Mississippi Survey of Drinking Water Organization Characteristics and Rate Structures

Transcription

1 Mississippi Survey of Drinking Water Organization Characteristics and Rate Structures Department of Agricultural Economics PO Box 5187 Mississippi State, MS (662)

2 INTRODUCTION Eighty-eight percent of the approximately 1,200 public water systems in Mississippi are considered community water systems; that is, they serve at least 15 service connections or 25 residents on a year-round basis. In 2012, Mississippi State University Extension Service faculty surveyed all public water systems in the state to acquire information about the structure and level of water rates for Mississippi s community water systems. An equally important goal was to obtain information about how rates were set, as well as general information regarding system characteristics. Many of these systems were created in the 1960s to provide safe drinking water to rural areas through a program developed and implemented by the Farmers Home Administration. Today, many of these systems face substantial challenges, including aging infrastructure, increased legal mandates and regulations, and subpar management practices. These challenges stress the need for water systems to continually monitor their rate structures and understand that they may use the rate structure to remain (or become) viable. Each Mississippi public water system has a public water system identification number assigned by the state Department of Health/Bureau of Public Water Supply. For the purposes of this study, multiple individual public water systems having the same responsible party and mailing address were determined to belong to a single organizational body and to be governed in the same manner. These organizational bodies (whether municipal, rural, county district, utility authority, or privately owned) will be referred to hereafter as organizations unless otherwise specified. To gain insight regarding the environment of water rate levels and structures in the state, surveys were sent to all public water systems in the state of Mississippi. The systems were asked to complete one survey per organization since, as previously mentioned, one organization can consist of multiple smaller systems with separate public water system identification numbers. The organizations were asked to respond to survey questions regarding population, connections, rate structures, and other factors that reflect the organization as a whole. Respondents were asked to list each identification number contributing to the data on a single survey. Because organizations consisting of multiple identification numbers act as one body, separate surveys returned containing data belonging to a single organization were aggregated for this publication. Aggregated data was verified using a master list of system information and characteristics provided by the Mississippi Department of Health/Bureau of Public Water Supply. 2 Surveys were sent to 1,252 individual community water systems across the state. It was determined that these systems are controlled by 976 organizations. Systems serving institutions such as schools, hospitals, and prisons (noncommunity systems) were not included in this publication. Three hundred sixteen organizations returned surveys for a response rate of 32 percent. Duplicate surveys were discarded and separate surveys responding with data for each public water system identification number were combined to represent organizations. An additional 20 survey responses were discarded because the systems were deemed noncommunity systems (such as campgrounds and state parks) that do not charge for water in the traditional sense. Finally, four additional survey responses were discarded because they came from schools or federal programs that do not charge individual customers for water. Thus, 292 survey responses were used in the following analyses. WATER SYSTEM CHARACTERISTICS Sixty-two percent (182) of the usable survey responses from community water organizations in Mississippi were rural water association organizations, while approximately 29 percent (84) were municipal water organizations. This compares favorably to the overall population of water organizations in the state, with 59 percent being organized as associations and 33 percent being organizations governed by a municipality. The remaining 26 responses were classified as utilities, districts, or privately owned community systems. Fifty-five percent (161) of the responding organizations were classified as small based on population data provided by the Mississippi Department of Health/Bureau of Public Water Supply (small was defined as a system with a served population between 501 and 3,300 people). Fifteen percent (45) of the responding organizations were considered very small by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), serving a population of 500 or fewer. Twenty-two percent (64) were classified as being medium (serving between 3,301 and 10,000 customers), while 8 percent (22) were considered large (serving between 10,001 and 100,000 customers). The largest responding organization served a population of approximately 47,000. While applying these size definitions to organizations (rather than individual systems) is not a common practice, it was deemed acceptable for the purpose of this study because it provided a commonly understood delineation. The majority of the responding organizations were classified as Class D (59 percent), while 22 percent were Class C, 13 percent were Class B, and 6 percent were Class E. Twenty-five systems indicated that they purchase at least a portion of the

3 total water sold. Of these 25 responses, 17 of them were Class E systems. The remaining responses indicating that some water is purchased from another organization were comprised of Class B (2), Class C (2), and Class D (4) organizations. These organizations reported purchasing between 1 percent and 60 percent of the water sold. Figure 1 shows the percentage of organizations in each size category broken into the various classes. Percentage of Total Respondents 35% 30% 25% 20% 15% 10% 5% 0% Very small Small Medium Large System Figure 1. Water system size and class. Class B Class C Class D Class E Along with providing drinking water, some of the organizations responding to the survey provided additional utility services to the public, such as sewer/wastewater, natural gas, and/ or electricity. A total of 108 organizations responding to the survey (37 percent) provided drinking water and one or more other services (the majority of these were municipal organizations). Of these 108 organizations providing other services, 106 organizations provided sewer/wastewater services along with drinking water. Ten organizations provided natural gas, and eight organizations provided electricity. Figure 2 depicts the number of organizations providing additional utilities. 120 Number of Systems Wastewater Electricity Natural gas Wastewater Wastewater Wastewater, & electricity & natural gas electricity, & natural gas Additional Services Provided Figure 2. Additional services provided. 1 System population is calculated as being 2.6 people per system connection. 2 Class B organizations are those organizations having two or more Class C treatment facilities or organizations with iron and/or manganese removal facilities. Class C organizations are organizations with aeration, ph adjustment, corrosion control, or closed pressure type facilities. Class D organizations provide no treatment to the water other than chlorination, fluoridation, or direct chemical feed. Class E organizations purchase all finished water from other systems. (Source: Recommended Minimum Performance Guidelines for Certified Waterworks Operators in the State of Mississippi, Mississippi Department of Health.) 3

