.18 3 i15 I30 1 $1.20 $3.18 II 4 130 1 $1.20 I $3.18 5 1 I6 1 I [1996197 1 1 1 0 13 I 51.69 1 $3.18 1 2 3 15 1 $1.69 I $3.18 3 15 130 1 $1.69 153.18 I� 4 130 I I $1.69 53.18 5 I 6 i III 1 1997198 2 j 0 3 1 $1.01 $3.18 2 i3 I15 IS7.34 I, E3.18 3 15 1 30 I $1.34 53.18 1 4 30 1 $1.34 53.18 15 I, I I I 147 Table 8. Revenue Summary 1994/95 1995/96 1996/97 1997/98 Base Revenue Repuir m nt 15 973 81 1 15 837 8 15 973 819 15 9 1837 g Price Elastic Chai a SO 68 115 14171 - 63 016 Ad'usted Revenue Re ui wi n 16 041 934 15 95971 M9ApAt5A Revenues from Proposed Rates Fixed_6A i 1_0/ ervice Cha Meter Size independent 1 8� 9 q 1 8 01y�4 :Meter Siz p ndent $2.227.708 2$ 2 p --g01 1 891 074 subtotal $ —�_ So z z27 708�i 4 •118 782 4 118 782 Quantity Charge 118 782 iSinple Family --� ---�_ 8 217 869 I 8 262 240� 10 904 226 8 028 093 ' Multiple F 872 7811 880 115 1 39 4951 900 925 Commercial 764 387 I 786 0181 820 610i 2 829 719' Subtotal 11 855 037 t1,22flaa 15 964 331 11 758 737: Total Rate Revenues 15 973 819 16 047155; 15 964 331 15 877 519 Revenue Surplus (Shortfall) $0 1 $5,2211 $5,1601 j ($33,284)I 148 Table 9. Water Summary (Annual) Base Water Price ElasticPrice Elastic Projection Change Change TG TG °k 1995/96 (Single Family 6 477 4 407.866 ' 6.3°.•I (Multi le Fa it 733 29 0 0.0°Y Commercial ! 2 323 0 -1.332 -0.1°b Totals 9,533,777 406,534 4.3%1 1996/97 Sinale Family 6.477.334 -25.129, 1---0.Thin M tide Fa il 733.429 0 0.0% Co mercial 2.323.014, -62.298 Totals 19,533,777 -87,427 I -0.9%1 1997/98 in•leFamil, 6.477.3341 -358.411 -5.5% ,� ' 7$ it 733 9I 0 0.0%. Commercial, 2 323 014' -17.693 -0.8% Totals 9 533 777 -376104 149 Table 10. Water Change by Block (Single Family) Year Block %T s Base New CC�� I Mint/lax % Sold% SoldChange 1995/9n 0 3 33.8°, 3.9°, 0.1°, fa© 15 53.1°, 53.2°, 0.2°. 3 In 30 11.6°. 6.0°. 38.5°. f�_ 1.6°, 3.3° 10.1°.'. 6 ai' 1996/9f 1 in 3 33.8°. 33.7°0 -0.4°. fl©fl 53.1°. 51.9°4, -2.2° on 30 11.6°. El 6.1°. 4 30 1.6°. 1.8°. �� 6 MI MEM 1997/9n 0 3 33.8% 33.8% 0.1% 2 3 15 53.1% 52.3% -1.3% 3 E 30 11.6% 8.0% -30.8% 4 30 I 1.6% 0.3% -82.3% 6 fl 150 Table 10. Water Change by Block (Multiple Family) Year Block TQs Base New % Minllax % Sold% SoldChange 1995/91p 1 0 3 33.8% 33.8% 0.0% 2 3 15 53.1% 53.1% 0.0% 3 15 30 11.6% 11.6% 0.0% 4 30 1.6% 1.6% 0.0% 6 1996/9 1 0 13 P1 33.8°,, 0.0° 2 3 15 53.1°, 53.1°. 0.0°, 3 15 30 11.6°. 6°, 0.0°. 4 30 Ems 1.6°, 0.0°, 5 6 EIM 1997/9n 0 3 33.8°4. 33.8°. 0.09.. © 15 53. °, @MI 0.0°, '. OM 30 11.6°. 11.6°, 0.0°, 4 30 1.6°, 1.6°. 0.0°5 MN 151 Table 10. Water Change by Block (Commercial) Year Block TQs Base New % MiniMax % Sold% SoldChange 1995/96 1 0 3 33.8% 33.8% 0.0% 2 r 3 15 53.1% 53.0% -0.1% 3 ®! 30 11.6% 11.5% -0.1% 4 130 1.6% 1.6% -0.3% 5 6 1996/9n 0 3 33.8° ran -0.5°. 2 fl15 53.1°. 51.5°. -2.9°. 3 15 30 11.6°,, 10.8°, -6.5°, 4 30 1.6°. n-13.5°' 5 6 =NM 1997/9i3 1 1 0 3 33.8°. i33.8°., 1.0°. 2 13 15 53.1°. 52.6°. -0.9°, 3 15 30 11.6°. 11.3°y -2.0°A 4 30 1.6° ECM -4.2°. 5 6 152 Table 1. General Information Enter Customer Block Rates? 1 Seasonal Rates? Default Annual Rate of: Classes Single Famil Yes I b Annual Rates Account Growth,0 Multiple Family Yes C Seasonal Rates Commercial . Yes I Campgmd/ 1 CPI Inflation 10.0% Yes I No 1 No i I k5Year Type? I ' Base Year? Water Unit? Fiscal lC Ccf(100 Cubic Feet) I I 1994/ 1995 O Calendar 0 TG (1,000 Gallons) 97J 1- un- File=c:lwaterate\porto\porto_in.dat 0 153 Table 2. Water Accounts (Single Family) —1 Meter Size EMU # Meters Annual # Meters Factor 1994/95 Growth % 1995/96 1996/97 1997/981 5/8" i 1.01 ILIUM 0.0% 16.885 I 1 G 885 _ 16.88 3/4" n 0.0% 1" 25 01 0 --1 0 O.0% 0 —� 1 12„7 I 8.0I 0 r 0.0% O1 0� 0 3" 1 A U 0' 0.0% 0 I1�'p�0 1 �, 8'�I 1 80 0 I Ol 0.0% 0, ,_.O. r 1O° 111s o 1 0 0.0% 0f o 12" 215.0 0 0.0% 01 U1 Total Meters 1 16,8851 I 16,88511 16,885 i 16,8851 Total EMUs i 16,885 1 8865 1 16,81/3 i 16,8851 Fixed charges vary by class? 1 O No O. Yes 154 Table 2. Water Accounts (Multiple Family) EMU # Meters Annual # Meters Meter Size Factor 1994/95 Growth % 1995/96 1996/97 1997/98 5/8" 1.01 1.89 1 011 1,89 1.890 1,89 3/4" Mir 0.0% 0 1" 2.5 0.0°� 0, 1.5" 5.01 0.0%' 0 2" 8.0' 0.0%j , I0 3" 16.00.0%' 0', 4" 25.0 1 0.0% 0 6" 50 0 0.0%1 0 ' i 8" 80 0 0.0% 0 0 10" 15.0 0.0% i 0 0 12" 15.0 0.0% 11 0 0 Total Meters 1,890 1,890 1,890i ' 1.890 Total EMUs 1,890 1,890 1,890 1,890 Fixed charges vary by class? O No C Yes 155 Table 2. Water Accounts (Commercial) EMU # Meters Annual # Meters Meter Size Factor 1994/95 Growth % 1995/96 1996/97 1997/98 5/8" 1.0 1 58 0.0%d. 580 580 I 58 I 3/4" 1.0 0.0% 0 0, ----7 1" 2.5 0.0% 0 0 1.5" 5.0 0.0% 0 0' F 2" I ,8.01 0.0% 0 0 3" 16.0I 0.0% 0 01 4" 25.0 0.0% 0 0 6" 50.0 0.0% 0 0, 8" 80.0' 0.0%' 0 0' 10" 115.01 0.0%! 0 0'. 12" 215.0 0.0% 01---- ) i Total Meters 1 5801 580'' 580 580' Total EMUs 580 580 1 5801 580 Fixed charges vary by clals? C No OO Yes 156 Table 2. Water Accounts (Campgmd/RV) EMU # Meters Annual # Meters % 8 Meter Size Factor 1994/95 Growth 1995/96 1996/97 1997/9 Sl8" 1.01 72 0.0°, 727 7271 72 3/." 1.0 0.0°,, 0 01 1" 2.51 0.0°, 01 01 15" 5.0 0.0°, 0 0, 2" 8.0, 0.0°., 0 0 3" 16.0 0.0°, 0. 0 4" 25. 0.0° 0 0'. 6" 50.0 0 0° 0 01 8" 80.0 0.0° 01 0' 10" 115.0 00° 0I 01 12" 121 5.0 i 0.0% 0 0, Total Meters 727 7271 7271 r 727i Total EMUs 7271 [ 727, 727' 7271 Fixed charges vary by class? ONo ® Yes 157 Table 3a. Annual Water Use Base Projections 1994/95 Annual 1995/96 1996/97 1997/98 User Class TG Growth % TG TG TG I Single Famil , I 724,884'. 1 0.0%1 724,884 ' 724,884 I lMultiple Fa ilyl 56,3761 1 0 O% 56,376 56,376 56,3761 11 � i 0.0%Commercial I 112,812 112,812 112,812. 112,8121 1ICampgmd/RM 1 9,6961 1 0.0% 9,696. 9,696 9,696 r 1 0 4 Totals 903,7681 903,7681 903,7681 903,7681 I 158 Table 3b.Single Family Water Use Distribution(Annual) BIN TG/Month got Bills !I MIN MAX- Sewer Non-Sewer • 11 li 0 11 675 10 ' 2 1 2 2,851 0 3 2 ' 3 4,272 0 !. ' 4 3 4 4,291 0 5 4 1 5 4,497 0 ' 6 5 I6 4,474 10 7 ' 6 17 3,434 0 8 7 8 2,931 0 9 18 , 9 2,510 0 10 9 10 1,915 0 I 11 10 11 1,430 I 0 12 11 I12 1,304 0 13 ! 12 i 13 1,008 0 14 ' 13 i 14 825 0 15 14 ' 15 737 0 16 15 16 614 0 • 17 ', 16 17 534 0 18 17 18 500 ! 0 19 18 ' 19 430 0 20 19 ' 20 1410 0 .21 20 21 1336 0 22 21 22 1269 0 I 23 22 23 ! 276 0 I 24 !, 23 24 273 0 25 24 25 1403 • 0 ! 26 25 26 149 ! 0 I 27 26 27 218 0 28 27 I 28 155 0 I29 28 29 139 0 130 29 30 156 0 31 30 31 98 0 32 31 32 ' 90 0 33 12 33 106 0 ' 34 33 34 76 0 35 34 35 ! 66 !. 0 36 35 i 36 67 ; 0 37 36 ! 37 83 ' 0 38 i37 I38 51 0 39 38 I39 40 0 , 40 39 I46 245 I 159 Table 3b.Multiple Family Water Use Distribution(Annual) SIN TG/Month 0of Bills MIN MAA Sewer Non-Sewer 1 0 I1 675 0 12 1 2 ' 2,851 1 0 3 2 1 3 4,272 I0 ' 4 3 4 4,291 10 5 4 5 4,497 0 6 5 6 4,474 0 7 6 7 3,434 0 8 7 8 2,931 0 9 8 Le 2,510 0 10 i9 10 1,915 0 11 I 10 11 1,430 0 12 11 12 1,304 0 13 12 13 1,008 0 14 13 14 1825 ' 0 15 14 15 737 0 1 16 15 16 I 614 1 0 17 : 16 17 1534 I 0 18 17 1 18 500 0 19 18 19 430 0 li 20 19 20 410 0 21 20 ' 21 1 336 I 0 22 21 22 269 ' 0 23 22 123 276 0 24 23 I24 273 0 25 24 r 25 405 0 i 26 : 25 26 149 0 27 26 ' 27 218 0 28 27 28 155 0 29 28 29 1139 0 30 29 30 156 0 1 31 30 31 1 98 1 0 32 , 31 32 I 90 I 0 33 1 32 33 106 ; 0 34 133 34 76 0 35 134 35 166 0 36 35 36 167 0 37 1 36 37 63 0 38 37 38 1 51 0 39 38 39 I 40 0 40 39 46 245 0 160 Table 3b.Commercial Water Use Distribution(Annual) TGIMonth #of ills BIN MIN MAr -- Sevier on-Sewer i 1 1 0 11 675 112 1 1 I2 2,851 3 ' 2 3 4,272 4 3 4 4,291 5 4 5 1 4,497 6 ' 5 6 4,474 7 16 7 3,434 8 I7 t8 12,931 9 8 1 9 1 2,510 10 9 j 10 1,915 j 1 11 10 11 1,430 12 111 12 1,304 13 12 113 1,008 ', 14 13 j 14 825 15 1 14 '�: 15 737 I ' 16 115 16 1 614 17 1 16 17 ' 534 1 18 17 1 18 500 I 1 19 18 19 430 20 19 1 20 410 21 ' 20 1 21 1336 122 21 122 ' 269 23 122 23 276 24 I 23 24 273 25 24 25 405 26 125 26 1 149 27 j 26 27 1218 128 27 128 1155 ' 29 28 1 29 139 30 29 130 156 31 30 31 98 32 31 32 90 133 32 33 11106 134 33 34 76 35 1 34 35 66 1 36 35 1.36 67 37 36 I37 63 38 37 38 51 I 39 38 39 40 40 39 46 1245 161 Table 3h.Campgmd/RV Water Use Distribution(Annual) BIN TGGlMo_nm1I�,— dot Bills Erall i. 