1987-1991REGULAR MEETING
WATER TREATMENT PLANT AND WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT CHANGE ORDER
AND FINAL CHANGE ORDER REVIEW COMMITTEE, CITY OF PARIS
July 13, 1987
The Water Treatment Plant and Wastewater Treatment Plant Change Order
and Final Change Order Review Committee met in Special session, Monday,
July 13, 1987, 10:00 A.M. Council chamber, City Hall. Chairman Bone
called the meeting to order with the following members present: Eric
Clifford, and Curtis Fendley. Also present were City Manager, Michael
E. Malone, City Attorney T. K. Haynes, and City Clerk, Mattie
Cunningham.
Chairman Bone called for discussion on Change Order No. 2 to contract
with Four Thirteen, Inc., for the 1985 Wastewater Treatment Plant
Improvements.
John Buss, Consultant Engineer, appeared before the Committee giving
background of the Contract with Four Thirteen, Inc. Mr. Buss stated
that the contract will be complete upon accepting the pending 6 items
as follows:
1. Install Seal Water System for Grit Pump
2. Modify Piping from grit concentrator to
screen
3. Install safety railing and grating over
pista grit
4. Install auto - restart on effluent pumps
5. Install air conditioner in MCC room
Total Change Order No. 2
$2,800.00
$2,700.00
$3,150.00
$1,700.00
$3,100.00
$13,450.00
Mr. Buss stated that the City's share of the $13,450.00 would be
$4,775.00 and Anheuser Busch portion would be $8,675.00. Discussion
was had regarding the acceptance of the change order by Anheuser Busch
with the Committee. Mr. Buss told the Council that Jim Martin who has
been working with the City on site agrees that the change order is
necessary.
City Attorney advised that Committee that it may take approximately six
week to get an answer from Anheuser Busch, and that we do not want to
send them something that we have not approved.
After further discussion, the Committee agreed to recommend to the
Council that Change Order No. 2 to the Contract with Four Thirteen,
Inc. be accepted.
Chairman Bone announced that the next item on the Agenda was discussion
of Change Order No. 10 to Additions to Water Treatment Plant.
John Buss told the Committee that the original contract was in the
amount of $3,039,940.00 with Heritage Constructor's Inc., Change Order
No. 1 reduced the contract amount approximately $50,000.00, there have
been eight additional Change Orders, and Mr. Buss review the additional
change orders.
Mr. Buss state that there were eleven undisputed item that some were
increases and others were decreases which resulted in an increase of
$1,243.00, and recommended approval of these items.
Mr. Buss discussed the cost of the filter blocks used for the project.
Mr. Buss told the Committee that we used about $1,000.00 worth of these
and as the contract price was $3,300.00 for Filter Blocks the balance
was deleted from the contract by a Change Order. Mr. Buss told the
Committee that the Contractor has returned the balance of the filter
blocks to the supplier who is charging the contractor a restocking fee
in the amount of $2,015.16, and the Contractor is requesting payment of
the restocking fee.
After discussion, the Committee agreed to recommend to the Council that
payment of the restocking fee be made.
Mr. Buss told the Committee that an additional $2,355.00 was requested
by the contractor for the lime and lime processing cost as it is a
verable cost item in the bid process. After discussion, the Committee
agreed to recommend to the Council payment of the additional
$2,355.00.00.
Mr. Buss discussed the design error of Shimek, Jacobs & Finklea in the
head loss for the head mixer being designed to low and it has to be
corrected. Shimek, Jacobs & Finklea has agreed to participate towards
the cost of correcting this error in the amount of $9,800.00 of the
total cost of $25,500.00.
After discussion, the Committee instructed the City Attorney to
negotiate with Shimek, Jacobs & Finklea and make the best deal
possible, and try for a split of the $25,500.00.
Discussion was had concerning the hydrogen sulfide gas problem in the
screening building.
There being no further business, the meeting adjourned.
BILL BONE, CHAIRMAN
ATTEST:
MATTIE CUNNINGHAM, CITY CLERK
CITY OF PARIS
WATER AND WASTEWATER RATE DESIGN STUDY
INITIAL PROJECT SCHEDULING
01 -11 -88
MONTH
JAN
(
FEB
I
MAR
{ APR
{
MAY
WEEK
1 2 3 4
1 2 3 4
1 2
3 4 1 2 3 4
1 2 3 4
MEETINGS:
A. PROJECT TEAM
B. ADVISORY COMMITTEE
C. COUNCIL MEETING
TASKS:
A. GOALS AND
OBJECTIVES
B. TEST YEAR (T /Y)
C. T/Y REV. REQ.
D. CURRENT REVENUE
E. FUHCTIONALIZE
REV. R£0.
F. MISC. REV.
G. DEPOSIT REQ.
H. CONTRACT(s) REVIEW
I. S. B. 336 REVIEW
J. RATE DESIGN
FINAL REPORT
* � s w w • r w w • r
w :w
wm
WAVAM
wm
WAVAM
.ev.�
!" f .12;
sra�w.aa%oc�.rvavw.cvae
a
NAKOW
.avadarmty
r
SPECIAL MEETING WATER AND SEWER RATE STUDY
ADVISORY COMMITTEE
January 28, 1988
The Water and Sewer Rate study Advisory Committee of the City of
Paris met in special session, Thursday, January 28, 1988, 6:00 P. M.
Council Room, City Hall, Paris, Texas. Chairman Marshall H. Kent, Jr.
Call the meeting to order with the following members present:
Councilman Travis Wortham, Director of Finance, W. E. Anderson, City
Attorney, T. K. Haynes, Director of Utilities, Herb Campbell, Jim
Farris, Citizen, and City Clerk, Mattie Cunningham.
Chairman Kent announced that the special meeting was called for the
purpose of receiving a briefing from Reed & Stowe, Consultants for
the City's Water and Sewer Rate Study.
Jack Stowe representing Reed & Stowe presented the Committee with an
Initial Project Schedule, attached hereto as exhibit A, and made part
of these minutes.
Mr. Stowe told the Committee that they have met several times with
Freese and Nichols, Inc. who will be conducting the engineering
portion of the study, lining out their specific task, and getting
information together and information request which has been presented
to W. E. Anderson. Mr. Stowe said one of their concerns when they
started on this project was the quality and format of the data;
however, the City has produced very good data, and it should not hold
them back.
Mr. Stowe told the Committee that their timetable shows meeting with
the project team once each week, and every two weeks with the
Advisory Committee in order to keep the Committee advised on the
progress of the study, and at the same time, the things that might
come up which would require a policy decision, and they wanting to
recognize those and blend them in because the final result of a study
like this has to accomplish the goals and objectives that the City
sets out. Mr. Stowe explained that is one of the reasons why they
have given out the survey questionnaire, and said that basically the
information from the surveys will be used to come up with a common
goal for the City, which will be discussed in. the next meeting. Mr.
Stowe asked that the surveys be return to them as soon as possible.
Mr. Stowe said the third item for discussion was the test year
selected, that they had selected the year 12 months ending September
30, 1987 which is the starting point for data and information. Mr.
Stowe explained they will take the dollar amount that the City has
grouped, Reed and Stowe will have to go in and separate out how much
of those dollars are spent for water and how much went for sewer.
Mr. Stowe gave an example of an investment account dealing with the
water treatment plant, they will identify all assets dealing with raw
water, raw water transmission, treatment, treatment facilities,
treated water transmission mains, treated water distribution mains,
as of now, the City is capturing the information as mains. They will
have to go in and do a study to separate that out between
Page 2
transmission mains and distribution mains, and the reason why they
are doing this is the system was designed to meet a need, that need
is being brought about by residential customers, commercial
customers, and industrial customers, and what they will be doing is
getting the assets and operating expenses all classified as what
their function is doing, then the Engineers will look at the
customers as to what demands they are putting on the system that
requires the system to be built that way, and the expenses being
incurred in that manner, and what they do is assign the expenses over
to the customer classes.
Mr. Stowe told the Committee that one of the first things to look at
in a rate study is the water supply,which the City of Paris is very
fortunate to have Pat Mayse Lake. The City has a 55 MGD reserve, out
of that the City is only using 21 MGD or 40% of the 55 MGD which has
a cost to it, and the City is paying through the Operating and
Maintenance. The contract states that for the present use or the 21
MGD the City will be paying the debt service on 1.6 million dollars
which is the allocated cost relating to the 21 MGD that built Pat
Mayse Lake. The City is paying for the raw water used based on a 50
year payout, and based on stated interest rate, we look at this as a
contractual debt obligation, and when it is paid, it is Operating and
Maintenance. $77,000.00 has been budgeted for this year of which
$49,000.00 is debt service.
City Attorney Haynes explained that the City is meeting their minimum
obligation only, which is the 21 MGD, and feels we should be paying
or setting aside funds to pay for the full 55 MGD reserved, and
allowing everyone's participation in the future rights to pay for it,
if we do not, when we get down to the end when we have to take the
maximum amount of water from Pat Mayse, we will have to pay a larger
amount, that is why we need to plan ahead. Mr. Haynes explained that
the Consultants will be studying each of our contracts for water,
they will tell us where we stand and how to proceed, this will be
part of what we will be receiving in future meetings.
Mr. Keith Reed explained that the longer the City delays making
payments on the future reserve capacity at Pat Mayse, the City runs
the risk of someone going to the Water Commission requesting water
rights to Pat Mayse because the City of Paris has not payed anything
on it. If the City makes an effort to pay or set aside a dedicated
reserve, the City would have that as an argument. Mr. Reed said that
we are only paying or the first 21 MGD of water taken from Pat Mayse,
but when the City exceeds the 21 MGD, the City will have to start
paying for a debt service which interest is being accrued.
City Attorney Haynes said there has been interest shown by some of
the Councilmen for what to do to try and take care of the people who
are on a small fixed income without them having large water bills.
Mr. Stowe said one of the first thing they will present is a cost
base rate, compare it with the cost block rate currently being
charged. Mr. Stowe said the cost block rate structure loads the cost
on low users. They will take cost base rate and compare, and if that
Page 3
is not acceptable, then will have some of the expenses shaved off the
low users in order to lower their cost. This is one of the thing
they will be bring to your for consideration.
There being no further business, the meeting adjourned.
MARSHALL H. KENT, JR. CHAIRMAN
ATTEST:
MATTIE CUNNINGHAM, CITY CLERK
CITY OF PARIS
WATER AND WASTEWATER RATE DESIGN STUDY
INITIAL PROJECT SCHEDULING
01 -11 -88
MONTH
JAN
( FEB
MAR
1 APR I
MAY
WEEK
1 2 3
4 1 2 3 4
1 2
3 41 1 2 3 41
1 2 3 4
MEETINGS:
A. PROJECT TEAM
B. ADVISORY COMMITTEE
C. COUNCIL MEETING
TASKS:
A. GOALS AND
OBJECTIVES
B. TEST YEAR (T /Y)
C. T/Y REV. REQ.
D. CURRENT REVENUE
E. FUNCTIONALIZE
REV. REQ.
F. MISC. REV.
G. DEPOSIT REQ.
H. CONTRACT(s) REVIEW
I. S. B. 336 REVIEW
J. RATE DESIGN
FINAL REPORT
w • s w � � s • w
� r
i►.
`�w
t
I
E
CITY OF PARIS
RATE STUDY SURVEY
1. What would you perceive
providing water and wast,
limits retail customers and
16 Provide the highest
economical price
as the City's responsibility in
=water services to its inside city
contract customers?
quality of service at the most
Provide service at the lowest possible cost realizing that
some related service interruptions will occur
14- Provide a reasonable level of service which would allow
the City to recover cost plus a profit
i. In your opinion, should the City Departments be furnished water
and wastewater service with no charge? �
Yes !✓ No
If yes, should the related cost be recovered through:
Utility rates to other customers
Taxes
3. Should the City be in the business of supplying utility
services to customers outside of its city limits?
Yes
No t
4. In your opinion, should the City have a long -terra plan for
providing adequate utility services?
1 Yes 10
No
If yes, how long of a planning period would be appropriate?
Less than 5 years
5 to 10 years 5
More than 10 years
5. In your opinion, should any specific customers be subsidized by
other utility customers?
® I Yes / No
6. Do you feel that the use of water should be encouraged or
®
should
r- �water be priced to encourage conservation?
{ Encourage use 17
Encourage conservation j
7. Should the cost of public fire protection be recovered in water
rates or in the property taxes?
Rates
Taxes
A. In your opini`orn,L should nTIty construction capital casts
associated with new customers (growth) be recovered from the
new customers or should the costs be absorbed by all customers?
Recovered from new customers
Absorbed by all customers
9. What
is the main
complaint of utility services you
receive from
your
constituents
other than the cost?
•
10. In your opinion, other than the cost of service, what is the
most sensitive issue to be addressed when pricing utility
services? (examples: -a i l ity to pay.) attracting growth,
encourage industrial development, etc.)
11. Please provide any additional comments you feel would be
beneficial in the conduct of this study.
40
MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL MEETING OF THE WATER & SEWER RATE
STUDY ADVISORY COMMITTEE
February 11, 1988
The Water & Sewer Rate Study Advisory Committee met in special session,
Thursday, February 11, 1988, 6:00 P. M. Council Room, City Hall.
Chairman Marshall H. Kent Jr. called the meeting to order with the
following members present: Councilman Bill Bone, Councilman Travis
Wortham, Herb Campbell, Director of Utilities, W. E. Anderson, Director
of Finance, City Manager, Michael E. Malone, City Attorney, T. K.
Haynes, and Mattie Cunningham, City Clerk.
Chairman Kent stated the purpose of this meeting was to receive a
briefing from our Consultants, Reed and Stowe and Freese & Nichols,
regarding the Water & Sewer Rate Study.
Jack Stowe Consultant for Reed & Stowe, appeared and advised that the
first item he would like to cover is the surveys that were sent out,
and stated that he has received ten of those back, and requested that
those still out to please return as soon as possible.
Mr. Stowe went over each question on the survey and gave the results of
the thirteen questions asked as follows:
1. What would you perceive as the City's responsibility in providing
water and wastewater services to its inside city limits retail
customers and contract customers?
6 Provide the highest quality of service at the most economical
price.
4 Provide a reasonable level of service which would allow the
City to recover cost plus a profit.
2. In your opinion, should the City Departments be furnished water and
wastewater service with no charges?
3 Yes 7 No
Mr. Stowe pointed out that the City's 1983 Bond Ordinance specifically
states that the City shall not receive any free service for it's usage,
and by law the city should be paying for these services.
