Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Water Rates topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Consultant: Water system is underrecovering by roughly $5.9 million, recommends further analysis
Summary
A Jackson Thornton presentation to Oak Ridge City Council reported a FY25-normalized water revenue requirement of about $17.04 million and a systemwide recovery of ~66%, implying roughly a $5.9 million gap; staff said a master plan and FY26 data are needed before any rate changes.
Get email alerts on the Water Rates topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Jim, the consultant who led the Jackson Thornton cost-of-service review, told the council the water fund's FY25-normalized revenue requirement is about $17.04 million and that one-time grant receipts should not be factored into rates. He said the study excludes depreciation as a non-cash need and emphasized that the residential customer base drives the system: "You're overwhelmingly a residentially driven system," and "94% of your customer base is residential," he said.
Jim walked council through the allocation results and the headline recovery numbers: "Based off the need established, the recovery for the system is at 66%...that represents about a $5,900,000 shortfall from current rate revenue." He explained the Department of Energy (DOE) is a large single customer (the study showed DOE accounts for roughly 51% of water volume) and that the DOE contract and usage allocation will be a focus of future negotiations. Council members asked clarifying questions about benchmarks for fair-cost recovery; Jim said an acceptable recovery range by rate class is roughly 97%–103% in a textbook cost-of-service model.
Staff and consultants stressed these are preliminary findings and recommended several next steps before returning with rate proposals: re-run the analysis using FY26 data, complete the water master plan to clarify capital needs, negotiate DOE contract terms where appropriate, and consider targeted changes (customer-charge adjustments, capacity/impact fees). Council did not vote on any rate changes; staff said they expect to be back with more detailed proposals after the master plan and additional data are complete.