'on .r ir0 1 675 2 1 2 2,851 3 2 3 ' 4,272 4 3 5 4 6 5 6 4,474 7 6 7 3434 8 7 ' 8 2,991 9 8 9 I 2,510 10 9 10 11,915 11 10 1 11 ' 1,430 12 11 12 1,304 13 12 13 1,008 I 14 13 14 825 15 14 15 737 ' 16 i15 16 lI 614 17 ' 16 17 1534 18 17 1 18 i 500 19 18 19 ' 430 20 19 20 410 21 20 21 336 22 121 22 269 23 • 22 ' 23 278 ; 1 24 ' 23 24 273 25 24 . 25 405 26 25 126 149 27 26 1 27 218 28 27 28 155 29 ' 28 29 139 30 29 , 30 156 31 30 31 98 31 131 32 90 33 32 33 106 34 33 34 76 35 34 35 86 ' , 36 37 136 37 63 38 37 38 51 39 138 39 40 40 139 146 , 245 162 Table 4. Revenue Requirements Annual Base Projections Cost Component 1994/95 Growth % 1995/96 1996/97 1997/98 Revenue $3,538,354 0.0% $3,538,354 $3,538,354 $3,538,354 Requirements From Rates Direct Short-Run$353,835! 0.0% j $353,835 $353,835 $353,835II Revenue Requirements 163 Table 5. Price Elasticities Long-Run Short-Run Elasticity Single Family Elast city Price % of 1 Default User Class Elasticity Long-Run Response 0 User Specified Single FamilyLl 1st Year 100% Single Family Multiple Family 0.00 2nd Year 0% Property Values f•r Default Calculatio Commercial -0.25 3rd Year 0% Low Value 11% Campgmd/RV 0.00 4th Year 0°/1 Medium Valdc64% 0.00 Other 0% High Value 35%, Years 0.00 Total 100% Total 100% 164 Table 6. Fixed Charges (Single Family) Fixed Charge $/Month Meter Size 1994/95 1995/96 1996/97 1997/98 5/8" 17.25' 7.25 0.00 7.25 7.7.2525 77..25 025 0.000 ilisuFg=rn 1 1.5" EW1 7.25 0.00 25 2" 7.25 7.25 0.00 E� g" MU 7.25 , $0.001 EiEg 4" 7 25 7.25 ! 0.00 7.25 6" $7.251 25 0.00 E� 8" $7.25 7.25 0.00 7.25 10" 7.25 7 5 0.00 S 12" $7.251 E 7.25 0.00 7.25 5/Account/Month $7.25 1 $7.25 1 $0.00 $7.251 5/EMU/Month I $0.00 1 $0.00 $0.00', $0.00 165 Table 6. Fixed Charges (Multiple Family) Fixed Charge $/Month Meter Size 1994/95 1995/96 1996/97 1997/98 1 5— / $7.251 7.25' $0.001 7.251 3/4" $7.25 7.25 0.00 7.25 1" 1 $7.25 7.25 0.00 $7.251 1.5" I $7.251 7.25 1 0.00 $7.251 2" 7.250.00' $7.251 4" 7,25 7 5 .0.00'.. 7.25,, $7.25 7 5� 0.00 $7.25. j-6" 7.25 7.2 0.00 $7.25'. $" $7,2511 $7.25 .0.00 _IL, 10" $7.25 7.25 12" j $7.25) WW1 $000, $7.25 5/Account/Month $7.25 $7.251 $0.00' $7.25 $/EMU/Month $0.001 I $0.00 $0.00. $0.001 166 Table 6. Fixed Charges (Commercial) Fixed Charge $/Month Meter Size 1994/95 1995/96 1996/97 1997/98 ' 5/8" rgi 7.25 $0.00 7 25' 3/4" MENA 7.25 $0.00 7.25 1" 7 25' 5 $0.00 7.251 1.5" 7.2 7.25 $0.00 7.25 ' 2" iillENEUi 7.25 $0.00 7.25 3" .7.25 7.25 $0.00 7 4" $7.25; 7.25 $0.00 7.25 6" $7.25 7.25 $0,00, 7.25 8" $7.25; 7.25 $0.00 7.25 10" $7.25 7.25 $0.00 7.25 12" $7.25 7.25 $0.00 $7.251 $/Account/Month $7.251 $7.25 $0.00 $7.251 $/EMU/Month $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.001 167 Table 6. Fixed Charges (Campgmd/RV) Fixed Charge $/Month Meter Size 1994/95 1995/96 1996/97 1997/98 5/8" 1 7.25 7.25 0.00 7.25 3/4" 7.25 7.25 0.00 7.25 1" 7.25 7.25 0.00 7.25 1.5" 7.25 5 ' 00 7.25 2" 7.25 7.25 ! 0.00 $7.25; 3" 7.25 7.25': ! 0.00 1 7.25 4" 7.25 7. 5 0.00 7.25 6" .25 7.25': $0.001 25 8" 7.25 5 $0.00' I 7.25 10" 7.25 7.25 $0.00 $7.25! 12" 7.25 7.25 $0.001 $7.25' 6/Account/Month $7.25 $7.25' $0.00 $7.25 $/EMU/Month $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 168 Table 7.Single Family Water and Sewer Prices(Annual) 1 i ' Year Block TGS Price SlUnk Min Max Water Sewer 1993/94 1 0 2 $0.75 2 2 4 $2.10 $3.25 3 I 4 52.50 $3.25 � 4 5 6 199495 1 0 r 2 $0.75 2 2 4 52.10 $3.25 3 4 $2.50 $3.25 , 4 ' 5 8 199596 1 0 2 $1.98 I $3.25 2 2 $1.98 $3.25 3 4 5 I ' 16 1 1 $1.68 1996/97 1 10 2 $3.97 $3.25 I 2 2 $3.97 $3.25 3 , I 4 6 6 1199798 1 '. 0 7 $1.53 $3.25 ' 2 7 14 $2.03 $325 ' 3 14 i 25 $3.55 $325 4 25 1 $4.44 I $3.25 5 6 I 169 Table 7.Multiple Family Water and Sewer Prices(Annual) !Year Block 1 TGs Price 5/Unit III Min Max Water Sewer 1993/94 1 0 I $1.60 I I 2 2 $1.60 $3.25 ', 3 4 5 6 II 1994N5 1 0 I $1.60 2 2 I $1.60 $3.25 3 4 5 I 6 1995/96 1 0 2 $1.98 $3.25 2 12 $1.98 $3.25 , 3 I 4 5 , I ' 6 ) '1996197 1 0 2 $3.97 $3.25 2 2 , $3.97 $3.25 3 4 5 6 I 1997198 1 0 2 I $2.03 $3.25 2 2 $2.03 $3.25 3 4 5 I I 6 I 170 Table 7.Commercial Water and Sewer Prices(Annual) ;Year Block TGs I Price ISIUnit Min Max Water i Sewer 1993/94 1 1 0 2 50.75 2 11 2 4 152.10 1 53.25 3 4 1 $2.50 ' 53.25 4 5 1 I 6 199495 1 ' 0 12 50.75 I 2 I2 14 $2.10 $325 3 4 52.50 $3.25 4 5 I 6 1995/96 1 I 0 1 2 51.98 53.25 2 2 1 51.98 53.25 3 1 1 4 1 1 5 6 199697 1 10 2 53.97 53.25 , 2 2 53.97 $3.25 3 4 , 5 6 I I.199798 1 0 2 $2.03 153.25 2 2 52.03 53.25 3 4 5 6 I 171 Table 7.CampgmalRV Water and Sewer Prices(Annual) ' Year - Block TGf5 Price 5/Unit ! 1 Min Max Water 11 Sewer •1993194 1 0 I $1.60 12 2 1 1 $1.60 $3.25 I3 __—_ 1 4 5 6 1994195 ' 1 0 2 I $1.60 2 2 $1.60 $3.25 3 1 ' 4 5 1 6 I 1995196 1 I 2 $1.98 $3.25 2 ] 2 $1.98 $3.25 3 I 4 I 1 5 6 1996197 1 0 2 $3.97 $3.25 2 2 $3.97 $3.25 3 I 4 5 6 1997198 1 0 12 $2.03 $3.25 2 2 $2.03 $3.25 3 I 4 5 6 l I 172 Table 8. Revenue Summary 1994/95 1995/96 1996/97 1997/98 Base Revenue Requirement 3 538 354 3 538 3 4 $3,538.354 $3.538.354 Price Elastic Change 0 1 130 -$5.766 $611 Adjusted Revenue Require -ii 538 354 3 539 484 $3,532,588 $3,538,965 Revenues from Proposed Rates Fixed Monthly Service Ch e Meter Size Independent 747 130 $1,747.134 0 1 747 134 Meter Size Dependent 0 $0 0 0 Subtotal 1 1 747134' $1,747,134 ' 0 1 747134 Qua ti Char.e OrdrirItal. 1 $1.458.519 1 437 089 $2.846.930 ' $1.425.288 Elrifff I 90 202 111 624 $223,813 I $114,443 Commercial 226 986 7 265 $420,260 ' 232 4481 Campamd/RV 15 514 .19198 $38.493 19 683 I Subtotal 1 791 220 i 1 795 177 CI $3.529,495, $1.791.862 Total Rate Revenues 1 3 538 354 3 542 311 $3,529,4951 $3,538,996 Revenue Surplus (Shortfall) $0 $2,827 ($3,093) $311 173 Table 9. Water Summary (Annual) Base Water Price ElasticPrice Elastic Projection Change Change TG TG % 1995/96 in le amill ' 724.884! 919 0.1° Multi le Fa iIy 56.376 0 I 0.0% Commercial 112.812 1.968 1 1.7%. (Cam md/ 9.696 0 0.00 ,61 i 'Totals 903,768 ! 2,887 0.3%—~— 1996/97 'Single Family 7 884 I -7.773 1.1°.I Multiple Famil 56 376 01 0.0°.. Commercial 112 812 6.9531 -6 2°,. Campgmd/RV' 9 696 01 0.0°, Totals 903 768' -14,726 -1.6% 1997/98 in•le F. ail 724.884 -133 0.0% Multi•le Fa il' 56.376 0 0.0% Com ercial 112,8121 1.695 1.5% Cam• •and/-• 9.696 1 0 0.0%' Totals 903,768 1,562 0.2% 174 Table 10. Water Change by Block (Single Family) Year lock TOs Base New % MinMax % Sold% SoldChange 1995/9n 0 2 MOM - 2 © 76.6°.. 7.4° 1.0°, 4 Mil5 6 NM 1996/9a 0 Fa 23.,°° Fain -2.9°, 3 6.6°., = -0.5°, 45 6 1997/9: 1 0 7 ' 63.5% 63.3% -0.3% i7 4 21.7% 22.0% 1.3% j fl 14 25 11.5% 11.4% -0.7% 4 = 3.4% 3.3% -1.6% 56 175 Table 10. Water Change by Block (Multiple Family) Year Block TQs Base New % MinlNlax % Sold% SoldChange 1995/9n 0 © 23.4°,, 23.4°, 0.0°, 2 ' 2 76.6°, 76.6°., 0.0°, 4 MN 5 == 6 1996/97 1 0 12 23.4% 23.4% 0.0% 2 12 76.6% 76.6% 0.0% 4 5 6I 1997/9n 0 fi 23.4% 23.4% 0.0% fl© 76.6% 76.6% 0.0% awl 4Ell 5 I 6 == 176 Table 10. Water Change by Block (Commercial) Year Block T?s Base New % MinlMax % Sold% SoldChange 1 1995/9. 0 © 23.4° F . -2.1°,, 2 ©ilni 76.6°.. 8.9°. 2.9°,, 3 MI I 5 NEM�'' 6 1996/97 1 0 2 23.4°, 8°.. -2.7°,, 2 2 76.6°. 71.1% -7.2°. 3 4 I5 I 6 1997/93 1 0 2 .4°. 22.9°. FM 2 2 76.6°., 7:.6°. 2.6°. 43 5 r 6 j 177 Table 10. Water Change by Block (Campgmd/RV) Year Block TGs Base New % MinMax1 % Sold % SoldChange 1995/9n 0 2 23.4°.. .4°,, 0.0°. 32 2 76.61= 0.0°A 4 Eli 5 flfl ' MIN 1996/saj 0 2 23.4°. 23.4°, 0.0°, 2 © 76.6°.. 76.6°.. 