3. Should the City be in the business of supplying utility services to
customers outside of its city limits?
8 Yes 2 No
4. In Your opinion, should the City have a long -term plan for
providing adequate utility services?
10 Yes 0 No
If yes, how long of a planning period would be appropriate?
Page 2
1 Less than 5 years
5 5 to 10 years
4 More than 10 years
5. In your opinion, should any specific customers be subsidized by
other utility customers?
1 Yes 9 No
6. Do you feel that the use of water should be encouraged or should
water be priced to encourage conservation?
7 Encourage use
3 Encourage conservation
7. Should the cost of public fire protection be recovered in water
rates or in the property taxes?
3 Rates
6 Taxes
1 neither
8. In your opinion, should utility construction capital costs
associated with new customers (growth) be recovered from the new
customers or should the costs be absorbed by all customers?
6 Recovered from new customers
4 absorbed by all customers
1 Yes 9 No
Mr. Stowe told the Committee that the next three questions are:
9. What is the main complaint of utility services you receive from
your constituents other than the cost?
10. In your opinion, other than the cost of service, what is the most
sensitive issue to be addressed when pricing utility services?
(examples: ability to pay, attractive growth, encourage industrial
development, etc.)
11. Please provide any additional comments you feel would be beneficial
in the conduct of this study.
Mr. Stowe explained these questions are open questions which are
important because what they will do is take those three questions and
what you have responded, overlay them to the way you responded to the
first eight questions, and gave an example - what level of service you
should provide? Highest quality of service at the most economical
price. Mr. Stowe said that the most additional comments were the major
complaints were low pressure, and in case of heavy rains is the inflow
problem. Mr. Stowe said they coupled that with the planning process,
Page 3
and it said - Yes we need to plan, either 5 - 10 years, or something
beyond 10 years, everyone recognized the need to plan, provide quality
service, and recognized that we have problems, when they weigh those
three things together, this means we have improvements that need to be
made. Mr. Stowe stated that they have not discussed this with anyone,
but what they see based on the complaints you are getting, based on the
desires that have been expressed, and based on the planning situation
that has been expressed, we see that there needs to be some type of
capital improvement looked at whether this year or five years from now,
we do not know at this point, but are developing a frame work to look
at.
Mr. Stowe discussed the subsidizing of customers even though the answer
was 9 no's and 1 yes, everyone responded in one of the areas we need to
be sensitive to, that is the ability to pay, and we have to recognize
the older or retired,their rate can not be as high as others, while we
are say no, we do not want to subsidize, we are also saying we have to
be sensitive in designing the rate for the people who are in these
lower usage blocks. Mr. Stowe said cost is cost, but there are several
ways to get to that cost, and that dictates the type of goals and what
type allocation factors we might use, what type patterns we might
apply, how deep we might deal into this level of customer that is in
the 2,000 gallon range. Mr. Stowe said based on the committee's
additional comments, they will spend time looking at this lower level
to make sure that those people truly are only reflecting their cost,
that they do not pick up an inordinate amount of the demand component
of the plant or the demand component of the operating expenses. Mr.
Stowe said this survey is only giving them directions for the rate
design they will be presenting to the Committee.
Mr. Stowe discussed the aspect of promoting usage, Mr. Stowe said you
want the new customers to pay the cost of growth; however, the majority
of the answers were that one of the goal should be to attract new
growth and industry which could be a contradiction from what was said
in the additional comments because if we saddle the new customers in a
rate structure or with an impact figure we stand the risk to
discouraging growth because they have to pay their cost on the front
end, so that coupled with let's promote usage means, let's price it
down and not take as much profit as we might originally, lets keep our
prices as low as we possibly can, and still cover our cost, by keeping
the cost low, we will sell more water and get more customers. Mr.
Stowe said this is something we need to talk about.
Mr. Stowe told the Committee that he has reviewed the contracts the
city has for sale of water, and is going through and developing what
the rates would be under those contracts.
Councilman Bone requested additional information regarding the percent
Campbell Soup payment that goes toward capital improvements, and what
percent of the residential customers payment that goes for capital
improvements.
Mr. Stowe explained that they will be able to show the capital cost for
each customer class and each contract as to what they are paying. They
Page 4
will be able to tell you whether the city has good contracts or bad
contracts.
Barry Sarma, Consulting Engineer with Freese & Nichols, Inc., appeared
before the Committee, telling them he has gone through the city's three
water rights permits, one at Pat Mayse which is a Federal Reservoir,
that the city has total rights of 55 MGD, Lake Crook which is
approximately 1200 acre feet a year making a total of 65 MGD.
Currently the city is using 12 million gallons of water a day which
means you are using about 20% of the water rights. Mr. Sarma said the
city has 80% of their water in storage for future use, and someone has
to pay for it. Mr. Sarma said under the city's contract with Lamar
County Water Supply District they have a guarantee of 16.7 MGD of
water, and they are not paying for that storage.
Mr. Sarma discussed the fact that the city has Lake Crook right next to
the water treatment plant which would cost less to pump and transmit,
that this might something for the city to look at.
Mr. Sarma said he has looked at the projected population for the City
of Paris, and in the past few years Paris has not grown, but the
consumption of water has increased and explained that population is not
the only way to increase consumption.
Mr. Sarma told the Committee that the planning process is very
important to any city, they have to look beyond the current year or
two, and the system the city of Paris currently has, and the raw water
that is available the city would have 30 to 40 years of growth.
Mr. Sarma stated the third problem the city has is with the violations
as for as infiltration - inflow problems, and expressed the seriousness
of these violations, the EPA which you have two administrative orders,
and one letter from the Texas Water Commission regarding this matter.
Mr. Sarma said the city has to look at the system and how to improve it
in order to meet the requirements of the permits.
Mr. Sarma expressed the need to start paying for the water rights at
Pat Mayse before someone steps in and requested the water rights to Pay
Mayse. The City of Paris needs to protect their water rights by
starting to pay for that right, and as for as the rate goes, we need
your input as to how financing may be achieved and future upgrading for
the system.
Mr. Stowe discussed the issuance of bonds - stating that in the City's
bond covenant, if the City issues Revenue Bonds, you have to go to a
1.25 coverage, or your revenue minus your operating expenses will have
to equal that operating income 1.25 times the total interest cost of
your new and existing debt, if it does not reach that point prior to
issuing bonds, you can not issue bonds. Mr. Stowe said this is what
happened in 1984, the city had to issue Certificate of Obligation Bonds
which is backed by Ad Valorem tax because in 1983 the city did not have
1.25 coverage. Mr. Stowe said they will be coming to you as to when we
can look toward a bond issue, when do you have to have your coverage
Page 5
positioned right, that's the rate study that what we are here to do for
you.
There being no further business, the meeting adjourned.
MARSHALL H. KENT, JR., CHAIRMAN
ATTEST:
MATTIE CUNNINGHAM, CITY CLERK
MINUTES OF THE WATER & SEWER RATE STUDY
ADVISORY COMMITTEE
February 25, 1988
The Water & Sewer Rate Study Advisory Committee met in special session,
Thursday, February 25, 1988, 6:00 P. M. Council Room, City Hall, Paris,
Texas. Chairman Kent called the meeting to order with the following
members present: Councilman Bone, City Attorney, T. K. Haynes, City
Manager, Michael E. Malone, Director of Finance, W. E. Anderson,
Director of Utilities, Herb Campbell, James Farris, Citizen, and City
Clerk Mattie Cunningham.
Jack Stowe representing Reed & Stowe presented a draft of the segments
completed by his firm regarding the water and sewer rate study, and
cautioned the Committee of the fact that this being a draft, it would
be subject to change, and attached hereto as part of these minutes as
exhibit A.
Mr. Stowe called attention to the first three pages of the draft, the
first page showing raw water pumped daily - average to the peak day
from 1983 through 1987 stating that it has been rather static until
1987 when we reached a large raw water peak which they can not account
for other than there must have been an extremely hot day, or some of
the raw water could have gone to storage.
Mr. Stowe went to the next draft showing treated water pumped daily -
average vs peak day, and again stated that it stayed static with the
exception of 1986 with a slight increase. The average treated water
pumped is approximately 11 MGD, and peak treated water pumped is
approximately 16 -18 MGD. Mr. Stowe said this information was needed to
get them familiar with how the city's system is operating so they will
be able to make decisions when they get ready to allocate such as
characteristic of the water treatment plant.
On the next schedule, Mr. Stowe pointed out the raw water vs treated
water pumped, stating you expect to see differences due to storage that
takes place, lag in measuring, and they were not to concerned with what
they saw.
Mr. Stowe went to page one of the draft advising they had taken the
assets or investments that the city has in the Water & Sewer Fund and
for the most part, is broken down fairly well for them between water
and sewer except for investments in billing and collecting, and that is
one of the things they went back in and allocated 50% of the investment
over to the sewer side of the investments. Mr. Stowe stressed the
importances of remembering that they were only looking at one half of
the picture tonight, that being water not sewer. Mr. Stowe said that
when the committee meets in two weeks he will have the figures for the
sewer investments completed, and will be presented them at that time
along with the water, and will be able to show the committee what he
will give the engineers, and what they will use to do the customer
class allocation study.
Page 2
Mr. Stowe said in looking at the investment which is net for
developer's and net depreciation. In Billing & Collection we have
$70,000. invested at this time; water storage, counting the future
reserve capacity we have in Pat Mayse, we have $4,244,050. invested;
Raw Water Transmission Lines which they had to go back into the asset
base and identify what is raw water transmission and originated
$752,099.; Raw Water Treatment Plant we have $5,244,910. invested;
Water Distribution - one of the items they had to go back in and
determine what part is transmission mains, and what part is
distribution main, and explained that some of the city's contracts
calls for eight inch or larger mains, it is called a transmission main;
if below eight inches it is a distribution main for cost assignment,
and they have applied the contractual language to come up with the
investment; Transmission mains $1,569,000. invested; Distribution Mains
$2,646,357.; Meters and Boxes $293,168.; Service Lines $186,903.;
Hydrants & Valves $206,064.; Machinery Tools & Equipment $70,276.;
Sub -Total for Water Distribution $4,998,367.
Mr. Stowe pointed out that on page two, they are showing construction
in process which is blank explaining they had a figure of $106,000. for
construction in process, but they needed to find out what type of
investment is being built so they will know how to functionalize it,
and will have that figure at the next meeting.
Mr. Stowe told the committee that they have gone in and regrouped the
assets by moving them around, distinguishing between raw water
transmission, treatment plant, distribution mains and transmission
mains. The next step is based on the analysis they have made of the
city's history, and the design of the plant, they have funcitionalized
those costs which are made up of four components - base meaning volume;
extra capacity because of the peak day and peak hour, we have to have
the investments in place to meet that peak; and customer cost.
Mr. Stowe advised that the next step is the revenue requirements, and
what they used was the 1987 -88 budget which they listed as it is shown
in the City's budget, but there were adjustments that they had to make,
first reclass certain expenses, second to make adjustments that are
known and measurable at this time, and pointed out that on Page one of
the Water Revenue Requirements under Billing and Collecting, they have
cut $141,615. from the budgeted amount, and explained that this is the
amount that will be moved over to sewer. Under Raw Water Storage -
Contractual 0 &M Pat Mayse, you will see $77,000. has been moved, and
explained this has been reclassed - $27,174. represents 0 &M at the
reservoir, the balance of $49,826. represents the debt service that we
are paying; Raw Water Transmission - you will see that in the budget
they did not have anything identified, but they have pulled $220,447.
from Water Production Contractual and moved it to Raw Water
Transmission. Under Water Distribution they have removed $234,468.
from Personnel, Supplies, Contractual, Maintenance Building and
Equipment, and picked up $233,718. under Transmission for treated water
transmission. Mr. Stowe explained they looked at the total linear feet
the city has in place and found that 43% of the physical assets are
eight inch mains and above as far as the distribution system, 57% is
Page 3
below, so they applied 43% to these expenses in order to break out what
is transmission related.
Mr. Stowe said that one of the things they recognized was the support
service coming out of the General Fund, of those, identified City
Council, City Manager, Finance, Legal, Engineer, Warehouse, Garage,
Plumbing Inspector, and they established a means of deducting the
amount of time being spent for water and sewer use by these departments
which amounts to $308,000. for water use only.
Mr. Stowe explained that under Capital Outlay, there has been no
adjustment, but it will have to be finalized before they can complete
the study. This will revert back to the planning process.
Mr. Stowe also said in the Debt Service was $234,271.; 1984 $523,921.,
Pat Mayse $49,826., and future amount they are incurring is
approximately $80,00. Basically they move from the city's budget
$2,207,185., and $3,216,799. required revenue, and advised these
numbers will be changing.
There being no further business, the meeting adjourned.
MARSHALL H. KENT, JR., CHAIRMAN
ATTEST:
MATTIE CUNNINGHAM, CITY CLERK
ICI
9
ri
73
101,
rn
i 7-- !
-0
Eo
-.b
to
to
-4h.
.-k
to
Ca
Ln
co
cm
co
4
MILLION GALLONS
DRAFT
-A
0 0 -4 M to 0 —
0
rrl
;u
T
>
U)
IS
m
T
b
m
ICI
to
co
W
J
CD
-F+
cc
v
rn
b�
cfl
v
MILLION GALLONS
4 j N 44 41- 0 M '-4 to tD 4 � fA 45 -i M W
--, C-)
X
rn
m
v
0
m TI
X
v --a
c >
w
A
fTt
all
C
'[7
f*1
Q
Li
--i
4
-o
c
m
v
GALLONS
m i_�n_ rte_', U1 rn V rn CD
J Q n o
C]
m
Ln
N
Co
N,
{,_
4-
Ln
cm
_„j
+G
co
Z
C!!
