Sewer Service Charge Equalizat
SALINA, KANSAS
S UIJeIl, S eIUItee ~
E~tu Ste«t,
ENGINEERING REPORT
~. /)
{J¿Mt1...; {
. /. ,
L
!JÞf{
I LS 0 N
COM PANY
ENGINEERS t
ARC H ITECTS
SALINA - KANSAS
11 LS 0 N
COM PANY
ENGINEERS
ARCHITECTS t
P.O.BOX28
SALINA, KANSAS
631 E. CRAWFORD
T A Y LOR 7- 4 4 0 7
17 October 1961
~.
Mayor and Commissioners
City of Salina
Salina. Kansas
Re:
Sewer Service Charge
Equalization Study
Gentlemen:
In accordance with your authorization we are presenting herewith our
engineering report covering the study and investigations regarding
equalization of sewer service charges to users of the Salina sewer
system and sewage treatment facilities.
The following recommendations are made:
1. That the volumes used to establish charges for certain users be
adjusted as recommended herein.
2. That there be no additional charges for !t.unusua1 burden" by certain
commercial and industrial users.
3. That the rate schedule presently used be modified to provide for
a continuing declining rate for users of over 40,000 cubic feet per month.
4. That a method be devised to register private wells, particularly
those used in commercial operations.
The following is offered for your consideration:
1. A comparison is made of the expected revenue when charging all
users on the basis of winter month usage versus charging residential users
on a winter month usage and commercial and industrial users on a 12-month
average. This comparison indicates a loss in anticipated revenue of more
than $3)500 per month if the former method is adopted.
2. An apparent inequity exists on the billing of multiple dwelling
units. A method for correcting this inequity is proposed with mobile
home courts cited as an example.
We hope that this report meets with your approval and we are available for
continued study and investigation as required.
L.
WILSON & COMPANY ~
/7 /~.. //J .f .,
. I ~/'..' ~
"} /./,/ , / /. '
/¿. . ~- /¿ '..,::If; o.
f /v,.< ...R ..¡.., 7." <-- ?'~..
,./[/ ¡" L/ . . ~
Robert E. Crawford v
Head. Sanitary Engineering Department
SALINA
WICHITA
l6 OCTOBER 1961
(6l-l33)
SALINA, KANSAS
SEWER SERVICE CHARGE
EQUALIZATION STUDY
* * * * *
ENGINEERING REPORT
R. W. Bull, Mayor
Harry Banker, Commissioner
Ra.lph Exline, Commissioner
Gaylord Spangler, Commissioner
Donald Tucker, Commissioner
* * * * *
Harold E. Peterson, City Clerk
Leland M. Srack, Sr., City Manager
Ha.rold F. Ha.rper, City Engineer
L. O. Bengtson, City Attorney
* * * * *
WILSON & COMPANY
ENGINEERS & ARCHITECTS
Salina - Kansas
INTRODUCTION
The City of Salina has recently undertaken a program of expanding
and updating its sewage collection system and sewage treatment
facilities. Revenue bonds have been issued to finance this program.
The bonds are to be repaid from revenue derived from a schedule
of sewer service charges.
Ordinance No. 6545, now in effect in the City of Salina, prescribes
basic rates to be cha.rged for the use of, and services rendered
by, the water a.nd sewage systems.
The purpose of this study is to report on inequities in volume
charges; to estimate the "unusual burden." to sewage disposal
facilities caused by the discharge of certain wastes from in-,
dustria1, commercial and oother users of the sewage system who,
by the nature of their operation, are to be considered for
specia.1 cha.rges; and to recommend to the governing body f air and
equitable rates and special charges for all such customers, é'S
provided in Section 3, subparagraph (2) of the referenced
ordinance.
