Minutes 05/13/1975 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

May 13, 1975 The proposed strong waste ordinance will establish surcharges for those customers discharging wastes with excessive biochemical oxygen demand or suspended solids. The rate of surcharge is the same as that now being used by H.R.S.D. No estimate of potential revenues is available since we have conducted only limited sampling of industrial discharges at this time. The purpose of this ordinance is to su:rcharge those customers discharging stronger wastes which are more expensive to treat. It would be most desirable if the surcharge resulted in efforts by the customers to reduce the strength of their wastes, rather than increased r~venue from the surcharge. Revision of flat rate sewer service and sewage treatment charges for customers without meZered water service. The present method of counting fixtures is not practical and a single flat rate for all customers is more desirable. The City Code requires billing of sewer service and sewage treatment charges when sewers are available whether connected or not. The proposed flat rates are based on existing sewer service and proposed sewage treatment charges calculated for a median consumption of 16 hundred cubic feet [12,000 gallons) per month. This corresponds with our statistical median us,age and also with the State Health Department's design criteria of 400 gallons per day per dwelling unit. The sewer service charge calculated as $$.:20 per month is between the $2.00 per month charged by Virginia Beach and $4.S0 per month minimum charged by Chesapeake. H.R.S.D. does not charge treatment charges un- less connected to the sewer system; however, since we do, the proposed flat rate for sewage treatment is also based on the median consumption. An increase from $S.00 to $7.50 is proposed in the fee for restoring service after discontinuance for nonppgy. This increase is to offset the increased cost of handling delinquent accounts. Estimated increased revenue is $3,000.00. There is also an increase proposed in the fee for establishing service or transfef~ngnservice. This fee is proposed to increase from $S.00 to $7.S0 and estimated revenue is $10,000. The increased sewage treatment charge recommended is a minimum increase to offset incre~ costs. No allowance is made for new water programs which may be required by the recently passed "Safe. Drinking Hater Act". We are continuing to study the cost of various types of service; 4.e., water, sewer service and sewage treatment. Also being studied is the possibility of rendering monthly statements. We had hoped to offer monthly billing during 1974F~ however, financial limitations prevented us from increasing billing frequency. Although utility rate increases are never popular and are being discussed everywhere today, it is important that we maintain a sound financial base for our utility operations and I believe 7% continues to be an acceptable rate of return. It is interesting to note that a customer can receive 400 gallons per day of water safe enough, without boiling, for a baby,s formula; dispose of domestic sewage for treatment; and have household refuse picked up at their residences twice a week and dispose of through a modern incinerator and landfill for approximately 66¢ per day or less than the cost of 1/2 gallon of milk." The following letter from the Portsmouth Municipal Finance Commission was presented: "At the regulary scheduled meeting of the Municipal Finance Commission held on April 1S, 1975, upon unanimous vote of the m~m~ezSpresent, the Commission acted to recommend to the Portsmouth City Council tAat the charge for sewage treatment be increased by eight cents (8¢), i.e., changed to a rate of thrity-eight ($0.38) per one hundred (100) cubic feet of water consumption. In making this recommendation, the Commission recognized: l} that the sewer utility portion of the Public Utility Fund is not generating sufficient revenues to provide a return on investment to the General Fund at the previously recommended rate of seven percent, and, that the p~rtion of the City which is serviced by the Hampton Roads Sanitation District is already paying a rate of 38¢. Although the Commission regrets to recommend an increase in the cos~ of any public service a~ this time, it is nonetheless aware that inflation affects a publicly operated utility service just as surely as it does a privately operated one. The proposed 1975-76 Public Utility Fund budget reflects an increase of $207,000 for electricity and $155,000 for chemicals. The increased costs in the Publi~ Utilities Fund, particularly in these areas of energy and chemical purchases, make it nesessary for us to make this recommendation to you. On motion of Mr. Oast and seconded by ~r. EarIy, the following ordinance was approved on first readim~ a~d by unanimous vote: "AN .ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE CODE OF THE CITY OF PORTSMOUTH, VIRGINIA, 1973, BY AMENDING SECTIONS 38-43 OF SAID CODE PERTAINING TO FEES TO BE CHARGED WHEN WA%ER SBRVI~B HAS BEEN %URNED OFF AND BY AMENDING SECTION 38-?? OF SAID CODE PERTAINING TO FEES FOR SEWER AND SEWAGE DISPOSAL."