O
N
1
co
N
ca
-r
m
m
< 0
L6
X
}*i
Q fIj
(J')
m
PAGE 1 24- Feb -88 DATE
CITY OF PARIS
WATER INVESTMENT FUNCTIONALIIATION
1988
EXTRA CAPACITY
NET
ASSET INVESTMENT BASE MAX DAY MAX HOUR CUSTOMER
Billing /Collecting
Land $6,439 $6,439
Buildings 18,577 18,577
Furn & Fixtures 622 522
Machinery Tools & Equip 40,676 40,676
Automobiles 3,202 3,M
Sub -Total Billing /Collecting $69,516 $0 $0 $0 $69,516
Dater Storage
Pat Mayse:
Current $1,044,104
$1,044,104
Future 2,553,587
2, 553, 587
Lake Crook 494,624
494,624
Lake Gibbons 151,735
151,735
Sub -Total Water Storage $4,244,050 $4,244,050 $0 $0 $0
Ran Water Trans. $752,099 $376,050 $0 $376,050 $0
Water Treatment
Land
$2,068
1,356
483
229
Buildings
732,835
480,546
171,193
81,0%
Filtration Plants
3,388,786
2,259,191
847,197
282,399
Stand Pipes & Reservoirs
237,859
118,929
118,929
Wells & Pumps
865 ,728
567,689
202,237
95 802
s
Furn & Fixtures
265
174
62
29
Machinery Tools & Equip
3,025
1,983
707
335
Instruments
1,767
1,159
413
1%
Motor Vehicles
10,305
6,757
2,407
1,140
Misc. Equipment
2,273
1,490
531
251
Sub -Total Water Treatment
$5,244,910
$3,439,274
$1,225,229
$580,407 $0
Water Distribution
PAGE 2 24- Feb -88 DATE
CITY OF PARIS
WATER INVESTMENT FUNCTIONALIZATION
1988
EXTRA CAPACITY
NET
ASSET INVESTMENT BASE MAX DAY MAX HOUR CUSTOMER
Buildings
$276
$133
$29
$86
$27
Bridges & Culverts
Mains:
Transmission
1,569,000
1,046,000
523,000
Distribution
2,646,357
1,323,178
1,323,178
Meters 6 Boxes:
293,168
293,168
.625
.750
1.00
1.50
2.00
3.00
4.00
20.00
Service Lines:
186,903
186,903
.75
1.00
1.25
1.50
2.00
4.00
6.00
8.00
Hydrants d Valves
206,064
206,064
Machinery Tools i Equip
70,276
33,%9
7,499
21,926
6,883
Motor Vehicles
26,323
12,723
2,809
8,213
2,578
Sub -Total Water Distribution
$4 ,998,367
$2,416,004
$533,337
$1,559,467
$489,559
Construction in Process
Grand Total $15,308,943 $10,475,378 $1,758,566 $2,515,924 $559,075
PERCENTAGES 100.00% 68.43% 11.49% 16.43% 3.65%
PAGE 1
24- Feb-88 DATE
CITY OF PARIS
CONSULTANT RECOMIMEM(DED
WATER REVENUE REQUIREMENTS
CONSULTANT
RECOMMENDED
87/88
REVEME
BUDGET
RECOMMIEMNED
ADJUSTMENTS
REQUIREMENTS
BILLING 3 COLLECTING
PERSONNEL
$178,150
($89,075)
$89,075
SUPPLIES
30,480
($15,240)
15,240
CONTRACTUAL
46,450
1$23,225)
23,225
MAINT.
am.
3,000
($1,500)
1,500
EQUIP.
5,150
($2,575)
2,575
AUDIT
10,000
($10,000)
0
$273,230
3141,615)
$131,615
RAW WATER STORAGE
$27,174
$27,174
RAW WATER TRANSMISSION
$224,447
$220,447
WATER PRODUCTION
PERSONNEL
$229,205
$229,205
SUPPLIES
DEMICALS
162,000
162,000
MISC.
11,220
11,220
CONTRACTUAL
O&M PAT MAYSE
77,000
(77,000)
0
POWER
425,000
(220,447)
204,553
MISC.
41,885
41,885
MAINT.
BLDGS.
14,800
14,800
EQUIP.
49,415
49,415
AUDIT
800
(800)
0
$1,011,325
($77,800)
(3220,447)
$713,078
WATER DISTRIBUTION
PERSONNEL
$243,345
($104,638)
$138,707
SUPPLIES
15,625
(6,719)
8,906
CONTRACTUAL
37,360
(16,065)
21,295
MIAIMT.
0
BLDGS.
226,200
(97,266)
128,934
EQUIP.
21,000
(9,030)
11,970
AUDIT
750
(750)
0
TRANSMISSION
0.43
AUDIT FEES
$544,280 ($234,468) $309,812
$233,718 $233,718
$6,550 $6,550
PAGE 2
CITY OF PARIS
CONSULTANT RECObNN:7M
HATER REVENUE REQUIREMENTS
24- Feb -88 DATE
DIIA'AF"'I"
CONSULTANT
RECOMMENDED
87/88
REVENUE
BUDGET
RECOMMENDED ADJUSTMENTS
REQUIREMENTS
GENERAL FUND SUPPORT:
CITY COUNCIL
$18,626
$18,626
CITY MANAGER
N 906
26,906
LEGAL
31,106
31,106
FINANCE
65,508
65,508
ENGINEERING
101,160
101,160
WAREMJSE
34,563
34,563
GARAGE
14,507
14,507
PLUMBING INSP.
15,555
15,555
$307,931
$307,931
CAPITAL OUTLAY
BILLING & COLLECTING
$7,450
$7,450
RAH HATER SUPPLY
10,300
10,300
TRANSMISSION
129,000
129,000
DISTRIBUTION
0
MAINS
171,000
171,000
EQUIP
17,600
17,600
METERS & SERVICES
28,000
28,000
HYDRANTS
15,000
15,000
$378,350
$378,350
DEBT SERVICE
1983 0.566
0.11
234,271
$234,271
1984 0.455
0.175
523,921
523,921
PAT MAYSE
0
CURRENT
49,826
49,826
FUTURE 0.03137
80,106
80,106
$0
$888,124 $0
$888,124
TOTAL
$2,207,185
$1,009,614 $0
$3,216,799
PAGE 1 24- Feb -88 DATE
CITY OF PARIS
WATER EXPENSE FUNCTIONALIZATION
1988
u A P T
AVERAGE DAY 1c
PEAK DAY If
PEAK HOUR 24
EXTRA CAPACITY
TOTAL
EXPENSE
EXPENSE
BASE
MAX DAY
MAX HOUR
CUSTOMER
RAW WATER STORAGE
$27,174
$27,174
RAW WATER TRANSMISSION
$220,447
$220,447
PURIFICATION
PERSONNEL
$229,205
$1!2,803
$76,402
SUPPLIES:
CHEMICALS
162,000
162,000
MISC.
11,220
11,220
CONTRACTUAL
OtX PAT MAYSE
0
POWER
204,553
204,553
MISC.
41,885
41,885
MAINTENANCE
64,215
42,108
15,001
7,106
0
SUB -TOTAL PURIFICATION
$713,078
$614,569
$91,403
$7,106
$0
TRANSMISSION
$171,724
$114,483
$57,241
$0
DISTRIBUTION
PERSONNEL
$101,914
$50,957
$50,957
SUPPLIES
6,544
3,272
3,272
CONTRACTUAL
15,647
7,823
7,823
MAINTENANCE
103,529
50,042
11,047
32,301
10,140
SUB -TOTAL DISTRIBUTION
$227,634
$112,094
$11,047
$94,353
$10,140
HYDRANTS
$38,446
$38,446
METERS 4 SERVICES
$105,726
$105,726
BILLING 4 COLLECTING
$131,615
$131,615
GENERA. FUND SUPPORT:
CITY COUNCIL
$18,626
18,626
CITY MANAGER
26,906
26,906
LEGAL
31,106
31,106
FINANCE
65,508
65,508
ENGINEERING
101,160
69,220
11,620
16,625
3,694
WAREHOUSE
34,563
4650
3,970
59680
1,262
GARAGE
14,507
9,927
1,666
2,384
530
PLUMBING IMSP.
15,555
15,555
SUB -TOTAL GEN. FUND SUPPORT
$307,931
$179,435
$17,257
$24,689
$86,549
AUDIT FEES
$6,550
$6,550
CAPITAL OUTLAY
PAGE 2 24- Feb -88 DATE , Ri A F T
CITY OF PARIS AVERAGE DRY
WATER EXPENSE FUNCTIONALIZATION PEAK DAY
1988 PEAK HOUR
DEBT SERVICE
1983 REFUNDING
1984 UTILITY BONDS
PAT MAYSE
CURRENT
FUTURE
SUB -TOTAL DEBT SERVICE
$234,271
$147,683 $45,821 $40,767 $0
523,921
EXTRA CAPACITY
49,826
49,826
TOTAL
80,106
$888,124
$598,504 $134,214 $155,406 $0
EXPENSE
EXPENSE
BASE
MAX DAY MAX HOUR
CUSTOMER
TRANSMISSION
$129,000
$86,000
$43,000
DISTRIBUTION
188,600
94,300
94,300
METERS X SERVICES
4000
28,000
HYDRANTS
15,000
15,000
BILLING b COLLECTING
7,450
7,450
RAW WATER SUPPLY
10,300
10,300
SUB -TOTAL CAPITAL OUTLAY
$378,350
$180,300
$43,000 $109,300
$45,750
DEBT SERVICE
1983 REFUNDING
1984 UTILITY BONDS
PAT MAYSE
CURRENT
FUTURE
SUB -TOTAL DEBT SERVICE
$234,271
$147,683 $45,821 $40,767 $0
523,921
320,889 88,393 114,639
49,826
49,826
80,106
80,106
$888,124
$598,504 $134,214 $155,406 $0
GRAND TOTAL
$3, 216 ,799
$2,047,006
$354,162
$429,301
$386,331
PERCENTAGES
100.00%
63.63%
11.01%
13.35%
12.01%
/PAGE U
vp"
CITY OF PARIS
CONSULTANT REcoveO)ED
WATER REVENUE REQUIREMENTS
_-, - ,T°
BILLING A COLLECTING
PERSONNEL
SUPPLIES
CONTRACTUAL
MAINT.
BLD65.
EQUIP.
AUDIT
TOTAL BILLING i COLLECTING
RAY WATER STORAGE
RAY WATER TRANSMISSION
WATER PRODUCTION
PERSONNEL
SUPPLIES
CHEMICALS
MISC.
CONTRACTUAL
O&M PAT MAYSE
POWER
MISC.
MAINT.
BLDG&
EQUIP.
AUDIT
TOTAL WATER PRODUCTION
WATER DISTRIBUTION
PERSONNEL
SUPPLIES
CONTRACTUAL
MAINT.
BLDG&
EQUIP.
AUDIT
SUB -TOTAL DISTRIBUTION
TRANSMISSION 8' TO ( 30'
TRANSMISSION 30' AND ABOVE
HYDRANTS
io�'
04- Mar-68 DATE
CONSULTANT
RECOMMENDED
87/88 REVENUE
BUDGET RECOMMENDED ADJUSTMENTS REQUIREMENTS
$178,150
($89,075)
$89,075
30,480
315,240)
13,240
46,450
($23,225)
(7,500) 15,725
3,000
41,5001
1,500
5,150
($2,575)
2,575
10,000
($10,000)
0
$273,230
tf 141, 615) `r
($7, 500) `;*�f $124,115
$27,174
$27,174
49,415
$220,447 $220,447
0.564
0.121
$229,205 sm+205
162,000
162,000
11,220
11,220
77,000
(77,000)
0
425,000
(220,447)
204,553
41,885
41,885
14,800
14,800
49,415
49,415
800
(800)
0
$1,011,325
($77,800)
($220,447)
$713,078
$243,345
($187,024)
56,321
15,625
(12,009)
3,616
37,360
(28,713)
8,647
226,200
(173,847)
6,292
58,645
21,000
(169140)
41860
750
(750)
0
$544,280
($418,482)
f6, 292
$132,090
225,238
225, 238
48,322
45,708
94,030
38,446
38,446
l�
MINUTES OF THE WATER AND SEWER RATE STUDY
ADVISORY COMMITTEE
March 10, 1988
The Water and Sewer Rate Study Advisory Committee met in special
session, Thursday, March 10, 1988, 3:00 P. M., Council Room, City Hall,
Paris, Texas. Chairman Kent called the meeting to order with the
following members present: Councilman Bone and Councilman Wortham.
Also present was City Manager, Michael E. Malone, City Attorney, T. K.
Haynes, Director of Finance, W. E. Anderson, Director of Utilities,
Herb Campbell, James Farris, Citizen, and City Clerk, Mattie Cunningham.
Chairman Kent announced the purpose of the meeting was to received a
briefing from our Consultants, Reed and Stowe, and Frees & Nichols, Inc.
Jack Stowe of Reed and Stowe presented the Committee with a packet,
attached hereto as Exhibit A, and made a part of these minutes,
pertaining to the function of our water system stating the first two
pages were the same as those presented at the last meeting with a few
refinements which is basically taking the investment the City currently
has, net of depreciation, and net of developers contributions and
functionalizing that across as to base capacity, max day extra
capacity, max hour extra capacity, and what investments dedicated to
just having customers. You will see on page two that the grant total
of $15,411,411. gets spread to base - $10,621,360., max day
$1,757,741., max hour $22,663,832., and customer $368,478. Mr. Stowe
pointed out that the next step was to develop from the operating data
the allocation factors or percentages that each class has within these
functions.
Barry Sarma, Consulting Engineer with Freese & Nichols, Inc., appeared
before the Committee explaining the percentage of customer class
allocation factors on page three of the packet - Supply Reservoir - The
City is using approximately 20% of the Reservoir the balance is in
future storage, you will notice that Raw Water Transmission and
Pumping, the base cost for example Campbell Soup pays 26.75% of that,
but the extra capacity (max day) they pay only 6.69 %. Mr. Sarma said
Campbell Soup takes a large amount of water through the system, but the
variation is very little in their use, and usually the time of the
usage is not during the peak time of other users. Mr. Sarma pointed
out that under Treated Water Distribution there is a blank for
transmission mains for Campbell Soup, explaining this is transmissions
mains below 30 inches the reason for this is the 30 and 33 inch main
that comes from the treatment plant from which Campbell Soup get it's
water, and he has allocated that portion of the system to every
customer class; therefore, these lines are used by residential and
commercial only for distribution, storage and standpipes.
Mr. Stowe said that now that we understand how the system is operating,
they have functionalized the system based on how it is operating, they
know how the classes of customers are using the system, they took the
percentage and applied them to dollars as you can see on page four.