4 The survey also asked whether the organizations impose a tap/connection fee and a late fee. Two hundred eighty-two organizations (97 percent of the responses) indicated a tap/connection fee is charged. Two hundred forty-nine organizations indicated that a flat fee is charged for a new connection and did not specify if connection size affected the fee. Thirty-three organizations specified fees based on the size of the line being installed or actual cost. The residential tap/connection fee, as reported by these organizations, ranged from $5 to $3,400; the average tap fee collected is $496. Two hundred seventy-nine organizations (96 percent) reported charging a late fee. While 82 of these organizations charged a fixed dollar amount late fee, 187 organizations charged a late fee that is based on a percentage of the water bill or a combination of both. The fixed late fees ranged from 50 cents to $35. The late fees assessed as a percentage of the total bill ranged from 2 percent to 44 percent. Forty-four percent of survey respondents (129 organizations) planned to implement capital improvements. Forty-seven organizations that planned to make capital improvements also expected to adjust water rates in the near future. RATE STRUCTURES Organizations were asked to report the type of rate structure used to generate revenue from sales of water. Organizations often implement the same rate structure for all individual water systems governed by the organization s board or responsible party; therefore, the data reported in the survey was expected to reflect the organization as a whole. By comparing the type of rate structure reported by the systems to the answers that were given for the questions regarding the fee,, and charge per block, it was apparent that many of the organizations do not have a full understanding of the various types of rate structures. One of the more common mistakes made by organizations was reporting a flat or increasing block rate when the rate structure was actually uniform. Figure 3 shows that only a small portion of the reporting organizations (6 percent) used a flat-rate structure. Organizations using a flat-rate structure charged customers a fixed amount for an unlimited number of of water consumed during the billing cycle. For example, an organization using a flat-rate structure may charge all customers $20 per billing cycle regardless of the amount of water consumed. The majority of organizations (94 percent) responding to the survey charged customers for water based on the number of consumed. The most common rate structure among survey respondents was the uniform-rate structure (used by 68 percent of responding organizations). This was followed by the increasing block-rate structure (16 percent) and the decreasing block-rate structure (10 percent). Most of these organizations charged a fee for a specified number of plus a flow rate for the amount of water used in excess of the number of covered by the fee. The number of covered in the flow rate is divided into units, or blocks, of consumption called price blocks. For example, an organization may charge $15 ( fee) for the first 2,000 of water consumed and an 10% 6% Flat Uniform 16% Increasing 68% Decreasing 4 Figure 3. Rate structures.

5 additional $3 for every 1,000 (price block) consumed after the initial 2,000. As water consumption increases, the dollar amounts charged for each additional price block can remain the same, increase, or decrease. Since the price blocks for organizations using a uniform rate structure are constant, these are considered to have one pricing block. Organizations using an increasing-rate structure used an average of two price blocks, while organizations with a decreasing-rate structure had an average of three price blocks. Figure 4 shows the number of organizations using the various numbers of price blocks in their rate structure. RESIDENTIAL DRINKING WATER RATES The price of drinking water for organizations charging customers a flat rate ranged from $6 to $36 with an average flat-rate fee of $ The fixed monthly residential fee for organizations having a block-rate structure (uniform, increasing, or decreasing) ranged from $4.00 to $42.25, and the number of covered by this fee ranged from 0 to 9,000. Block-rate structured organizations charged an average fee of $15.65, with an average of 2,258 being included in the fee. Table 1 shows rate structures reported by 265 organizations based on size. Number of Systems Number of Price Blocks Figure 4. Number of price blocks. Table 1. Rate structures by organization size. Rate structures by organization size # % of number # of very small # of small # of medium # of large reporting reporting organizations organizations organizations organizations Flat Uniform Increasing Decreasing A uniform block-rate structure consists of a fee for a specified number of plus an additional constant charge for a series of price blocks consumed in addition to the included in the fee. For example: For every 1,000 consumed in addition to the, the customer is charged $3 per 1,000. An increasing block-rate structure consists of a fee for a specified number of plus a series of price blocks that increase in price as consumption increases. For example: For the first 1,000 consumed in addition to the, the customer is charged $3. The customer is charged $3.50 for the next 1,000, and so forth. A decreasing block-rate structure consists of a fee for a specified number of plus a series of price blocks that decrease in price as consumption increases. For example: For the first 1,000 consumed in addition to the, the customer is charged $3. The customer is charged $2.50 for the next 1,000, and so forth. 5

