The Copperas Cove City Council has agreed on a new course for water, sewer, and solid waste utility prices, while keeping the senior discount intact for the time being.
After hearing two distinct possibilities offered by City Manager Ryan Haverlah, the council reached an agreement during a workshop held Tuesday evening. Option A and Option B were the two options considered, with the council opting for Option B.
Option B contains a $25 residential water base fee, up from the current $14 base rate, and a $26 sewer base rate, up from the current $14 base rate.
However, instead of rising, both water and sewer volumetric rates will fall. The volumetric fee for water will be reduced to $3.10 per 1,000 gallons, down from $4.75. A sprinkler’s volumetric rate will be $2.80 per 1,000 gallons. From $5.75 per 1,000 gallons, the sewage volumetric charge will be reduced to $3.71 per 1,000 gallons.
The solid waste rate for trash collection will rise to $19.83 from $19, with the senior discount remaining at 20%.
Bills for individuals who qualify for the senior citizen discount will rise by a maximum of $17.27 for the lowest volumetric user.
According to Haverlah, the average monthly bill increase for utility users who consume up to 5,000 gallons of water per month will be around $11.
The new Option B, however, does not address the need to move away from the senior citizen discount, as Council member Marc Payne pointed out. The council had discussed phasing out the discount at previous seminars.
Haverlah indicated that council had two requests: the discount be removed and the volumetric rate be reduced.
“Place 3 councilmember Dan Yancey stated, “If we put some kind of contribution mechanism in place that allows the 14,000 other customers who benefit to assist offset whatever cost that could be incurred there, then it comes off the government’s back.” “It focuses on people assisting people accomplish what needs to be done, and it also establishes standards for who qualifies for assistance, so people aren’t taking advantage of the fact that they get a discount just because they’re 65.”
The only aspect of Option B that Mayor Bradi Diaz dislikes is that it does not address the senior discount.
“It’s true that we need to get rid of the senior citizen discount,” said councilmember Jay Manning, “but trying to do this is getting our rates more in line, and it’ll make it simpler to get rid of the senior citizen discount later since we’ve already balanced out.” “For the quantity they utilize, everyone is paying what they should be paying. Then we can move on to the other. Trying to deal with both of them at the same time is quite challenging.”
During a prior council utility rate workshop, council members discussed reducing the discount from 20% to 15% and requested base rate comparisons from other cities.
Temple, Harker Heights, Stephenville, Killeen, Round Rock, Belton, Gatesville, Waco, Georgetown, Lampasas, Taylor, Liberty Hill, and Cedar Park’s base and volumetric rates were compared to Copperas Cove’s.
Copperas Cove’s latest planned base rate of $14.49 is in the center of the pack. The base fee at Liberty Hill is $35.09, whereas the base rate at Temple is $10.
The volumetric rate in Liberty Hill is $4.61, compared to $4.99 in Copperas Cove. The base pricing at Georgetown is $23, however the volumetric rate is $2.40, with a $6.50 discount for Medicaid users.
Copperas Cove is the only city on the list that offers a discount only to elderly residents. The next nearest city is Killeen, which offers a discount through a customer-funded assistance program.
Option A, which the council rejected, recommended raising the base rate from $14 to $16, as well as lowering the volumetric charge for residential customers from $4.75 to $4.70 for water and $4.75 to $4.50 for sprinklers. It would also have raised the sewer base fee from $14 to $16 while maintaining the $5.75 volumetric rate. The solid waste fee would have maintained at $19.83, an increase from the current $19 but a decrease from the $19.95 originally suggested.
The increased rates will not take effect until Oct. 1, and the city council will need to officially approve the rate increase by revising the city’s fee schedule at its Aug. 4 meeting.
How much does a monthly water bill in Texas cost on average?
A total of 128 cities indicated that their citizens have access to water.
The average cost of 5,000 gallons of water in all cities is $39.83, down 3.40 percent from the average of $42.23 in 2021.
In all cities, the average monthly home usage is 5,481 gallons.
In 125 of the cities that responded to the study, wastewater service is available.
The average cost of wastewater service for 5,000 gallons of residential usage is $33.46, up 5.55 percent over last year’s average of $31.70.
In Copperas Cove, Texas, how do I pay my water bill?
Send a check or money order to City of Copperas Cove Utility Administration, P.O. Drawer 1419 Copperas Cove TX 76522, along with your bill stub or name, service address, and account number.
In person: 305 S Main St, Copperas Cove, TX 76522 | 8:00am4:00pm CST|cash, check, credit and debit card (VISA, MasterCard, or Discover), and money order A $2.75 fee is applied when using a credit or debit card in person.