Mr. Stowe said that the City has $15,411,411. invested and as of that
amount they can identify there is $4,328,946. invested for the benefit
Page 2
of the residential class, $4,504,280. for the Commercial class,
$3,949,761. Campbell Soup, and $2,628,424. for Lamar County Water
Supply District. Mr. Stowe explained that the only thing the
investment use is since they are using a cash basis is to develop a
method for allocation of debt service. The next step is to go in and
look at the Revenue requirements using the 1987 -88 Budget as shown on
page 5. The first item they looked at was Billing and Collecting, you
will see adjustments made removing approximately 50% of the cost that
will be assigned over to the sewer because the function of the Billing
and Collecting is on an equal split between the Water and Sewer, also
an adjustment of $7,500.00 was made due to the fact that $30,000. was
budgeted for this study which would not be needed on an occurring
basis, but you do need to be collecting something for future studies.
Mr. Stowe said they had also picked up $27,174. for Raw Water Storage
(Pat Mayse). On Raw Water Transmission $220,447. this is for power to
pump water from Pat Mayse up to the treatment plant, Water Production
you will see a decrease - the Operating and Maintenance Pat Mayse by
$77,000., and just reallocated it, recognized for the $27,000.
associated with operating and maintenance raw water, and $49,000. as
debt service, and you can also see there is a whole series of expenses
that we are reclassifying, and trying to get in alignment with grouping
of plant, and the functional ization that we are trying to allocate to
that being base, max hour, max day and customer charge.
Mr. Stowe referred to page six pointing out Water Revenue requirements
- the far right hand corner, after all adjustments have been made
including the future storage cost of $80,106. for Pat Mayse, the total
Revenue requirements of $3,309,533. for the test year, and said the
next step is to test to see if the City will make those revenues under
the existing rates. Going to page seven, you will see a summary for
meter sizes A -I, we will collect $2,071,280., Campbell Soup's contract
$825,032., Lamar County Water Supply District's contract $494,518.
total of $3,390,830. Mr. Stowe reminded the Committee to remember the
estimate on revenue requirement including the future capacity cost of
$80,000. was $3,309,000., and what that shows is the current contracts
and current rates are adequate to hit our revenue requirements for
water. Mr. Stowe pointed out that the one thing missing out of this
cost function is the Capital Outlay Budget, and asked the Committee to
remember the planning process that needs to be considered. Mr. Stowe
said the Engineering Department is analyzing the system and is going to
come up with cost estimates of the Capital Improvements that are
required to meet the low pressure complaints that the Committee has
talked about, and maintenance items that need attention. Mr. Stowe
also called the Committee's attention to the fact that this is based on
a 24 month average, and what they are assuming when they project
forward is that the average of the past 24 months are going to take
place in the next 12 months. This may or may not be the case, you may
have a real wet summer this year, it would be that the sales drop below
the average, by the same token, if we have a very dry summer sales
could increase.
Mr. Stowe went to page 8 which shows 1987 -88 Contract Revenue for
Campbell Soup, page 9, Lamar County Water Supply District's contract
1987 -88 contract revenues distribution service charge that gives you
Page 3
the rate they should be paying for all water taken through the
distribution system, page 10 is the City of Paris, Lamar County Water
Supply District 1987 -88 contract revenue, capital recovery fee, this is
the amount they pay for all water that comes from the water treatment
plant, when you add those two figures together you will come up with
the total from the summary sheet.
Mr. Stowe said the next step is to establish where these cost should
fall out, where should the revenue be coming from based on the cost of
service study, the allocation factors that were developed, and what
they have done on page 11 is to take all the expense items and
functionalizing each one of the rate items into the base, max day, max
hour. Page 12 will show the $3,309,533. and tells us that $2,103,657.
is being spent for base, $388,756. for max day, $445,921. for max hour,
and $371,198. for customer charge.
Mr. Sarma gave the Committee a handout (attached hereto as Exhibit B)
called Customer Water Use and Capacity Requirements, this shows how the
four classes of customers use the system which are Residential,
Commercial, Campbell Soup, and Lamar County Water Supply District, and
that allocation has come on the basis of their average use of the
system, extra capacity on peak day, and extra capacity on peak hour.
Mr. Sarma said the overall peak was 160% of the average peak day, he
estimated over 200% on peak hour. Mr. Sarma said of the 160% the
system load has been broken up into the four classes - Residential
200 %, Commercial 170 %, Campbell Soup 125 %, and Lamar County Water
Supply District 195% of the average, the peak hour Residential 300 %,
Commercial 250 %, Campbell Soup 140 %, and Lamar County Water Supply
District 200% on the basis of this you will see there are extra
capacities of 30.53% Residential, 25.97% Commercial, 17.77% Campbell
Soup, and 25.73% Lamar County Water Supply District. This is the
allocation that has gone from the system to the classes. Mr. Sarma
said the product from these numbers will give you the last two pages
for cost allocations. These are the final figures that will be used to
design the rate.
After further discussion, the meeting adjourned.
MARSHALL H. KENT, JR., CHAIRMAN
ATTEST:
MATTIE CUNNINGHAM, CITY CLERK
1 PAW 1 off- Mar -88 DATE
CITY OF PARIS
WATER INVESTMENT FJVIONALI2ATION
1988
EXTRA CAPACITY
NET
ASSET INVESTMENT BASE MAX DAY MAX HOUR CUSTOMER
Billing /Collecting
Land $6,439 $6,439
Buildings 18,577 18,577
Furn $ Fixtures 622 622
Machinery Tools i Equip 40,676 40,676
Automobiles 3,202 3,202
Sub -Total Billing /Collecting $69,516 $0 $0 $0 $69,516
Water Storage
Pat Mayse:
Current $1,044,104 $1,044,104
Future 2,553,587 2,553,587
Lake Crook 494,624 ✓ : 494,624
Lake Gibbons 151,735 ✓ 151,735
Sub -Total Water Storage $4,244,050 $4,244,050 $0 $0 $0
Ran Water Trans. $752,099 / $376,050 $0 $376,050 $0
Water Treatment
Land
Buildings
$2,068 1,356
729,302-/ 4781229
483
170,367
229
80,705
.
Filtration Plants
31388,786 ✓ 2,259,191
847,197
282,399
Stand Pipes i Reservoirs
237,859 118,929
118,929
Wells $ Pumps
865,728 567,689
202,237
95,802
Furn $ Fixtures
265 174
62
29
Machinery Tools i Equip
3,025 1,983
707
335
Instruments
1,767 11159
413
1%
Motor Vehicles
10,305 61757
2,407
11140
Misc. Equipment
21273 1,490
531
251
Sub -Total Water Treatment
$5,241,378 $3,436,958
$1,224,404
$580,016 $0
Water Distribution
' ME 2 04- Mar -88 DATE
CITY OF PARIS
WATER INNESTMENT FLKTIOMALI1ATIGN
1988 M
Construction in Process $106,000 53,000 53,000
Grand Total $15,411,411 $10,6211360 $1,757,741 $2,663,832 $368,478
PERCENTAGES 100.00% 68.92% 11.41% 17.28% 139%
f
EXTRA CAPACITY
NET
ASSET
INVESTMENT
BASF
MAX DAY
MAX HOUR
CUSTOMER
Buildings
$276
$139
$a
$91
$16
Bridges i Culverts
Mains:
Transmission
1,569,000
1,046,000
523,000
Distribution
21833,260
1,416,630
11416,630
Meters i Boxes:
293,168
293,168
.625
.750
1.00
1.50
2.00
3.00
4.00
20.00
Service Lines:
0
.75
1.00
1.25
1.50
2.00
4.00
6.00
8.00
Hydrants t Valves
206,064
206,064
Machinery Tools i Equip
70,276
35,309
7,499
23,266
41203
Motor Vehicles
26,323
13,225
2,809
8,715
1,574
Sub -Total Water Distribution
$4,998,368
$2,511,303
$533,337
$1,654,766
$298,962
Construction in Process $106,000 53,000 53,000
Grand Total $15,411,411 $10,6211360 $1,757,741 $2,663,832 $368,478
PERCENTAGES 100.00% 68.92% 11.41% 17.28% 139%
f
PAGE I
CITY OF PARIS
CUSN
ITEM
SUPPLY RESEVOIR
BASE
RAN WATER TRANS. 6
PIPPING
BASE
EXTRA CAPACITY (MAX. DAY)
TREATMENT
TREATMENT PLANT,
TREATED WATER PUMPING
AM TRAMS.
BASE
EXTRA CAPACITY (MAX. DAY)
TREATED WATER DISTRIBUTION
TRANS. MAINS 3
BASE
EXTRA CAPACITY (MAX HOUR)
DISTRIBUTION, STORAGE,
AND STANDPIPES
BASE
EXTRA CAPACITY (MAX HOUR)
HYDRANTS
EXTRA CAPACITY (MAX HOUR)
09- Mar -88 DATE
RESIDENTIAL COMMERCIAL CAMPBELLS LCWSD
16.40% 19.92% 38.15% 25.53%
7e r
Tod° 1
y
11.49% 13.96% 26.75% 10.20%
11.49% 9.74% 6.69% 9.68%
c
11.49% 13.%% 26.75% 10.20%
11.49% 9.74% 6.69% 9.68%
16.12%
19.58% 14.30%
19.88%
20.27% 9.85%
22.57%
27.43%
24.76%
25.24%
39.37%
40.13% 20.50%
PAGE 1
09-Kr-88 DATE
CITY OF PARIS r
� S
CLAS9 ALLOCATION �� � s o � s�
SERV
ITEM
SUPPLY RESEVOIR
STORAGE
RAW WATER TRANS.
AND PUMPING
BASE
EXTRA CAPACITY
TOTAL
TREATMENT AND PIMPING
BASE
EXTRA CAPACITY
TOTAL
DISTRIBUTION
TRANS. 30" AND ABOVE
BASE
EXTRA CAPACITY
TRANS. 80 AND t 301
BASE
EXTRA CAPACITY
DISTRIBUTION i 8'
BASE
EXTRA CAPACITY
TOTAL
GENERAL EQUIP
RESIDENTIAL COMMERCIAL CAMPBELLS LCWSD
$696,024 $845,415 $1,619,105 #1,083,506
$86,416
$104,993
$201,187
$76,714
86,416
73,254
50,315
72,803
$172,832
$178,248
$251,502
$149,517
$602,234
$73116%
$1,402,069
$534,621
602,234
510,510
350,648
507,365
$1,204,469
$1,242,207
$1,752,717
$1,041,986
$94,488
$114,801
$219,980
03,880
94,488
80,097
55,015
79,604
120,359
146,193
0
106,770
148,433
1519345
0
739545
639,467
777,163
0
0
7019515
7159115
0
0
$1,798,752
$19984,714
$274,995
$343,799
$39,583
$43,675
$69051
$7,566
METERS $230,423
$57,606
$3,139
$2,000
HYDRANTS_ $81,128
$82,694
$42,243
$0
CUSTOMER ACCOUNTING $55,566
$13,892
$8
$50
CWIP $50,170
$55,830
$0
$A
/S, Y //, y!/ $4,328,946
$4,504,280
$3,9499761
$2,628,424
PERCENTAGES 28.09% 29.23% - 25.63$ 17.06%
PAGE 1
CITY OF PARIS
CONSULTANT REcoN E3DED
RATER 109K REOUIRE)ENTS
BILLING i COLLECTING
PERSONA
SUPPLIES
CONTRACTUAL
MAINT.
BLDG&
EQUIP.
AUDIT
TOTAL BILLING 4 COLLECTING
RAW WATER STORAGE
RAW WATER TRANSMISSION
WATER PRODUCTION
PERSONNEL.
SUPPLIES
DENICALS
NISC.
CONTRACTUAL
DAN PAT MAYSE
POWER
MISC.
NAINT.
BIDGS.
EQUIP.
AUDIT
TOTAL WATER PRODUCTION
WATER DISTRIBUTION
PERSONNEL.
SUPPLIES
CONTRACTUAL
NAINT.
aim
EQUIP.
AUDIT
SUB-TOTAL DISTRIBUTION
TRANSMISSION 8' TO ( 30'
TRANSMISSION 30' AND ABOVE
•` HYDRANTS
04 -hw-88 DATE
-• CONSULTANT
RECON ENDED
87/88 REA E
BUDGET RED ADJUSTMENTS REQUIREMENTS
$178,150
($89,075)
$89,075
30,480
(115,240)
15,240
4(,450
($23,225)
(7,500) 15,725
39000
($1,500)
1,500
5,150
($2,575)
2,573
10,000
($10,000)
0
$273,230
($141,615) °`r
07,500) ';��1 $124,115
$27,174 $27,174
$19011,325 ($77,800) ($220,447) $713,078
$243,345 ($187,024)
15,625
$220,447 $2209447
319360
(28,713)
$229,245
$229,205
162,000
162,000
11,220
11,220
779000
(77,000) 0
425,000
(220,447) 204,553
41,885
41,885
14, 800.
14,800
49,415
49,415
800
(800) 0
$19011,325 ($77,800) ($220,447) $713,078
$243,345 ($187,024)
15,625
(12,009)
319360
(28,713)
226,200
(173,847) 6,292
219000
(169140)
750
(750)
$544,280 tf418,482) i6, 292
0.564 225,238
0.121 A322 4%708
38,446
Y
' PAGE 2
07-Nar -88 DATE
CITY OF PARIS
�ti�TANC
CONSULTANT
RECOMMENDED
87/88 REVENUE
RES RECOMMENDED ADJU57MENTS REQUIREMENTS
METERS AM SERVICE 105,726 105,726
TOTAL DISTRIBUTION $544,280 ($750) $52,000 $595,530
AMMDIT FEES $6,55D $6,550
� n� - (,
CITY COLKIL
$18,626
$18,626
Cm MANABEA
26,906
26,906
LEGAL
31,106
31,106
FINANCE
65,508
65,508
ENGINEERING
101,160
101,160
WAREHOUSE
34,563
34,563
GARAGE
14,507
14,507
PLUMBING INSP.
159555
15,555
HYDRANTS
$307,931
$307,931
CAPITAL OUTLAY
BILLING 6 COLLECTING
$79450
$71450
RAW WATER SUPPLY
10,300
10,300
TRANSMISSION
36,300
36,300
DISTRIBUTION
MAINS
263,700
263,700
EQUIP
17,600
17,600
METERS A SERVICES
4000
28,000
HYDRANTS
15,000
15,000
$378,350
$378,350
PROJECTED
1987/88 FISCAL YEAR
CURRENT RATES AND CONTRACT INTERPERTATIONS
A
$1,374,457
B
7,815
C
73,145
D
76,%3
E
300,300
F
48,020
6
67,980
H
3,602
I
118,999
$2,071,280
CANBELL SOUP
825,032
Los
elk
494,518 Q s
oX
f app TOTAL
�aOT oJ�C
►830, J",v- v9.
