Laserfiche WebLink
SURVEY BACKGROUND <br />' .. ' . We are pleased to present this compilation of 2011 regional water, <br /> <br />~' <br />~ wastewater, stonnwater, and solid waste utility rates. The following pages <br />.... <br />... +• summarize the typical residential monthly bills for each utility (excluding <br />-" solid waste). The bills are based on 6,000 gallons of water usage (excluding <br />~..---~ stormwater), although we realize that some communities either round up or <br /> down, based on the volume of water used and wastewater generated. From <br /> June 2002 until 2010, 7,500 gallons was used to establish a benchmark <br /> for comparison purposes. Due to trends in reduced water/wastewater use, <br /> we have reduced the benchmark for the 201 l survey to 6,000 gallons. <br /> Individual comparisons of the water, wastewater, stormwater, and solid waste <br />- - -- -- utilities are presented, along with a typical total utility bill comparison based <br />Please note: This year the on the combined monthly cost of these services (excluding solid waste). <br />average monthly residential use <br />was based upon 6.000 gallons Communities surveyed included primarily those serving greater than 5,000 <br />for survey charts and graphs. In ! people throughout Minnesota (including the Minneapolis/St. Paul Metro <br />previous years, the basis was ! area), North Dakota, South Dakota, Montana, and Wyoming. Systems in <br />7.500 gallons. the Minneapolis/St. Paul metro area that arc provided wastewater treatment <br /> through the Metropolitan Council are identified herein as "Minneapolis/St. <br /> Paul Metro." <br />You will readily note that the monthly utility costs among cotmunities are <br />highly variable. This can be attributed to a number of factors such as water <br />source, community size, presenceJabsence of a mechanical wastewater <br />treatment plant, topography, and local policies relative to depreciation <br />and capital improvement funding. The information presented can be used <br />to determine where a community would rank based on a typical monthly <br />residential utility bill with consumption of 6,000 gallons, bearing in mind <br />this variability. <br />This survey was conducted both as support for ongouig revenue adequacy, <br />cost of service, and rate planning analyses underway by AE2S and as a <br />planning resource for communities in the region. On a regional and national <br />scale, utilities are responding to economic challenges through increased <br />operational efficiencies, comprehensive capital improvement planning, and <br />judicious rate planning. Forecasting required rate increases in conjunction <br />with capital improvement planning enables utilities to meet annual operation <br />and maintenance cash flow requirements, as well as provide sufficient funds <br />for needed capital improvements. [n terms of rate planning and design, <br />knowledge of the cost of service associated with serving individual customer <br />classes assists in making equitable and justifiable rate planning decisions. <br />Annual review of capital improvement planning, revenue adequacy, and rate <br />planning is a critical step toward achieving and maintaining financial health <br />for your utility. <br />If there is anything we can do to improve the quality of this survey in the <br />future, please ]et us know. If you have questions about this survey, or if you <br />would like more information about our financial asset management services, <br />please contact Brian Osowski at 701-746-8087 ur l~ ~ i.i i ; c ~ , ~~ •;%_ i__ r .:~ . ,.:_ ~ ~ n i. <br />:~ <br />Jy <br />:;~ <br />r <br />z <br />Cop~~righl n 2U11 dE2S -All Riyhls Reserved 201 I North Ceulral Utility Rate Surrey I Page 4 <br />