My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
03-22-1995 Council Agenda
>
City Council Packets
>
1990-1999
>
1995
>
03-22-1995 Council Agenda
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
2/12/2014 3:07:03 PM
Creation date
2/12/2014 3:04:53 PM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
76
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
Mayor & City Council <br />March 17, 1995 <br />Page 2 <br />changes ranging from 0% to 28 %. High volume residential accounts <br />will see a dramatic percentage increase (up to 251 %). However, <br />the argument can be made that these accounts are in fact being <br />subsidized by other users of the system and should have been <br />paying more all along. <br />This proposal results in 55% of our residential accounts having <br />no increase in their sewer charges, 22% having an increase of 15% <br />or less, 11% having an increase of between 15% to 43 %, 8% having <br />an increase of between 43% to 100 %, and 4% having an increase of <br />greater than 100 %. It should be noted that the average <br />residential sewer usage based on this analysis equals 16,187 <br />gallons. The median usage is estimated at approximately 17,000 <br />gallons per quarter. <br />At the last meeting, a question was also raised regarding a flat <br />charge for residential customers verses a volume based charge. <br />The day after that meeting, a survey from the MCWWS was received <br />which reviewed 1994 sewer charges to residential customers in <br />Twin Cities jurisdictions. Of 104 accounts, only 40 had flat <br />rates. The rest had some provision for volume charges. <br />The other major change in this proposal relates to multiple <br />family dwelling units. In thinking about this matter further, I <br />have recommended that we maintain a minimum charge equal to their <br />current rate (70% x $37.50 per dwelling unit) This provision is <br />consistent with the minimum charge imposed to residential and <br />commercial accounts. The application of a minimum seems <br />appropriate in order that they are still paying their fair share <br />of system costs. In those cases, the rate increase is 0% under <br />this proposal. <br />The specific rate structure is included on the bottom of the <br />spreadsheet information. It is my recommendation that we adopt <br />it as proposed. <br />JRH:kpv <br />Enclosure <br />Page 68 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.