06/12/1985 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

~ Page 2 e Springfield staff has been contacted and has indicated that this proposed change would have a minimal impact on their two industrial customers. It is proposed that this rationale be applied to establish a rate plan which incorporates the industrial customers in~o the general customer groupings. This rate plan would then be submitted to EPA as part of the two-year update process, where by EPA may give its reaction. Issue 2 Street sweeping has no relationship to the flow through a customer1s water meter; if sweeping were excluded from the revenue requirements, a local rate increase may not be necessary. Street sweeping is considered to be an element of storm sewer cost. Funding for this effort is currently allocated out of the general fund, the debris that is not removed from street surfaces ultimately finds its way into catch basins and storm sewers where it must be removed to avoid possible plugging of the system. In attempting to identify an appropriate increment of sewer rate to apply in the local sewer rate, consideration was given to those areas of need in the sewer system tha~ were either being met by general fund resources or were not projected ~o be met by a funding source. The table below gives a breakdown of the cost increase proposed as compared to the 1983-85 rate. Street sweeping rate increment would replace the current general fund subsidy. The increment for added caoital costs and increases in operating and maintenance costs and inflation would meet an identified need that would not be met without a rate increase. The local rate, adopted in e 1983, allowed for S744,000 per year for capital expenditure. Prior to that, large sewers had been cons~ructed with general obligation bonds supplemen~ed by a minor amount levied against land at the time of the annexation. The 1983 proposal introduced the concept of using sewer funds for sewer construction rather that selling new tax-retired bonds. Clearly, if street sweeping costs are eliminated there could be an associated reduction in the proposed rate. TABLE 1 RATE INCREASE FOR FY 1986-FY 87 7-1-83 to I For I Added I Ra; se I Inflation I Total I 7-1-85 I Sweeping I Caoital i o & M ! I I RES IDENTIAL I I I 1 I I I 1 I 1 I I $4.20/monthl SO.S7 I SO.45 I $0.22 I $0.26 I $5.70/monl I I I 1 I I NON RESIDENTIAL I I I I I 72.6~/1000g I $468,247/yrl $364.225/yr 1 5169,053 I 5214,330 I $1,215,8551 I 9. 8<::/l000g I 7. 6CI1000g I 3.5C/1000gl 4. 5<::11000g I 98<:/1000gl I I I I 1 I e Issue 3 ihe testimony given at the May 20 public hearing included objections to charging storm sewer cost, particularly stree~ sweeping, to the water user.