Utility Administration, 305 S Main St, Copperas Cove, TX 76522; Utility Administration, 305 S Main St, Copperas Cove, TX 76522; Utility Administration, 305 S Main St, Copperas Cove, TX 765
The Utility Administration Department is in charge of timely and correct billing and collection of water, sewer, drainage, and solid waste receivables. Our aim is to provide professional customer care at all times, as well as accurate and timely billing questions, concerns, connects, disconnects, and transfers to the inhabitants of Copperas Cove.
What is the typical water bill in Canada?
Past decreases in infrastructure funding were cited as the primary issue in the research. According to the report, the state of our water and wastewater systems will continue to degrade unless asset management techniques are improved, resulting in ever-increasing expenses to maintain the same service levels. The Watertight report (2005) indicated that over the next 15 years, Ontario’s water and wastewater sector would require a $25 billion expenditure for asset renewal (excluding growth-related investment).
These and other stories have focused attention to the problem. Other activities and factors, such as those listed below, will compel municipalities to implement full cost pricing for water and wastewater services in the future. Otherwise, those services will not be sustainable; as a result, their dependability and safety will deteriorate, as will the public’s trust in them. It’s also worth noting that decreases in reliability will not affect all households in the same way. Higher-income families can protect themselves from the negative repercussions of underfunding (for example, by purchasing point-of-use water disinfection systems). Reduced system reliability, on the other hand, is likely to have a greater impact on lower-income households. Other challenges and considerations that point to the need for fullcost pricing include:
- Due to their own budgetary and debt limits, the federal and provincial governments can only fund local water and wastewater infrastructure to a limited extent in the future.
- Changes in accounting standards mandated by the Public Service Accounting Board (PSAB), which for the first time forced municipalities to account for the depreciation of tangible capital assets like water and sewerage systems.
- Senior government directives and rules requiring municipalities to operate their water and wastewater systems in a sustainable manner. Take, for example, Ontario’s Water Opportunities Act’s criteria for sustainability plans.
These considerations will force governments to charge a fee for water and wastewater services, such as water source protection, depreciation of infrastructure assets as they age, and eventually decommissioning and replacement of facilities as they reach the end of their useful lives. A crucial question remains unanswered. Will lower-income households be disproportionately affected by the projected rate hikes?
Water rate increases have the potential to disproportionately burden low-income households, as seen in the table. It’s crucial to note, however, that this does not have to be the case. There are a number of policy alternatives for mitigating the effects of rate change. The following are some of these choices (S. Renzetti, 2009):
- Putting a greater emphasis on generating revenue through volumetric charges rather than regressive connection charges.
- Imposing summer surcharges, which would largely affect homeowners with large lawns and pools.
- Determine the percentage of water supply expenses that are due to fire-fighting services, based on property values rather than water usage levels.
- Implement raising block rate prices and using any surpluses to subsidize low-income households’ consumption.
There’s no denying that an increase in the cost of any service or commodity, whether it’s water and wastewater, electricity, gas, transportation, or food, may be a big difficulty and hardship for low-income households. Appropriate safeguards must be put in place to protect these families. However, we believe that any rise in water or wastewater pricing required to represent the entire cost of delivering such services is well within most Canadian households’ budgetary constraints. Furthermore, governmental measures might be implemented to mitigate the effects of rate hikes on vulnerable households. What’s crucial to understand is that the goal of sustainable water systems and the protection of disadvantaged households are not mutually exclusive.
Carl Bodimeade is the chair of the Ontario Coalition for Sustainable Infrastructure and a senior vice president of Hatch Mott MacDonald. Steven Renzetti is a professor in Brock University’s economics department. He’s also the network’s program director for water economics, policy, and governance.
K. Stinchcombe, S. Renzetti, and O. Brandes (2010) “POLIS Project on Ecological Governance, University of Victoria, “Worth the Charge: A Primer on Conservation-Oriented Water Pricing.”
Measuring Water Affordability: A Proposal for Urban Centers in Developed Countries, M. De Los ngeles Garca-Valias, R. Martnez-Espieira, and F. Gonzlez-Gmez (2010), International Journal of Water Resources Development, 26:3, 441-458.
The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) is a global organization that promotes economic cooperation and development (2010). Water Resources and Water and Sanitation Services are both priced. ENV/EPOC/GSP(2009)17/FINAL, OECD Environment Directorate, 18 January 2010.
