Laserfiche WebLink
Below are two charts that demonstrate the proposed cost and percentage adjustments for the <br /> total water portion of single-family residential utility bills for the next three years.Note these <br /> charts reference changes in cost per billing cycle(every 2 months). <br /> Customer Snoacts at various Leveis of usage-9mgte aamay ReswenaaL Sra inch mean <br /> 51 300 $972 <br /> WC S78t <br /> 3900 <br /> m S7T 5926 <br /> 3 SsOa 540 Sone <br /> 2 S" y <br /> S314$354 $29+X94 <br /> m M 5132St57SI74 S7$7 <br /> S100 14 =m.'. MEM■ ■N <br /> ioxt Mcd sCx` 90 cd Mof <br /> V"1.0.dsat ,MO&WO4.aa Jsaf ibad�um-Rg+Usr. Hv JW Nary N.0 Usti <br /> acrrwtM f5423 M53 5+.9993 $2a053 $6464aacoordMIm SM*V $13,70 52%W S3% 59'9M <br /> aoropowaso=5 9907a $,%% $313% SIM* SM4 <br /> sho9NaO 9if'M S!0o o0 S173.50 5353.50 555230 $07,30 <br /> 6:usto mn is at Various L vets of Usage-s)ngie xw4iy Qeswenva+.5is,nco near <br /> 97`% <br /> 39'% <br /> a 90'i 68 a`c 761% i4. 73.a 70 <br /> m s4 <br /> 9D'6 <br /> 9^ <br /> � il <br /> a2t 71 Ill <br /> x. 20=f 30 xf so of 97 of <br /> Na6wn•n.Jss< 'aM*o_r gh UM) {t1a1 Jfs) Nary�tv Uwt <br /> •Curwd 3S <br /> s Pmooaa634302a 29 331% 393% 421% 309% <br /> •Pnwew69a3D25 iw 96-9% 38T +34% 70.a% <br /> •o'tOoss6 9a a...t'm is 3b ISM 391% 97.7% 963% <br /> So, the question is not whether the total bills (not the components) will rise by 70 - 100% for SFR customers by <br /> FY26. They will - independent and city models settled it. The questions that arise pertain to the fairness and <br /> transparency of the new proposal, including the drivers behind it. <br /> I apologize for the long email. I list 20 questions below, believing fairness and transparency are top <br /> considerations for all on this email list. <br /> 1. What caused the confusion and controversy about how much the total bills would rise over three years <br /> for even the medium-low-use SFR customers? The calculations were straightforward for anyone looking <br /> at the current and proposed rates. What could we all do to avoid this inefficiency and controversy to <br /> focus on substantive issues? <br /> 2. Since fairness and transparency are paramount, wouldn't an early disclosure about the disproportionate <br /> increase across customer classes within SFR usage tiers and between SFR vs. non-SFR customer classes <br /> have been appropriate? <br /> 3. Would providing analogous charts for non-SFR customers in the FAQ(like the above for SFR three- <br /> year impact) hurt or improve transparency? I requested such charts and a calculator for other classes <br /> from the city to validate my analysis. <br /> 4. Are all decision-makers thoroughly convinced and wholly aligned on the fairness of the uneven rate <br /> increase across customer classes? <br /> Since total revenues will rise by 74.72%over three years (30%, 20%, and 12% - compounded) and all <br /> but the less than ten cef SFR customers will see their bills increase by over that amount, it must be the <br /> case that the non-SFR customers will see their rates go up much lower. I have shared my calculations to <br /> show this before (I am reattaching the document I shared earlier). <br /> The only rationale for such a disparate increase is that the SFR customers have been underpayin so far <br /> for their service costs; hence. the proposed disproportionate increase will rectify this. Tamara's response <br /> 2 <br />