'
a g3 3
�
3R s3 q
87/88 BUDGET
$3,251,395
EST. SURPLUS
$139,435
PAGE i
CITY OF PARIS
CAlPBEUS SOUP
ASSUMPTIONS
SALES TD CAMPBELLS > 1 MILLION CUBIC FEET 224,304,647
TOTAL WATER SALES
480,567,406
PERCENT TO TOTAL
46.67%
BUDGETED PRODUCTION O:M
$1,021,625
BUDGETED PRODUCTION PERSONNEL
$2299205
83 REFUNDING $346,408
CONTRACTUAL PERCENTAGE
84 UTILITY BONDS $830,737
CONTRACTUAL PERCENTAGE
AGENT FEES
$1,489
ADMINISTRATIVE CHARGE 6.50%
RATE TO BE . pER 100 £
SIN EXCES5OF�ICIMC�
TOTAL ANNUAL REVENUES:
FIRST i MILLION CU. FT. PER MOM $60,059
BASE CUSTOMER CHARGE 15,600
VOLUME RATE 749„373
TOTAL CAMPBELLS REVENUES $ 0, 032
56.60%
62.30%
F PAGE I
CITY OF PARIS
LAMAR COUNTY WqliP1.Y DISTRICT
4987!88 CONTRACT
DISTRIBUTIa1.5ERViCE q:�116E
BUDGETED O&N
$544,280
LESS:
PROFIT 10.00%
METERS 4 METER BOXES
(309000)
SERVICE LINES
(14,000)
NYDRllNTS 3 VALVES
(16,000)
ADJUSTED OIN
$484,280
83 BONG DIST. P3I
3,555,124,768
$346,556 11.00%
$38,121
84 BOND P$I
$831,638 17.30%
$143,873
BUDGETED CAPITAL OUTLAY
ASSOC. WITH WATER STORAGE,
PUMP STATIONS, AND MAINS $371,600
ADMIN. CHARGE 5.50%
$67,462
PROFIT 10.00%
$110,534
TOTAL
$1,215,870
LCWSD SALES THRU DIST.
184,387,640
TOTAL WATER SALES
3,555,124,768
CAMPBELL SALES
(19767,694,230)
LCWSD SALES BEFORE DIST.
(405,583,410)
SALES THRU DIST.
19381,847,128
COIiTRACT m PERCENTAGE
13.34%
$162,240
1000,s1i.
,^..Y"'.i"':.s y„,.,,k..: t,y�•... -gin ^? y T` .�
AATE PER l00 CUBIC FEET,
;�' •�'-; �,�°,
.`$0:6582
PAGE I
CITY OF PARIS
LANAR COUNTY WATER SUPPLY DISTRICT
�yRRf'TI REVENUES
6
T
CAPITAL RECOVERY FEE
FACILITIES IN PLACE AT 10/1/89
M418
DEPRECIATION ON WiTP ADDITIaG SINCE 10/1/84
(4810102- 701617- 50000)/35 YEARS
115,957
83 BOND PROD. INT.
$256,407 0.566
145,126
AGENT FEES
149
84 BIND PROD. INT.
$565,638 iW
291,3D4
AGENT FEES
1,000
DEPRECIATION ON CAPITAL OUTLAY
SINCE 10/1/84
4,172
SUB? -TOTAL
$650,126
CONTRACTUAL PERCENTAGE 0.21
$136,526
BUDGETED OIN PRODUCTION
$1,011,325
LCHSD SALES 589,971,050
TOTAL SALES 4,055,878,000
CONTRACTUAL PERCENTAGE A.55%
$147,108
ADMINISTRATIVE DUARGE 0.065
$18,436
PROFIT 0.1
$30,207
TOTAL REVENUE REQUIREMENT
$332,278
FSY
-f'."
�_ � x.�a•.AA y - K��T
ft4213
.,�
07- Mar -88 DATE
AVERAGE DAY
PEW( DAY
PEAK HOUR
EXTRA CAPACITY
TOTAL
EXPENSE EXPENSE BASE MAX DAY MAX HOUR CUSTOMER
RAW WATER STORAK $27,174 $27,174
RAW WATER TRANSMISSION $220,447 $220,447
PURIFICATION
$124,115
9
$124,115
GENERAL FUND SUPPORT:
PER50 M
$229,205
$152,803
$76,402
18,626
SUPPLIES:
269906
26,906
LEGAL
31,106
CHEMAICALS
162,000
162,000
65,508
65,508
NISC.
11,220
11,220
11,538 17,485 2,419
WAREHOUSE
34,563
CONTRACTUAL
31942 5,974 826
GARAGE
14,507
91998
19655 21508 347
DAN PAT MWYSE
0
15,555
POWER
204,553
204,553
NISC.
41,885
41,885
MAINTENANCE
64,215
42,108
15,001
7,106
0
TOTAL PURIFICATION
$713,078
$614,569
$91,403
$7,106
$0
DISTRIBUTION
PERSOM a
$56,321
$28,161
$28,161
SUPPLIES
3,616
1,808
1,808
CONTRACTUAL
8,647
41323
41323
MAINTENANCE
73,593
36,975
7,853
24,364
4,402
SUB -TOTAL DISTRIBUTION
$142,178
$71,267
$7,853
$58,656
$4,402
TRAIMISSION- V TO 1 30"
29,566
160,376
94,189
TAANSNISSION 30• AND ABOVE
54,614
34,407
20,207
HYDRANTS
38,446
$38,446
METERS 4 SERVICES
105,726
$105,726
TOTAL DISTRIBUTION
$595,530
$266,051
$122,249
$97,102
$110,128
ill
BILLING i COLLECTING
$124,115
9
$124,115
GENERAL FUND SUPPORT:
CITY COUNCIL
$18,626
18,626
CITY MANAGER
269906
26,906
LEGAL
31,106
31,106
FINANCE
65,508
65,508
ENGINEERING
101,160
69,718
11,538 17,485 2,419
WAREHOUSE
34,563
23,820
31942 5,974 826
GARAGE
14,507
91998
19655 21508 347
PLUMBING INSP.
15,555
15,555
wA07- Mar-88 2 DATE
CITY OF PARIS AVERAGE DAY
WATER EXPENSE FUNCTIONALIIATION PEAK DAY
1988 PEAK HOUR
EXTRA CAPACITY
R
TOTAL
EXPENSE
EXPENSE
BASE
MAX DAY
MAX HOUR
CUSTOMER
TOTAL GEM. FUND SUPPORT
$307,931
$1809175
$17,134
$25,967
$84,655
AUDIT FEES
f61550
gh 550
CAPITAL OUTLAY
TRANSMISSION
$36,300
$24,200
$12,100
DISTRIBUTION
281,300
140,650
140,650
METERS & SERVICES
28,000
28,000
HYDRANTS
15,000
15,000
BILLING & COLLECTING
7,45D
7,450
RAN WATER SUPPLY
10,300
109300
TOTAL CAPITAL OUTLAY
$378,350
f
$164,850
$12,100
$155,650
$45,750
DEBT SERVICE
1983 REFUNDING
$234,271
$147,683
$45,821
$40,767
$0
1984 UTILITY BONDS
572,155
3529776
100,049
119,330
PAT MAYSE
mom
49,826
49, 826
FUTURE
80,106
80,106
MTN. DEBT SERVICE
$936,358
$630,392
$145,870
$160,096
$0
GRAND TOTAL
$3, 309 ,533
$29103,657
$388,756
$4459921
$371,196
PERCENTAGES
100.00%
63.56%
11.75%
13.47%
11.22%
R
PAGE I 09- Mar -88 DATE
CITY OF PARIS
CUSTMR CLASS
COST ALLOCATIONS
i
EXPENSE
RESIDENTIAL
COMMERCIAL
CAMPBELLS
LCWSD
RAN WATER STORAGE
$4,457
$5,413
$10,367
$6,938
RAW WATER TRANSMISSION
$40,606
$49,314
$94,506
$36,021
PURIFICATION
CITY COUNCIL
$6,224
PERSONNEL
52,671
54,322
76,646
45,566
SUPPLIES:
6,045
3,836
LEGAL
10,402
CHEMICALS
29,840
36,239
69,449
26,471
MISC.
2,578
2,659
3,752
2,231
CONTRACTUAL
25,926
179253
HA10MUSE
9,708
OM PAT MAYSE
81858
518%
SWAM
49075
POWER
37,679
45,758
87,692
33,424
NISC.
9,625
91927
14,006
8,327
MAINTENANCE
14,757
15,219
21,473
12,766
TOTAL PURIFICATION
$147,150
$164,124
$273,019
$128,784
DISTRIBUTION
PEAL
26,657
29,664
0
0
SUPPLIES
1,712
11905
0
0
CONTRACTUAL
49093
4,554
0
0
MAINTENANCE
34,832
38,762
0
0
SUB -TOTAL DISTRIBUTION
$67,293
$74,885
$0
$0
TRANSMISSION
12,550
12,944
18,263
10,8357
(30" AND GREATER)
TRANSMISSION
M"TO ( 30" 1
91,644
101,444.
0
61,478
HYDRANTS
15,136
15,428
7,881
0
METERS i SERVICES
84,581
21,145
TOTAL DISTRIBUTION
$271,204
$225,847
(26,144
$72,335
BILLING 9 COLLECTING
$98,051
$24,513
$310
$1,241
GENML FUND SUPPORT:
CITY COUNCIL
$6,224
$5,201
$49482
$2,719
CITY MANAGER
81998
8,026
6,045
3,836
LEGAL
10,402
9,279
6,989
4,435
FINANCE
21,907
19,542
14,719
9,340
ENGINEERING
28,415,
29,566
25,926
179253
HA10MUSE
9,708
10,102.
81858
518%
SWAM
49075
4,240
31718
29474
--PAGE 2
09-Mr-68 DATE
CITY OF PARIS
CUSTOMER CLASS
COST ALLOCATIONS
EXPENSE
RESIDENTIAL.
COMMERCIAL
CAMBELLS
LCWSD
PlMINS INSP.
12,444
3,111
L
TOTAL LIEN. FUND SUPPORT
$102,174
$89,068
$70,737
$45,953 a.
30�,��3
AUDIT FEES
$2,190
$1,954
$1,472
$934
CAPITAL OUTLAY
TRANSMISSION
$13,068
$14,466
$0
$8,766
DISTRIBUTION
133,139
148,161
0
0
METERS & SERVICES
22,400
5,600
HYDRANTS
5,906
6,020
3,075
0
BILLING 6 COLLECTING
5,960
1,490
RAW WATER SUPPLY
1,689
2,052
3,929
2,630
TOTAL CAPITAL OUTCRY
$182,162
$177,788
$7,004
$11,396
DEBT SERVICE
1983 REFUNDING
TREATMENT
$45,075
$46,488
$65,593
$38,995
DISTRIBUTION
15,576
17,186
2,381
2,977
1984 UTILITY BONDS
TREATMENT
98,420
101,503
143,218
85,143
DISTRIBUTION
58,785
64,862
8,987
11,236
s
RESERVOIRS
CURRENT
8,171
9,925
19,009
12,721
FUTURE
13,137
15,957
30,560
20,451
TOTAL DEBT SERVICE
$239,165
$255,922
$M9,748
$17115M
GRAND TOTAL.
i, 087,160
$993,
/$751,308,
$475,1
PERCENTAGES
32.85%
30.03%
22.76%
r 14.36%
• /�
/�,�
n�0
Dap
�� +�
//G,
M • i�'
M
Residential
Ccmi*xcial
Campbell
LCWSD
AVERAGE DAY
(Z!(ID)
2.047
2.487
4.763
1.816
18.42
22.38
42.86
16.34
11.113 100.00
160 200 17.817 22.250
6.704 100.00 11.137 100.00
TABLE NO. 4.9
FY- -1987
CUMME R WATER USE
AMID CAPACITY REQU REDTE M
CAPACITY FACMIR
IMM CAPACITY
EXTRA
CAPACITY
PEAK DAY
PEAK HR
PEAK DAY
PEAK TRt
PEAK
DAY
PEAK BLUR
%
%
(MM)
(MCA)
(1M)
%
(MM)
%
200
280
4.094
5.732
2.047
30.53
3.685
33.09
170
250
4.228
6.218
1.741
25.97
3.731
33.50
125
140
5.954
6.668
1.191
17.77
1.905
17.10
195
200
3.541
3.632
1.725
25.73
1.816
16.31
160 200 17.817 22.250
6.704 100.00 11.137 100.00
MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL MEETING OF THE WATER & SEWER RATE
STUDY ADVISORY COMMITTEE
April 7, 1988
The Water & Sewer Rate Study Advisory Committee met in special session,
Thursday, April 7, 1988, 5:45 P. M. Council Room, City Hall. Chairman
Marshall H. Kent, Jr. called the meeting to order with the following
members present: Councilman Wortham, James Farris, Herb Campbell,
Director of Utilities, W. E. Anderson, Director of Finance, Michael E.
Malone, City Manager, T. K. Haynes, City Attorney, and City Clerk,
Mattie Cunningham.
Barry Sarma, Consulting Engineer with the firm of Freese and Nichols,
Inc., appeared before the Committee briefing them on the wastewater
side of the City of Paris's rate study, and as of October 1987 there
were 9,575 wastewater accounts of those, 8,191 were Residential, 1,355
Commercial, 16 Industrial, and 12 outside the city limits customers.
We found in the last two years the water effluent averaged 4.05 million
gallons a day, out of that reach averaged approximately 1.33 (I &I), the
BOD per day averaged 190 milligrams per liter. Mr. Sarma said he felt
the system worked good in dry weather, but during wet weather there
were problems due to bypasses. Mr. Sarma stated that in order to do
this study they had to subtract out Campbell Soup's water usage in
order to make a connection between the water and wastewater
relationship of what quantity of water that is used that gets in the
wastewater facilities because as you know, Campbell Soup buys close to
50% of the clear water, and only discharges about 1% of the wastewater
into the wastewater system. Lamar County Water Supply District has to
be removed because they do not use the wastewater facility.
