Ad Here

Adjust story text size:

Other stories in this category Letter to the Editor - RFPD Questionable Management Again? 9.01.10 8/31/2010 Viewpoint - Newspaper Accused of Fiscal Malfeasance 8.25.10 8/23/2010 Letter to the Editor - Internet 9.01.10 8/30/2010 Click here for all the news Most recommended in this category Letter to the Editor - Response to Max Chartrand 8.18.10 Letter to the Editor - Response to Richard Fouch's letter 8.18.10 Letter to the Editor - 2010 Water/Sewer Rate Increase 8.18.10 Click here for all the news

The numbers published in the 7/21/2010 Valley View indicate that water rates for consumption below 5000 gallons have increased under new rates from $.00288/gal ($2.88 per 1000 gal.) to $.00348/gal ($3.48 per 1000 gal.). Therefore, as the article states, all single family residential customers in this usage group appear to have an increase of 21%.

This is not necessarily true because there is a second component of the billing. That is the base charge which was actually REDUCED from $17.00 per month for the old rate to $15.43 per month for the new rate. (Note the detail that was used in the calculations, it came out not $15.40 or $15.45 but $15.43)

Utilizing exacting and high-tech analysis our consultant was able to develop this new rate which has the impact of actually slightly LOWERING bills on usage under about 3000 gallons which is confusing if CCMD wanted to increase revenue as I understand was the intent. Naturally, reducing expenses is never an option.

The report itself indicates that approximately 30% of the bills in the analysis were at or below 3000 gallons and thus would have a slight decrease or no change. The study and new rate indicates that CCMD’s target increase of 9.5% does not occur on an individual bill until consumption reaches just over 6000 gallons which occurred at about 60% of the bills analyzed. Then the plan must be based on billings with usage in the 8-10000 gallon plus range per month before an overall increase of 9.5% is realized since the first 30% have either a reduction or no increase.

Thus it seems that CCMD must be counting on continued consumption for landscaping which in the past has been the major payer group in the old rate. The problem is that landscaping water is a seasonal and discretionary usage and I know several people, including myself, who have significantly reduced this usage. Therein, I think lies a fallacy in the apparent “spread the wealth” thinking of this increase where they may well not see their 9.5% target revenue increase.

But wait, stand by for more to follow since this new program targets 9.5% in 2010 and additional 6% increases in each of the years 2011, 2012, 2013, and 2014.

The study does recommend that “the District should annually review the timing and magnitude of these increases to determine their appropriateness”.

Anyone like to bet on the outcome of these annual reviews?

Dave Houghton

Colorado City

TalkBack

Click here to log in to post to TalkBack

Click on the cop to report Talk Back abuse and misuse