Because the actual cost of proposed new construction and operating
costs thereof are unknown at this time, and because the actuéll
revenue produced by the sewa.ge cha.rges may vary from original
estimates, it was decided by the governing body that the scope
of this study shoÎ1ld be limited to examination of recorded usage
on file at the Water and Sewage Department and to testimony of
customers rather than actual measurement of quantities and analysis of
.samp1es. It is the intent of the ordinance tha.t a. review of the
sewer service rates be conducted each two yeaTs following the:ir
initiation. Therefore, it wa.s felt by the governing body that a
more detailed survey would be appropriate at a time when more
of the present unknowns regarding the costs and revenues would be
apparent.
The first billing, in July 1961, included an invitation to those
customers who believed their individual situation required
adjustment to notify the Water and Sewage Depa.rtment. To da.te,
more than 80 requests for adjustments involving commercial or
industrial users have beem::received. Of these, more than 15
involved errors in computations, abnormal changes in wa.ter usa.ge,
and minor complaints which could easily be, and have been, handled
by the Wa.ter and Sewage Department. The remainder of these
requests have been investigated under the authorization for this
study. In addition, certain other industries were investigated,
including creameries, packing plants, laundries and others'known
to discharge wa.stes of such a. nature as to require special design
in the sewage treatment facilities. In all, the volume an.d
character of the wastes of more than 100 users of the sewer system
were examined in detail.
This report is a summary of the findings.
- 1 -
REVENU E
The sewer service charge anticipated income from all users
for the first three months of the program are:
July
August
September
$27,785.96
26,881.71
26,845.45
The declining income represents adjustments already made to
certain users wherein it was readily determined that
adjustments were necessary. If no further adjustments were
made, the revenue each month would be approximately as shown
for September. The revenue required to retire the sewage
portion of the bond issue is $26,044.00 per month.
The monthly revenue will change further as adjustments
determined by the City Commission after review of the contents
of this report are applied.
VOLUME ADJUSTMENT
The possibility that a sewer service charge based upon
metered water consumption alone would not be equitable in
all cases was recognized and most investigations involved
volume adjustments. These fall into two general catagories:
1. Water is purchased from the City but a large
portion is used in a product or process or discharged to
some point other than the sanitary sewer system.
2. A separate source of water is utilized with all or
part of the water discharging to the sanitary sewer system.
A written report was made of each investigation and an
analysis of the specific problem made thereon or attached
thereto. These reports are too voluminous to be made a part
of this report. A summary of the recommendations for each
establishment is attached, Table I, and the original copies
of the reports have been turned over to the Water and Sewage
Department for permanent filing.
- 2 -
ADJUSTMENTS FOR "UNUSUAL BURDEN"
The term "unusual burden" as applied to sewage and as
interpreted herein are those wastes which require special
design requirements in the treatment facilities. These
include unusual volumes, unusual chemical characteristics
and unusual amounts of the normal characteristics of
sewage. The current schedule of charges covers all con-
ditions of volume.
Twelve industrial and commercial establishments known to
discharge wastes whose treatment require special design
considerations were examined for the degree and type of such
wastes. It was determined that there were no wastes with
unusual chemical composition which would be detrimental to
treatment processes.
A further determination was made for unusual amounts of the
normal design characteristics of sewage. This determination
was made by using the production records of the establishment
and assigning waste characteristic values which are a
function of the process. The values assigned were normal
averages for efficient, well operated processes, and were
taken from detailed studies and analyses of wastes of similar
processes.
A method, using the existing volume charge schedule as a
base, was then derived to pro-rate the costs of providing
the required treatment facilities to various users. It was
determined for the twelve establishments investigated that
there would be minor changes in the billing for each and
the total revenue derived from these users would not be
materially changed when compared to the present method of
billing based on volume alone.
An equitable program of service charges based upon these
unusual conditions would require a continuing thorough
investigation of each waste. The commercial rate for such
investigations would be in excess of $25.00 per day per user.