0.0°, 4 INE 6 1997/93fill 0 2 23.4° 23.4° 0.0° 2 2 76.6° 76.6° 0.0° 3 4 5 6 178 Table 1. General Information Enter Custome Block Rates? Seasonal Rates Default Annual Rate of: Classes Single Famif, O Annual Rates Yes Account Growth 0.0% Multiple Fami y Yes O Seasonal Rat s Commercial Yes Irrigation Yes CPI Inflation 0.0%I No No Year Type? I Base Year? Water Unit? Fiscal 1994/ 1995 0 Ccf(100 Cubic Feet) O Calendar O. TG (1,000 Gallons) File=c: wateratelsanfordlsfordin.dat 04-Jun-97 179 Table 2. Water Accounts EMU # Meters Annual # Meters Meter Size Factor 1994/95 Growth % 1995/96 1996/97 1997/98 5/8" 1.0 01 0.0°° 0 0 0 3/4" 1.0 9.181' ° 9.181 9.181 9.181 1" 2.0 143. 0.0° 143 143, 143 .5— 4.0 85' 0.0%' 85 85 85 2" 6.0 144 0.0% 144 144 144 3" 20.0' 3 0.0° ' 3 3 I 3 4" 0 0.0° 12 12 12 6" 80.0 13 0.0° 13 13 I 13 8" 20.0 i 12 0.0° 12 12 12 10" 50.0, j 2; 0.0% 21 21 2 12" 00.0 01 0.0%1 1 0 0 0 Total Meters 9,595 9,595 9,5951 9,5951 Total EMUs 14,051 14,051 14,051 I 14,051' ' 180 Table 3a. Annual Water Use Base Projections 1994/95 Annual 1995/96 1996/97 1997/98 User Class TG Growth % TG TG TG Single Family 654,446 0.0%I,I 695,262 695,262 695,262 Multiple Family 244,881 0.0%' 518,272 518,272 518,272 Commercial 621,234 0.0%: 635,152i 635,152 635,152 Irrigation 9,642 0.0% 246,943 246,943 246,943 0.0% 0.0% Totals 1,530,203 2,095,629 2,095,629 2,095,629 181 • Table 3b.Single Family Water Use Distribution(Annual) I TGIM�'����]�onth I #of Bills Illia�aYal•-•f`� 'on ewer 1 I 0 1 675 2 — 1 2 2,851 3 I 3 4,272 4 3 4 4,291 5 ' 4 5 4,497 6 5 6 4,474 7 6 7 3,434 III 8 17 I8 I. 2,931 9 8 9 2,510 10 9 ll 10 1,915 11 10 11 1,430 I12 I11 12 1,304 13 ' 12 13 1,008 114 ' 1a 14 825 15 14 1 15 , 737 16 15 ' 16 614 17 16 17 534 18 17 18 500 19 18 119 430I, 20 1 19 20 410 21 20 21 336 ' 22 21 1 22 269 23 22 I23 276 24 23 24 273 25 1 24 : 25 405 26 ' 25 28 149 127 26 27 218 28 27 28 155 I 29 28 ! 29 139 30 29 30 156 31 30 31 98 I 32 31 32 90 33 . 32 33 106 34 33 34 76 35 34 35 66 36 35 36 67 37 36 37 63 38 37 38 51 39 38 39 40 40 139 46 245 182 Table 3b.Multiple Family Water Use Distribution(Annual) BIN D TGIMorth it of ills 9 MIN MAX Sewer on-Sewer ! 1 0 1 675 2 ! 1 2 2,851 3 2 3 4,272 4 3 4 , 4,291 15 4 5 4,497 1 '. 6 5 6 4,474 7 6 7 3,434 8 7 1 8 2,931 1 9 8 9 2,510 1 10 ' 9 10 1,915 1 11 10 11 , 1,430 12 11 12 ' 1,304 j 13 12 i 13 1,008 1 14 13 1 14 825 15 14 ! 15 737 16 I 15 j16 614 ' 17 ; 16 1 17 1 534 I 18 ! 17 18 500 19 11s 19 430 20 119 I20 !. 410 !. 21 20 ' 21 !., 336 1 22 21 ' 22 ! 269 23 ! 22 23 !. 276 1 '. 24 23 24 273 ! 25 1 24 25 ' 465 1 1 26 25 26 149 1 27 26 127 218 128 27 28 155 29 , 28 29 139 30 29 130 156 ! 31 30 1 31 98 32 31 32 90 133 32 33 106 ! 34 33 ' 34 76 35 , 34 35 66 , ! 1 36 r 35 36 67 37 36 37 63 38 37 38 51 39 38 39 1 40 40 39 46 1 245 183 Table 3b.Commercial Water Use Distribution(Annual) 1i BIN TG(Montb #of Bills r MIN MAX Sewer [Won-Sewer 1 0 , 1 675 0 2 1 12 2,851 I 13 2 3 1 4,272 ' 0 ' 4 3 4 'yyy 4,291 0 5 4 15 14,497 0 6 5 16 4,474 0 I 7 6 1 7I 3,434 0 8 7 8 , 2,931 1 0 9 8 1 9 2,510 1 0 10 9 10 1 1,915 1 0 1, 111 10 11 ' 1,430 l 0 1.,.. 12 11 12 ' 1,304 1, 0 13 12 it 13 1,008 0 14 13 ' 14 825 0 15 114 I 15 737 0 16 115 i 16 614 0 17 '.. 16 I 17 534 0 18 17 1 18 500 0 19 18 1 19 430 0 20 19 ' 20 410 0 21 ' 20 i 21 336 0 '1 22 21 22 269 0 23 22 23 276 0 24 23 24 273 1 0 25 24 25 405 1 0 26 25 26 149 0 27 126 27 218 0 28 1 27 28 155 0 29 28 29 139 0 1 30 I29 30 156 0 31 30 31 98 1 0 32 131 32 90 0 33 32 33 106 0 34 33 34 76 0 35 34 35 66 0 36 35 36 ' 67 0 37 36 I 37 63 0 38 37 1 38 51 0 I39 38 39 a 40 i 39 146 I 245 0 184 Table 3b.Irrigation Water Use Distribution(Annual) BIN TGIMonth gotBills MEN- MAX I Sewer 9f�on-Sewer 1 0 1 675 I 2 111 1 2 2,851 1, 3 1 2 1 3 4,272 4 3 4 4,291 5 4 5 1 4,497 6 5 I16 4,474 7 6 7 13434 li 8 7 8 2,931 9 8 9 2,510 10 9 10 1,915 11 10 11 1,430 12 11 1 12 '. 1,304 1 13 1 12 13 1 1,008 14 j 13 14 1 825 1 1 15 ; 14 ', 15 737 116 115 16 1614 17 1 16 [ 17 534 18 117 18 1500 19 18 19 1 430 20 19 20 1 410 1 21 20 21 ' 336 122 21 22 269 23 22 23 276 1 24 23 24 273 25 24 25 405 26 25 26 149 27 , 26 27 218 28 27 28 155 1 29 28 29 139 30 29 30 156 ' 31 30 1 31 98 j 32 31 1132 90 33 32 33 106 34 33 34 76 35 34 35 66 38 35 36 67 37 36 37 63 38 37 38 51 1 39 138 39 40 40 39 46 1245 I 185 Table 4. Revenue Requirements Annual Base Projections Cost Component 1994/95 Growth % 1995/96 1996/97 1997/98 Revenue $2,505,794 I 0.0% '$2,505,794 $2,505,794 $2,505,794, Requirements F From Rates Direct Short-Run$250,579: 0.0% $250,579 $250,579 $250,579 Revenue Requirements �I I 186 Table 5. Price Elasticities Long-Run Short-Run Elasticity Single Family Elasticity Price % of User Class Elasticity Long-Run Response • Default 0 User Specified Single Family Default 1st Year 100%! Single Family ! Multiple Family 0.00 I 2nd Year 0% Property Values f r Default Calculation Commercial 1 -0.25 3rd Year 1 0%! Low Value 51% Irrigation -0.40 4th Year 0% Medium Val 437%i 0.00 Other 0% High Value i 12% Years 0.00 I Total 100% Total 100% 187 Table 6. Fixed Charges (All Classes) Fixed Charge 6/Month Meter Size 1994/95 1995/96 1996/97 1997/98 5/8" 5.54 $5.54 $0.00( 5.541 3/4" 5.54 $5.54 $0.00 5.54' 1" 8.68 $8.68 I 0.0 8.68' 1.5" 14.96 $14.96 $0.00 14.96' 2" 21.24 $21.24 0.00 21.24', 3" 65.20 $65.20 $0.00. 65.20' 4" 143.70 $143.70 0.00. 143.70 6" 253.60 $253.60 0.00 253.60' 8" 1 A1=2 , $379.20 0.00 379 0 10" $473.401 $473.40 0.00' 73.40 12" $630.401 1 $630.40 0.00' 630.401 6/Account/Month 1 62.401 1 $2.40 $0.00 $2.4011 $/EMU/Month $3.14' 1 $3.14 $0.00' $3.14 188 Table 7.Single Family Water and Sewer Prices(Annual) Year Block TGs Price$Alnit Min Max Water Sewer 1993/94 1 0 2 $2.20 2 I i12 1 $1.45 , $3.31 3 1 12 $1.45 4 I I 6 1994195 1 0 2 $2.20 2 2 12 $1.45 $3.31 3 12 $1.45 4 1 5 6 1995196 1 0 7 $0.59 $3.31 2 7 12 $0.79 I $3.31 3 12 25 $1.39 4 25 $1.39 1 5I 6 I 11996/97 1 0 12 $1.17 r$3.31 2 12 I $1.17 1 3 4 5 I 6 1997/98 �I 1 0 1 7 I $0.59 1 $3.31 I 2 7 12 $0.79 $3.31 3 12 25 $1.39 4 25 $1.74 5 6 189 Table 7.Multiple Family Water and Sewer Prices(Annual) Year I Block ! TGs Price$(Unit f Min I Max Water Sewer 11993194 1 0 2 $2.20 2 2 $1.45 I $3.31 3 14 5 1994/95 1 0 2 $2.20 2 2 $1.45 i $3.31 3 ! 4 5 6 I '1995/96 11 0 I $0.79 1 $3.31 2 3 4 5 6 50.79 1996)97 1 0 1 $1.17 $3.31 2 3 4 6 1997/98 1 0 50.79 $3.31 2 1 3 4 ! 5 6 190 Table 7.Commercial Water and Sewer Prices(Annual) 1 Year Block TGs pI� Price$1Un0 Min Max pi Water Sewer 1993/94 1 0 2 If $2.20 2 2 $1A5 $3.31 3 ' 4 5 i 6 i 11994/95 1 0 12 $2.20 I 2 2 1 $1A5 $3.31 3 I 14 1 I 1 5 6 I I 1995196 1 0 I $0.79 $3.31 2 I 3 1 i 4 1 I 5 I I 6 i 11996/97 1 1 0 $1.17 $3.31 2 3 I 4 5 I 6 1997/98 1 0 $0.79 $3.31 2 3 1 4 1 I II 15 6 191 Table 7.Irrigation Water and Sewer Prices(Annual) Year Block I TGs Price$Knit 1 I Min Max Water Sewer 1 1993/94 1 I 0 2 ' 2 12 I , 51.45 3 4 I5 1 I6 1994/95 ' 1 0 2 2 2 $1.45 3 I 4 5 6 1995/96 1 0 7 I $0.59 11 2 7 14 , $0.79 3 14 25 $1.39 i4 25 $1.39 I 16 I r1996/97 1 0 $1.17 1 2 3 I 4 5 6 I I1997(96 1 0 : 7 I $0.59 I I 2 7 14 ; $0.79 3 I14 ' 25 1 $1.39 4 1 25 1 $1.74 5 I 6 I 192 Table 8. Revenue Summary 1994/95 1995/96 1996/97 1997/98 'Base Revenue Requirement $2,505,7944 $2.505,794 $2.505.794 $2.505.794 Price Elastic Change $O $10.588, SI 9 067 Adjusted Revenue Requiremn,505,794j $2,516,382 $2,512,635j 2 514 861. Revenues from Proposed Rates Fie Month! a ice Chafe Meter ize lnde end nt $276,336 ( $276.336 r di $276.336 Meter Size a ende t S529.442 $529.442 ' •0 $529,4421 Subtotal $805,7781 $805,778 0 , $805,778' Q . ,nti Char•e in•le F, it $727.073 553 90 t $845.988 $546.896 Criffilnl=a1 $272.056 09 435 : 606 378 $409,435 Commercial i .690 1751 $519,7341 752 801 $519.734 Ilrriaation 10 712' 1 $225,928 313 662 23 442',. Subtotal ,1 700 016 91.709.004 EAU] 1 699 507 Total Rate Revenues 2 505 794 $2,514,782 $2,518,8291 2 505 2851 Revenue Surplus (Shortfall) $01 ($1,600) '1 $6,1941 ($9,576). 