Browse
Search
Agenda - 09-20-2011 - 5k
OrangeCountyNC
>
Board of County Commissioners
>
BOCC Agendas
>
2010's
>
2011
>
Agenda - 09-20-2011
>
Agenda - 09-20-2011 - 5k
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
9/16/2011 9:38:36 AM
Creation date
9/16/2011 9:38:33 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
BOCC
Date
9/20/2011
Meeting Type
Regular Meeting
Document Type
Agenda
Agenda Item
5k
Document Relationships
Minutes 09-20-2011
(Linked From)
Path:
\Board of County Commissioners\Minutes - Approved\2010's\2011
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
8
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
Metering -Potential Solution and Secondary Issues <br />The current policy (Attachment 1), as amended on November 4, 2010, states that if a customer <br />believes they are using less than 5,000 gallons, they may install a meter on their well at their <br />expense which would then be monitored each month to determine their usage. The bill would <br />then be based on the actual usage rather than the set amount of 5,000 gallons per month. This <br />is a potential solution to the customers' issue with the amount for which they are being billed. <br />The upfront installation cost would likely be $300-$500, depending on the site. However, at the <br />current sewer rate of $10.86 per thousand gallons, if a customer was using 3,000 gallons per <br />month, they would save $22.26 per month on their sewer bill. This gives a payback time of <br />approximately 18 months for the meter installation. As the sewer rate increases, the. payback <br />time will decrease even more. <br />However, there are at least two issues with this alternative. First, the customers who spoke with <br />the Staff Engineer have stated that paying $54.26 per month is difficult or impossible for them. <br />This would likely make paying $300-$500 to install a meter that much more difficult or <br />impossible. In addition, even if their bill averaged 3,000 gallons per month after the meter was <br />installed, this would still represent roughly a 400% increase per month when compared to the <br />previous $10.16 bill. So, even though the payback time for meter installation is real and based <br />on future savings, it is hard for the customer to think of it this way since their bill is still <br />increasing either way. <br />Second, OAWS policy does not allow for its meter readers to enter private property for the <br />.purpose of reading meters. This would preclude them from reading well meters as the meter <br />would most likely not be in the public right-of-way. Therefore, if the customer elected to install a <br />meter on a water line, OAWS would not be able to read it for the County as they do for the rest <br />of the Efland sewer customers. This means the County would have to enlist some other means <br />of obtaining the meter information. This could be via a privately contracted individual, a County <br />employee, or the customer self-reporting the meter reading to the OAWS office. Each of these <br />options has its advantages and disadvantages, but in every case would represent either <br />additional expense, liability, and/or staff time, thereby offsetting revenue brought in by the billing <br />adjustment. In addition, discussion of these meter reading options presupposes that the <br />customer has the initial financial ability to pay for the meter installation. <br />Moving forward <br />Because there are many facets to this problem and staff believes more research needs to be <br />done to adequately address the issue, staff is proposing to temporarily set the monthly bill for <br />sewer-only customers at 3,000 gallons per month, which would translate to $45.26 per month. <br />Recent census data suggests that the average household size in the Efland area is 2.5 persons <br />per household. Using an estimate of 40 gallons per person per month from the previously <br />noted EPA study, this translates to roughly 3,000 gallons of water usage per month. This would <br />alleviate the loophole that occurred when the rate structure was changed and also happens to <br />coincide with the amount of water use per month for which sewer-only customers used to be <br />billed. Staff proposes enacting this retroactively to the start of the fiscal year. In two months, <br />staff will bring forward a proposal for a more flexible policy for sewer-only customers that can bill <br />more accurately for the estimated usage than the current policy. <br />FINANCIAL IMPACT: The loss of revenue due to lowering the monthly bill for sewer-only <br />customers is approximately $22 per month per customer, or $110 per month total. <br />RECOMMENDATION(S): The Manager recommends the Board approve this interim policy <br />change until a more permanent solution can be studied and developed. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.