There would be considerable administrative time and effort
devoted to the task of applying this type program on a
monthly basis or other suitable frequent interval of time,
It is recommended, therefore, that all users be continued
to be charged only on the basis of a volume rate schedule
similar or equal to the existing rate schedule.
- 3 -
The following is a list of the establishments investigated
in this phase of the study:
Swift and Co.
Independent Packing Co.
Beverly Wholesale Meats
Lowe's Poultry
Salina Poultry
Model Laundry
Salina Laundry
Woods Family Wash
Elmore Dairy
Harding Creamery
Jo-Mar Creamery
Strahan Creamery
EXISTING RATE SCHEDULE
The existing schedule of sewer service provides for a
declining charge per 100 cubic feet, in increments, up to
20,000 cubic feet per month. For all users over 20,000
cubic feet per month the rate is constant. There will be,
after the volume adjustments recommended herein (not including
trailer courts which are discussed later), the following
breakdown of users over 20,000 cubic feet per month, 1960
average:
20,000 cu. ft. to 30,000 cu. ft.
30,000 cu. ft. to 40,000 cu. ft.
40,000 cu. ft. to 50,000 cu. ft.
50,000 cu. ft. to 80,000 cu. ft.
80,000 cu. ft. to 150,000 cu. ft.
Over 150,000 cu. ft.
18
3
6
6
9
2
It may be seen that users of two, three and even eight more
times as much water are pumping the same rate as users of
just over 20,000 cubic feet. This is not in keeping with
the schedule for users under 20,000 cubic feet. It appears
that the declining schedule should be extended. The following
revision is suggested for Commission consideration:
Consumption
Present Schedule
Revised Schedule
Up to LI.O, 000 cu. ft.
40,000 cu. ft. to
80,000 cu. ft.
80,000 cu. ft. to
150,000 cu. ft.
Over 150,000 cu. ft.
No change
No change
0.08 per IOO cu. ft. 0.06 per 100 cu. ft.
0.08 per 100 cu. ft. 0.04 per 100 cu. ft.
0.08 per 100 cu. ft. 0.02 per 100 cu. ft.
As may be seen from the users' list, the revised schedule
will reduce the monthly charge of 23 users who have an average
consumption of more than 40,000 cubic feet per month. The
total revenue derived from these users remains nearly the same
as anticipated under the current billing procedure, due to
recommended increases in volumes for certain users. See Table I.
- 4 -
TABLE I
This table indicates the present volumes and recommended volume adjustments for specific users, Columns 3 and 4;
the effect of the suggested rate schedule revision for all users over 40,000 cu. ft. per month (based upon
1960 average and adjustments), Columns 5 and 7; and the effects of one or both revisions on the overall anti-
cipated revenue.
Present Volume Recommended Volume Present Billing for Vol. Billing for Vol.
User Address Used For Billing For Billing Bill ing Adj. Only & Schedule Adj.