193 Table 9. Water Summary (Annual) Base Water Price ElasticPrice Elastic Projection Change Change TG TG % 1995/96 Single Family 695 262 14.1691 I 2.0%' Multiple Famil 5 2721 01 0. ° Commercial 635,152', 22.739 3.6% Irrigation 246.943 51.645 20.9° Totals 2,095,629 88,553 4.2% 1996/97 'Single Family 1 695.262. ' 27.804 4.0°, Multiple Faniil 518.2721 0 0.0°, Commercial 635.152 8.268 1.3° Irrigation 246,943 21.144 :.6°.. Totals 2,095,629 57,2161 2.7% 1997/98 rilThIltUltni 695.262' 4.785, 0.7°, ITITIIIIMUMily 518.2721 0 0.0°, Commercial 635.152 22.739 3.6°. lrri•ation 246.943 48.306 19.6°. 'Totals 1 2 095,6291 i 75,829 ' 3.6X 194 Table 10. Water Change by Block (Single Family) (Year Block TQs Base New % I Min./lax % Sold% SoldChange 1995/9flflfl 63.5% 64.1% 0.9% QFS® 17.5% 18.2% 3.8% 3 ®® 15.6% 16.1% 3.5% 4 ® ' 3.4% 3.6% 7.7% 6 iM 1996/9n 0 12 81.0°, 81.2°, 0.2°,, 2 ®IIIIII 19.0°,, 22.8° 0.2°, 4 5 M 6 MINI 1997/9IQ0 63.5% 64.0% 0.9% 2 0® 17.5% 18.2% 3.7% 3 IFIf 15.6% 16.0% 2.8% 4 ®= 3.4% 2.4% -28.2% 5 =I. 6 195 Table 10. Water Change by Block (Multiple Family) Year Block TGs Base New % MinMax % Sold% SoldChange 1995/9. 1 0 ' 100.0%100.0% 0.0% 2 =' 4 1 5 6 f 1996/9 1 0 100.0%100.0%1 0.0% 2 3 4 5 6 1997/9: 1 0 100.0%100.0% 0.0% 2 MEINI 3 4 Ina Qom' 196 Table 10. Water Change by Block (Commercial) (Year Block TQs Base New % Min ax % Sold% SoldChange 11995/9 a'' 0 100.0°A.. 103.6°4 3.6°4• fl 3 MIN __ 4 5 6 I= 1996/97KIE 0 100.0%101.3% 1.3% 2 INE', 4 5 6 1997/9a 0 100.00,'103.6°Y •°4• 2 IMN _ 4 5 6 nil 197 Table 10. Water Change by Block (Irrigation) Year Block Tgs Base New % Min)Maxj % Sold% SoldChange 1995/93 1 I 0 7 16 .5°. 71.4°. l 12.5°. 2 17 14 21.7° ulna 49.7°, 3 114 25 11.5°. 13.4° 17.2°. 4 125 3.4% i,' 8.0°. 5 P 6 1996/9n 0 100.0°. 108.6°, 8.6°, 33 flfl_ 4 1 nIMIn 6 1997/9fl1 0 NM 63.5% 71.4% 12.4% 2 0 14 21.7% 32.4% 49.6% 3 M® 11.5% 13.3% 16.3% 4 El fl 3.4% 2.4% -28.0% 5 ME� 6 MN I 198 Table 1. General Information Enter Custome Block Rates? Seasonal Rates? Default Annual Rate of: Classes Single Famill Yes 0 Annual Rates Account Growth L0.0% Irrigation Yes O Seasonal Rat s Multifamily No Commercial No CPI Inflation 0.0% No No Year Type? Base Year? ! Water Unit? p Fiscal 1994/ 1995 O Ccf(100 Cubic Feet) O Calendar C TG (1,000 Gallons) File=c:\wateratelsanlando\sanlan.dat 31-May-97 199 Table 2. Water Accounts (All Classes) Meter Size EMU # Meters Annual # Meters Factor 1994/95 Growth % 1995/96 1996/97 1997/98 5/8" 1 —*all 6,142 0.0%' 6.142 I 6.142 6.142' 3/4" 1.0: 1 0' 0.0% 0 ' i 0 1" 1 2.5 3.202 0.0% 3.202 3 .2 3.202 1.5" I 5.0I 145 0.0% 145 145 145 2" 8,0 121 0.0%; 121 MN( 1 121 3" 16.0 19 0.0%' j 19 19 19. 4" 25.0 5' 0.0%' I 5 5 5' 6" 50.0, 31 1 0.0% 3 3' 31 8" 80.0' 0 0.0% 0 0 0' 10" 115.0' 0' 0.0% 01 ' 0 p' 12" 215.0 Oi 0.0% 0 011 0 Total Meters 9,637 9,637 i 9,637 9,6371 Total EMUs 16,419 16,419 16,419 16,4191 200 Table 3a. Annual Water Use Base Proiections 1994/95 Annual 1995/96 1996/97 1997/98 User Class TG Growth % TG TG TG Single Family 2,166,615 0.0% 2,166,615 2,166,615 2,166,6151 Irrigation 176,071 0.0%i 176,071 176,071 176,071 Multifamily 146,664 0.0% 146,664 146,664' 146,664 Commercial 146,664, 0.0% 146,664 146,664 146,664 0.0% 0.0%% Totals 2,636,014 2,636,011 2,636,014 2,636,014 201 Table 3b.Single Family Water Use Distribution(Annual) BIN TGIMonth #of Ills HUN d MAR— Sewer on-Sewer 1 0 1 1 675 . 2 11 j 2 2,851 3 2 3 4,272 4 3 4 4,291 5 4 5 4,497 1 8 1 5 f 6 ! 4,474 , 7 6 7 3,434 1 ' 8 7 8 2,931 9 8 1 9 12,510 10 ' 9 10 1,915 11 1, 10 1 11 1,430 12 11 12 1,304 13 12 13 1,008 ' 14 13 14 825 ' 15 j14 15 j 737 I, 16 15 16 614 17 ' 16 117 534 1 ''. 18 17 118 500 19 ' 18 J 19 430 20 19 I 20 410 21 20 21 336 22 21 22 269 23 22 23 276 24 23 24 273 25 i 24 25 405 26 25 26 149 27 26 27 218 • 28 , 27 ' 28 155 29 28 29 139 30 29 30 156 31 130 31 98 32 1 31 32 I 90 33 j 32 33 106 j34 33 34 176 ' 35 34 35 66 36 35 36 67 37 36 I37 163 38 37 38 51 39 38 39 40 40 39 46 245 82 202 Table 3b.Irrigation Water Use Distribution(Annual) TGIMonth #of Bills BIN -I 'CaI •on 'ewer. 1 0 1 675 2 1 2 2,851 , ' 3 2 3 4,272 4 3 4 4,291 5 4 5 4,497 6 5 6 4,474 7 6 7 ' 3,434 18 7 8 2,931 I 9 8 9 2,510 10 9 10 1,915 11 10 11 1,430 12 'i 11 12 1,304 I I 113 12 1 13 1,008 14 13 114 825 I 15 14 15 737 16 15 16 614 17 16 17 534 18 17 18 500 I 19 1 18 19 430 20 19 20 410 1 21 20 21 336 , 22 1 21 22 269 I 23 122 ' 23 1276 I 24 I23 24 1273 I 25 24 25 I405 26 25 26 149 27 26 27 218 I 28 27 28 1155 29 28 129 139 I 30 29 30 156 31 30 31 98 32 1 31 32 - 90 33 ' 32 33 106 34 33 1 34 76 35 34 35 66 I 36 35 36 67 II. 37 36 37 63 136 37 38 51 I39 38 39 40 40 39 46 1245 203 Table 3b.Multifamily Water Use Distribution(Annual) Sewer and NonSewer Use S6% 44% 204 Table 3b.Commercial Water Use Distribution(Annual) Sewer and NonSewer Use li 56% I 44% 205 Table 4. Revenue Requirements Annual Base Projections Cost Component 1994/95 Growth % 1995/96 1996/97 1997/98 Revenue $1,835,113 0.0% $1,835,112 $1,835,113 $1,835,113] Requirements From Rates Direct Short-Run$326,956 0.0% $326,956 $326,956 $326,956 Revenue i Requirements 206 Table 5. Price Elasticities Long-Run Short-Run Elasticity Single Family Elasticity Price % of CO Default User Class Elasticity Long-Run Response C User Specified Single FamilOEFAULT 1st Year 300%! Single Family Irrigation -0.40 2nd Year 0% Property Values far Default Calculatio Multifamily 0.00 3rd Year 0%, Low Value 9% Commercial -0.25 4th Year 0%1 Medium Valum5% 0.00 Other I b% High Value 156% Years 0.00 Total 100% Total '. 207 Table 6. Fixed Charges (All Classes) Fixed Charge $/Month Meter Size 1994/95 1995/96 1996/97 1997/98 5/8" 23 $4.23 $0.001 $4.23! 3/4" MEM $4.23. $0.001 $4.23, 1" 10.58 10.58' 0 01 $10.58 1.5" 2 .15 21.15 $0.00 $21.151 2" 1 533.84. $33.84 $0.00 $33.84 3" 1 1 67.68 67.68 $0.00 $67.68 105.75 105 5 $0.00 105.75 6" ' 211.50 $211.50 $0.00 $211.50 8" 338.40 338.40 $0.00 $338.40 10" 86.45 $486.45 0.001 $486.45 12" 909.45; $909.45 0.00 $909.451 $/Account/Month $0.001 $0.001 $0.00, $0.00 $/EMU/Month I $4.231 1 $4.23 $0.00 1 $4.231 208 Table 7.Single Family Water and Sewer Prices(Annual) -n Year I Block TGs Price$/Un8 Min Max Water Sewer !111993/94 1 10 7 $0.38 $1.33 2 I 10 $0.38 $1.33 3 10 '. 14 $0.38 4 14 ' 25 ' $0.38 5 25 $0.38 ! 6 1994195 1 0 17 $0.38 $1.33 2 1 7 10 $0.38 $1.33 3 10 14 $0.38 4 14 25 $0.38 5 25 $0.38 6 11995196 1 i 0 7 $0.33 151.33 2 7 10 EOM ; $1.33 1 3 10 14 $0.44 4 14 25 $0.77 15 25 I $0.77 6 199697 1 10 7 $0.76 $1.33 I 2 ! 7 10 $0.76 $1.33 3 10 114 ! $0.76 4 14 25 ' $0.76 I 5 I25 $0.76 6 199798 1 '10 7 $0.32 $1.33 2 17 i 10 1 $0.43 $1.33 1 3 1 10 14 $0.43 4 14 ! 25 $0.75 15 25 I $0.94 6 209 Table 7.Irrigation Water and Sewer Prices(Annual) (Year Block I TGs Price 6lUnit IMin Max Water Sewer 1'i993194 11 I 0 ' 7 $0.38 '. 2 7 114 $0.38 3 14 I 25 $0.3811 4 25 $0.38 5 6 1994195 , 1 10 7 $0.38 I 2 17 14 $0.38 13 14 25 $0.38 4 25 $0.38 5 I 6 1995196 li 1 I 0 17 j $0.33 2 17 10 $0.44 i 3 : 10 114 E0.44 4 14 25 $0.77 5 25 $0.77 6 I1996197 1 0 7 $0.76 2 ' 7 14 $0.76 3 I14 25 $0.76 4 25 $0.76 I 5 I $0.76 6 I I1997/98 1 I 0 7 $0.32 I 2 II 7 10 $0.43 I 3 10 14 $0.43 4 I14 25 $0.75 5 25 $0.94 6 210 Table7.Multifamily Water and Sewer Prices(Annual) [Year Block TGs Price$ftlnit Min Max Water Sewer 1993194 7 0 $0.38 $1.60 2 3 4 5 6 1994/95 7 0 $0.38 $1.60 2 3 4 5 6 1995196 1 0 $0.33 $1.60 2 3 4 5 6 1996197 1 0 I $0.76 $1.60 2 3 4 5 I 7997196 I0 $0A3 $1.60 2 I 3 4 5 6 I 211 Table 7.Commercial Water and Sewer Prices(Annual) Near Block TGs Price 5/Unit Min Max Water Sewer �'. i 1993/94 1 I 0 $0.38 $1.60 2 3 4 5 I6 1994195 1 0 $0.38 $1.60 2 3 4 S 6 1199596 1 0 1 50.33 $1.60 2 3 4 5 6 1996197 1 0 $0.76 $1.60 2 3 4 I5 6 1199798 1 0 50.43 $1.80 2 3 4 5 6 212 Table 8. Revenue Summary 1994/95 1995196 1996/97 1997/98 Base Revenue Requirement 1 835113' ' .1 835 113 ! $1.835,113 i $1.835.113 Price Elastic Chanae i 0 981 -$34.035 -$16.904, Adjusted Revenue RequireM01035,113 1 820 132 $1,801,078 $1,818,209, Revenues from Proposed Rates Fixed Monthly Service Char e Meter Size Independ¢nt 0� 0 0 0 Meter Size Dependent 833 428. 