My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
08-27-2003 Council Agenda
>
City Council Packets
>
2000-2009
>
2003
>
08-27-2003 Council Agenda
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
6/18/2012 1:08:42 PM
Creation date
6/18/2012 12:56:45 PM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
147
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
their priorities with some minor revisions. The debt service terms are set at 5/10/15 years. Keep in <br />mind, the recommendation has not been reviewed by the Parks & Recreation Commission. <br />Method of Fee Calculation <br />We looked again at Xcel's flat fee proposals. The flat fee calculation method for the electric <br />franchise fee that Xcel is proposing is as follows: First apply a percentage charge is applied to <br />overall revenues to determine total fees. Then the total fees by class are divided by the number of <br />accounts included in each particular class. Therefore, each class pays the same proportionate fee but <br />within the class there are disproportionate charges due to usage. Attachment C reflects the annual <br />charges based on usage versus flat fee. This schedule reflects a range of usage that we assume to be <br />representative of low to high use -by- class. The variance between the flat fee and usage fees for <br />residential without space heaters is not dramatic on an annual basis. The variance becomes greater <br />with residential accounts with space heating. The greatest variance occurs in the large commercial <br />and industrial demand users. <br />Alternatively for gas, Xcel's flat fee proposal for gas is not based on an initial percentage of revenue. <br />Xcel is proposing a straight meter fee. The original meter fee schedule (Attachment D) proposed had <br />a higher monthly fee for large commercial customers than Xcel's current suggested fee (Attachment <br />E). <br />If Xcel were to use the same method in calculating the flat fee for gas as it used for electric, the flat <br />fees would land between Xcel's first and last proposal (Attachment F). The different revenues by <br />class for these three would be as follows: <br />(D) (E) (F) <br />Xcel lst Xcel 2nd % Based <br />Residential 30,480 30,480 54,412 <br />Comm. N/C 28,152 23,460 17,189 <br />Comm. D 43,200 4,320 26,934 <br />SMLInterruptible 13,500 540 9,121 <br />Xcel's proposals of flat fees for gas are not based on the same rate for each customer, therefore, class <br />differentials exist.. Also, the proposal to apply the same fee irrespective of usage creates variances <br />similar to the electric charges, see Attaclunents D, E, and F for these ranges. <br />Xcel is strongly recommending flat fees despite the apparent inequities in application of these fees <br />even after the City Council's stated desire for a percentage fee schedule with caps. <br />ltnplementation Date <br />Collette Jurek informed us that we could meet the October lst implementation if we adopted our <br />ordinances at our first meeting in August (1311'). Given the unresolved issues still outstanding, we <br />would recommend that approach. The range in residential flat fees are not dramatic to the point that a <br />flat fee use would be unreasonable, the inequities are immaterial. However, this is not the case in <br />commercial. Therefore, staff is still recommending percentage fees based on usage for both electric <br />and gas. <br />cc: Collette Jurek <br />-3 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.