1 2 3 4 - 5 6 7
Swift & Co. 302 N. 5th 301,540 301,540 252.53 252.53 125 . 5 7
International Milling Co. 511 N. Santa Fe 38,960 229,960 42.45 195.25 111. 25
Elks Club 124 N. 7th 22,462 148,353 29.25 129.97 94.61
We3tern Ice Co. 5th & Elm 7,330 115,000 12.05 103.25 81. 25
Lamer Hotel 201 N. Santa Fe 108,008 108,008 97.65 97.65 78.47
Jo-Mar Dairy 1300 E. Iron 66,346 95,146 64.37 87.41 73.33
St. Johns Hospital 135 N. Penn 92,467 92,467 85.25 85.25 72.25
Model Laundry 211 S. Santa Fe 88,953 88,953 82.45 82.45 70.85
Elmore Dairy 645 E. Crawford 88,5-94 88,594 82.13 82.13 70.69
Independent Packing Co. 1300 W. Elm 39,274 87,874 42.69 81.57 70.41
Asbury Hospital 400 S. Santa Fe 83,088 83,088 77.73 77.73 68.49
Pepsi Cola Bottling Co. 604 N. 9th 78,559 78,559 74.13 74.13 66.41
United Building 119 W. Iron 73,333 73,333 69.97 69.97 63.27
Marymount College E. Iron 96,440 72,330 88.45 69.17 62.69
Salina Country Club E. Iron 67,954 67,954 65.65 65.65 60.05
J. S. Dillon 1500 S. 9th 60,693 60,693 59.81 59.81 55.67'
Harding Creamery 206 E. Walnut 28,261 57,061 33.89 56.93 53.51
Coca Cola Bottling Co. 611 Bishop 49,761 49,761 51 .09 51 .09 49" 13
J. S. Dillon 511 E. Iron 47,313 47,313 49.17 49.17 47.69
Salina High School Crawford & Front 43,047 43,047 45.73 45.73 45.09
Salina Steam Laundry 148 N. 7th 41,858 41,858 44.77 44.77 44.39
Beverly Wholesale Meats 613 E. Pacific 12,498 41,298 18. 25 44.29 44.03
Gamble-Robinson Co. 220 E. Ash 12,271 41,148 18.0l 44.21 43.97
Subtotal (First Page) $1 ,487 .47 $1,959.11 $1,553.07
- 5 -
TABLE I (continued)
User
Address
Present Volume Recommended Volume Present
Used For Billing For Billing Billing
Billing for Vol.
Adj. Only
Billing for Vol.
& Schedule Adj.
1
2
7
3
4
5
6
Weeks Grocery 505 S. Santa Fe
Kansas Wesleyan University S. Santa Fe
Salina Concrete Products 1100 W. Ash
Ashtons Grocery 901 W. Crawford
Gooch Feed Mills 438 N. 9th
Union Pacific R.R. 5th & Decatur
Salina Poultry 402 N. Santa Fe
Hv~ 81 Super-Service 150 S. Broadway
Mason Investment 227 N. Santa Fe
Lowe's Poultry 143 S. 4th
Weber Flour Mills 349~ N. Santa Fe
Western Star Mill 126 N. 4th
Salina Tractor Co. Chicago & Broadway
Leighton Floral 1408 Stapler
Kansas Landscape 1416 E. Iron
Independent Biscuit Co. 600 Reynolds
0
57,155
73,143
0
3~,818
50,698
13,035
16,702
15,490
4,820
10,740
11,597
3,143
3,529
12,661
933
40,000
34,293
29,257
30,000
23,863
20,279
-9;776
8,351
6,594
3,620
2,024
1,800
1,200
1,000
1,000
500
Subtotal (Second Page)
Subtotal (First Page)
Total
- 6 -
1.50
57.01
69.81
1.50
44.77
51.81
18.97
23.41
21.85
8.93
16.21
17.17
6.37
7.01
18.49
2.45
$367.26
1,487.47
$1,854.73
43.25
38.69
34.69
35.25
30.37
27.49
15.01
13.33
11.17
7.17
4.61
4.05
2.85
2.45
2.45
1.35
$274.18
1,959.11
$2,233.29
43.25
38.69
34.69
35.25
30.37
27.49
15.01
13.33
11.17
7.17
4.61
4.05
2.85
2.45
2.45
1.35
$274.18
1,553.07
$1,827.25
ADDITIONAL ADJUSTMENTS
During the course of the investigations it became evident
that there are several categories of users for whom special
methods of computation should be considered. Most notable
of these are multiple living units being served by one water
meter and schools.
Under 'ffiul tiple 1 iving units being served by one water met ~r
are apartment houses, apartment buildings, duplexes, more
than one house on a service line and mobile home courts. An
investigation was made for the eight mobile home courts
being served by master meters. The results of this survey
are shown on Table II. It may be seen that individual units
are receiving sewer service for considerably less than the
average home or for courts whereirì.dividual meters are
installed. One method which may be used to equalize the
sewer service charge for this type of user would be to divide
the total water consumed (on a winter month average as for
residences) by the number of living units, use this amount
to determine the sewer charge rate per unit, then multiply
the unit rate times the number of living units to determine
the total charge. The effect of using this method is sho,m
on Table II. Another method would be to establish a flat
fee for each living unit in a multiple unit.