833 428 - 0 $833,428. Subtotal 833 428 833 428 0 $833,428 Quantityf_arr e Sinale Family $823,314 $839.971 1 481 087 815 559 Irriaation $66.907 $60.669 01 328 58 541 Multifamily $55.732 $48.399 111465 63 066 Commercial ' I $55.732 $49.341 100 945 61 998'. Subtotal I $1,001.6851 $998.381 1 794 824 999163: Total Rate Revenues , $1,835,113 $1,831,809 1 794 824 1 832 591' (Revenue Surplus (Shortfall)I $Oi $11,6771 ! ($6,254) $14,382, 213 Table 9. Water Summary (Annual) Base Water Price Elastic Price Elastic Projection Change Change TG TG 1995/96 Single Family ' 2.166.615 -105.656 ' -4.9° Irrigation 176.071 -17,982 10.2° Multifamily 146.664 0 0.0°k Commercial146,664 I 2.854 1. ° (Totals j 2,636,014 -120,783' -4.6% 1996/97 Single Family 12,166.615 I -217.816 -10.1%. Irrigation I 176,071 -42.745 24.3%, Multifamily 146.664 0! 0.0%I Commercial 146.664 -13.842 9.4%I I Totals i 2,636,014 -274,403 -10.4% 1997/98 'Single Family 2.166,615 -115.724 -5.3% Irri atio 176,071 -18.075 -10.3% Multifamil 146.664 0 0.0° Commercial ' 146.664 -2.483 -1.7° Totals 2,636,014 I -136,282: -5.2% 214 Table 10. Water Change by Block (Single Family) Year Block TGs Base New % MinMax % Sold% SoldChange 1995/9 U 0 7 6 .5°A. 62.7°• 0.4°, 2 U10 iinna 11.8°.. - .8°. 3 10 14 9.6'.• 9.0°.• -5.7° 4 14 25 11.8°A. 9.1°. -23.0°• 5 ® I 4.2°• 2. ° 40.0°• 6 NIB= 1996/9=■ 0 7 162.5°, 59.9°, -4.2°0 WEER 10 2.0°, 10.4°. -13.1°• 3 in 14 9.6°. 7.9°, -16.8°.. 4 m® 11.8°. 9.1°. -22.5°. 5 ®= 1 4.2°.• WINA-39. °. 1997/9X 0 7 62.5% 62.8% 0.5% 2 fl 10 12.0% 11.9% -1.3% 3 10 14 9.6% 9.1% -4.9% 4 m 25 11.8% 9.0% -23.7% 5 25 4.2% 1.9% -54.2% 6 215 Table 10. Water Change by Block (Irrigation) 'Year Block TGs Base New % Mini)Ilax % Sold% SoldChange 1995/9n 0 7 63.5°. 64.8°. 2.0°. 2 7 10 I P111.4°,, -6.3°. 3 III 14 19.6°, 7.4°. -22.9°, 4 in 25 11.5°, 5.6°. IMPI 1996/9n 0 7 63.5°. 5 .3°, -12.9° OLEO 14 21.7° 14.0°. -35.4° 3 RI 25 11.5°. 5.7°. -50.3°.. 4 ® 3.4°, 0. "„ -79.3°, 5 6 NM� 1997/9in 0 7 63.5°. 65.1°. 2.6°., 2 7 10 �i�� -4.8°. 3 10 14 9.6°.. 7.6°. -20.6°. 4 mf 11.5°. 'EWA-55.2°.. 5 6 Ea0� 8� 216 Table 10. Water Change by Block (Multifamily) ear Block Tes I Base New % l MinMaxi % Sold% SoldChange 1995/9. 1 0 100.0°.•. 100.0° 0.0° We= 3 IM WEIN p 6 1996/9a 0 100 0°• 100.0°..1 0.0°.. 2 n E3'l 6 i 1997/9n 0 100.0°, 100.0°. 0.0°., Mai ©�� 5 217 Table 10. Water Change by Block (Commercial) Year Block TGs Base New % MiniNlax % Sold% SoldChange 1995/9U 0 i100.0°0101.9°° 1.9°. 2 MI 5 6 EMI� 1996/9 1 0 100.0°4. 90.6° -9.4°° 2 3 t 5 = 6 11997/9: 1 0 :100.0°.. 98.3°, -1.7°, 2 MN 1.1M 3 4 5 6 218 Table 1. General Information Enter Custome Block Rates? Seasonal Rates?F Default Annual Rate of: CIaSs Single Famil Yes • Annual Rates j Account Growth 0.0%' Multiple Fa Hy yes • Seasonal Rate Comm 5/8" Yes Commercial No CPI Inflation 0.0% No I No Year Type? Base Year? Water Unit? Al Fiscal 1994/ 1995 C Ccf (100 Cubic Feet) 0 Calendar ® TG (1,000 Gallons) File=c:\waterate\titusvl\titusvI.dat 02-Jun-97 219 Table 2. Water Accounts (Single Family) EMU # Meters Annual # Meters Meter Size Factor 1994/95 Growth % 1995/96 1996/97 1997/98 5/8" 1.0 0! 0.0%' 0 0 01 3/4" 1.0 13,503 0.0% 13,503 13.503 13.503 1" 2.5 246 0.0% 246 246 246 1.5" 5.0 12 0,0% 12 12 12 1 2" 1 8.0 11 0.0% 11 11 11' 3" 15.0 0! ' 0 0°. 0', 4" 25.0 0 0.0°. 0 50 00 0 0.0°., ! p 8" 80.0 0 0.0% I 0 10" 15.0 0f 0.0°,! ! 0 12" 15.0 Of ! 0.0%I ! 1 01 Total Meters F 13,772' F 13,77211 13,7721 13,772! Total EMUs 14,266, 14,266 I 14,266I ! 14,266 Fixed charges vary by class? 1 O No OO Yes 220 Table 2. Water Accounts (Multiple Family) EMU # Meters Annual # Meters Meter Size Factor 1994/95 Growth % 1995/96 1996/97 1997/98 _ 5/8" I 1.0 0 0° 0 I 0 0 3/4" 1 0 51 0.0° 51 51 i 511 1" 2.5 27 0.0° 27 ' 27 27 1.5" 5.0 60 0.0% 60 •0 60 2" 8.0 80 i 0.0% 80. 80 80 3" 15.0 121 0.0% 12 1 12. 4" 25.0, 10' 0.0% ' 10 10 1 10 6" 50.0 1 0.0% 1 1 1 8" 80.0 0 0.0° 0 0 0 10" 1115.0 0 0.0° 0 0 ' 01 12" 215.01 0i 0.0%, 0 01 0 Total Meters 241 I 2411 241 241 Total EMUs 1,539' 1 1,539 1,539' 1,539'1 Fixed charges vary by class? O No OO Yes 221 Table 2. Water Accounts (Comm 5/8") —1 EMU # Meters Annual # Meters Meter Size Factor 1994/95 Growth % 1995/96 1996/97 1997/98 5/8" 1 1.0 0.0% 0 0 3/4" i 1.0 92 0.0% 920 920 92 1" 1 2.5 0.0% 0 0 1.5" 5.0 0.0% 0 0: 2" 8.0 0.0%; 0 0', 3" 15.0 0.0% 0 0. 4" 25.0 , 0.0% 0. 0 6" 50.0 0.0% 0 0 8" 80.0 0.0% 0 0 10" 15.0 0.0% 0 0 12" 15.0 0.0% 0 I 0; 1 Total Meters F 920i 9201 ' 920 1 920I Total EMUs 9261 920 _ 920 I 920J I Fixed charges vary by class? O No OO Yes 222 Table 2. Water Accounts (Commercial) EMU # Meters Annual # Meters Meter Size Factor 1994/95 Growth % 1995/96 1996/97 1997/98 5/8" 1.0 0 0.0% 0 0 0 3/4" 1.0 0 I 0.0% 0 0' 0, 1" 2.5 248 1 0.0% 248 248 2481 1.5" 5.0 101 0.0% 101 101 101 2" 8.0 134 0.0% 134 134 L 134 3" 15.0' 17 0.0% 17 17 17 4" 25.0 11 0.0% 111 11 11 6" ' 50.0. 4 0.0% 4' i 4 4 8" 80.0' 0I 0.0% 0 0 0 10" 1115.01 0 0.0% 0" 0, 0 12" 215.01 0' 1 0.0%1 0 01 0 Total Meters 515 5151 515 515 Total EMUs 2,927 2,927'i 2,927' 2,927 Fixed charges vary by class? O No (*) Yes 223 Table 3a. Annual Water Use Base Projections 1994/95 Annual 1995/96 1996/97 1997/98 User Class TG Growth % TG TG TG Single Famil 875,168 0.0%' 875,168 875,168 875,168! Multiple Fa ily 191,640 0.0% 191,640 191,640 191,640 'Comm 5/8" 110,400 0.0%, 110,400 110,400 110,400 Commercial 348,010 0.0% 348,010 348,010 348,010! 0.0%I 0.0% Totals 1,525,218 1,525,218 1,525,218 1,525,218 224 �H Table 3b.Single Family Water Use Distribution(Annual) BIN ' TG/Month I #of Bills MIN MAX j Sewer INo ll 1 0 1 675 2 1 2 2,851 3 2 3 4,272 4 3 4 4,291 5 4 5 4,497 6 5 6 4,474 7 6 7 3,434 ' 8 1 7 8 2,931 9 ' 8 9 2,510 10 19 10 1,915 11 ' 10 11 1,430 12 11 12 1,304 13 12 113 1,008 14 13 14 825 115 14 15 737 16 15 16 814 1 1 17 ' 16 17 534 1 �'. rl 18 17 , 18 500 19 18 1 19 430 20 119 I 20 410 21 20 121 338 22 21 ' 22 269 23 22 23 1276 24 23 24 ' 273 25 124 25 405 26 25 1 26 149 27 26 27 218 28 27 28 ' 155 29 28 29 139 1 30 29 30 156 31 30 31 98 1 1 32 31 32 90 ' 33 32 1 33 106 34 133 34 76 35 34 35 66 36 35 36 167 37 _ 36 37 1 63 38 37 38 I57 139 38 39 I40 40 , 39 46 245 225 Table 3b.Multiple Family Water Use Distribution(Annual) BIN I TGIMonth #of Bills © rmw= , 'on ewer. 1 0 1 675 0 2 1 2 2,851 0 3 2 3 4,272 0 !. 4 3 4 ' 4,291 0 5 4 5 4,497 0 6 5 6 r 4,474 0 7 6 7 3,434 0 8 7 8 2,931 0 9 8 9 2,510 0 10 9 10 1,915 0 11 10 11 l 1,430 0 112 ' 11 j 12 1,304 0 13 112 113 1,008 0 14 13 : 14 825 , 0 115 14 15 737 ' 0 16 15 16 614 0 17 16 17 i534 0 18 17 118 !i 500 0 ! 19 18 ' 19 430 I 0 20 19 20 410 0 121 20 f 21 336 0 22 21 22 269 0 li 23 ' 22 23 276 0 24 123 24 1273 '10 25 24 25 1 405 0 I26 25 126 149 0 27 26 127 1218 0 28 127 28 155 0 29 28 29 1139 0 30 29 30 156 0 31 i 30 31 98 0 I 32 31 32 90 0 33 32 133 1 106 0 134 133 34 76 0 35 34 135 ' 66 0 36 35 36 67 0 37 36 37 63 38 37 38 51 0 1 39 38 39 ' 40 0 140 I39 I46 1249 0 226 Table 3b.Comm 5/8"Water Use Distribution(Annual) BIN TGIMonth #of Bills MIN MAX Sewer N nSewer, 1 0 i. 1 675 2 1 '12 2,851 3 2 3 4,272 I 4 3 4 4,291 5 4 5 4,197 1 6 5 6 4474 I 7 6 7 3,434 8 7 8 2,931 9 8 9 2,510 10 9 10 1,915 11 10 11 1,430 12 11 12 1,304 13 12 13 1,008 14 13 14 825 15 14 15 737 16 15 16 614 17 16 17 534 18 17 18 500 19 18 19 430 20 19 20 410 21 20 21 336 22 21 22 269 23 22 23 276 24 23 24 273 I25 24 25 405 26 25 26 149 27 26 27 218 28 27 28 155 29 28 29 139 30 29 30 156 31 30 31 1 98 , 32 31 32 90 33 32 33 1 106 34 33 34 76 35 ' 34 35 ' 66 36 35 36 67 37 36 37 63 38 37 38 51 ' 39 38 39 40 40 39 46 245 227 Table 3b.Commercial Water Use Distribution(Annual) Sewer anti NonSewer Use 84% 16% 228 Table 4. Revenue Requirements Annual Base Projections • Cost Component 1994/95 Growth % 1995/96 1996/97 1997/98 Revenue 64,056,131 0.0% l64,056,1311 i54,056,131' $4,056,131 Requirements From Rates Direct Short-Ru�$405,613 0�% $405,613j $405,613 $405,613'1 Revenue Requirements • • 229 Table 5. Price Elasticities Long-Run Short-Run Elasticity Single Family Elasticity Price % of i Default User Class Elasticity Long-Run Response "- C User Specified Single Family Default 1 1st Year '100% Single Family Multiple Family 0.00 2nd Year 0% Property Values for Default Calculation Comm 518" -0.25 3rd Year ! 