Mr. Sarma stated that the test year data tells us that Residential
Customers contribute 42% of the flow per day, 36.8% Commercial, 16.9
Industrial, and 3.3% Merico. In terms of BOD contributions,
Residential contributed 33.7% per day, Commercial 28.8 %, Industrial
13.4, these are close to what their flow is, but Merico's BOD per day
is 24.1% compared to their flow of 3.3% per day plus 9.7% per day for
TSS. Mr. Sarma said on the basis of this, they have gone in and
functionalized the cost into the components of plant collection,
treatment, and customer cost.
Jack Stowe of Reed and Stowe, explained that the process after
receiving the allocation factors from Mr. Sarma is similar to those
used for the water, that is, they functionalized the investments, then
developed the revenue requirements, then they did the functional ization
of the revenue requirements and allocated those to the customers
classes.
Mr. Stowe presented the Committee a handout , attached hereto as part
of these minutes as exhibit A. Mr. Stowe said that based on records of
the city, the city has a total of $9,848,178. invested in the
wastewater system. Of that amount $4,380,805. is in the plant,
$5,047,982. in collection, $69,516. Billing, and construction work in
process is approximately $350,000. Mr. Stowe said in doing cost
allocation the collection system is basically a volume related
Page 2
function, so 100% is going in to the volume component, as you can see
on page one; however, the treatment plant is a different situation
because the plant is designed not only to meet the strength loading
consisting of the BOD, TSS, and Ammonia loading, and what they have
done is to utilized the design criteria of the plant. Mr. Stowe said
they could go in and look at the specific assets that is within the
treatment plant and identify out of those investments in total how much
is related to each function, and as you can see, we have functionalized
the actual treatment plant for $4,380,805. - volume $602,384., BOD
strength $2,376,141., TSS strength $1,302,073., and NH3 strength
$100,207. Mr. Stowe said that page two was a recap of those figures.
Mr. Stowe said the next step, which is on page three, is the actual
development of the wastewater revenue requirements. The first item is
customer accounting, and in the budgeting process, this is captured
under water in total. Mr. Stowe asked the Committee to remember that
there was a reduction in Customer Accounting by $124,000. in the water
section, they are now moving that amount over to the sewer component so
that they can recognize it as a wastewater function. On the Wastewater
Treatment Plant, we have budgeted $664,985., there are several items
that needed adjusted, electricity $63,478., and building maintenance
$63,278. with a total adjustment of $791,471. The Sanitary Sewer has
been increased from $336,995. to $356,995. representing an increase of
$20,000. contributing to building maintenance. There were no
adjustments in the Lift Stations at this time. General Fund Support,
they identified $294,383. relating to the General Fund services
provided on behalf of the wastewater system and it's operation. Audit
fees, they picked up $5,000. which is only a reclassification, Debt
Service, you can see there was no adjustment. Mr. Stowe placed
emphasis on the present budget, the Capital Outlay for Wastewater
Treatment was $11,000. and Sanitary Sewer was $27,000. Mr. Stowe
stated that they were aware of the current EPA Order for the Wastewater
System, and they were waiting before finalizing this report, that City
Staff is working on a capital improvement program, which will address
some of the problems that are existing in the Wastewater Collection
system, but as Mr. Sarma highlighted there was 1.3% MGD a day as far as
inflow - infiltration, and based on our estimates of the cost at this
time for treatment that adequates for approximately $2,000.00 a day
due to the inflow - infiltration, so this is a number we have to be
aware of, and recognize the need to develop a plan and spend money that
is necessary to improve the system. Mr. Stowe said if the I & I could
be cut in half, from the 33.3% to 16 %, that would be saving of
$365,000. a year, this amount would finance approximately 3.5 million
dollars in improvements, in other words, the savings would pay for the
debt service.
Mr. Stowe referred to page four where you can see that the grant total
from what was budgeted 1.5 million dollars, it has been increased to
2.1 million dollars for revenue requirements for wastewater. The next
step is to functionalize these expenses which is shown on page 5. For
Customer Accounting, again this is a customer charge that flows
straight across, Wastewater Treatment total was $791,741. of which
$156,105. relates to volume, $355,251. BOD, $251,179. TSS, and $29,206.
NH3, Sanitary Sewer is a volume related item which is $356,995., Lift
Page 3
Station is the same volume related in the amount of $142,345. In the
General Fund this has been allocated based on the expense items above -
of the $294,383, volume relates $77,768., BOD $126,292., TSS $73,778.,
NH3 $6,477., and customers $10,068., Audit Fees are again spread across
the board for a total of operating and maintenance of $1,715,579. The
Debt Service 1983 and 1984 gives a grant total of $2,212,637. of the
grant total $983,254. was functionalized for volume, $580,946. BOD,
$379,655. TSS, $39,932. NH3, and $137,850. customer cost.
Mr. Stowe said the final step after function
into customer classes. This allocation is b,
loading for BOD, TSS that is in your existii
ammonia based on that and related flow voluu
find that Residential is $911,021., Commer
$299,249., and Merico as a separate item
$2,121,637. The last schedule on page 7 is
not made a contribution to the plant expan!
the city had to fund that expansion at the
1984 bond issue, the cost of service as you
$58,000. for residential, $50,000. Commercia
Merico would have gone up $13,000. Merico I
dollars to the plant expansion, and has b
$143,000. a year to the over all customer c
becomes imperative as we move forward into
lookina at the contract price in relation
lization is the allocation
sed on the 250 MG strength
g ordinance, and 30 MG for
e that Barry addressed, we
ial $701,965., Industrial
$209,402. for a total of
a comparison if Merico had
ion that was made, and if
;ame time they put out the
can see would have gone up
, Industrial $21,000., and
as contributed 1.1 million
?en a definite benefit of
lass cost of service which
the rate design issue, and
to the benefits that the
system is receiving, in other words, we will anticipate as we go
through the contract pricing that Merico is going to be paying
something less than the $209,000. because in our cost of service, or
the $209,000. does not acknowledge the fact they contributed and bought
1.1 million dollars worth of capacity in the plant. What we will do is
run through the contract pricing which does recognize that contribution
and compare what we will collect under the contract to the $143,000.
benefit to the system, and as long as that difference is not more than
$143,000., the city will be ahead.
Mr. Stowe advised the Committee that they were also developing a rate
for the Industrial Surcharge, and at this point, we need to establish
the Capital Outlay that is required, then they will be at a point of
designing the rate. Mr. Stowe said the next report the Committee will
get will be the final rate with all the documentations and findings.
Mr. Stowe also stressed the importance of developing a 5 to 10 year
plan as to where we are going with the system.
There being no further business, the meeting adjourned.
MARSHALL H. KENT, JR. CHAIRMAN
ATTEST:
MATTIE CUNNINGHAM, CITY CLERK
Table 7.6
Wastewater Loading Characteristics
(FY 1986 -87)
Customer
Average Day
BOD /Day
TSS /Day
Flow
(MGD )
lbs
( %)
lbs
X
Residential
1.17 43.0
2,196
33:7
2,693
41.9
Commercial
1.00 36.8,
1,877
28.8
2,301
35.9
Industrial
0.46 16.9
874
13.4
801
12.5
Merico
0.09 3.3
1,572
24.1
623
9.7
Subtotal
2.72 100.0
.6,519
100.0
6,418
100.0
I/I Total
1.33
Total
4.05
r
Ammonia
lbs ( %)
305 43.6
261 37.3
132 18.9
2 0.3
700 100.0
7.12
CITY OF PARIS TABLE R-S 8.1
WASTEWATER PLANT FUNCTIONALIZATION
ODD TSS NH3
ITEM TOTAL VOLUME STRENGTH STRENGTH STRENGTH CUSTOMER
LAND
$4,400
$605
$2,387
$1,308
$101
$0
BUILDINGS
1,342,832
51,236
822,661
432,538
36,397
0
TREATMENT PLANT
830,271
31,679
508,650
267,438
22,504
0
MASTER PUMP STA.
392,265
392,265
MACHINERY, TOOLS,
EQUIP., AND VEHICLES
SLUDGE DISPOSAL
219,364
TOTAL
109,682
109,682
W i S BILLING
$69,516
LIFT STA.
8,353
8,353
4' PUMP
3,465
3,465
PLANT EXPANSION
1,472,450
56,181
902,069
474,289
39,911
PUMPS
50,820
50,820
MACHINERY, TOOLS,
EQUIP., AND VEHICLES
56,585
7,781
30,692
16,818
1,294
0
$4,380,805
$602,384
$2,376,141
$1,3022,073
$100,207
$0
LAND
$6,270
$6,270
LIFT STATIONS
57,794
57,794
SANITARY SEWER
3,455,691
3,455,691
FLOW EQUALIZATION
526,616
526,616
CENTRAL INTERCEPTOR
608,995
608,995
MANHOLES
143,466
143,466
PUMPS
14,404
14,404
SERVICE LINES
138,725
138,725
MACHINERY, TOOLS,
EQUIP., AND VEHICLES
96,021
96,021
TOTAL
$5,047,982
$5,047,982 $0 $0 $0
W i S BILLING
$69,516
$69,516
CWIP $349,875 $349,875
TOTAL $9,848,178 $6,000,241 $2,376,141 $1,302,073 $100,207 $69,516
ITEM
TREATMENT PLANT
COLLECTION SYSTEM
Y i S BILLING
CYIP
TOTAL
2�. s
TABLE R-S 8.2
CITY OF PARIS
PLANT SUMMARY
$9,848,178 $6,000,241 $2,376,141 $1,302,073 $100,207 $69,516
1)
BW TSS NH3
TOTAL
VOLUME STRENGTH STRENGTH STRENGTH CUSTOMER
$4,380,805
1602,384 $2,376,141 $1,302,073 $100,207
5,047,982
5,047, 982 0 0 0
69,516
69,516.00
349,875
349,875
$9,848,178 $6,000,241 $2,376,141 $1,302,073 $100,207 $69,516
1)
CUSTOMER ACCOUNTING
WASTEWATER TREATMENT:
PERSONNEL
SUPPLIES
CONTRACTUAL:
ELECTRICITY
OTHER
MAINTENANCE:
BUILDINGS
EQUIPMENT
CAPITAL OUTLAY
TOTAL
SANITARY SEWER:
PERSONNEL
SUPPLIES
CONTRACTUAL:
ELECTRICITY
OTHER
MAINTENANCE:
BUILDINGS
EQUIPMENT
CAPITAL OUTLAY
TOTAL
LIFT STATIONS:
PERSONNEL
SUPPLIES
CONTRACTUAL:
ELECTRICITY
OTHER
MAINTENANCE:
BUILDINGS
EQUIPMENT
CAPITAL OUTLAY
TOTAL
CITY OF PARIS
WASTEWATER ATER REVENUE REQUIREMENTS
1987/88
BUDGET ADJUSTMENTS
$316,475
27,650
181,930
31,500
43, 800
52,520
11,110
$664s'985
$152,240
17,150
800
14,345
99,000
26,460
27,000
$336,995
$65,705
5,110
44,000
7,210
4,745
15,575
a
$142,345
(124,415
63,478
63,278
$126,756
20,000
$20,000
$0
REVENUE
REQUIREMENTS
$124,415
$316,475
27,&%
245,408
31,500
107,078
52,520
11,110
$791,741
$152,240
17,150
804
14,345
119,000
26,460
$356,995
$65,705
5,110
44,000
7,210
4,745
15,575
0
$142,345
TABLE R -S 8.3
PAGE 1 OF 2
CITY OF PARIS
WASTEWATER REVENUE REQUIREMENTS
s
zht�, y
TABLE R—S 8.3
PAGE 2 OF 2
ADJUSTMENTS
1987/88
BUDGET
GENERAL FUND SUPPORT:
$9,5%
CITY COUNCIL
13,861
CITY MANAGER
16,025
LEW
33,747
FINANCE
179,840
ENGINEERING
WAREIMSE
14,814
GARAGE
PLUMBING INSP.
10,944
TOTAL
$0
AUDIT FEES
$700
DEBT SERVICE:
$5,700
1983 0.42
$146,593
1984 0.31
259,465
TOTAL.
$406,058
GRAND TOTAL
$1,551,083
s
zht�, y
TABLE R—S 8.3
PAGE 2 OF 2
ADJUSTMENTS
REVEM E
REQUIREMENTS
.$915%
$9,5%
13,861
13,861
16,025
16,025
-,33,747
33,747
179,840
179,840
14,814
14,814
10,%4
10,944
15,556
15,556
$294,383
$294,383
$5,000
$5,700
$146, 593
$0 $406,058
CUSTOMER ACCOUNTING
WASTEWATER TREATMENT:
PERSONNEL
SUPPLIES
CONTRACTUAL:
ELECTRICITY
OTHER
MAINTENANCE:
BUILDINGS
EQUIPMENT
CAPITAL OUTLAY
TOTAL
SANITARY SEWER:
PERSONNEL
SUPPLIES
CONTRACTUAL:
ELECTRICITY
OTHER
MAINTENANCE:
BUILDINGS
EQUIPMENT
CAPITAL OUTLAY
TOTAL
LIFT STATIONS:
PERSONNEL
SUPPLIES
CONTRACTUAL:
ELECTRICITY
OTHER
MAINTENANCE:
BUILDINGS
EQUIPMENT
CAPITAL OUTLAY
TOTAL
CITY OF PARIS
WASTEWATER EXPENSE FUNCTIONALIZATION
REVENUE
REQUIREMENTS VOLUME DOD TSS NH3 CUSTOMER
(124,415 $124,415
$316,475
$43,517
$171,655
$94,063
$7,239
$0
27,650
3,802
14,997
8,218
632
0
245,408
71,400
64,947
92,098
16,%3
31,500
4,331
17,086
9,363
721
0
107,078
14,724
58,079
31,826
21449
0
52,520
7,222
28,487
15,610
1,201
0
11,110
11,110
$791,741
$156,106
$355,251
$251,179
$29,206
$0
$152,240 $152,240
17,150 17,150
800
800
14,345
14,345
119,000
119,000
26,460
26,460
27,000
27,000
$356,995
$356,995
0
0
$65,705
$65,705
5,110
5,110
44,000
44,000
7,210
7,210
4,745
4,745
15,575
15,575
0
0
$142,345 $142,345
TABLE R-S 8.4
PAGE 1 OF 2
, �y
GENERAL FUND SUPPORT:
CITY COUNCIL
CITY MANAGER
LEGAL
FINANCE
ENGINEERING
WAREt0USE
GARAGE
PLUMBING INSP.