Public schools are generally vacant during the summer and
most of the water used would be for lawn and plant watering.
It appears that a more equitable method of charging would
be based on winter consumption extended for the operating
period with billing pro-rated over twelve months.
Others which may fall in these categories are churches,
office buildings or other commercial enterprises with
large lawns.
- 7 -
TABLE II
This table indicates the present sewer charges for several mobile home courts and the effect
of a method of equi1ization as discussed in this report.
Number Volume For Billing Present Charge Revised Charge
User Of Units Present Winter Average Total Per Unit Total Per Unit
Patio Trailer Court 65 51,129 44,976 $52.21 $ 0.80 $116.35 $1. 79
Mid-West Mobil Homes 80 50,164 43,896 51. 41 0.64 125.60 1.57
Tally-Ho Trailer Court 113 66,031 64,328 75.38 0.67 177 .41 1.57
Shangri-La Trailer ;Court 50 34,404 23,682 38.85 0.78 67.50 1. 35
Ranchero Court 51 24,437 13,722 30.85 0.61 68.85 1.35
Blakeley's Tråiler Court 50 25,742 16,587 31. 89 0.63 67.50 1.35
Traco Trail ers 142 44,918 62,666 47.25 0.33 191.70 1.35
Trailer Park 11 2,863 2,863 5.89 0.54 14.85 1.35
- 8 -
COMPARISON OF REVENUES
Under the present method of billing all residence charges
are computed on the basis of the monthly average of three
winter months' water consumption; all other accounts are
billed on the basis of a monthly average for the entire year.
There are approximately 11,000 residence accounts and 1,500
other accounts. Of the 1,500, approximately 160 use, on
the average, more than 5,000 cubic feet per month, with a'maximum
of approximately 300,000 cubic feet per month.
An examination of billings was undertaken to determine the
effect of charging all users on the basis of the winter
average. All users over 5,000 cubic feet per month were
compared and a random check of 100 of the remainder were
compared. The comparison indicated that for the larger users
a loss in revenue of $1,080 per month could be expected and
for the 100 smaller users a loss in revenue of $190 per
month could be expected. Projecting the loss for the 100
smaller users at the same rate for the entire group of
smaller users a total loss in revenue from this source would
be more than $2,500 per month. The total monthly loss in
revenue from all sources would be 'more than $3,500.
The variation in revenue is due, to a l4rge extent, to air
conditioning water purchased and discharged to the sewers
during the summer months.
ADDITIONAL CONSIDERATIONS
1. The present ordinance provides for an adjustment
in the sewer service charge if a user discharges 75 percent
or less of the water purchased to the sewers. There is no
adjustment for discharges of more than 75 percent.
Since there are a large number of private wells in use it
is believed that the ordinance should be revised to provide
that there will be no adjustment in the sewer service charge
for a user who discharges a quantity of water to the sewer
which is up to 25 percent more than the water purchased.
2. It has been determined that there are at least
146 buildings and residences in the city which have a city
water supply and are not connected to the city sewer SystE~.
These water users do not pay a sewer service charge.
- 9 -
3. It has been determined that there are at least 65
buildings and residences which have a private water supply
and no city water connection, and are connected to the city
sewer system. The users are billed a sewer service charge
of $1.50 as required by the ordinance.
4. In view of the number of
in use in the city it is believed
some record of their location and
true of commercial establishments
service charges.
private wells which are
that the city should have
use. This is particulaLly
and the related sewer
5. It was also discovered that some commercial
establishments had not been paying the surcharge for
unconserved air-conditioning water as required by previous
ordinance.
- 10 -