2030 Plan - Grand Strand Water and Sewer Authority

More documents

Recommendations

Info

However, beginning in 1987 the federal grant programs that provided much of the utility funding up to that point were phased out at a time when water and wastewater utilities were faced with significant capital investments to meet increasingly stringent environmental regulations and pressure to extend utility services to new areas. As a result, most utilities have been forced to increase utility rates at an annual rate that has generally exceeded inflationary increases during that period. The most significant factors requiring these utility rate increases include: Replacing aging facilities and infrastructure; Expanding facilities to meet new growth and/or extending service to areas previously served by wells and/or septic tanks; Regulatory mandates to improve treatment standards; and Increasing service levels and system reliability to meet customer demands and expectations. To demonstrate how effectively GSWSA has addressed these factors, this section discusses GSWSA’s history of rate adjustments and the impact of these annual rate adjustments on residential customers during the ten-year period from 1998 through 2008. This historical rate performance is then compared with the historical rate performance of a national survey group of similar utilities from 1998 to 2008 to determine the effectiveness of GSWSA’s rate performance in relation to the utility industry. Additionally, the current typical monthly residential bill and impact fees for GSWSA is compared with those of other local utilities in the Grand Strand and Low Country region of South Carolina. Finally, the affordability of GSWSA’s current water and wastewater rates in relation to the financial capabilities of the residential population of Horry County is evaluated. (1) GSWSA Historical Utility Rate Performance and Customer Impacts Despite the regulatory requirements and unprecedented growth and development occurring in its service area over the past 20 years, GSWSA has managed to expand its facilities, service area, and customer base while providing quality utility services and maintaining “exceptional” financial impacts on its long-time residents and existing customers. Specifically, the impact of annualized rate adjustments on the monthly bill for a typical residential customer with 8,000 gallons of consumption per month over the 20 year period between fiscal year (“FY”) 1990 and FY 2010 was approximately 0.78% for water and 2.56% for wastewater 1 . This translates to a total impact of 1.73% on a combined residential water and wastewater bill. As discussed in Section D, a program of rate increases that maintains customer bill impacts that are below the national inflation rate fall within a benchmark category or range that is considered “exceptional” in relation to the national average for customer bill impacts.                                                          1 For the purposes of this report, the term “annualized adjustments” represent the annual compounded increases to the typical residential customer’s bill between the first year and final year of the period being considered. 32
As Table 1 indicates, the water and wastewater rate adjustments implemented from FY 1990 through FY 2010 have been relatively gradual in nature and have had an exceptional financial impact on the monthly bill for the typical residential customer. Table 1 Residential Impacts of GSWSA Rate Adjustments (FY 1990 through FY 2010) (a) The annualized increases represent the compounded increase in the typical residential bill between the first year and last year of the period analyzed. The typical residential customer is assumed to have monthly water consumption of 8,000 gallons. (2) Comparison of GSWSA Rate Adjustments with National Survey Group To put the financial impacts on its typical residential customer into perspective. RFC assessed and benchmarked the reasonableness of recent rate history with that of other national and local water and wastewater utilities. To provide this assessment, water and wastewater rate survey information from the RFC Biennial Water and Wastewater Rate Survey 2 and historical rate information provided by GSWSA staff were compiled and used as the basis for developing a forecasted range of future utility rate adjustment benchmarks in Section D. RFC used biennial rate survey data from 1998 through 2008 for a sample of utilities across the country to determine the residential customer impacts of the average annual water and wastewater rate increases during that period. To determine the annual impact on residential customers, water and wastewater bills were calculated based on water consumption of 1,000 cubic feet per month, or 7,480 gallons per month. This level of demand is similar to the 8,000 gallons per month of usage provided for the typical GSWSA residential customer. The average annual increases in residential customer impacts were developed based on rate data provided by a survey group of 70 utilities for the water bills and 50 utilities for the wastewater bills. From 1998 to 2008, the average annual compound increase in water bills for the typical residential customer in our national survey group of water utilities was 3.85%. By contrast, the annual compound increase in water bills for the typical residential customer of GSWSA during that same period was 0.59%. For wastewater, the average annual increase in residential wastewater bills for the national survey group of                                                          2 RFC teamed with the American Water Works Association to develop the 2008 Water and Wastewater Rate Survey. 33
Page 2 and 3: I. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Grand Strand W
Page 4 and 5: II. INTRODUCTION The purpose of the
Page 6 and 7: Water and Sewer Authority (HWSA) wa
Page 9: E. Health Hazard Elimination In 198
Page 13 and 14: G. Service to New Developments Sinc
Page 15 and 16: Beach City employees involved in wa
Page 17 and 18: The county’s industrial base is a
Page 19: • New Services Development • In
Page 23 and 24: 1. Retail Customers GSWSA provides
Page 25 and 26: D. Financial Position The Comprehen
Page 27 and 28: average merit increase of 4% during
Page 29 and 30: $169,746. Disposals for 2008 were $
Page 31: during the next 20 years, both of w
Page 35 and 36: located in Horry County, the compar
Page 37 and 38: (5) User Rate Affordability It is a
Page 41 and 42: a. Sources The main water intake is
Page 44: 2. Wastewater Wastewater facilities
Page 50 and 51: (2) Myrtle Beach The Myrtle Beach W
Page 52: Re-pumping - 55 re-pumping stations
Page 55 and 56: Innovative and Alternative method o
Page 57 and 58: Adapting to the changes in both the
Page 59 and 60: 8. Operational Resiliency: “Ensur
Page 61 and 62: Short Term Strategies/Goals • Imp
Page 63 and 64: • Evaluate a variety of training
Page 65 and 66: • Continue to improve workflow pr
Page 67 and 68: Core Strategies • Involve stakeho
Page 70 and 71: C. Capital Improvement Plan Providi
Page 72: demand. ASR capacity will be availa
Page 75 and 76: 2. Wastewater Capital Improvement P
Page 77 and 78: (7) Green Sea-Floyds WWTP The Green
Page 79 and 80: The Myrtle Beach WWTP generates abo
Page 82 and 83:
h. Wastewater Capital Improvement F
Page 84:
2. Revenue and Rate Projections Rev
Page 87 and 88:
of rate adjustments and customer im
Page 89 and 90:
above were forecasted on historical
show all

2030 Plan - Grand Strand Water and Sewer Authority

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?