TOTAL
AUDIT FEES
TOTAL O 3 M
DEBT SERVICE:
CITY OF PARIS
WASTEWATER EXPENSE FUNCTIONALIIATION
REVENUE
REgUIREMENTS VOLUME BOO TSS NH3 CUSTOMER
TABLE R-S 8.4
PAGE 2 OF 2
$9,5%
$4,443
$2,408
$1,703
$198
$843
13,861
6,418
3,479
2,460
286
1,218
16,025
7,420
4,022
2,844
331
1,409
33,747
15,627
8,470
5,988
6%
2,%6
179,840
24,729
97,545
53,452
4,114
0
14,814
6,860
3,718
2,629
306
1,302
10,944
5,068
2,747
1,942
226
%2
15,556
7,203
3,904
2,760
321
1,367
$294,383
$77,768
4126,292
$73,778
$6,477
$10,068
$5,700 $2,639 $1,431 $1,011 $118 $501
$1,715,579 $735,854 $482,973 $325,968 $35,800 $134,984
1983 $146,593
89, 315.20
35, 369.49
19, 381.71
1,491.61
1,034.76
SUB -TOTAL $1,862,172
$825,169
$518,343
$345,350
$37,292
$136,019
1984 $259,465
$158,086
$62,603
$34,305
$2,640
$1,832
GRAND TOTAL $2,121,637
$983,254
$580,946
$379,655
$39,932
$137,850
cm
RESIDENTIAL
COMMERCIAL
INDUSTRIAL
MERICO
TOTAL
RESIDENTIAL
COMMERCIAL
INDUSTRIAL
MERICD
TOTAL
TABLE R-S 8.5
CITY OF PARIS
CUSTOMER CLASS COST ALLOCATION
WITH MERICO CONTRIBUTION
% OF
CUSTOMER
VOLUME
BOD
TSS
NH3
TOTAL TOTAL
CHARGE
CHARGE
CHARGE
CHARGE
CHARGE
$911,021
42.94% $115,997 $422,799
$1951779
$159,075
$17,370
701,965
33.09% 21,625 361,838
167,312
136,296
14,895
299,249
14.10% 228 166,170
77,847
47,457
7,547
209,402
9.87% 32,447
140,008
36,827
120
$2,121,637 100.00% $137,850 $983,254 $580,946 $379,655 $39,932
WITHOUT MERICO CONTRIBUTION
% OF CUSTOMER VOLUME BOO TSS NH3
TOTAL TOTAL CHARGE CHARGE CHARGE CHARGE CHARGE
$969,658
42.81% $116,849 $460,354
$207,434
$167,016
$18,005
751,572
33.18% 21,783 393,977
177,273
143,100
15,439
321,290
14.19% 230 180,930
82,481
49,826
7,823
222,462
9.82% 35,329
148,343
38,665
124
$2,264,981 100.00% $138,862 $1,070,590 $615,531 $398,607 $41,391
MINUTES OF THE WATER & SEWER COMMITTEE MEETING
June 13, 1988
The Water & Sewer Committee met, Monday, June 13, 1988, 6:00 P. M.,
City Council Chambers, City Hall, Paris, Texas. Chairman, Eric
Clifford called the meeting with Councilman Curtis Fendley present.
Also present was City Manager, Michael E. Malone, City Attorney, T. K.
Haynes, City Engineer, Earl Smith, and City Clerk, Mattie Cunningham.
Chairman Clifford called for consideration of and action of a request
from Ralph Taylor for City participation in water line extension for a
new church building on Loop 286 South.
Ralph Taylor, Minister of the Bethel Temple Church, appeared before the
Committee and review his previous proposal of using a pool for
drafting, underground water system, and reintroduced this to the
Committee. Mr. Taylor also suggested that the city furnish pipe for
the proposed water line, and the church would install the pipe, or the
church would furnish the pipe, and the church would install it.
Steve Burgin, Fire Chief, appeared before the Council stating the use
of the pool was still out of the question, the deep well system would
work, but would have to meet certain standards, and would be expensive.
Chairman Clifford explained to Mr. Taylor that the City's policy did
not include participate in water line extension, only upgrading of pipe
from a six inch pipe, then the City would pay the difference in that,
and the City Engineering Department would decide the size of pipe that
was needed. Chairman Clifford suggested that Mr. Taylor get with the
City Engineer and work out the procedures for the water line.
City Attorney Haynes told Mr. Taylor that the City would secure
right -of -way for the water line which was normally donated.
City Manager Malone told Mr. Taylor the first step would be to get a
licensed Engineer to draw up plan and present to the City Engineer, and
would have to have a licensed plumber to make the tap.
Leonard Owens, 1128 Cooper Street, appeared before the council
requesting participation in water line extension to serve his residence
at 1128 Cooper Street due to poor water pressure to his mobile home.
Earl Smith, City Engineer, presented maps and a memorandum, attached
hereto as exhibit A, of the happenings regarding Mr. Leonard's water
service.
After discussion, the Committee instructed City Staff to check into
this matter and report back to the City Council.
There being no further business, the meeting adjourned.
ERIC S. CLIFFORD, CHAIRMAN
ATTEST:
MATTIE CUNNINGHAM, CITY CLERK
MEMORANDUM
TO: Leonard Owens Utility Service
File
FROM: Mike Tibbets, Staff Engineer
DATE: February 11, 1988
SUBJECT: Mr. Leonard Owens
On September 24, 1987, Mr. Leonard Owens contacted the City of
Paris Engineering Department concerning obtaining water and sewer
service for his lot at 1128 Cooper Street. (See Request for Service
#170) He was informed by secretary Alice Pinalto that a cost estimate
would be required if there was no water or sewer service available.
Mr. Owens came back to the office on the Friday just before
October 2, 1987. Alice and Steve Hodges (who makes the estimates)
were both out of the office and I was very busy. I waited on him as
soon as I could. He told me the situation and I began to try to see
if I could find what the estimate was. I couldn't locate it so I told
him I would call him back on Monday.
On October 2, 1987, Steve worked up an estimate of $1,500 for 100
feet of 6" water main extension and $1,700 for 100 feet of 6" sewer
extension.
We found out that there was an existing sewer main in the street
in front of his lot and that it would not require a sewer main exten-
sion. I told him that we would dig it up to see if it was low enough
to serve his lot.
We located the sewer and determined that it was indeed low enough
to serve his lot (3.87 feet of difference between sewer flow line and
his sewer connection).
On November 11, 1987, Mr. Owens paid $210 for a standard sewer
tap in the dirt (receipt #4250). On that same day, the Engineering
Department sent a work order to Public Works for construction of same.
Allen Hicks completed the work on November 19, 1987.
Sometime prior to November 11, 1987, (and I honestly can't
remember when) we informed Mr. Owens that there was no water main in
front of his property. We said that a main would have to be extended
in the city right -of -way according to city standards (6" pipe mini-
mum). This would cost a minimum of $1,500. This figure didn't seem
to bother him much at the time. (He didn't complain.)
I told him that an alternative to this high cost might be to get
permission from the owner of the adjacent lot to the east (1106
Cooper) to run a line across that property to 1128 Cooper and that he
wouldn't have to use as big and as expensive a line in that manner.
Apparently he liked that idea because on November 11, 1987, (the
day he paid for the sewer tap) he told the secretary that he was going
to buy that lot. She even made a note of it.
That made me glad because tensions had started by then. I then
told him that if he owned that lot (1106 Cooper) all he would have to
do to begin water service was to pay a $35 deposit at the water office
which he promptly did. He told me that his wife had told him to buy
the lot to start with, and that he should have "listened to her."
I thought the problems were finally over until the following
Friday (November 20, 1987). He came in to the office upset and said
that the City had not set the meter or run a line from the meter
across 1106 Cooper and up to his house at 1128 Cooper. I asked him if
he had bought the lot at 1106 Cooper. He then informed me that he
wasn't going to buy it and that he had never intended to buy it.
I then told him that he couldn't run a line across property that
did not belong to him without the owner's permission. I warned Mr.
Owens that the owner of 1106 Cooper might decide that he didn't want
Mr. Owens' line crossing 1106 and cut it off. He said he would take
that chance himself.
Mr. Owens then walked out mad. I immediately went to 1106 Cooper
and located the existing tap, then called the water office to make
sure a meter was installed.
While I was out, Mr. Owens came back in with a letter from County
Judge Bob Burns granting permission to lay water and sewer lines along
the property line of 1106 Cooper. (The county now owned 1106 Cooper
due to nonpayment of taxes). My interpretation of this letter was
that the judge was allowing Mr. Owens to use the tap at 1106 Cooper
for use at 1128 Cooper.
However, when I contacted the judge to be sure of my interpreta-
tion, he said that I was wrong. He wanted the water tap at 1106
Cooper to remain for its future owner. He only granted permission for
lines to be laid along the edge of the property.
Therefore, on November 20, 1987, I wrote Mr. Owens a letter
informing him of what the judge had said. Since Mr. Owens did not
want to run a City standard sized main due to the cost, I informed him
that a water tap in the dirt was necessary and that it would cost him
$135. Additionally, I told him that the City does not do private
plumbing work on private property and that it would be necessary for
him to run a line from the meter to his lot at 1128 Cooper. I at-
tached a copy of "Water /Sewer Verification" to help him understand our
water and sewer installation procedures. This attachment also warned
of the low service possibly provided by using nonstandard sized
service mains. I apologized for the delays and misunderstandings and
asked him to call me if there were any questions.
- 2 -
oil
December 17, 1987, Mr. Owens came in and paid $135
for the standard water tap in the dirt (Receipt #4437) as I had
instructed.
On December 18, 1987, the Engineering Department sent a work
order to Public Works to construct the tap and to switch the meter in
the existing meter box to the new meter box. On the same day, I
contacted Pat Evans, Water Department Head, and asked her to not
charge Mr. Owens for having an account at 1106 Cooper, and to switch
the billing address to 1128 Cooper, which she did.
Allen Hicks of Public Works completed the tap on December 21,
1987. Odis Bridgers contacted me about the tap saying that it was on
a 3/4" line and that the flow rate would not be good. I told him that
I was afraid of that but Mr. Owens didn't want to pay to do it cor-
rectly and that he had already been warned.
I thought that we had finally resolved our problems. However, in
January, 1988, I got a call from Mr. Elbert Desmond (784 -4041) who was
working for Mr. Owens. He said Mr. Owens wanted to know why the meter
wasn't installed at 1128 Cooper instead of at 1106 Cooper. I told him
that Mr. Owens hadn't paid to extend the main, so it wasn't extended
to 1128 Cooper. After contacting Pat Evans again, I told Mr. Desmond
that Mr. Owens could move the meter to his own property and run a line
from the new tap to his meter all at his own cost.
Next, on February 9, 1988, I got a call from Beverly at Public
Works saying that Mr. Owens was complaining that his water meter was
not at 1128 Cooper and that there was not adequate water pressure. I
told her Mr. Owens had been warned verbally and by letter of the
possibility of low service problems and that he would be allowed to
move his meter in front of his property if he wished.
=M
o �
LfN::
-
'M'N
H
to
0 .M •N
NN .
Ow
c
a J
o �
o A Hi 8 A
W�
MN 'H101 .
`MN
r\
� t a AN
m� � �•� � -� H151 I-
s
Oi =
pa co
vt A 0
IA p :M N 'Hl 9f
Hl LI
WN N181 ° A
4L v
M N
ir
I g
I �
m _
- -� a. Y O
01
S CO) D D .0
F _- r 3 �_ // O
O OD
S S
in r
r i �
NW
0
® r' 18 TH. 1
N.W. .A �o
17 TH, N.Vy.
rn
I 16 TH. W.W.
co
? '�
15 TH 4 1 N
N.W. y
. N.W.
+
Li
b i
_N.W y 3
MX 10TH: N.W.
l
N:W.
Ji
D
• .8 TH •
r
N.W. 4
N. W. 0
N. w.
co
N. W.
El
� O
.n r �
MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL MEETING OF THE WATER & SEWER RATE
STUDY ADVISORY COMMITTEE
January 7, 1991
The Water & Sewer Rate Study Advisory Committee met, Monday, January 7,
1991, 5:00 P. M., City Council Chambers, City Hall, Paris, Texas.
Chairman, Billy Joe Burnett called the meeting to order with the
following members present: Councilman E. W. (Bill) Booth, Councilman
George Fisher, Jr., Director of Finance, W. E. Anderson, City Engineer,
Earl Smith, Director of Utilities, Herb Campbell, Jim Farris, City
Manager, Michael E. Malone, City Attorney, T. K. Haynes, and City
Clerk, Mattie Cunningham.
Chairman Burnett announced the purpose of the meeting was to receive
briefing from Keith Reed, a partner in Reed -Stowe & Company that has
been engaged to conduct a Water and Wastewater Rate Study for the City
of Paris.
Mr. Reed came forward and gave each member a questionnaire to fill out
and return to them. Mr. Reed told the Committee the questionnaire
would give them input on some of the thing that will take place in the
rate calculation study.
Mr. Reed told the Committee that the first thing they plan to do is an
exact cost of service study based totally on actual cost where there is
no substitution or cross substitution between classes of customers,
that the residential, and commercial customers pay all their share, and
the contract customers pay all their share according to their
contracts with the City of Paris.
Mr. Reed said there were several other thing they needed to get the
committee's input on because they have agreed in their proposal to
calculate the rate for the residential customers within the City of
Paris, and the commercial customers that are not under a contract, that
they will provide the City with three rate fall alternatives, and the
Committee's input on the questionnaires will give Reed and Stowe the
insight as to what the desires of the Committee are as far as the three
rate fall alternatives.
Mr. Reed announced the next thing they would like to do is set the time
for the next committee meeting. After discussion, it was the consensus
of the Committee to call the meeting for March 4, 1991 at 5:00 P. M.
Mr. Reed advised that at the March meeting they would have a draft
report for the Committee to look at and review, and have the Advisory
Committee give them their thinking on the rates, and it would give them
adequate time to incorporate the Committee's suggestions into the rate
calculations. Mr. Reed said the final report would be complete by the
first of April for the final presentation and adoption by the City of
Paris.
City Attorney Haynes reported that there was a change being made to the
Tenaska contract regarding the audit period, but felt we could go
forward on the rate study.
Page 2
There being no further business, the meeting adjourned.
BILLY JOE BURNETT, CHAIRMAN
ATTEST:
MATTIE CUNNINGHAM, CITY CLERK
MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL MEETING OF THE WATER & SEWER RATE
STUDY ADVISORY COMMITTEE
March 12, 1991
The Water & Sewer Rate Study Advisory Committee met, Tuesday, March 12,
1991, 5:00 P.M., City Council Chambers, City Hall, Paris, Texas.
