Orange County NC Website
2 <br />the Rate Study, made a presentation at the October 21, 2008, BOCC meeting highlighting the <br />main findings of the Study (Attachment 1). <br />This year, in anticipation of BOCC implementation of a new rate schedule, the General Fund <br />contribution to the system's budget was reduced by $40,000. To make up for this budget <br />reduction, the rates would need to be increased an average of 150% this year. This percentage <br />increase is derived from the assumption that the rates would be raised in time for the January <br />billing cycle, giving only six months to generate the revenue necessary. The 150% increase <br />would serve only to bridge the gap between the system's requested operating budget and the <br />approved budget. Capital needs funding and establishment of a fund balance for the system <br />are not included in calculation of the 150% increase. <br />At the October 21, 2008, BOCC meeting, a handout was made available to the BOCC which <br />showed the effect on typical monthly bills of a suggested 3-year cycle of rate increases <br />designed to eliminate the General Fund Subsidy by FY2011-12. That handout is included as <br />Attachment 2. The timeline required for implementation by the January billing cycle is included <br />as Attachment 3. For reference, the FY2008-09 rate schedules for the City of Mebane, Town <br />of Hillsborough and Orange-Alamance have been included as Attachment 4. There was a <br />question that arose regarding the rates charged by Town of Hillsborough to the schools that <br />they service. According to the Town, every customer is billed the same way, so the rate for <br />schools is the same rate as that of a residential customer. Also, staff was requested to find out <br />if Orange-Alamance charges atiered-rate to their water customers. Orange-Alamance has a <br />two-tiered rate, which is shown in Attachment 4. Customers using below 20,000 gallons per <br />month pay less than customers using above 20,000 gallons per month. <br />If implementation of a new rate structure were to be delayed beyond the January billing cycle, <br />the County would need to budget all the funds in that account or the suggested rate schedule <br />(Attachment 2) would have to change in order to recuperate the $40,000 reduction to the <br />FY2008-09 operating budget. The percentage increase in FY2008-09 would go up because <br />there would be fewer billing cycles to make up the budget shortfall before the end of the fiscal <br />year. Every month of delayed implementation would cost approximately $8,000 in revenue. If <br />the new rates could not go into effect before the March billing cycle, raising rates substantially in <br />March and then again in July would cause undue hardship for the customers. The better <br />strategy might be to implement the new larger rate in March, then wait until FY2010-11 to raise <br />rates to the level required for sufficiency. If the new rates do not go into effect until April 2009 <br />or later, the percent increase required to recuperate $40,000 this fiscal year would be larger <br />than 300%. Since 300% is the increase necessary to bring the system to sufficiency, it would <br />not be practical to set the rates higher. Therefore, implementation in April 2009 or later would <br />result in a budget shortfall for FY2008-09. A summary table of these rate schedule delay <br />implications is shown in Attachment 5. <br />None of the discussion so far takes into account the impacts to low income residents who may <br />find the increased rates onerous. At the BOCC meeting on October 21, the program used to <br />qualify Rogers Road residents for subsidized water taps was mentioned as a possible model for <br />use with the low-income Efland Sewer customers. In initial discussions with Tara Fikes, <br />Director of Housing/Community Development, this qualification program appears to be useful in <br />the context of the Efland Community. Discussion is ongoing to determine if the Rogers Road <br />criteria will need to be modified and what form the aid for low-income customers will take. The <br />proposed rate schedule in Attachment 2 does not take the costs of such a program into <br />account. Additionally, there is no reliable way to calculate the effect that much higher sewer <br />