Ennis commissioners press staff for usage data as proposed water and sewer rate changes loom

Ennis commissioners spent an extended portion of their Sept. 16 meeting wrestling with proposed changes to water and sewer rates that staff said aim to balance revenue needs while preserving business competitiveness.

Director Taylor presented a NewGen/Friese & Nichols review of meter counts and a draft rate schedule, telling the commission that residential meters make up the majority of accounts and that the proposed schedule would modestly raise residential minimum charges and adjust per‑1,000‑gallon rates. "There's really not enough of those meters to make a difference in the fund to warrant a change in direction," Taylor said, noting commercial meters are few in number even if some are large (SEG 936–939). Friese & Nichols consultant Mazin added that residential use typically accounts for 60–70% of the system's volume.

Commissioners pressed staff for consumption (flow) data to understand how much water large commercial meters actually use. "I would be very surprised…some of these facilities are using very substantial [amounts]," Mayor Cameron Rayburn said, asking whether the commission should delay adoption until the city could show actual flow volumes (SEG 981–990). Staff replied that flow monitoring installations are planned and that some data could arrive within months; they also offered to bring back models showing several rate options.

A central technical question was whether to include the first 1,000 gallons of consumption in the base charge or bill it as a separate consumption block. Staff acknowledged an error in the draft fee handout omitting the 0–1,000 line and proposed either inserting that line or starting tiers at 0–6,000 gallons to correct the schedule (staff comment, SEG 1108–1116). One commissioner said including the first 1,000 gallons in the base rate would simplify billing for customers; others expressed concern that doing so without clear consumption data could shift costs to residents.

No vote was taken on rate adjustments during the G1 discussion. Staff said they would return with corrected fee language and, if requested, average monthly or annual consumption data to better show the split between residential and commercial usage. The commission concluded the G1 discussion without formal action and planned to revisit rates once staff provides the requested clarifications and the flow‑monitoring results.

Next steps: staff will install flow monitors and return to the commission with consumption data and a clean, corrected fee schedule for formal consideration.