Chairman Billy Joe Burnett called the meeting to order with the
following members present: Councilman E. W. (Bill) Booth, Councilman
George Fisher, Jr., Director of Utilities, Herb Campbell, City
Engineer, Earl Smith, City Attorney, T. K. Haynes, and City Manager,
Michael E. Malone. Also present was City Clerk, Mattie Cunningham.
Chairman Burnett announced the purpose of the meeting was to receive
briefing from Keith Reed, a partner in Reed -Stowe & Company that has
been engaged to conduct a Water and Wastewater Rate Study for the City
of Paris.
Mr. Reed said this would be an informal meeting that he would not talk
dollars and cents, but wanted to tell the Committee of some of thing
that has developed since 1988.
Mr. Reed told the Committee that they see new and continuing problems,
one is the amount of infiltration /inflow that is getting back into the
sewer lines that has to be treated, this amounts to approximately 40%
volume from outside. The discharge is slightly less than before, and
with the work that City Engineer, Earl Smith, has in process, should
reduce the volume substantially.
Councilman Burnett questioned Mr. Reed if we were getting most of the
infiltration /Inflow from the older part of town, rain water, and on the
loop.
Mr. Reed told the Committee there was some infiltration /inflow from the
older part of the City, rain water, and the loop, but this would only
be a fraction of the problem.
City Engineer, Earl Smith, said he feel that something that is going on
is when we remodeled the lift station, we were not metering the lift
station's bypasses, and now we are which would account for some of the
increased volume.
Mr. Reed pointed out the fact that some of the problems we are
experiencing is in the outfall lines between the flow basin and the
treatment plant, stating there is a 30% infiltration /inflow there. Mr.
Reed said he was aware of the S. E. Lift station line replacement which
will eliminate infiltration /inflow, and this is something that we have
to work on.
Mr. Reed discussed water metering problem telling the Committee that
there is a 20% loss of water in the system, and is a problem that need
attention. Mr. Reed pointed out that we have two customers that is on
one 33 inch line, and when it leaks you know about it, and stated there
is no leakage there. Mr. Reed pointed out there is 2.8 million
gallons of water lost which would indicate a major metering problem at
Page 2
W &S Rate Study Committee
3/12/91
the Water treatment Plant which would cause pricing problem. Mr.
Reed questioned the calibration of the meters, stating it is the large
meters that is possibly causing the major problems.
Herb Campbell advised that the meters at the Water Treatment Plant is
calibrated twice a year, that Campbell Soup calibrates their meter one
time a year. Herb discussed the process of his departments reading
meters and the meters that Public Works reads.
Mr. Reed said one of the problem could be in the billing end of the
process, and they plan to research the program, and see if there is a
problem in the software, if it is permissible with the Committee.
The Committee was in agreement to allow Mr. Reed to research the City's
water billing software.
Mr. Reed discussed commercial customers, and contracts for water
service with the Committee, and told the Committee there is definitely
going to be a rate increase.
There being no further business, the meeting adjourned.
BILLY JOE BURNETT, CHAIRMAN
ATTEST:
MATTIE CUNNINGHAM, CITY CLERK
MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL MEETING OF THE WATER & SEWER RATE
STUDY ADVISORY COMMITTEE
August 22, 1991
The Water & Sewer Rate Study Advisory Committee met, Thursday, August
22, 1991, 3:30 P. M., City Council Chambers, City Hall, Paris, Texas.
Chairman George Fisher called the meeting to order with the following
members present: Councilman Billy Joe Burnett, Director of Utilities,
Herb Campbell, City Engineer, Earl Smith, City Attorney, T. K. Haynes,
City Manager, Michael E. Malone, and Jim Farris. Also present was City
Clerk, Mattie Cunningham.
Chairman Fisher announced the purpose of the special meeting was to
received briefing From Keith Reed, a partner of Reed -Stowe & Company
that has been engaged to conduct a Water and Wastewater Rate Study for
the City of Paris.
City Manager Malone introduced Mr. Keith Reed of Reed -Stowe & Company
who conducted the water and wastewater rate study for the City of
Paris. City Manager Malone said this study is performed every three
years.
Mr. Keith Reed, Partner in the Firm of Reed -Stowe & Company, 12770,
Dallas, Texas, along with Peter Otterson, Senior Consultant with his
firm, and Project Manager for the rate study was present. Mr. Reed
presenting the Committee, and those in the audience with a handout that
corresponded with the overhead transparencies that were presented.
Mr. Reed told the Committee that in the industrial contracts with the
City such as Tenaska and Campbell Soup there is a requirements in those
contracts that an actual cost of service and rate a calculation be done
every three years to redetermine their rates. The City also has their
rates redetermined every three year, and this is the calculation for
this particular year. Mr. Reed said his firm had performed the same
service for the year 1987 -88, and the results of that study will be
compared to that study.
Mr. Reed stated that in calculating rates for all the customers within
the city regardless whether they are residential, commercial, or
contract customers, you go through the entire process to determine a
total amount of money that will be needed to run the water and
wastewater system, then that amount of money is allocated to the
various and sundry customer classes.
Mr. Reed told the Committee that at the start of their program this
year, the City had received and adopted an engineering report from
Bucher, Willis & Ratliff & Company that envision major changes an
improvements to the water system. It involves installation of
approximately fifteen million dollars in projects over a period of
three or four years. Mr. Reed said this brought about their analysis
of what kind of impact that would have on the debt service that the
city has to pay on bonds that they sale to accomplish those projects.
Mr. Reed said they looked upon that economic impact at two ways. The
City has currently outstanding quite amount of debts in the water and
Page 2
W &S Rate Study Committee
Minutes 8/22/91
wastewater systems, and they looked at the possibility of doing an
advance refunding of the existing debts at the same time as the sale of
new bonds, and looked at the total cost at the same time. Mr. Reed
said that what happens on the advance refunding is we will be able to
save money, because those debts outstanding is at a higher interest
rate than it is today, so they looked at the analysis two ways, one
being doing an advance refunding and issued a new debt, or issued a new
debt and left the old debt as is. Mr. Reed said the first sheet of the
handout shows the impact of both of those items. The fourth column
from the left is the total system debt with no advance refund. Mr.
Reed pointed out that the figures for 1992 was for a part of a year.
The last column on the right is the annual savings or loss between
those two numbers, makes the end result a positive $278,000.00 benefit
to the City to do the advance refunding. Mr. Reed stated this was the
most favorable way was to go with the advance refunding. Mr. Reed said
this is one of the components that makes up the City's total cost that
has to be recovered from all customers for the debt service, and the
customers pay according to the demand upon the system.
Page two of the handout list out some of the major projects that are
going to be accomplished with the bond sale that is going to take place
in late 1991, and another one in early 1992. Mr. Reed said that the
Engineering Firm along with the City Engineering Staff are recommending
that the line between Pat Mayse Lake and the Water Treatment Plant be
paralleled with another line at a cost of $5,050,000.00 to take care of
the construction and engineering on this project. Mr. Reed told the
Committee the actual size of the line has not been determined at this,
it could be a 30 -inch, or as much as 42 -inch line. Mr. Reed said there
was only one line coming from Pat Mayse Lake to the treatment plant,
and it carries approximately 80 -85% of the water that the City uses.
Mr. Reed stated that not only do we need additional supply for that
particular facility, this would provide additional backup if something
happened to that line, because if it blew out, the entire city and all
industry would have to shut down, in order to provide water for the
residential customers of the city.
Herb Campbell, Director of Utilities, told the Committee that during
the summer time approximately 6 -8 million gallons of water was pumped
from Lake Crook, and eight million gallons would be the maximum that
could be pumped from Lake Crook for a very short period of time, then
we could supplement that by adding portable pumps. Mr. Campbell also
said that the capacity from Pat Mayse Lake was 14 million gallons a
day, and on peak days we are at capacity.
The Water Treatment Plant modification of the next major project due to
more stringent water treatment standards imposed by the EPA which will
become effective June 1993. Total cost of this project is
$3,976,000.00 for construction and engineering. Mr. Reed told the
Committee if these improvements are not made, the City will not be able
to meet the standards with the present plant, what it does is decreases
the amount of water you treat because you have to be more critical in
the treatment process, so the City will loose some volume if the
expansion is not done.
Page 3
W &S Rate Study Committee
Minutes 8/22/91
The next large item is the Booster Pump Station Rehabilitation and
Addition of a 4.0 million gallon ground storage tank at an estimated
cost of $5,000,000.00. The total for all of the proposed project is
$14,526,000.00.
Page three of the handout, Mr. Reed pointed out was a budget comparison
for actual operating expenses for the water and wastewater operation
for the current year and the proposed 1991 -92 budget, which will be
presented to the Council for approval. The total cost of service shows
an increase of 15.24 %, with the debt service showing an increase of
40.20 %.
City Attorney Haynes pointed out that the Water Production, Sewer
Treatment, and Lift Stations Departments are intensive user of
electrical power.
Mr. Reed discussed lost and unaccountable water that is lost due to
fire fighting, water leaks, water main breaks, inaccurate meter
reading, meter stoppages, so what they had done was to see what type
system loss there was. On the handout showing Water Production,
Consumption and Losses in Gallons, Mr. Reed pointed out that just
because the City produces water through the Water Production Plant it
does not mean the City gets to sell all the water, and discussed the
types of water losses the City has. Mr. Reed told the Committee the
total system loss is 11.51 %.
Mr. Reed said the customers classes are broken down by residential,
commercial which is broken down further by small commercial and
industrial customers that have contracts, then we have Campbell Soup,
Tenaska, Merico, Lamar County Water Supply District which are contract
customers. Mr. Reed pointed out on the handout these customers classes
are broken down by total sales per month giving an annual total
consumption and the percentage of total water sold, giving an average
sale through out the year is 11.57 million gallons a day. Mr. Reed
told the Committee that the percentage of consumption by each class,
they should pay the same percentage ratio of all the treatment cost at
the plant, and stated that there are some of the cost that are
allocated by volume.
Mr. Reed said now that they have identified the budget, who is using
how much water, and based on the budget presented, operating &
maintenance portion, and debt service of $2,335,640.00, and the test
year assumption characteristics patterns for a twelve month period,
they have developed the proposed rates. Mr. Reed pointed out from the
handout the base amount for residential customers will be $5.64, and
included in that is 200 CF of water, and if they use more than 200 CF
of water they will pay $1.41 additional cost for each 100 CF. Mr. Reed
said for a 1" - 2" water meter the base cost of $15.25 for the first
1,000 CF, they will pay an additional cost of $1.31 for each 100 CF, if
they have a water meter greater than 2 ", and they are not qualified to
sign up for the industrial rates, you have to have a 4" meter to
qualify for the industrial rate, the base cost will be $39.45 for the
first 3,000 CF, an additional cost of $1.31 per 100 CF above the 3,000
CF.
Page 4
W &S Rate Study Committee
Minutes 8/22/91
The next schedule is for those customers that qualify for an industrial
water rates which requires a 4" meter. The 4" meter base cost of
$1,000.00 entitles the customers to 100,000 CF, anything over that is
an additional cost of $1.05 per 100 CF. A customer with a 6" meter,
the base cost of $1,475.00 for the first 150,000 CF, anything over that
is $1.05 per 100 CF. A customer with a 8" meter or over, the base cost
is $1,950.00 plus 1.05 per 100 CF. Mr. Reed said those companies that
takes the option to be on the industrial rate, they have to sign an
agreement to stay on the rate for one year.
Mr. Reed went over the rates for those who have contracts for water
such as Campbell Soup, Tenaska, and Lamar County Water Supply, with
general discussion from the audience.
Mr. Reed stated that the next schedule of rates, Exhibit WW -9,
Consultant Recommended Wastewater Rate Schedule, which is the
wastewater rates that are to be charged. For a meter size of 5/7" -
3/4 ", the base cost will be $5.93 for 200 CF, anything over the 200 CF
will be $2.03 per 100 CF. A meter 1" - 2", base cost will be $22.26
for the first 1,000 CF, anything over that will be $2.04 per 100 CF. A
meter greater than 2 ", the base cost will be $42.94 for the first 2,000
CF, and $2.05 per 100 CF there after. Mr. Reed told the Council that
each customer by his usage pattern establishes it own maximum, the
City's accounts for the months of November, January, and February, you
add up your consumption for these three months, and that is assumed
that is the amount of water used each month through the year, or for
domestic purpose that gets back into the system, anything above and
beyond that amount that flows through your account, you do not have to
pay sewer charge. Mr. Reed stated that each customer has its own
individual calculated maximum amount of sewer they will have to pay,
which is based on the average of November, January, and February. Mr.
Reed pointed out that this cap only applies to single family
residences.
Mr. Reed advised that all of those charges are calculated and based on
the assumption that those customers are not dischargers of real high
toxic waste of any kind. Mr. Reed said that everyone who runs a system
of that type, and discharges a high toxic of real high level of TSS or
BOD are in what is called a monitored group. Mr. Reed explained that
these rates applies to these customers, and in addition to those rates,
there is a charge for each extra pound of BOD, TSS, and NH3.
Mr. Reed said that Merico's contract calculation, which they have a
settle up provisions in their contract. Their rate is based upon the
estimated budget per year to perform certain functions, and based upon
the volume flow that goes through and discharged by Merico, they also
pay according to their contract an excess strength BOD and TSS.
Mr. Reed show a comparison for the rate for residential customers of
what they are paying right now compared to what is being recommended
for 1991 both water and wastewater, reflected at various levels of
consumptions. Also shown is a commercial customers water and sewer
rates by consumption comparison.
Page 5
W &S Rate Study Committee
Minutes 8/22/91
Mr. Reed next showed a comparison for surrounding cities, stating that
the City of Paris is not the highest or lowest, by comparison wise, but
is in the middle for water and sewer rates.
Mr. Reed stated that the last page is a contract rate comparison of the
present rates to the proposed 1991 -92 rates showing the percentage of
change.
After a considerable amount of discussion with Mr. Reed and the
audience, a motion was made by Councilman Burnett, seconded by
Councilman Fisher to recommend to the City Council to approve the water
and sewer rates as presented by Reed -Stowe Company. The motion carried
unanimously,
There being no further business, the meeting adjourned.
GEORGE FISHER, CHAIRMAN
ATTEST:
MATTIE CUNNINGHAM, CITY CLERK