6 NONRESIDENTIAL DRINKING WATER RATES Twenty-three percent of water organizations charged a separate rate to nonresidential customers, such as agricultural, industrial, or commercial customers. For those systems charging a separate rate to nonresidential users, the monthly charge for 10,000 of water for agricultural customers ranged from $27.00 to $97.60, with an average of $ The monthly charge for 10,000 of water for industrial users ranged from $19.29 to $280.00, with an average of $ The monthly charge for commercial users ranged from $19.29 to $129.00, with an average of $ RATE SETTING Water organizations vary not only in rates and rate structures, but also in the method used to determine whether to increase or adjust rates. Many organizations used more than one method for determining rate adjustments. Sixty-six percent (193 organizations) of the surveys returned indicated that the organizations board members analyze the fixed and variable costs, budgets, revenues and expenditures, changes in customer base, and future renovations and expansions of the organization when making rate decisions. Eighteen percent (52 organizations) contacted a technical assistance provider to conduct a comprehensive rate analysis to determine the best rates. Eight percent (24 organizations) set rates that are comparable to the rates of neighboring water systems. Four percent (11 organizations) raised or adjusted rates by a fixed amount at a routine time, while two percent (7 organizations) did not raise or adjust rates. These percentages indicated that 98 percent of the responding organizations answered this question. The remaining two percent either overlooked the question or chose not to respond. Figure 5 shows the percentage of water systems using various methods for determining rates. Of the 292 organizations responding to the survey, 270 answered questions regarding rate increases. Of these organizations, 80 percent (216) have increased rates within the past 5 years. 6 Rate Setting Methods This number is potentially greater since the surveys were completed midyear 2012 and rates may have changed for other organizations. Rates have remained constant for 13 percent of the organizations for 6 to 10 years and for 5 percent of organizations for 11 to 15 years. Only 2 percent indicated that it has been longer than 15 years since the last rate increase. Thirty-four percent (98) of the organizations surveyed expected to increase or adjust rates in the near future. Thirty-two organizations expected a rate increase in the latter half of 2012, 23 organizations expected to implement a rate increase in 2013, and five organizations expected to implement a rate increase in 2014 or later. One hundred thirteen responding water organizations underwent a comprehensive water rate analysis, with 58 of these analyses conducted since The remaining rate analyses were conducted for 2009 and earlier. These analyses were completed by a variety of individuals including accountants, engineers, technical assistance providers, board members, and others. A majority of these analyses (89) were conducted Other/no response Does not adjust rates Adjusts rates in fixed amounts Sets rates comparable to neighbors Receives help from tech assistance providers Board analyzes costs, budgets, etc. Figure 5. Methods used for rate setting. 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% Percentages

7 by technical assistance providers such as the Community Resource Group or the Mississippi Rural Water Association. Figure 6 shows the number of rate analyses performed by various entities. Entities Performing Rate Analyses Tech assistance providers Engineering firms Board members/internal Accountants Other Figure 6. Entities performing rate analyses. ADDITIONAL SURVEY FINDINGS Several other findings regarding water rates were identified from analysis of the data. These findings relate to the organizations size, number of other services provided, location, and type of organizational structure. A water organization s size was determined by the number of connections and the population served by the organization. The effective residential fee (the reported fee was converted to a 1,000-gallon basis) and monthly charge for 10,000 of drinking water for residents living inside the county/city limits were compared to size indicators to detect any trends. The average residential effective fee decreased as the organization population class size increased (see Table 2). The usual purpose of the base fee is to cover fixed costs incurred by the water organizations. The average residential fee for very small and small organizations was greater than the average fee when taking all organizations into consideration. Statistical analyses of the averages of the fee for each organizational size revealed that there was no statistical difference between the very small and small, the small and medium, and the medium and large size pairs. This indicated that an organization with a relatively large number of customers would be able to charge a lower fee than an organization with a smaller number of connections since the fixed costs of the organization could be dispersed among a greater number of customers. This appears to be the case for municipal organizations since population density is relatively high and purported to be much more constant across organizations than would be the case for organizations established as nonprofit associations. Table 2 also demonstrates the average monthly residential charges for 10,000. While the averages tend to trend downward slightly as water organizations get larger (with the exception of the very small organizations), statistical analyses of these charges using organizational size class as the analysis factor indicate no statistical difference in the average charges between any system size. This is reaffirmed by the small variations shown in the table Number of Water Systems Table 2. Comparison of population size and fee structure. Average residential Average monthly charge EPA class size monthly fee (1,000-gallon basis) for 10,000 Very small $8.41 $41.27 Small $7.81 $41.83 Medium $6.71 $40.51 Large $5.43 $38.07 Average $7.49 $