0%1 Low Value 50%1 1 Commercial ' -0.25 4th Year 10% Medium Val �7% 0.00 Other 0%1 High Value 1 13%1 Years 1 0.00 Total 100%1 Total 100%11 230 Table 6. Fixed Charges (Single Family) Fixed Charge $/Month Meter Size 1994/95 1995/96 1996/97 1997/98 5/8" 0 $0.80 .0.00 0.80. 3/4" 1 0.80 $0.80 .0.00 0.80 1" $1.61 .0.00 1.611 1.5" 2.96 $2.96; I .0.00 29. 2" .58 $4.58 .0 00 4.58! 3" 8.36 $8.36, 0.00 8.36 4" 13.76 $13.76 $0.001 13.76 6" 27.26 $27.26 $0.00 27.26 8" 43.46 $43.46 1 $0.00; 43.46 10" 62.36 $62.36 ! $0.00 62.36 12" _ 116.36 $116.36 $0.00 116.36 $/Account/Month $0.26 $0.26 $0.00 $0.26 $/EMU/Month $0.54 $0.54I $0.001 $0.54 231 Table 6. Fixed Charges (Multiple Family) Fixed Charge $/Month Meter Size 1994/95 1995/96 1996/97 1997/98 5/8" 0.80 0.80 0.01 0.801 3/4" 0.801 0.80 0.00 0.80 1" 1.611 1.61 0.00 1.61 1.5" 2.96 0.00 2.96 2" .4.58 $4.58 6.10 .58 3" .8.361 $8.36� . 6.00 8.36 4" 13.76 $13.76; 0.00 13.76 6" .27.26 $27.26 .0.00 27.26 8" 43.46 1 543.46' 0.00 43.46 10" 62.36 $162.36' 0.00 62.36 12" 116.36. 16.36'1 0.00 1 116.36 $/Account/Month $0.26 $0.26 $0.00 $0.26 $/EMU/Month $0.54 I $0.54 $0.00 $0.54 232 Table 6. Fixed Charges (Comm 5/8") Fixed Charge $/Month Meter Size 1994/95 1995/96 1996/97 1997/98 5/8" $0.801 r 0.80' 11 0.00 0.80 3/4" 0.80! 0.80 I 0.00 . : 1 1" 1.61 1.61 0.00 .1.61'' 1.5" 2.96 .2.96 0.00': .96 2" - 4.58 4.58 0.00 .58 II, 3" 8.36 6 $0.00 8.36 4" 13.76 13.76 0.0 .13.76 6" ' 27.26 7.26 0.00 27.26 8" 43.46 43.46 $0.00 $43.46 10" .62.36 ' .62.36 . $0.00 ' $62.36i ' 12" .116.36 116.36 $0.001 1 $116.36!' $lAccount/Month $0.26i $0.26 $0.00 $0.26 $/EMU/Month $0.54 $0.54 1 $0.00 $0.54 233 Table 6. Fixed Charges (Commercial) Fixed Charge $/Month Meter Size 1994/95 1995/96 1996/97 1997/98 5/8" $0.80 $0.80 $0.00 $0.80 3/4" $0.80 0. 0. $0.00 0.80 1" $1.61 .61 0.00 $1.61 1.5" $2.96 $2.96 0.00 .96 2" $4.58 $4.58 $0.00 I 4.58 3" $8.36 1 $8.36'. $0.001 8.36 4" $13.76 $13.76 1 $0.00 13.76 6" 27.26 $27.26 1 $0.00 .27.26 8" 43.46 43.46' $0.00 43.46. 10" $62.36! $62.36 $0.00 .62.36 12" $116.36 $116.36, $0.00 116.36 $/AccountJMonth $0.26! $0.26! $0.00 $0.26 $/EMUIMonth $0.54 $0.54 $0.001 $0.54 1 234 Table 7.Single Family Water and Sewer Prices(Annual) Year Block TGs Price Sinn ' Min Max Water Sewer ' 1993/94 1 0 3 $1.62 $5.25 2 ;. 3 15 $2.41 $6.85 3 15 25 $6.14 4 1 25 1 $9.22 5 6 1994/95 i 1 0 1 3 $1.62 ' $5.25 1 2 1 3 15 $2A1 $6.85 3 15 25 $6.14 4 25 $9,22 5 I6 1995/96 1 0 0 3 $2.43 $5.25 ' 2 13 15 ' $2.43 $6.85 13 15 $2.43 ' , 4 5 6 I I 11996/87 1 r 0 3 $2.56 I $5.25 2 3 15 $2.56 $6.85 I 3 15 I I $2.56 ' 4 5 '' 6 , 1997198 1 1 0 ' 3 1 $1.87 1 $525 ' 2 ' 3 15 $2A9 , $6.85 3 15 i 25 $4.36 4 . 25 I $5.45 5 235 Table 7.Multiple Family Water and Sewer Prices(Annual) (Year Block TGs Price 8/Unit Min Max Water Sewer 1993194 1 0 3 $1.62 55.25 I 2 3 62.41 56.85 3 4 IS `6 ! 11994195 1 0 3 151.62 ' 55.25 2 3 I ! $241 1 $6.85 i 3 I I 4 5 6 j '1995196 1 0 3 52.43 55.25 2 3 52.43 56.85 13 I4 i 5 6 i 1996/97 1 0 3 ' 52.56 $5.25 '! 2 3 ' 82.56 56.85 3 4 5 I 6 I 1997/98 ' 1 0 3 52.49 55.25 2 1 3 $2.49 56.85 3 4 IS 6 236 I Table 7.Comm 5/8"Water and Sewer Prices(Annual) I Near Block TGs Price E/Un8 Min Max I Water Sewer 1, 1993194 1 0 3 I $1.62 $5.25 1 23 ' 3 I I $2.41 $6.85 4 1 I I 5 I 6 I I 1994/95 1 10 3 $1.62 I $525 2 1 3 i $2.41 $6.85 i 3 I 4 I I5 6 11995196 1 10 3 I $2.43 1 E525 2 13 I ' $2.43 1 $6.85 3 I 1 4 5 1 11996/97 11 0 3 I $2.56 '1 $5.25 2 I3 $2.56 $6.85 3 4 5 I6 1 1997/98 1 1 0 1 3 I $2.49 I $525 2 3I $2.49 ' 56.85 4 I 1 5 I 1 1 237 Table 7.Commercial Water and Sewer Prices(Annual) year Block I TGs Price 5/Unit Min 1 Max I Water Sewer I 7993194 1 D I 2 52.47 56.65 J I 4 5 I I 6 I 1 11994/95 7 DI I $2.47 2 56.85 I 3 I 4 I II 5 6 17995/96 i 0 52.43 56.85 1 J 4 I 5 6 I t 996,97 i 1 D 1 152.56 156.85 1 2 14 1Il 56 7997/98 ' 1 I D f $2.49 I156.85 I 42 L 3 I 4 I6 1 _J 238 Table 8. Revenue Summary 1994/95 1995/96 1996/97 1997/98 Base Revenue Reauirement 4056131 '. $4.056.1311 4 056 131 $4.056,131 Price Elastic Change 0 $20.522 17 648 $1,132 Adjusted Revenue Requiie 056,131• $4,076,6531 073 779 $4,057,263 Revenues from Proposed Rates Fixed Month! of Charge Meter ize Inde end nt $48,198 $48.198 0 8198 'Meter ize De ende t 8127,345 $127.345 0 $127,345 Subtotal $175,543 $175,543 0 1 $175,543 Quanti Char e in le Famil $2.394.680 $2.315.295 2 416 9 0' 1 $2,268.231, Multi le Famil $410,641 $465.685 490 598' $477.184 Comm 5/8" $236,562 I $267.816 81 1 $273,981' Commercial 5838,704 $845,000 885 7511 $863,844 ubtotal $3.880,588 $3.893.795 $4.074.441I $3.883.240 Total Rate Revenues $4,056,131 $4,069,338' $4,074,441'I ' $4,058,783 Revenue Surplus (Shortfall) $0 ($7,315) $662 $1,520 239 Table 9. Water Summary(Annual) Base Water Price ElasticPrice Elastic Projection Change Change TG TG % 1995/96 'Single Family 875 1 • : 77.628 8.9% Multi le Fa il 191 MO 0 0.0', Comm 518" I 110 , '0 -188 I -0.2°,, Commercial 1 348.010- -274 -0.1°° I I 'Totals 1,525,218 77,167, 5.1% 1996/97 in le Family ; 875.168 68,949 7.9°, Multi le Fa ily 191,640 0 0.0% Comm 5/8" 110,4001 -575 -0.5°. Commercial 348.010 -2.014 -0.6% Totals 1,525,218 66,360 4.4% 1997/98 (Single Family 875,168 5.710 0.7°.'. (Multiple Fanlil 191.640 0 0.0°.I Comm 5/8" I 110.400 -367 -0.3°0 Commercial 348,010 1.085' 0.3°, I I Totals 1,525,218 I 4,258 1 0.3% 240 Table 10. Water Change by Block (Single Family) year lock Tgs I Base New % !Min!Max % Sold% SoldChange 1995/96 1 0 3 33.8% 33.9% 0.2% 2 1 3 15 53.1% 53.3% 0.4% 3 15 , 13.1% 21.7% 65.5% 4 5 6 1 I 1996/9n 0 SI 33.8% 33.9% 1 0.1% ' 2 3 1151 53.1% 53.2% 1 0.3% 3 15 13.1% 20.8% 58.4% 4 66 Mini. 1 1997/9n 0 3 133.8% 33.8% 0.0% 2 I 1 53.1% 53.1% 0.0% 0 15 25 9.7% 10.3% 5.7% 4 Fan 3.4% 3.5% 2.8% 5 MI 241 Table 10. Water Change by Block (Multiple Family) (YearBlock TGs Base New % IMinMaxj % Sold% SoldChange 1995/9n 0 3- 33.8% 33.8% 0.0% 2 © 1 1 66.2% 66.2% 0.0% 1 3 0 I I 6 f 1996/9� 1 1 0 1 3 1 133.8°,, 33.8°, 0 0°. 3 1 3 66.2°, 66.2°. 0.0°0 5 16 i 1 Mane 11997/98 1 1 0 3 I33.89, 33.8°, 0.00, 2 1 3 66.2° 66.2°. 0.0°. 3 — 4 6 � 242 Table 10. Water Change by Block (Comm 5/8") Year lock! TQs Base New % IMinlMax % Sold% SoldChange 1995/9n 0 © 33.8°. FlgEn -0 4° Sena 66.2°, 66.1°, -0.1°. 5 6 Mai 1996/9' 1 0 3 33.8% 133.7°. ! -0.4°G Man 66.2°. 6a 1 -0.6°. na 45 6 - 1997/9: 1 0 3 33.8°.. IPM -0.4% 2 � 66.2°. ' 6•.0°. -0.3°. Q= 6 243 Table 10. Water Change by Block (Commercial) Year Block' TGs Base New % MinMaxl % Sold% SoldChange 1995/9. 1 0 100.0% 99.9% -0.1% 2 3 O� 5 6 1996/9' 0 100.0%. 99.4% -0.6% 2 I. I fl 4 6 1997/93 1 0 100.0% 99.7% -0.3% 1 2 3 4 5 6 244 Table 1. General Information Enter CustomerBlock Rates? Seasonal Ratest Default Annual Rate of: lass s Single Familin Yes ' <'- Annual Rates Account Growth10.0%'. 