Laserfiche WebLink
<br />( lf~ oj-JaiL./tilllwS <br /> <br />41 <br /> <br />OFFICE MEMORANDUM <br /> <br />TO: C I '1'Y MANAGER <br /> <br />FROM: Earl T. Williams, Director of Finance <br />Terry K. Roberts, Administrative Assistant <br /> <br />SURJECT: Utility Rate Study <br /> <br />IrE' <br /> <br />October 12, 1979 <br /> <br />RE: <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />The intent of this memorandum is to provide a recap of auditionul <br />revenues to be available based on the various rate increase proposals. <br /> <br />Table 10 of the Rate Consultants proposal proviueu a comparison <br />of rate increase proposals on the various customers classes baseu <br />on the test year (fiscal year 1976-77) revenues. <br /> <br />On Table IDA, we have simply <br />proposals to the current budget <br />revenues for the current year. <br />the same but the actual dollar <br />due to the larger Utility Fund <br /> <br />applieJ the various rate increase <br />year in order to arrive at cstirnatcJ <br />The percentage increase WIll rellli1in <br />increase in revenues will be greater <br />operations now. <br /> <br />In Column I of revised Table lOA, it sho\'IS that \'Iithollt ,111[1' <br />increase, our present rate will generate $962,000. The current <br />Utility Fund budget for 79/80 is $996,047. <br /> <br />An overall rate increase was not built into the currellt Utility <br />Fund budget since the amount of the rate increase was not known at <br />that time. However, the present Utility Fund budget was created w1th <br />the anticipation of additional revenues from the University. <br /> <br />The rate change recommended by the consultants would provide the <br />City an ac.lditional $224,980 revenue annually. This is based on <br />billing the apartments and trailer houses on the residential rate <br />with a 0.52 multiplier and billing the University on the standaru <br />commercial sewer rate. It should quickly be pointed out that the <br />consultant's revenue projections c.lid not take into account any change <br />in the volume of water proposed for the University. The consultants <br />did recolllmend moJifying the amount of water believed to enter the <br />wastewater system. <br /> <br />Based on pumpage figures obtained on the Univers i ty, applyini~ a <br />31% evaporation/irrigation factor to the pumpage and applying tIle <br />proposed commercial rate, t~e additional revenue from the University <br />should be about $69,983. <br />