8 Of the 292 total reporting organizations, only 233 organizations reported the residential billing rate for 10,000 of drinking water. For the purposes of this analysis, the state was divided into five regions: Hills Region, Pines Region, Delta Region, Capital/River Region, and Coastal Region as shown in Figure 9. Table 3 compares the average effective rates and billing charges for 10,000 of residential water for treatment classes and locations within the state. Statistical analyses show that while there is a significant difference between the average effective charges between regions when using treatment class as the analysis factor, there is no significant difference in the average charge for 10,000 when using the same analysis scenario. Table 3. Average billing rates by treatment class and location. Region Capital Hills Delta River Pines Coastal # of systems reporting Class B Effective rate (1,000 gal) $7.55 $3.76 $9.58 $7.75 $5.25 Average billing charge for 10,000 gal $52.38 $26.31 $47.20 $50.15 $42.00 # of systems reporting Class C Effective rate (1,000 gal) $6.40 N/A $9.01 $8.26 $8.49 Average billing charge for 10,000 gal $36.69 N/A $47.24 $42.28 $42.80 # of systems reporting Class D Effective rate (1,000 gal) $6.49 $8.78 $8.35 $7.33 $6.26 Average billing charge for 10,000 gal $38.65 $39.15 $44.45 $39.66 $39.29 Table 4 shows the average billing rate reported by organizations based on size. Statistical analyses show that neither the average effective fee for 1,000 nor the charge for 10,000 is the same across the size classes. This is affirmed by examining the relatively large variations in the average charges contained in Table 4. Table 4. Average billing rates by size and location. Region Capital Hills Delta River Pines Coastal # of systems reporting Very small Effective rate (1,000 gal) $9.33 $10.90 $9.13 $6.30 $5.75 Average billing charge for 10,000 gal $47.50 $40.36 $49.35 $42.50 $33.13 # of systems reporting Small Effective rate (1,000 gal) $6.49 $7.77 $9.51 $8.29 $7.54 Average billing charge for 10,000 gal $37.70 $38.81 $46.23 $46.27 $39.66 # of systems reporting Medium Effective rate (1,000 gal) $6.22 $7.00 $9.71 $5.82 $5.91 Average billing charge for 10,000 gal $41.58 $38.16 $48.07 $33.25 $43.38 # of systems reporting Large Effective rate (1,000 gal) $3.71 $5.23 $5.07 $8.11 N/A Average billing charge for 10,000 gal $34.63 $27.70 $40.30 $44.53 N/A 8

9 Figure 7 indicates that the average monthly charge for 10,000 of drinking water and the residential fee both decrease as the number of service connections increases. This again could be due to increasing economies of scale that occur as fixed costs are spread over a larger number of connections and as population (connection) density increases for the water organization s service area. Dollars $45.00 $40.00 $35.00 $30.00 $25.00 $20.00 $15.00 $10.00 $5.00 Average monthly charge for 10,000 Average fee $ ,000 1,001-2,000 2,001-3,000 >3,000 Connections Figure 7. Average charge for 10,000 based on connections. Additional Services Provided When comparing the number of services provided with the monthly charge of 10,000 of residential drinking water, the average monthly charge tended to decrease as the number of services increased. The average monthly charge for organizations providing one or more services was nearly $10 less than the total average (Figure 8). As previously noted, the average monthly charge for 10,000 of water, regardless of whether any other services were provided, was $ Fifty-eight organizations did not provide the monthly charge for 10,000. The average monthly charge of $46.14 for organizations providing no services other than drinking water differed from the average monthly charge of all organizations responding to the survey of $41.41 for 10,000. Average Charge for 10,000 Gallons $50.00 $45.00 $40.00 $35.00 $30.00 $25.00 $20.00 $15.00 $10.00 $5.00 $ Number of Additional Services Provided Figure 8. Additional services provided. 9

10 Location The charge for 10,000 of residential drinking water was further analyzed with respect to the various regions of the state. The Delta Region had the fewest responses in total. The Pines Region had the most organizations reporting a flat-rate structure, while the Hills Region had the most organizations reporting increasing-rate structures. The Pines Region reported the most uniform-rate structures as well as the most decreasing block-rate structures. The average cost for 10, Table 5. Comparison of municipal and association organizations. Municipalities Associations # of Average Average # of Average Average organizations effective charge for organizations effective charge for reporting fee 10,000 reporting fee 10,000 Very small 13 $6.66 $ $8.81 $39.43 Small 41 $6.80 $ $8.53 $45.96 Medium 17 $4.43 $ $7.77 $48.14 Large 18 $4.00 $ $8.11 $60.76 Delta Region $37.36 Capital/River Region $45.86 Figure 9. Regional average charge for 10,000. of drinking water for each region ranged from $38.25 to $45.14 with an average cost of $41.25 (Figure 9). Analyses show that there are statistical differences between the average charges when using regional location as the critical factor. Comparison of rural and municipal organizations Ninety-one percent of the organizations completing the survey were either rural water associations or municipalities. When analyzing the data for rural water associations and municipal organizations only, the average effective fee paid for water was $7.64 per 1,000 (Table 5). The average effective fee charged by Hills Region $38.94 Pines Region $42.72 Coastal Region $40.31 rural water associations was $8.40 per 1,000 and was 40 percent higher than the average fee charged by municipalities ($5.99). The median effective fee for municipalities was $5.58 (half of the customers pay this amount), while the median effective fee for rural organizations was $7.50. The median effective charge when considering both types of organizational structures was $7.50. Association and municipal organizations were also analyzed with regards to their monthly charge for 10,000 for residents living inside the county or city limits. The average charge for 10,000 for rural water organizations ($45.77) was 32 percent greater than the average amount charged by municipal organizations ($34.80). The average monthly charge for the two types combined was $ The median for the 10,000-gallon charge for the two types of organizations combined was $ The median 10,000-gallon fee for customers of rural water associations was $45.50 and $33.51 for municipal customers. This measure also indicated that customers of rural water organizations tend to pay more for their water consumption.