'Multifamily I No 10 Seasonal Rats Commercial ' SF - Outside' No Yes CPI Inflation 0.O%1%1 MF - Outside I No (Comm - Outside., Year Type? ] Base Year? —1 Water Unit? OO Fiscal 1994/ 1995 0 Ccf (100 Cubic Feet) Calendar C% TG (1,000 Gallons) , File=c:lwateratelwparkkwpark.dat 31-May-97 245 Table 2. Water Accounts (Single Family) Meter Size EMU # Meters Annual # Meters Factor 1994/95 Growth % 1995/96 1996/97 1997/98 5/8" 1.0 I 0' 0.0% 0' 0 01 3/4" 1.0 7.357 0.0% i 7.357' 7.357 7.3571 1" 2.5 1.0281 0.0% 1,028' 1.028 1.028 1.5" 5.0 60' 0.0°.1 60 60 60 2" 7.9 101 0.00,1 10 101 10 3" 15.8 0 0.0°°: 0 0 0 4" 24.7 0.0°, 6' 49.4 0 0.0°.' 00 00 0 8' 1 90.0 01 0.0° 07 0f1 0 10" (t15.0 0 1, 0.0° �Q, 0I—0. 12" p15.01 0' 0.0%1 0 11 pi Total Meters 1 8,455 L 8,4551 8,455 8 4S Total EMUS 1 10,306 10,306 j 10,3061 10,306 Fixed charges vary by cla s? O No @ Yes 246 Table 2. Water Accounts (Multifamily) II Meter Size EMU # Meters Annual I # Meters i Factor 1994/95 Growth % 1995/96 1996/97 1997/98 5/8" 1.0 0 0.0°. 0 0 1 0 3/4" 1.0 1 181 0.0°., 181 181 ' 181 1" 2.5 139' 0.0°. 139 139 1 139 1 " 5.0 27' ! 0.0°, 27 27 I 27 2" 8.0 26' 0.0°. 26 261 26 3" 16.01 0 1.0°. 0 0 0 4" , 25.01 2 0.0°. 2 2 2 6" 50.0; 1 0.0°. 1 1 1 i 8" 80.0; 1 I 0.0°. 1 1 1 10" 115.0; 0 i 0.0% 0' 0 0 12" 215.0 0 0.0% 0I 0' 0 Total Meters 377 377, I 377 377 Total EMUs 1,052 1,052 1 1,0521 1,0521 Fixed charges vary by class? O No OO Yes 1 247 Table 2. Water Accounts (Commercial) EMU # Meters Annual # Meters Meter Size Factor 1994/95 Growth % 1995/96 1996/97 1997/98 5/8" 1 0 0 0.0% 0 0 0'' 3/4" 1.01 804 0.0% 804 804 804' 1" 2.5 332 0.0% 332 332', 332 1.5" i 5.0 175 0.0% 175'' 175 175' 2" i 7.91 116I 0.0% 116 116! ' 116 3" 15.8 2 0.0% 2 1 2' 2 4" 1 24.7j 3 0.0% 3 3 3 6" 49.4 0.0% 11 1 1 8" ' 90.0 0 0.0% 0 0 0 10" 115.0 1 0.0% 0 0 i 0 12" 215.0 0 0.0% 0 0 0' Total Meters 1,433 1,433 1,4331 1,433 Total EMUs 3,581 3,581: 1 3,5811 3,581 Fixed charges vary by class? O No OO Yes 248 Table 2. Water Accounts (SF - Outside) EMU # Meters Annual # Meters Meter Size Factor 1994/95 Growth % 1995/96 1996/97 1997/98 5/8" 1.0 0' 0.0% ! 0' 3/4" ME 9.646 0° 9.64 9.646 1" 2.5 74 0.0° 7 7 74 1.5" .0' 21 0.0%1 2 1 2" 7.9 01 0.0%' I 0 3" ' 15.8 0 0.0% 0 4" 24.7 0, 0.0%I' 0 6" 49.4 01 0.0% 1 0 8" 90.O' 0 0.0% 1 —0 0"1 15.0 0 1 0.0%' 1 0 1 12" 1 15.0 0 0.0% Oi Total Meters 9,7221 9,72211 9,72211 9,722 Total EMUs 9,841 9.841 9,8411 9,841 Fixed charges vary by class? ONo ® Yes 1 249 Table 2. Water Accounts (MF - Outside) Meter Size EMU # Meters Annual ' # MetersI Factor 1994/95 Growth % 1995/96 1996/97 1997/98 5/8" 1 1 1.0 0 0.0%I 0 011 0 3/4" 1 11 281 1 0.0%' 1 281 28. 28 1" 2.5 309 0.0° 309 3091 309 1.5" 5.0 180 0.0% 1801 180 180 2" 7.9 75 0.0%; 75 75 75 3" 15.81 1 0.0° I i 1 1 1 i 4" 1 24.7 0 0.0%j 01 0 0 6" 49.4' 31 1 0.0% _ 3] 31 3 8" 90.0 0.0% 3l 3 3 10" 15.0 1 0 , 0.0%1 0 0 I 0 12" 15.0, 01 i 0.0%11 0 01 01 Total Meters 5991 I 5991 59911 5991 1 Total EMUs 2,7271 2,7271 L 2,72711 2,7271 Fixed charges vary by class? O No O Yes 250 Table 2. Water Accounts (Comm - Outside) Meter Size EMU # Meters Annual # Meters Factor 1994/95 Growth % 1995/96 1996/97 1997/98 5/8" 1.01 0 0.0°. 0 0' 0 3/4" 1.0' 731 0.0°. 731 731 731 1" 2.5: 275 0.0°. 275 275 275 1.5" 5.0 : 164 0.0°. 164 164 1641 2" 7.9 84 0.0°: 84 41 3" 15.8 2 0.0°. 2 (___2,! 82' 4" I 24.7 5 0.0°.' i 5 5 51 6" 1 49.4 0'' 0.0°. 0i _____51 1 0 8" 90.O1 0I 0.0°, 0 0 01 10" ' 115.0 OI 0.0°. 0 0 0' 12" 215.0 0I 0.0%, 0 0' 01 Total Meters 1,261 1,26111 1,261! I 1,261' Total EMUs I 3,0571 3,05711 3,0571 3,057 Fixed charges vary by class? i O No OO Yes 251 Table 3a. Annual Water Use Base Proiections 1994195 Annual 1995/96 1996/97 1997/98 User Class TG Growth % TG TG TG Single Family 823,9041 0.0% 823,904 823,90 823,904 Multifamily 180,529I 0.0% 180,529 180,529 180,529 Commercial 397,214 0.0% 397,214 397,214 397,214 SF - Outside 871,232 0 871,232 871,232, 871,232 MF - Outsid 565,788 0.0% 565,788 565,7881 565,7881 Comm - Outtidt 394,827 0.0% 394,827 394,827 394,827 Totals 3,233,494 3,233,4941 3,233,494i 3,233,494 252 Table 3b.Single Family Water Use Distribution(Annual) TGIMonth #ot Bills BIN MIN- A MAX Sewer Won-Sewer 0 1 675 1 2 1 ' 2 2,851 ' 3 2 3 4,272 4 3 4 4,291 5 4 5 4,497 6 15 i 6 4,474 7 6 7 3,434 18 I 8 2,931 I9 , 8 9 2,510 110 19 10 1,915 111 10 11 1,430 .. 12 111 12 1,304 13 I 12 13 1,008 14 13 14 825 115 14 15 737 1 16 15 16 614 17 16 17 534 118 17 18 500 19 118 19 430 20 19 20 410 121 I20 21 336 22 21 22 269 123 22 23 276 I24 23 24 273 25 24 I25 405 I26 25 26 149 27 26 27 218 I28 1 27 28 155 29 128 29 139 30 29 30 156 31 30 31 98 ' 32 31 32 90 33 I 32 33 106 34 33 34 76 1135 3435 66 Ali 36 I35 36 67 37 36 37 63 38 137 38 51 I39 38 39 40 40 139 46 245 I 82 253 Table 3b.Multifamily Water Use Distribution(Annual) Sewer and NonSewer Use I 3 0 35% Ii 254 Table 3b.Commercial Water Use Distribution(Annual) Sewer and NonSewer Use L 65% 35% • 255 Table 3b.SF-Outside Water Use Distribution(Annual) BIN TG/Month k of Bills FAIN MAX Sewer 1 Non-Sewer 1 1 0 1 1675 10 2 1 2 2,851 1 0 3 2 1 3 1 4,272 0 4 , 3 ' 4 4,291 0 ! 5 14 5 14,497 0 6 15 ! 6 14,474 0 7 16 1 7 3,034 1 0 1 8 7 1 8 ' 2,931 1 0 1 9 8 1 9 2,510 0 1 10 9 10 1,915 0 11 10 ' 11 , 1,430 0 ' 12 11 12 1,304 , 0 11 13 12 13 1,008 0 14 13 14 825 0 11$ 14 15 737 0 16 15 16 614 0 17 i 16 17 534 0 18 j 17 18 500 1 0 I 19 18 19 430 0 20 19 20 410 0 21 20 21 1336 0 ', ' 22 21 22 ' 269 0 23 22 23 276 0 1 24 1. 23 24 273 0 25 1 24 ' 25 405 0 26 ' 25 26 149 110 27 26 27 218 0 28 27 28 155 10 i 29 128 29 139 !1 0 30 29 30 156 10 31 30 31 98 1 0 32 31 32 90 0 33 32 33 ' 106 0 r34 133 34 I76 0 35 34 35 66 0 '136 35 36 67 0 I 37 1 36 37 63 i 0 38 37 38 51 0 ' 1 39 38 39 40 1 0 1 40 1 39 146 245 I 0 256 Table 3b.MF-Outside Water Use Distribution(Annual) Sewer and NonSewer Use 65% I 35% 257 Table 3b.Comm•Outside Water Use Distribution(Annual) Sewer and NonSewer Use 65% 35% 258 Table 4. Revenue Requirements Annual Base Projections Cost Component 1994/95 Growth % 1995/96 1996/97 1997/98 Revenue $4,936,600 0.0% 4,936,60171 $4,936,600 $4,936,600! Requirements From Rates !, Direct Short-Run$493,660. 0.0% $493,660 I $493,660 $493,660'1 Revenue Requirements • • 259 Table 5. Price Elasticities Long-Run Short-Run Elasticity ' Single Family Elasticity Price % of . Default User Class Elasticity Long-Run Response Single FamilipEFAUL— 1st Year 100% O User Specified inle Fail Multifamily 1 0.00 2nd Year 0% I Property Values for Default Calculation Commercial -0.25 3rd Year 1 0% Low Value I 9%i SF - Outside I -0.32 4th Year L 0% Medium Vah$e0% MF - Outside I 0.00 _ Other 0%I High Value 1 71%I Years Comm - Outside0.25 Total h00%' Total . 3(W 260 Table 6. Fixed Charges (Single Family) Fixed Charge $/Month Meter Size 1994/95 1995/96 1996/97 1997/98 5/8" $3.82 $3.82 $0.00 $3.82 3/4" 1 3.82 I $3.82 $0.00 $3.82 1" 1 9.55 $9.55 $0.00 $9.55 1.5" 19.10 $19.10 $0.00 $19.10 2" 30.18. $30.18 $0.00 $30.18 3" 60 . $60.36 $0.00 $60.36 4" 1 .94.35 $94.35 1 $0.00' $94.35 6" 188.71 $188.71 0.00 $188.71 8" l 343.80 $343.80 0.00 $343.80 10" .439.3I $439.30 0.00 $439.30 12" 821.30 $821.30 $0.00 $821.30 $/Account/Month $0.001 1 $0.00 ! $0.001 $0.00 $/EMU/Month $3.82 $3.82 1 $0.00 $3.821 261 Table 6. Fixed Charges (Multifamily) Fixed Charge $/Month Meter Size 1994/95 1995/96 1996/97 1997/98 1 5/8" 3.82 3.82! 00 1 I $3.82 3/4" 3.82 .3.82 0.00 $3.82 1" 9.55 9.55 0.00 $9.55 1 $19.10. $19.10 $0.00 $19.10 2" 30 56 $30.56, $0.00' $30.56 3" 61.12 ; 561.12. $0.00 $61.12 4" 1 $95.50' 95.50' 0.00 ' $95.50 6" 191.00 $191.00'. .0.00 $191.00 8" 305.60' $305.60 .0.00 ' $305.60 10" $439.30 43 .309 0.00 $439.30 1 12" I $821.30 $8 21.301 1 $0.00' $821.30, $/Account/Month $0.00 $0.00 I $0.00 $0.00 $/EMU/Month $3.821 $3.82', $0.001 $3.82 262 Table 6. Fixed Charges (Commercial) Fixed Charge $/Month Meter Size 1994/95 1995/96 1996/97 1997/98 5/8" 3.82, $3.82 .0.00 I $3.82, 3/4" $3.821 $3.8Z 0.00 1 $3.82, 1" $9.551 1 $9.55 0 00 1 $9.55 1.5" $19.10 $19.10 0.001 $19.10 2" , $30.18I $30.18 $0.00 30.18' 3" 60.36 60. 