Renzetti, S. (2009) “The Case for Smarter Water Pricing” “The Wave of the Future: The Case for Smarter Water Pricing” Toronto: C.D. Howe Institute Commentary 281.
How much does a typical water bill cost?
The Average Water Bill’s Price In the United States, the average water bill for a household of four using 100 gallons of water per day per person is $72.93 per month.
Copperas Cove is a town or a city.
Copperas Cove, “The City Built for Family Living,” welcomes you. Our welcoming town in Central Texas, tucked between five hills, is a beautiful place to call home!
Copperas Cove, which began as a small rural ranching and farming town in the 1870s, has expanded to become Coryell County’s largest city, with over 30,000 residents. Copperas Cove got its name from the mineral-tasting water from a nearby spring. Copperas Cove’s fortunes improved as a result of two important occurrences in its history that boosted the local economy and population. The railroad’s extension into the area in the late 1880s and the establishment of Camp Hood (Fort Hood) in 1942 were two of the most significant events in the area’s history.
Copperas Cove is an excellent spot to start a new business or relocate an existing one because it is close to Fort Hood on the west and strategically positioned in the center of Texas on Highway 190 between IH-35 and picturesque US-281. Copperas Cove, a city with a proud history and a promising future, is committed to enhancing the lives of its residents. Pleasant neighborhoods can be found all across the city, offering a wide range of property sizes, budgets, and architectural styles. Buyers looking for a home for a small family, a growing family, or one with a lot of nice features have a lot of options. Prestigious neighborhoods with elite homes have been constructed in prime sites, such as regions with views of the hill country or overlooking a golf course.
There is also the option of living in the country. Many projects in the city’s outskirts provide residences with land. The sloping hills surrounding Copperas Cove are home to wild turkeys, deer, armadillos, and roadrunners. Wildlife, huge oaks, mesquite sage, and cactus create a gorgeous landscape of country living, although the city’s conveniences are only a short distance away.
Copperas Cove is an ideal area to live and learn, with one of the lowest crime rates in Central Texas and a school district recognized by the Texas Education Agency (TEA) for excellence in education. Seven elementary schools, two intermediate schools, two junior high schools, and one high school are part of the Copperas Cove Independent School District. The level of education provided by CCISD is well appreciated by the townspeople and educational agencies around the state. Local support and interest in young people and the educational system have been key elements in encouraging pupils to achieve high accomplishment levels on state and national standardized tests. The numerous honors, trophies, and diplomas obtained by students and professors alike illustrate the educational system’s professionalism, talent, and concern. Private kindergartens and parochial schools are provided in addition to public institutions.
Copperas Cove’s schools are known for having a good curriculum that is enhanced by the creative instruction of brilliant and professional instructors, equipping students for successful careers and higher education. Both Central Texas College and Texas A&M Central Texas University are located on Highway 190, just outside of Copperas Cove. Those who attend with 30 or more transferred hours can choose from 50 bachelor’s and graduate degrees offered by Texas A&M Central Texas.
Copperas Cove has a plethora of recreational opportunities. The city park features a picnic area, swimming pool, tennis court, and lots of space for baseball games, soccer, and just relaxing on a peaceful afternoon, with meandering creeks running through tree-shaded grounds. Copperas Cove has an 18-hole golf course with clubhouse, seven parks, two of which have public pools, and a contemporary public library. Copperas Cove has long been known and touted as Central Texas’ bike/run capital. Each year, the Copperas Cove Chamber of Commerce and Visitor’s Bureau sponsors a number of bike races and festivals that attract residents and visitors from all over the state.
Copperas Cove is a thriving city with plenty to do for people of all ages.
Is water available for free in Canada?
Water is not paid for by citizens, farmers, or business in Canada. If the government starts selling water, it becomes an exportable product under NAFTA and now the USMCA which is widely recognized as a bad idea.
The utilization of water infrastructure, such as pipes, testing, and labor, does cost money. Large industrial users pay more for the privilege than residents, but the amount collected from commercial water bottlers in Ontario has long been criticized as being absurdly low. The administrative charge was only $3.71 per million litres till 2017. For same amount, the provincial government now charges $503.71.
For many residents of the Grand River watershed, Nestl, the province’s, if not the world’s, most contentious water profiteer, there is no acceptable price for extraction. In Ontario, the firm is allowed to pump around 4.7 million litres per day from aquifers beneath Guelph, Aberfoyle, and Six Nations for a pittance of $2,367, give or take.
Animosity between Nestl and residents of the watershed dates back decades, but it peaked in 2016. The first of the company’s two permissions to extract water there expired in August of that year, followed by the second in August of the following year. Nestl outbid a local community for another withdrawal site somewhere in the middle, a highly contentious move.