11 There are a variety of factors that could contribute to the effective fee and the 10,000-gallon monthly charge appearing greater for rural organizations than for municipal organizations. The average monthly charge for organizations providing at least one additional service was less than the charge for organizations providing only drinking water. Eightyeight percent of the municipal organizations surveyed provided at least one additional utility service, while only 8 percent of the rural organizations provided other utility services. Organization size may contribute to the average rural association customer paying more for water. The 10,000-gallon monthly charge for large organizations was less than that of the systems that were classified as very small, small, or medium (Table 1). Seventeen percent of the municipal organizations surveyed were classified as large, while only 2 percent of the rural organizations were this size. Population density is another probable contributing factor. While the survey did not obtain any information regarding the population density of the water organizations, towns and cities tend to be more densely populated than rural communities. Water organizations in more densely populated areas appear to have more cost advantages with regards to facility and maintenance costs. This leads to lower costs being passed to the customers. More research is needed to identify the factors that are critical in determining billing rates. While many of these factors are necessarily related to water production (well depth, distribution terrain, treatment requirements, etc.), others are likely to be related to management and governing body issues. APPENDIX The appendix shows selected information collected through the survey for each responding organization. Although the names of the organizations are not revealed, the organizations are sorted according to region and population served. Figure 9 can be used as a guide to determine the counties in each region. When interpreting this information, it is important to remember that this information was reported for organizations as a whole, which often contain more than one public water system identification number. However, in some cases, one organization may represent only one public water system identification number. SUMMARY A wide variety of information regarding Mississippi s community water organizations was collected through the water rate survey. Most of the state s community water organizations were either very small or small, serving a population less than 3,300. Most organizations charged a fee and a block rate (with a majority using a uniform block rate), while only a few organizations had a flat rate. The average charge for 10,000 of drinking water for residential accounts for customers living inside the county or city limits for all types of organizations was $ This average charge tended to be greater for rural water organizations than municipal organizations, and larger water organizations tended to charge less for water. As the size of water organizations increased, the average fee and the average charge for 10,000 of water both decreased. Approximately 37 percent of the organizations surveyed provided additional services other than drinking water. Those organizations providing at least one other service to customers charged less for drinking water than those organizations providing only drinking water. Water rates and average monthly charges varied for different regions of the state. FOR MORE INFORMATION For more information regarding this study or for help analyzing the water rates for your system, please contact us: Lauren Behel (662) behel@agecon.msstate.edu or Alan Barefield (662) alanb@ext.msstate.edu 11

12 MISSISSIPPI STATE UNIVERSITY EXTENSION SERVICE DRINKING WATER RATE SURVEY FOR PUBLIC WATER SYSTEMS PWS ID: Water System: Are there other water system PWS IDs that are under the same board or management structure as this PSW ID? If so, please provide the PWS ID numbers for these systems in the space provided. WATER SYSTEM INFORMATON 1. How large a population is served by the water system? persons 2. How many connections does the water system have in the following categories? service connections meters Agricultural service connections meters Commercial service connections meters Industrial service connections meters 3. Which of the following services are provided by your organization? Please check all that apply: o Drinking water o Electricity o Wastewater/sewer o Natural gas 4. Does the water system purchase any of the water (that it sells) from another system? o Yes o No If yes, what percentage of water sold is purchased? % 5. How much does the water system charge for a tap or connection fee? $ Commercial $ Agricultural $ Industrial $ By line size (specify) $ for a inch line By line size (specify) $ for a inch line 6. Does the water system charge a late fee to customers who do not pay their bills on time? o Yes o No If yes, how much is the late fee? $ or % of water bill % 7. What was the water system s production (in ) for the last fiscal year? 8. What was the water system s water sales (in ) for the last fiscal year? 9. Is the system planning any capital improvements in the near future? o Yes o No If yes, please briefly describe: System Name: PWS ID:

13 RATE STRUCTURE 10. What type of rate structure does the water system use for residential drinking water accounts? Please check one: o Flat o Increasing o Uniform o Decreasing 11. What is the monthly charge the water system charges for drinking water and how many of water does this charge include? accounts Agricultural accounts Commercial accounts Industrial accounts $ for $ for $ for $ for 12. If the system has a uniform, increasing, or decreasing rate structure for residential accounts, please complete the following to show the number of sold in each block and the price that is charged for those of water. The rate should not be included. Not all blocks in the table may be used. Amount Price Block 1: for $ Block 2: for $ Block 3: for $ Block 4: for $ Block 5: for $ 13 If the system is a municipal system, are customers who are served outside of the county/city limits charged a different rate than those customers served inside of the county/city limits? o Yes o No 14. What is the total bill for one month s usage of 10,000 of drinking water for residential customers located within the county/city limits? $ 15. If you answered yes to question 13, what is the total bill for one month s usage of 10,000 of drinking water for residential customers located outside the county/city limits? $ 16. Are nonresidential users (i.e., agricultural, commercial, or industrial users) charged a different rate than residential users? o Yes o No 17. If the answer to question 16 was yes, what is the monthly charge for 10,000 of drinking water for nonresidential accounts? Agricultural accounts $ Commercial accounts $ Industrial accounts $ System Name: PWS ID:

