A History of Water Rates Proposed and accepted Jan 19 at GVSC.

This chart illustrates a comparison of the effect on 4 different residential water customers on their costs in 2010  (first Column)  when compared to the 3 different pricing formulas presented to GVSC in 2011.

The pricing options from first presented to last presented (And accepted) are from the $47 base option in the 2nd column, through the next $39 base rate and the final accepted price change for the $66.20 Base rate in the 3rd and approved column.

Note how the average customer $ increase over 2010 went from 82.42 to 126.67 and settled at $94.37. (This customer consumes 350m3 annually.)

The low consumer (80 m3 annually) went from $35.32 to 19.32 and settled at $118.12.

The medium customer (282 m3) went from $62.14 to 69.84 and settled at $93.14.

The high consuming customer (584 m3) went from $238.76 to 281.75 and settled at $100.96


The Commercial rate went from a 35.87% increase to 30.43% and settled at a reduction of 2.17% for the consumption side of his bill. Not confirmed but expected is that his base rate will be increase from $31.77 in 2010  to $66.20 per quarter in 2011.

The Vacant Lot Fee has increased from 31.77 in 2010  to 66.20 in 2011

The Agricultural rate will see an 5% increase from $53.96/per Hectare in 2010  to $56.66/per Hectare in 2011
-------------------------
 Don Quixote Note:
The 3 different scenarios were examined at 3 different GVAC meetings and seemed to be caused from the desire to make the revenue more certain by changing the consumption rates revenues (variable) to the base rates revenue source. (fixed and predictable revenue)

This present approved rate structure, while providing more certainty for the Utility in forecasting revenue has (with the removal of the free 20m3 in the base rate in 2010) but a far greater burden on the lower consumption customer than it has on the higher consumption customer. A move to changing the consumption charge levels and where they kick in (perhaps at 31m3 etc and above) would be reasonable and return this system to an inclined block rate system rather than what has turned out to be a declining block rate revenue model. These changes to provide the $14,243,000 in target revenue which is required without changing the base rate increases would provide a more fair spreading of the increased costs in a progressive inclined block method.  (The more you use than the average the greater the cost per m3.)