SUPPLEMENTAL - Laserfiche WebLink

I noted early on that the policy of literally giving water free to those using less than 20 Ccf bi-monthly had to be largely responsible for the shortfall. The proposal recommends correcting that, but I haven't seen anything to say how much difference it would make. So I put my admittedly rudimentary math skills to work to figure it out since everyone else is examining other complex bits and pieces and can only see disaster ahead unless punitive increases are put in place. This simplistic math exercise gave what to me was a surprising result, and eliminated the need for an outrageous rate increase, and in relatively short order, restored reserves to within acceptable boundaries. I apologize for the lack of a sophisticated presentation. I was supposed to be a music teacher when I grew up, so those things weren't on my radar. ASSUMPTIONS The current rate, $3.93/Ccf, remains the same. 12,367 account holders now receiving water at no Pleasanton variable charge will commence paying the $3.93 when council members approve the resolution. This represents 55% of the 22,485 SFR accounts stated by staff as the correct number and used for the Proposition 218 notice. Instead of 3 years, this would remain in effect for 5 years. Additionally, the nominal CPI annual increase approved in 2015 would be reinstated. I have omitted that addition from my calculations, simply recovering the current rate from those customers who have been given a free ride because of decisions made by council members since 2015. CALCULATIONS $3.93 = variable rate per Ccf 12,367 = 55% of Single Family Residential Accounts 11Ccf= Average Consumption of those 12,367 accounts $43.23 = Pleasanton water variable charge per average account $534,625.41 = Revenue bi-monthly from 12,367 SFR accounts 6 = # of bills sent annually $3,207,752.46 = Annual revenue, available for Water Enterprise $9,623,257.38 = Revenue gained in 3 years $16,038,762.30 = Revenue gained in 5 years I realize I didn't round up the figures, and that there are other factors to be addressed, and I realize this isn't at all likely to be considered, but I needed to satisfy myself that the doom and gloom forecast that is driving this rate change is fixable with a lot less financial impact than is being presented. I do hope you will take a step back and recognize one major factor that has created the financial shortages can be addressed without causing so much hardship as the current proposal will do. I'm hard-pressed to fathom why Raftelis didn't consider this when recommending such a huge increase, but their job was obviously to give justification for a truly shocking assault on ratepayers pocketbooks. I cannot resist the urge to say I and many others who have scrutinized this have 2