5.1. ERMUSR 11-17-2009 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

~~~~- ~~~®~~~~ T®o Elk Rove~° ~>rulagAes c~ou~v~oavoussa®w ~®he~ ®ieta Jerry Caum~hrey ®arryl Thom~soe~ E~®~o °~'erry B~Baa~rerr ~2Ei/BEbVE~ BY: ~avad berg ®~-TE: ~iovember 6, 2009 Sl1BJECT; 2010 ~/ater 03u~iget Since last month's Commission meeting, David and I have been working on formalizing our recommendation relative to WAC rates and water user rates for the 2010 budget. In our preliminarv~ analysis subrrutted last month we estimated water sales would be lower in 2010 by approximately $100,000 over what was estimated in 2009. Through nine months of 2009, it appears that actual water sales will exceed the projected level. Therefore, we are raising the estimate for 2010 to be equal to the proposed water sales for 2009. This will still reflect a decrease in water sales from 2010 to 2009. Attached is a short survey that city staff undertook to compare SAC and Wt1C rates per unit for surrounding communities. As you can see from this survey, with the exception of the Ciry of Ramsey, FRIVIL~'s WAC rate is substantially below other communities. We believe that the WAC rate should be increased by approximately $1,000. Since this is a fairly large increase, we would propose a $500 increase for the VUAC rate per unit in 2010 and an add~nonal $S00 in 2011, to bring the total WAC rate per unit to $3,000 in 2011. With regard to user rates, we are proposing no changes to the base monthly charge or tl-ie water use rates in 2010. The water fund has substantial reserves and if revenues are less than anticipated, a small amount of reserves can be used to balance the 2010 budget. This will allow- most of 2010 for us to perform a financial analysis and rate analysis which will lead to amore informed recommendation regarding water rates going into 2011. had. m.,dii cll;-m ar mn u~ f-..change. Jb~~ig~JJl.u~~run6n~-ann. lnbn~,A,. >,ibicc~-GIAfl ii~~6 ~~V ~. ~¢~b~J~,~c ~~~c C-X31_A'v(Iri(~~-fin')--9 V' n}6l 9 ~Dl~ A113 ~. I I ~~G ~~7 ~~,~~rr bu~5~~~ ~urat~orh= I