14 RATE SETTING 18. In what year did the water system last adjust, either increase or decrease, its drinking water rates? 19. Are the drinking water rates expected to be adjusted or increased in the near future? o Yes o No If yes, when will this go into effect? 20. Do the system s board members review the water rates annually? o Yes o No If no, how often do they review rates? 21. Has the water system had a comprehensive rate analysis done by a technical assistance provider such as Community Resource Group or the Mississippi Rural Water Association? o Yes o No If yes, when was this done? Who performed the rate analysis? 22. Which of the following scenarios best describes how the board members of the system determine whether or not a water rate adjustment or increase is necessary? o The board members analyze the fixed and variable costs, budgets, revenues and expenditures, changes in customer base, and future renovations and expansions of the system to determine whether an adjustment is needed. o A technical assistance provider such as Community Resource Group or the Mississippi Rural Water Association is contacted to conduct a comprehensive rate analysis to assist the board in determining the best rates. o The board sets the water rates so they are comparable to the rates of neighboring water systems. o The rates are raised or adjusted by a fixed amount at a certain time. (For example, the rate is raised by $.50 at the beginning of each year.) o We do not adjust or raise rates. o Other System Name: PWS ID:

15 Rate adjustment planned in near future Year of last rate adjustment Annual revision of rates by board Different rate structure outside county/city limits Monthly charge for 10,000 charge Type of rate structure Planning capital improvements? Number of other utilities provided connections Population served Type of organization Region Capital/River Rural Very small No Uniform $ N/A No Yes 2005 No Capital/River Other Very small Yes Uniform $ $79.00 No Yes 2009 No Capital/River Rural Very small No Uniform $ $44.00 No Yes 2007 No Capital/River Municipal Very small No Uniform $ $28.78 Yes Yes 2011 Yes Capital/River Rural Very small Yes Uniform $ N/A No No 2012 No Capital/River Municipal Very small Yes Increasing $ $55.00 No Yes 2009 No Capital/River Rural Small No Uniform $ N/A No Yes 2009 No Capital/River Municipal Small No Uniform $ $19.00 Yes No N/A No Capital/River Municipal Small No N/A $ $45.00 No Yes 2004 Yes Capital/River Municipal Small Yes Uniform $ N/A Yes Yes 2010 Yes Capital/River Rural Small No N/A N/A N/A $60.00 No Yes 2011 Yes Capital/River Rural Small No Uniform $ N/A No Yes 2012 No Capital/River Municipal Small No Uniform $ $33.16 Yes Yes 2012 Yes Capital/River Rural Small No Uniform $ N/A No Yes 2010 No Capital/River Municipal Small Yes Flate $21.00 N/A $51.00 Yes Yes 2011 No Capital/River Rural Small Yes Uniform $ $65.25 No Yes 2012 Yes Capital/River Rural Small Yes Uniform $ $51.00 No Yes 2010 No Capital/River Rural Small Yes N/A $ $71.40 No Yes N/A No Capital/River Rural Small Yes Uniform $ N/A No Yes 2010 No 15

16 Region Type of organization Population served connections Number of other utilities provided Planning capital improvements? Type of rate structure charge Monthly charge for 10,000 Different rate structure outside county/city limits Annual revision of rates by board Year of last rate adjustment Rate adjustment planned in near future Capital/River Rural Small Yes Uniform $ N/A No Yes 2010 Yes Capital/River Municipal Small No Uniform $ $38.56 No Yes 2010 Yes Capital/River Rural Small No Uniform $ N/A No Yes 2012 No Capital/River Rural Small No Uniform $ $50.70 No Yes N/A Yes Capital/River Municipal Small Yes Uniform $ $42.51 Yes Yes 2008 No Capital/River Municipal Small No Increasing $ $28.23 Yes Yes 2011 Yes Capital/River Rural Small No Decreasing $ $28.00 No Yes 2012 No Capital/River Rural Small No Uniform $ $56.80 No Yes 2012 No Capital/River Rural Small No Uniform $ $52.00 No Yes 2007 No Capital/River Rural Small Yes Uniform $ $47.00 No Yes 2010 No Capital/River Rural Medium Yes Uniform $ N/A No Yes 2011 Yes Capital/River Rural Medium No Uniform $ $51.50 No Yes 2006 Yes Capital/River Rural Medium Yes Uniform $ N/A No Yes 2011 Yes Capital/River Rural Medium No Decreasing $ N/A No Yes 2010 No Capital/River Rural Medium Yes Uniform $ $45.00 No Yes 2012 No Capital/River Municipal Medium No N/A $ $29.01 Yes Yes 2011 No Capital/River Rural Medium Yes Uniform $ $59.50 No Yes 2012 No Capital/River Rural Medium Yes Uniform $ $69.00 No Yes 2010 Yes Capital/River Rural Medium No Increasing $ $27.00 No Yes 2006 No 16

