|
TABLE WCOS-5
<br />Line
<br />No.
<br />Description
<br />1 Operating Expenses
<br />2 Capital Costs
<br />3 Total Revenue Requirements
<br />Total
<br />(3)
<br />Water Utility
<br />Unit Cost Of Service
<br />2017 Test Year
<br />Extra Capacity
<br />Customers
<br />Base Max Day
<br />(8) ($)
<br />3,135,134 1,636,950 1,054,221
<br />2,883,694 1,631,619 516,140
<br />6,018,828 3,268,569 1,570,361
<br />Max Hour
<br />($)
<br />Local Dist.
<br />(3)
<br />0 279,670
<br />182,995 544,899
<br />182,995 824,569
<br />Billing
<br />($)
<br />82,147
<br />0
<br />82,147
<br />Meters
<br />($)
<br />82,147
<br />8,041
<br />90,188
<br />4 NET COST OF SERVICE 6,018,828 3,268,569 1,570,361 182,995 824,569 82,147 90,188
<br />5 UNITS OF SERVICE
<br />UNIT COST OF SERVICE- $ per unit
<br />Adjustment Allocation Factors
<br />(Equ iv 3/4-in. (Equiv 3/4-in.
<br />meters- meter meters- meter
<br />(1,000 gal) (1,000 gpd) (1,000 gpd) capacity) Monthly Bills capacity)
<br />1,046,385 2,996 8,863 115,510 86.928 99,161
<br />3.1237 524.0888 20.6467 7.1385 0.9450 0.9095
<br />65.1%
<br />31.3% 3.6%
<br />For the next step, water usage or demand by customer class were developed using
<br />standard demand factors.
<br />Component
<br />Standard Demand Factors
<br />Base Demands
<br />All classes
<br />100%
<br />Peak Day Demands
<br />Demand factors by class:
<br />Irrigation
<br />Single family
<br />Commercial
<br />Multifamily
<br />260%
<br />200%
<br />180%
<br />150%
<br />Peak Hour Demands
<br />Demand factors by class:
<br />Irrigation
<br />Single family
<br />(Double Peak Day)
<br />520%
<br />400%
<br />360%
<br />300%
<br />Commercial
<br />Multifamily
<br />• User Charges:
<br />Class demands are then multiplied by the unit cost of service per component to reach a
<br />projected COS by class. The COS is then adjusted to reallocate for fire protection and
<br />the Utility City accounts.
<br />TABLE WCOS-7
<br />Water Utility
<br />Comparison of Costs Of Service
<br />With Revenue Under Existing Rates
<br />2017 Test Year
<br />Revenue
<br />Cost of Service Findings
<br />Adjusted Cost of Service Findings
<br />Under
<br />Cost of Revenue
<br />Revenue
<br />Reallocation of
<br />Reallocation of
<br />Adjusted
<br />Revenue
<br />Revenue
<br />Line No.
<br />Existing Rates
<br />Service Increase
<br />Increase
<br />Fire Protection
<br />100% of City COS
<br />Cost of Service
<br />Increase
<br />Increase
<br />$
<br />$
<br />$
<br />%
<br />$
<br />$
<br />$
<br />($)
<br />(%)
<br />Customer Class
<br />1
<br />Single Family
<br />3,387,638
<br />3,237,664
<br />(149,974)
<br />-4.4%
<br />162,910
<br />104,372
<br />3,504,946
<br />117,308 '
<br />3.5%
<br />2
<br />Multifamily
<br />303,195
<br />398,120
<br />94,925
<br />31.3%
<br />22,426
<br />12,834
<br />433,380
<br />130,185 '
<br />42.9%
<br />3
<br />Commercial
<br />1,623,747
<br />1,554,408
<br />(69,340)
<br />-4.3%
<br />40,025
<br />50,109
<br />1,644,542
<br />20,795 '
<br />1.3%
<br />4
<br />Inigation
<br />72,896
<br />63,579
<br />(9,317)
<br />-12.8%
<br />2,050
<br />65,629
<br />(7,267)r
<br />-10.0%
<br />5
<br />City
<br />369,021
<br />358,765
<br />(10,256)
<br />-2.8%
<br />11,565
<br />370,331
<br />1,309 '
<br />0.4%
<br />6
<br />Non Revenue City
<br />$0
<br />180,931
<br />180,931
<br />(180,931)
<br />-
<br />-
<br />7
<br />Fire Protection
<br />$0
<br />225,361
<br />225,361
<br />(225,361)
<br />-
<br />-
<br />Total City
<br />$5,756,498
<br />$6,018,828
<br />$262,330 '
<br />4.6%
<br />$0
<br />$0
<br />$6,018,828
<br />$262,330 '
<br />4.6%
<br />IE
<br />12
<br />
|