|
Page 3
<br />Station is the same volume related in the amount of $142,345. In the
<br />General Fund this has been allocated based on the expense items above -
<br />of the $294,383, volume relates $77,768., BOD $126,292., TSS $73,778.,
<br />NH3 $6,477., and customers $10,068., Audit Fees are again spread across
<br />the board for a total of operating and maintenance of $1,715,579. The
<br />Debt Service 1983 and 1984 gives a grant total of $2,212,637. of the
<br />grant total $983,254. was functionalized for volume, $580,946. BOD,
<br />$379,655. TSS, $39,932. NH3, and $137,850. customer cost.
<br />Mr. Stowe said the final step after function
<br />into customer classes. This allocation is b,
<br />loading for BOD, TSS that is in your existii
<br />ammonia based on that and related flow voluu
<br />find that Residential is $911,021., Commer
<br />$299,249., and Merico as a separate item
<br />$2,121,637. The last schedule on page 7 is
<br />not made a contribution to the plant expan!
<br />the city had to fund that expansion at the
<br />1984 bond issue, the cost of service as you
<br />$58,000. for residential, $50,000. Commercia
<br />Merico would have gone up $13,000. Merico I
<br />dollars to the plant expansion, and has b
<br />$143,000. a year to the over all customer c
<br />becomes imperative as we move forward into
<br />lookina at the contract price in relation
<br />lization is the allocation
<br />sed on the 250 MG strength
<br />g ordinance, and 30 MG for
<br />e that Barry addressed, we
<br />ial $701,965., Industrial
<br />$209,402. for a total of
<br />a comparison if Merico had
<br />ion that was made, and if
<br />;ame time they put out the
<br />can see would have gone up
<br />, Industrial $21,000., and
<br />as contributed 1.1 million
<br />?en a definite benefit of
<br />lass cost of service which
<br />the rate design issue, and
<br />to the benefits that the
<br />system is receiving, in other words, we will anticipate as we go
<br />through the contract pricing that Merico is going to be paying
<br />something less than the $209,000. because in our cost of service, or
<br />the $209,000. does not acknowledge the fact they contributed and bought
<br />1.1 million dollars worth of capacity in the plant. What we will do is
<br />run through the contract pricing which does recognize that contribution
<br />and compare what we will collect under the contract to the $143,000.
<br />benefit to the system, and as long as that difference is not more than
<br />$143,000., the city will be ahead.
<br />Mr. Stowe advised the Committee that they were also developing a rate
<br />for the Industrial Surcharge, and at this point, we need to establish
<br />the Capital Outlay that is required, then they will be at a point of
<br />designing the rate. Mr. Stowe said the next report the Committee will
<br />get will be the final rate with all the documentations and findings.
<br />Mr. Stowe also stressed the importance of developing a 5 to 10 year
<br />plan as to where we are going with the system.
<br />There being no further business, the meeting adjourned.
<br />MARSHALL H. KENT, JR. CHAIRMAN
<br />ATTEST:
<br />MATTIE CUNNINGHAM, CITY CLERK
<br />
|