I'm confused. Why are some categories shown as less than (<) and others are shown as greater than (>)? Which is it? You say there are 1517 residents, but I don't see how to add the categories of use to get that total. Why do we even bother with different rates for different amounts of use? Terry Terry - these are just comparisons of the same thing but looking at it from different directions. They don't actually add up because the numbers are calculated over 12 months and not a year and if the same number of gallons is not used in a month, the math will vary. The different rates relate to the gallon usage cutoff we have been talking about,. Finally, you are just proving my previous point - this is VERY complicated and non-linear which would require some advanced non-linear optimization math and believe me - we don't want to go there! Ed Lynch, WPCA Mobile 646-732-9224 Water pollution control authority ​Stan Juber ;​ftjones@prodigy.net​ ​swadecki@comcast.net;​Monir Tewfik ;​+3 others​​​ Terry, et. Al. - here is the breakdown: Total Residents 1517 Monthly Water Usage: > 3300 gallons/month 650 customers                     >2800 gallons/month 814                     > 2500 gallons/month 917 > ‎2300 gallons/month 985 Another way to look at it: Customers using less than    Total Customers  <6666 1388 <3500 915 <4000 1046 <4500 1146 >10000 38 >13,333 18 >16,666 13 >20,000 10 >23,333 9 Still Option 4 will imapct a significant number of customers with a rather major impact! Ed Lynch, WPCA Mobile 646-732-9224 Stan Juber ​ftjones@prodigy.net​ ​swadecki@comcast.net;​Monir Tewfik ;​+4 others​​​​ Terry, Yes, that's correct - if we eliminate included gallons, we could reduce both monthly rates and per-gallon fees AND raise extra money. With our current rate structure, we give away a lot of water. For example, this rate structure: Residential: Base rate $29.00 per month, 1.1 cents per gallon for all water Commercial: Base rate $125.00 per month, 1.4 cents per gallon for all water Would generate $1,895,366 per year based on the 07/2025 to 03/2026 usage data. If I apply that rate structure to the 07/2024 to 06/2025 actual billing, it would only generate $1.75 million (increasing the residential per-gallon charge to 1.2 cents per gallon would have generated $1,833,437 for the FY 25-26 usages). The downside of that kind of rate structure is that a residential user who uses 3,300 gallons per month would see their bill go from $33.61 to $65.30. A commercial user who uses 9,600 gallons per month would see their bill go from $134.46 to $269.00 per month. The median residential user would pay about $26 more per month ($60 total), and the median commercial user would pay about $55 more per month ($189 total). On the flip side, the smallest and largest users would actually see a small decrease in their bills. Stan All, The challenge that we face is that the bulk of our users have monthly bills that are either the minimum, or within the first (very low) billing tier above the minimum. On the residential side, the median monthly usage over the course of a year is about 3,000 gallons per month. Some months they may use way more than that, or way less than that. 57% of bills fall into the minimum category (up to 3,333 gallons), and 91% use less than the second tier max (6,666 gallons). More than 97% of users use less than 10,000 gallons per month, so even though we have 5 (!) more billing tiers above 10,000 gallons, less than 3% of bills fall into those categories, so the revenue generated by the ridiculously high per-gallon charges isn't enough to provide meaningful revenue. On the commercial side, there is a similar situation. The median usage is around 4,000 gallons per month, and 75% of the bills fall within the 10,000 gallon minimum. I've experimented with many variations of rate structures. The large majority of our bills are less than the minimum included gallons, so the bulk of our revenue is from the base billing - it almost doesn't make much difference what we charge for gallons beyond the minimum. To increase our water revenues by 50% essentially means that, unless we make major changes to our rate structure, we need to increase the base bill by almost 50% (to around $50 residential, $200 commercial). I think base rates that high would be unacceptable on many levels. Certainly, there would be a great rate-payer outrage. It would make Ledyard much less appealing for small businesses with modest usages, and small households, like the elderly with only 1 or 2 people in the house would be hard-hit. However, any attempt to mitigate the impact on small users be reducing the base rate increase would be borne by users closer to the median; they would likely see bills nearly double, depending upon the exact rate structure adopted. I see 4 basic approaches: 1) A 50% across the board increase in base rates combined with a small increase in per-gallon charges 2) Small (15% or so) increases across the board (base rates and per-gallon) combined with a moderate reduction in included gallons 3) Keep existing rates the same while making major reductions in included gallons 4) Reduce base rates while eliminating included gallons and reducing the per-gallon charge. All of the options except for #1 hit users who use right around the currently-included minimum the hardest. (When I say hit hardest, I mean in terms of percentage increase, not dollar amount: someone who sees their bill go from $33 to $66 dollars per month will perceive the increase much differently than someone who sees a bill going from $133 to $166, even though the dollar increase is the same.) I think #1 might be the hardest to sell to the public, and personally, I don't think I could vote for a $50 minimum residential bill and $200 minimum commercial bill. The poor woman with the dance studio with 1 toilet, who thinks her bill is too high now, would be paying $2,400 per year for water (plus sewer!) #2 would be the smallest change to our current system. #3 and #4 would be easier to sell. #4 might be the easiest to sell, because people would see the reduction in base rates as an off-set to the loss of included gallons, and it would offer the hope that a user could "beat the system" by conserving water. Regardless of which approach we go with, I recommend eliminating the multiple billing tiers. They don't generate much additional revenue, but they make it very difficult to compute revenues with various scenarios. Thanks, Stan On Mon, Apr 20, 2026 at 11:36 AM Terry Jones wrote: All, I do not think we will come to a satisfactory solution to rate adjustment without one OR MORE working sessions in which we can evaluate alternative rate schemes. The issue is too complex and the spreadsheets and tables are not self-explanatory. (There are too many unlabeled columns and cells which probably meant something to the creator but are obscure to the viewer. There are also cells that appear to be the sum of customers in each usage bracket, but the cell contents are to several decimal places which makes no sense to me. Apparently, FOI prevents us from asking questions and getting answers online, so we need to meet to resolve any questions.) What I think we need: 1. Complete usage data and cost data for a significant period of time, e.g., 7/24 thru 6/25. 2. The ability to easily apply new rate structures to the usage data for evaluation. 3. Open minds with respect to rate restructuring as well as rate increases. Terry On Monday, April 20, 2026 at 09:05:24 AM EDT, water pollution control authority wrote: Sorry - I sent you some spread sheets but I forgot to send you the use table.... Ed Lynch, WPCA Mobile 646-732-9224 ​ftjones@prodigy.net;​swadecki@comcast.net;​Monir Tewfik ;​Stan Juber ;​+3 others​​​ Terry - I understand the frustration and the complexity but I don't think we will be able to resolve it before July 1st as there are too many variables right now to deal with it. All I am attempting to say is that we made a recommendation to the town council to increase the income to $1,863,000 and based on the history of income we cannot reach that number with just an across the board 15% increase. We had to postpone the public hearing so we can discuss all the math data that represents the challenges of reaching that income level BUT we will probably have to submit the use table based on what we have historically done - raise all the numbers in the use table by 15% and then take time to see what options we have to simplify the use table in the next budget cycle. I know this is just a copout but as you have stated there is a lot of complexities to deal with and we need time to think through them. Stan and I can discuss the numbers in our April meeting so that we can set the parameters for this effort next year. If we discover a more equitable approach before the next budget cycle, then we could hold special meetings and another public hearing - but for now I think we need to step back and look at this from all angles before we take the leap. Hope this helps! Ed Lynch, WPCA Mobile 646-732-9224