The water from the third location, however, has not been bottled since the Ontario government imposed a two-year ban on new extraction licences in 2016. The Liberals then vacillated between lifting the prohibition or making it permanent for years, a strategy that the Conservatives have now adopted, proposing to extend the moratorium’s expiry to 2020.
Meanwhile, the government has permitted Nestl to continue pumping on its expired permits, which the firm has done while also attempting to persuade the Six Nations band council to participate in genuine dialogue. That hasn’t worked out too well: after all, about 11,000 people there don’t have access to safe drinking water. Chief Ava Hill literally told Nestl reps to go jump in the lake when they came over for a meet and greet.
“We’ve told them no before, but they keep taking water from beneath us,” Makasa Looking Horse, a local, said. “We want kids to know it’s not okay, and we’re watching.”
Ms. Looking Horse is a McMaster University student who is working on establishing instruments to monitor water quality in Indigenous communities as part of a research team. She led a protest walk to Nestl’s Aberfoyle factory in November, with members of the advocacy organization Wellington Water Watchers in attendance.
The Water Watchers planned to make their own move on Thursday evening, releasing a draft bill to “Establish a Right to Safe Drinking Water.” It recommends an outright ban on commercial water bottling across the province, and the group aims to bring the bill to the legislature’s floor next spring.
The bottling ban is both the most visible and the most straightforward component of the bill. Getting wrapped up in weeds when it comes to water policy: The law also emphasizes the importance of resolving ambiguous problems such as appropriate water-use criteria for various industries and the roles of municipalities vs the province.
Those issues are often overlooked, especially because they boil down to one unpleasant fact: no one in Ontario who has access to clean water pays enough for it not individuals, communities, or even less contentious enterprises.
Many parts of the country don’t even track how much water they use; according to the most recent Statistics Canada data, more than 40% of households still pay a flat rate rather than being metered. Utility costs, metered or not, don’t cover the expense of maintaining water bodies healthy, or even researching how much water Ontario’s lakes and aquifers hold.
So, what should the price of water be? During the investigation into the Walkerton incident in 2000, someone did come up with a number. Following the death of six people and the illness of hundreds more as a result of contaminated water, a consultancy firm assessed the cost of excellent water governance to be between $7 and $19 per home per year in Ontario.
In 2018 dollars, the top end is $25, which would put my family’s water cost at little over $150 per year, significantly less than a monthly cable payment, according to the Walkerton inquiry’s head.
30 cases of Nestl Pure Life bottled water might be a better comparison. In any case, it’s a modest fee to pay to defend something valuable, which far too many people have mistaken for free for far too long.
According to the report, communities in Alberta and Saskatchewan have the highest water costs in the country. Calgary and Regina, for example, have the second- and third-highest prices, respectively, among the 93 cities studied.
In Calgary, a two-person family consuming 12.2 cubic metres (12,200 litres) of water per month (a conservative indoor-only usage) would pay $1,265 per year, whereas in Regina, the cost would be $1,229 per year. Saint John, New Brunswick, has the highest levies, at $1,368 per year. Water charges in Torbay, N.L., on the other hand, are $300 per year regardless of how much water a household uses.
Water and wastewater services for low-income households should not exceed 5% of their after-tax income, according to the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) affordability guideline. Alberta has seven of the 22 cities where rates surpass the OECD affordability criteria, while Saskatchewan has five.
The quality of the source water is one of the main reasons of high rates in Alberta and Saskatchewan compared to other jurisdictions. The distance from the source to the municipality may be longer in drier portions of the Prairies than in other water-rich regions.
Wastewater treatment may also be more expensive because a number of Prairie cities release sewage into streams that are then used as source water by neighboring municipalities. Regina, for example, is mandated by the Saskatchewan government to pay more attention to the quality of wastewater discharge it produces than other cities in the province.
Similarly, Saint John, N.B.’s high water utility prices reflect major wastewater infrastructure investments made to protect the Bay of Fundy’s waters. On the other side, a city like Victoria, B.C., has cheaper costs since it is permitted to discharge untreated effluent directly into the ocean.
Cities must stop dumping untreated or insufficiently treated sewage into natural water bodies by 2020, according to federal regulations issued under the Fisheries Act in 2014. As a result, a number of cities, including Victoria and Montral, may be compelled to invest significantly in wastewater infrastructure, which may have an impact on their water costs. The construction of a new facility for Victoria is expected to be completed this year.