17 Rate adjustment planned in near future Year of last rate adjustment Annual revision of rates by board Different rate structure outside county/city limits Monthly charge for 10,000 charge Type of rate structure Planning capital improvements? Number of other utilities provided connections Population served Type of organization Region Capital/River Rural Medium Yes Uniform $ N/A No Yes 2009 No Capital/River Rural Medium Yes Uniform $ $55.00 No Yes 2009 No Capital/River Other Large No Increasing $ $37.55 No Yes 2012 Yes Capital/River Municipal Large No Uniform $ $31.98 Yes Yes 2010 Yes Capital/River Municipal Large No Increasing $ $25.15 No Yes 2011 Yes Capital/River Municipal Large No Decreasing $ $29.01 Yes Yes 2011 No Capital/River Municipal Large Yes Uniform $ $36.49 No Yes 2011 No Capital/River Municipal Large Yes Uniform $ $82.65 Yes Yes 2011 Yes Capital/River Rural Large No Uniform $ $20.00 No Yes 2012 Yes Capital/River Municipal Large No Decreasing $ $34.80 Yes Yes 2011 Yes Coastal Rural Very small No Uniform $ $32.50 No No 2010 No Coastal Municipal Very small No Uniform $ $38.00 No Yes 2010 Yes Coastal Rural Very small No Uniform $ $32.00 No Yes 1992 Yes Coastal Other Very small Yes Flat N/A N/A N/A No No N/A Yes Coastal Rural Very small Yes Increasing $ $30.00 No Yes 1997 No Coastal Other Small No Increasing $ $27.50 No Yes 2000 Yes Coastal Municipal Small No Uniform $ $50.25 No Yes N/A No Coastal Rural Small No Uniform $ $54.00 No Yes 2008 No Coastal Other Small No Uniform $ $49.25 No No 2010 No 17

18 Region Type of organization Population served connections Number of other utilities provided Planning capital improvements? Type of rate structure charge Monthly charge for 10,000 Different rate structure outside county/city limits Annual revision of rates by board Year of last rate adjustment Rate adjustment planned in near future Coastal Other Small No N/A $ $30.75 No No N/A No Coastal Rural Small No Uniform $ $48.00 No Yes 2011 No Coastal Municipal Small Yes Uniform $ $38.50 Yes Yes 2011 No Coastal Rural Small No Decreasing $ N/A No Yes 2009 Yes Coastal Rural Small No Increasing $ $22.00 No Yes 2010 No Coastal Rural Small Yes N/A $ N/A No Yes 2011 No Coastal Rural Small No Uniform $ $46.00 No Yes 2012 Yes Coastal Rural Small No Decreasing $ N/A No Yes 2009 No Coastal Municipal Small No Uniform $ $31.50 No Yes 2010 No Coastal Rural Small Yes Uniform $ N/A No Yes 2012 No Coastal Other Small No Flat $21.90 N/A $21.90 No Yes 1991 No Coastal Rural Small No Flat $ N/A No Yes 2008 No Coastal Rural Small Yes Uniform $ $71.88 No Yes 2012 No Coastal Rural Small Yes Uniform $ $55.50 No Yes 2012 Yes Coastal Rural Small Yes Uniform $ $38.50 No Yes 2007 No Coastal Rural Small No Uniform $ N/A No Yes 2009 Yes Coastal Rural Small No Uniform $ $55.75 No Yes 2010 No Coastal Municipal Small Yes N/A $ $28.33 No Yes 2011 No Coastal Municipal Small No Increasing $ $22.50 No Yes 2008 No 18

19 Region Type of organization Population served connections Number of other utilities provided Planning capital improvements? Type of rate structure charge Monthly charge for 10,000 Different rate structure outside county/city limits Annual revision of rates by board Year of last rate adjustment Rate adjustment planned in near future Coastal Rural Small No Uniform $ $54.00 No Yes 2010 Yes Coastal Rural Small No Uniform $ $54.00 No Yes 2007 No Coastal Rural Small No N/A $ $26.00 No Yes 1998 No Coastal Rural Small No Flat $ N/A No Yes 2012 Yes Coastal Rural Small Yes Increasing $ $29.00 No Yes 2008 No Coastal Municipal Small No Uniform $ $19.50 Yes Yes N/A No Coastal Other Small Yes Uniform $ $27.00 No Yes N/A No Coastal Rural Small Yes Uniform $ $44.00 No Yes 2010 No Coastal Other Small Yes Uniform $ $46.00 No Yes 2012 No Coastal Other Medium No N/A $ $77.50 No Yes 2011 Yes Coastal Rural Medium Yes N/A $ $52.00 No Yes 2010 No Coastal Other Medium Yes Uniform $ $33.00 No Yes 2012 No Coastal Rural Medium Yes Uniform $ $54.40 No Yes 2012 Yes Coastal Other Medium Yes Uniform $ N/A Yes Yes 2005 Yes Coastal Rural Medium No Uniform $ $47.25 No No 2010 No Coastal Rural Medium No Uniform $ $45.20 No Yes 2005 No Coastal Municipal Medium No Uniform $ $25.90 No Yes 2011 Yes Coastal Rural Medium No Uniform $ N/A No Yes 2007 No Coastal Rural Medium No Uniform $ $48.50 No Yes 2011 No 19