61 $0.00 60.36 4" $94.35 94.35 $0.00 $94.35, 6" 1 $188.71 $188.71 $0.00 $188.71, 8" 343.801 343.80' $0.00 $343.80, 10" 39.30 $439.30 0 00 $439.30 12" I $821.30j $821.300.00 $821.30 $IAccount/Month 11 $0.00 11 $0.00. j $0.001 1 $0.00 $/EMU/Month $3.82 I $3.82 $0.001 ' $3.82,, 263 Table 6. Fixed Charges (SF - Outside) Fixed Charge $/Month Meter Size 1994/95 1995/96 1996/97 1997/98 5/8" ,.78 1 $4.78', 0.00 .78 3/4" i 4.78 4.7 0.00 .78 1" 11.95 11.95. 0.00 11.95 1.5" 23.90, $23.90 0.00 23.90 2" 1 37.76 $37.76 50.00 $37.76 3" 75. 2 $75.521 0.00 5.52 4" - 118.0 1 $118.07' 0.00 1 8.07 6" 236.13. 36.13' 0.00 236.13 8" 30.20' 430.20 0.00 430.20 10" 1 549.70' $549.70 $0.00 549.70 12" 1 1,027.70, 51,027.70 $0.00 1027.70 5/Account/Month $0.001 1 $0.J $0.00i I $0.00 $/EMU/Month $4.781 $4.78 1 $0.00 $4.78 264 Table 6. Fixed Charges (MF - Outside) Fixed Charge $/Month Meter Size 1994/95 1995/96 1996/97 1997/98 5/8" ' 7.16 $7.16, $0.00 7.16' i 3/4" 7.16 $7.16I $0.00 7.16 1" $14.331 $14.33', $0.00 14.33 1.5" $26.28 $26.28 $0.00 26.28 2" 0.14i $40.14' $0.00 4014 3" $77.90 $77.90 $0.00 77.90 4" 120.45 120.45'. $0.00 1 0.45 6" $238.51 $238.51 $0.00 38.5 8" $432.58. $432.58' I $0.00 $432.58 10" $552.081 $552.08' I $0.00 $552.08 12" $1,030.08, $1,030.081 I $0.00 $1,030.08 $/Account/Month $2.38 $2.38 $0.00 1 $2.38 $/EMU/Month $4.781 $4.78 $0.00 $4.78 265 Table 6. Fixed Charges (Comm - Outside) Fixed Charge $/Month Meter Size 1994/95 1995/96 1996/97 1997/98 5/8" 7.16 7.16 I •0.00 1 $7.16 3/4" 7.16' .7.16 .0.00 7.a 1" $14.33' 14.33 .0.001 14.331 1.5" I $26.28 26.28 0.00 26.28 2" 1 1 $40.14 0.14 0.00 40.14 3" I 77.90I 77.90! $0.00, 77.90 4" 120.45 $120.45 I 0.001 120.45 6" $238.511 $238.51 0.00 1 $238.51 8" 432.581 $432.58 0.00 432.58' 1 10" 552.08I 52.08' 0.00' 55 .08 12" 1,030.08' 1,030.08 0.00 $1,030.08 $/Account/Month I $2.38 I $2.381 $0.00 $2.381 $/EMU/Month I $4.78 $4.78 ! $0.00l I $4.78 266 Table 7.Single Family Water and Sewer Prices(Annual) Year Block TGs Price 6/Unit ! Min 1 Max 1 Water Sewer 1993/94 1 0 1 6 $0.54 $3.11 2 6 12 $1.06 $3.11 1 3 12 125 $1.56 4 25 $1.56 I 5 6 1994/95 1 0 6 $0.54 $3.11 2 , 6 12 I $1.06 $3.11 3 112 25 $1.56 I j 4 25 61.56 I 5 6 I I 1995196 1 0 6 $0.86 $3.11 2 6 12 $0.86 I $3.11 3 12 125 $0.86 4 25 I $0.86 5 1 I 6 I 1996197 1 0 ''. 6 I $1.36 1 $3.11 2 6 12 $1.36 $3.11 3 12 125 I $1.36 4 25 11 $1.36 I $ 6 1997/98 1 0 6 160.68 I $3.11 I 2 6 12 $0.90 $3.11 3 12 25 I $1.56 4 25 '., $1.95 I 5 I 6 1 267 I Table 7.Multifamily Water and Sewer Prices(Annual) Year r Block TGs Price$Alnit Min Max Water Sewer 199394 1 0 $1.06 153.11 ' 2 I I 4 I 5 6 1994/95 1 0 51.06 $3.11 2 P 3 4 5 6 1 I 1995/96 I 1 0 $0.86 $3.11 I 12 3 4 I I 5 IF 6 I I $1.17 I 199697 1 I I $1.36 I $3.11 2 I i I 3 i I I 4 5 _— 1 e 1 199798 1 I 0 $0.90 I $3.11 2 3 4 5 I I 1 268 ', Table 7.Commercial Water and Sewer Prices(Annual) (Year Block TGs Price SAlntt ' Min Max Water Sewer 11993194 1 I 0 $0.80 53.11 I 2 3 4 I 5 6 1994195 1 10 50.80 53.11 3 I 4 5 6 I I 1995/96 1 0 1i 1 $0.86 53.11 2 3 I 4 5 I I 1996197 1 0 51.36 53.11 2 3 I 4 1 5 6 53.26 1997198 1 I 0 $0.90 53.11 1 2 J 3 I 4 I 1 5 16 I 269 Table 7.SF-Outside Water and Sewer Prices(Annual) (Year l Black TGs Price 5/Unit i Min Max Water Sewer 1993194 1 0 6 $0.68 $3.11 2 6 12 $1.33 $3.11 3 12 25 $1.95 i 4 25 $1.95 5 6 1994/95 1 0 6 $0.68 $3.11 2 I 6 12 $1.33 I $3.11 3 1 12 25 $1.95 4 25 $1.95 5 6 $0.13 I1995/96 1 0 6 $1.08 $3.11 M 2 1 6 12 $1.08 $3.11 3 , 12 25 $1.08 4 i25 $1.08 5 6 19%/97 1 ' 0 6 $1.70 $3.11 I I 2 6 12 $1.70 $3.11 I 3 12 25 $1.70 4 25 $1.70 - 5 1997/98 1 0 6 50.85 $3.11 I 2 1 6 12 $1.12 $3.11 3 112 25 51.95 4 25 $2.43 I 5 6 L 270 Table 7.MF-Outside Water and Sewer Prices(Annual) Year Block TGs Price$IUnM Min Max Water Sewer 1993/94 1 I 0 $1.33 $3.11 2 J 3 1 4 5 F 6 :1994/95 1 I $133 $3.11 2 3 4 5 6 1995196 1 0 $1.08 $3.11 2 3 4 5 6 1996/97 1 0 $1.70 $3.11 2 3 4 5 6 1997/98 1 0 $1.12 $3.11 2 3 4 5 271 Table 7.Comm-Outside Water and Sewer Prices[Annual) I !Year Block TGs Price$IUnit I Min Max Water Sewer 1993/94 1 , 0 $1.00 I $3.89 2 ! 3 I 4 5 6 1994/95 1 0 $1.00 $3.89 2 3 4 I 5 6 I $1.09 1995196 1 0 1 $1.08 I $3.89 2 3 4 5 I 6 1 1996197 1 0 I $1.70 $3.89 2 3 4 I 5 6 ! ! I i1199798 1 0 I 'I $1.12 $3.89 2 3 I 4 1 5 6 I 272 Table 8. Revenue Summary 1994/95 1995/96 1996/97 1997/98 Base Revenue Requirement $4.936,600 $4,936,6001 $4,936.600 936 6001 Price Elastic Change $0 $24,929! -$7,661 4 7151 Adjusted Revenue RequitenIAt,936,600 $4,961,529 $4,928,939 4 931 885 Revenues from Proposed Rates Fi o e i Ch- • - Meter ize Inde end nt 53122 00 $53.12Z ize e t iiR iI !1tI ! 58105 0 1 $1,581,054' Subtotal 1 634 176 ' $1,634,176 0 $1,634,176 Quanti Char e in le Famil 712 288 $782,070, 1 125 281 $737,428 Multi a it - 191 361 $155.255 ! 245 519 I 162 476 i 31 771! S338.607 $505.041 352 381 F - Outside 933 679 $1,032.704 $1.477.474 972 317 MF - utside .752 498 $611,051 $961.840 633 683 Comm - Outside $394.827 $422.432 ' $627.515 436 124 ubtotal $3,302,424 $3.342,120 $4.942.670 3 294 407 Total Rate Revenues $4,936,600 $4,976,296 $4,942,670 $4,928,583!. Revenue Surplus (Shortfall) $0 $14,767 $13,731 ! ($3,302)i 273 Table 9. Water Summary (Annual) Base Water Price ElasticPrice Elastic Projection Change Change TG TG % 1995/96 in.le Famil, 823.9041 85.480 10.4° M tifamil 180.529 0 0.0° Commercial 397,214' -3.485 -0.9%I F - • tside 1 871,232 84.976! 9.8° MF -Outsid. ' 565788' 0 0.0°0' Comm - •u i e 394 827 -3.686 -0.9° Totals 3,233,494 163,284 5.0% 1996/97 Single Family ' 823.904 3,508 0.4°0 Multifamily 180.529 0 0 0°, Commercial 397214. 25.860 1 -6.5°. SF - Outside 871 7881 -2,130' MF - utsid 565 788 0 0.0° Comm - ut i e 394 827 ' -25.701 6.5%! Totals 3,233,494 50,1821 -1.6%I 1997/98 I in le Famil ! 823.904 -12.395 -1.5% Multifa it 180.529 0 0.0°,' Commercial 397.214 -5.680 1.4°, SF - Outside 871.232 -7.379 -0.8°, MF - Outside 565.788 0 0.0°, pomm - Outside 394,827 -5.431 ' -1 4°0 Totals I 3,233,494• -30,885 ! -1.0% 274 Table 10. Water Change by Block (Single Family) Year Block TQs I Base New % MinlMaxi % Sold% SoldChange 1995/9'3n 0 6 56.9% 56.4% -1.0% 0 6 12 23.0% 23.7% 3.1% ® 25 15.9% 21.9% 37.8% , 4 ® 4.2% 8.4% 100,7%1 1996/9rn 0 6 56.9% 55.3% -2.7% 2 6 LEI 23.0% 22.4% -2.7% Winn 25 15.9% 17.6% 10.5% • fl 4.2% 5.1% 22.4% '. OEM 6 1997/9n 0 6 56.9% 56.6%, -0.6% 2 6 ' 12 23.0% 23.4% 1.8% 3 ®n 15.9% 15.8% -1.0% 4 ® 4.2% 2.8% -33.9% 5 6 275 Table 10. Water Change by Block (Multifamily) Year Block TGs Base New % MinMax % Sold% SoldChange 1995/96 1 0 100.0%100.0% 0.0% 2 3I 4 11996/9 1 0 1100.0%100.0% 0.0% OHM 3 5 =I� 6 Mii 1997/93 1 0 I I100.0%100.0% 0.0% 2 3 4 5 6 1 276 Table 10. Water Change by Block (Commercial) Year Block: "fps Base New % I Min ax % Sold% SoldChange 1995/9.16— 1100.0% 99.1% -0.9% f 3 I 4 a� 5 —I- 6 4 I 1996/9a 0 1100.0% 93.5% -6.5% MIMIt 3 MN'= 5 fl 6 l 1997/93M 0 MN 1100.0% 98.6% -1.4% 4 == 277 Table 10. Water Change by Block (SF - Outside) Year Block TGs Base New % Minb ax % Sold% SoldChange 1995/9n 0 6 57.8% 57.3% -1.0% 2 6 12 . 23.2% 23.8% 2.8% ®3 '® 15.6% 21.4% 37.0% 4 ®n 3.4% 7.3% 115.6% p-- 6 ill_ 1996/9r 1 0 6 57.8% 56.2% -2.8% in 6 12 I 23.2% 22.5% -3.1% cl' IFE® 15.6% 16.9% 8.7% 4 Pin 3.4% 4.1% 21.4% I 5 IN 1997/9n 0 6 57.8% 57.5% I -0.5% 16 12 23.2% 23.6% 2.0% 3 lifil 25 15.6% 15.5% -0.4% 4 25 3.4% 2.4% -27.8% IMMO 6 Ili 278 i Table 10. Water Change by Block (MF - Outside) Year Block' TGs ' Base New % 1 MinMax % Sold% SoldChange 1995/7 1 0 -100.0°.1100.0°.' 0.0°, 2 3 5 �I= 6 1996/9 a 0 100.0%100.0%1 0.0% 1 2 -- 4 INN Mal 6 'I 1997/9© = 1100.0° 100.0°� 0.0° 3 4 _ 'i'_ I 6 279 Table 10. Water Change by Block (Comm -Outside) Year Block TGs Base New % MinMax % Sold% SoldChange 1995/9n 0 ''100.0°, 99.1°., -0.9°0 2 '� 4 MIN_ 5 Ell I 6 1996/9i/ 1 0 '100.0% 93.5% -6.5% 3 MEM 4 fl_ 6 -. I1997/9XR 0 01.0°. 9: •°. -1 •".. 2 4OM =, 5 6 NM� 280