20 Region Type of organization Population served connections Number of other utilities provided Planning capital improvements? Type of rate structure charge Monthly charge for 10,000 Different rate structure outside county/city limits Annual revision of rates by board Year of last rate adjustment Rate adjustment planned in near future Coastal Rural Medium Yes Increasing $ N/A No Yes 2004 Yes Coastal Rural Medium Yes Flat $ $30.00 No Yes 2008 No Coastal Rural Medium No Uniform $ $29.63 No Yes 2011 No Coastal Municipal Medium Yes Uniform $ $22.00 Yes Yes 2011 Yes Coastal Rural Medium Yes Uniform $ $53.00 No Yes 2008 No Coastal Rural Medium Yes Uniform $ $45.50 No Yes 2011 No Coastal Other Large Yes Increasing $ $45.32 Yes Yes 2011 Yes Delta Municipal Very small No Flat $ $20.00 No Yes 2009 No Delta Rural Very small Yes Flat $35.00 N/A N/A No Yes 2011 No Delta Rural Very small Yes Increasing $ N/A No Yes 2011 Yes Delta Rural Very small No Increasing $ $26.50 No Yes 2011 Yes Delta Rural Very small No Increasing $ $61.00 No Yes 2010 No Delta Other Very small No Decreasing $ $41.00 No No 2007 Yes Delta Rural Very small No Uniform $ $42.00 No Yes 2009 No Delta Municipal Very small No Uniform $ $28.50 Yes Yes 2011 No Delta Rural Very small Yes Flat N/A N/A $34.00 No Yes 2004 No Delta Rural Very small No Uniform $ $53.00 No Yes 2002 No Delta Rural Very small Yes Uniform $ $40.00 No Yes 2010 No Delta Rural Very small No N/A $ $36.00 No Yes 2010 Yes 20

21 Region Type of organization Population served connections Number of other utilities provided Planning capital improvements? Type of rate structure charge Monthly charge for 10,000 Different rate structure outside county/city limits Annual revision of rates by board Year of last rate adjustment Rate adjustment planned in near future Delta Municipal Very small Yes Increasing $ $62.00 Yes No 2006 Yes Delta Rural Very small No Decreasing $ N/A No Yes 2011 Yes Delta Rural Small No Uniform $ N/A No Yes N/A No Delta Municipal Small No N/A $ $23.15 No Yes 2001 No Delta Other Small No Uniform $ $15.00 No No 2008 Yes Delta Rural Small Yes Uniform $ $47.00 No Yes 2008 Yes Delta Other Small No Uniform $ $30.00 No Yes 2000 Yes Delta Rural Small No Uniform $ $41.00 No Yes 2011 No Delta Rural Small Yes Increasing $ $54.80 No Yes 2012 No Delta Rural Small No Uniform $ $49.00 No Yes N/A No Delta Municipal Small Yes Uniform $ $38.30 Yes Yes 2010 No Delta Municipal Small Yes Uniform $ $35.00 Yes Yes 2010 No Delta Rural Small No N/A $ $47.25 No Yes 2011 Yes Delta Rural Small No Increasing $ N/A No Yes 2009 No Delta Rural Small No Uniform $ $42.00 No Yes 2011 Yes Delta Municipal Small Yes Increasing $ $47.00 No Yes 2008 No Delta Municipal Small No Uniform $ $47.00 No Yes 2009 No Delta Rural Medium No Uniform $ $51.80 No Yes 2010 No Delta Other Medium No Uniform $ $36.00 No Yes 2010 No 21

22 Region Type of organization Population served connections Number of other utilities provided Planning capital improvements? Type of rate structure charge Monthly charge for 10,000 Different rate structure outside county/city limits Annual revision of rates by board Year of last rate adjustment Rate adjustment planned in near future Delta Municipal Medium Yes Uniform $ $20.00 No Yes 2011 Yes Delta Rural Medium Yes Uniform $ $63.00 No Yes 2011 No Delta Other Medium Yes Uniform $ $20.00 No Yes 1991 Yes Delta Municipal Large Yes Decreasing $ $22.94 Yes Yes 2011 No Delta Municipal Large Yes Decreasing $ $26.54 Yes Yes 2012 Yes Delta Other Large Yes Decreasing $ $16.92 Yes Yes 2011 No Delta Municipal Large No Decreasing $ $44.40 Yes Yes 2012 Yes Hills Rural Very small No Uniform $ N/A No Yes 2012 No Hills Rural Very small Yes Uniform $ N/A No Yes 2011 No Hills Municipal Very small No Decreasing $ N/A No Yes N/A No Hills Rural Very small No Uniform $ $37.50 No No 2009 No Hills Rural Very small Yes Uniform $ N/A No Yes N/A No Hills Municipal Very small No Decreasing $ $57.50 No Yes 2007 No Hills Municipal Small Yes Uniform $ $27.20 No Yes 2004 No Hills Other Small Yes Increasing $ $33.53 No Yes N/A Yes Hills Rural Small No Uniform $ $39.00 No Yes 2010 Yes Hills Rural Small No Uniform $ $41.51 No Yes 2012 No Hills Municipal Small Yes Increasing $ $36.00 Yes Yes 2009 No Hills Rural Small No Uniform $ $39.50 No Yes 2012 Yes 22