Water Distribution Study
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
WA1'&R
DlS1".R I IIJ,JMJN
STUDY
SALIN~A, I(ANSAS
ENGINEERINI\ REPORT
11 LS ON
COMPANi~' .
ENGINEERS
i ARCHITECi~2t
DL././
I
I
l' LS 0 N
COMP.ANY
ENGINE.E.RS
.. ARC H ITECTS j
ENGINEERS
ARCHITECTS
I
PLANNERS
RO. BOX 28
631 EAST CRAVVFORD AVENUE
.
SALINA. KANSAS 67401
.
I
913 827-0433
18 August 1972
I
I
Honorable Mayor and City Co~~issioners
City of Salina, Kansas
I
Gentlemen:
I
In accordance with your authorization we have prepared and presented here-
with an engineering report covering the definition of the waterworks system
improvement needs, determination of the estimated improvement costs, pro-
posal of a capital improvements program and a financial requirements study.
The report is entitled "Water Distribution Study: Salina, Kansas."
I
The study includes a review of previous studies, a hydraulic analysis of the
water distribution system, and a water rate schedule analysis.
I
Capital improvement projects required to provide adequate service to the water
system's customers are outlined. A time schedule indicating priorities for
the capital improvements is proposed.
I
I
We would welcome the opportunity to meet with you and with your representatives
to discuss features of the study.
I
}7LSONi0" . MP~ .
J>l /. t/. ,(/ {'/ A:j' /- r C,/
" [,Y . l~ .:..' (_'-'/"- (,,-'-" .- t '"1.-
. Robert E. Crawfo ,
( "
. ."' tV tJd~7 ~
K. W. Will~,E,'i L' /;
I . '. ~
(]/r i"/1 / c~' .; ,1 i
craivoberts
I
I
I
-go
encls
(72-37)
I
I
I
SALINA. KANSAS
.
VVICHITA. KANSAS
.
ALBUQUERQUE. NEVV MEXICO
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
MAYOR
Jack Weisgerber
CITY COMMISSIONERS
Leon L. Ashton
Robert C. Caldwell
Norma Cooper
Mike Losik, Jr.
CITY MANAGER
Norris D. Olson
Ron Webster, Director of Utilities
Dean Boyer, City Engineer
R. S. Fassnacht, Supt. Water Treatment Plant
AUGUST 1972
72-37
WAR
DISTRIB\. liON
STUDY
SAUNA, KANSAS
ENGINEERINQ,. REPORT
WI LS 0 N
f COMPANY
I ENGINEERS €
. ARCHITECTS'
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
FOREWORD
We gratefu Ily acknowledge the
assistance and cooperation of Water
Department personnel while
assembling and analyzing the
tremendous amounts of data and
information required for study of a
water works system of the magnitude
which exists at Salina. We found that
extensive and complete records are
maintained on all phases of Water
Department operations. All records
and information were readily available
for use. All personnel are
knowledgeable in their fields of
operation and were wi lling to assist in
the compilation of data and in
discussing their operations in detail.
WA
DISTRI T.ION
STU...~Y'
SALINA,
ENGINEERIN
For clarity of presentation and review,
the report presented herein is a
condensation of the voluminous data
and information collected and the
results of the various studies and
analysis. All data compiled while
undertaking the detailed study of the
waterworks system are on file in the
Wilson and Company offices and may
be examined at any time by
authorized city officials.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page No.
SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS
General 2
Salina Water Study 1968-2010 2
Water Treatment Plant Improvements 4
Distribution System Improvements 5
Capital Improvements Program 6
Financial Program 7
DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM ANALYSIS
General 10
Methodology 11
Conclusions 13
Recommendation 15
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PROGRAM
General 16
Billing System 18
FINANC IAL PROGRAM
General 20
Capital Improvements Program 20
Water Rate Study 22
Purpose 22
Scope 22
Population 22
Water Consumption 23
Revenue Requirements 23
Allocation of Cost of Service to Cost Functions 26
Allocation of Costs to Customer Classes 29
Development of Rate Schedules 35
City Codes; Policies, Rules and Regulations 40
Recommendations 42
APPENDIX A - Present Water Rates Schedule
APPENDIX B - Water Distribution System; Test Model
APPENDIX C - Water Distribution System; Peak Flow Model;
Existing Conditions
APPENDIX D - Water Distribution System; Peak Flow Model;
5-Year Improvements
APPENDIX E - Water Distribution System; Peak Flow Model;
Long-Range Improvements
APPENDIX F - Water Rate Comparison by Average Monthly Usage
APPENDIX G - Water Rate Comparison - Kansas Cities with
Treatment Plants
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
SALINA, KANSAS
WATER WORKS SYSTEM STUDY
PREFACE
This Report has been prepared for the purpose of updating the improve-
ment planning for Salina's Water Works facilities, including water sources,
treatment, distribution and storage. The study includes a review of
earlier Engineering Reports and Water Department Staff Reports, a complete
hydraulic analysis of the water system, a review of the Capital Improvements
Program and a study of the water rate structure with recommendations for
such changes in the structure as may be required to produce adequate
revenue for operating expenses, debt retirement and capital improvements.
Many of the recommended capital improvements have been discussed in detail
in earlier Engineering Reports and are not covered in as much detail in
this Report. However, the specific water distribution improvements,
principally the arterial water mains, are recommended as the result of
the current hydraulic analysis of the system.
Cost estimates for previously recommended short-range improvements have
been revised to reflect anticipated construction cost levels.
1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS
GENERAL
Two earlier Wilson & Company engineering studies analyzed in detail the
short- and long-range water supply needs of Salina water treatment plant
expansion and disposal of water treatment plant wastes. These studies
contained recommendations for solutions to the problems and estimates of
the costs.
SALINA WATER STUDY 1968-2010 (Report)
This report was a long-range study prepared in 1968. With regard to the
future source of water for Salina, a plan ("Plan B" in the Report) was
recommended where the total water sup~ly would be obtained for a combination
of sources; a local well field, the Smoky Hill River, and Kanopolis Reservoir.
It was recommended that the City request a yield of 10,000 acre feet of water
from Kanopolis Reservoir, to be transported, as far as possible, through the
Kanopolis Irrigation District North Canal. However, it was suggested, if
water from this source was not assured by 1975, the City should proceed with
one of the other plans recommended as alternates.
The Bureau of Reclamation's Planning Report for the Kanopolis Irrigation
District was completed early in 1972. Due to allocations of large portions
of the construction and maintenance costs to the City of Salina, the use
of the north canal for conveying water from Kanopolis to Salina was not
considered economical and was not included in the irrigation district plan.
I
I
I
The next most economical alternate plan recommended, identified as "Plan C,"
involves the use of local well fields, the Smoky Hill River and Kanopolis
Reservoir as the sources of water for Salina. This plan would require the
2
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
eventual construction of pretreatment and pumping facilities at
Kanopo1is Reservoir and a pipeline of 16 mgd capacity from the Reservoir
directly to the water treatment plant, or plants, in Salina.
Another alternate, identified as "Plan D," involves the use of local
well fields, the Smoky Hill River and Milford Reservoir as the sources
of water for Salina. In addition to the expansion of the local well
fields, pretreatment and pumping facilities would be required at Milford
Reservoir and a pipeline would have to be constructed to convey the water
from Milford Reservoir to Salina. This plan would assure Salina of the
best quality of water of any of the plans studied.
The "Local Well Fields" referred to above include 5 areas in which
geological information indicates that ground water supplies are avail-
able. These are as follows:
1.
The present well field within the City Limits of Salina.
2.
The area in the vicinity of Ohio and Pacific, which was
explored in 1957 and discussed in the Engineering Report
entitled "Water Supply Explorations," dated May 1957.
3.
The "Schilling Well Field," in the vicinity of the Schilling
Water Treatment Plant.
4.
The ''Mentor Well Field," a partially explored area about
two miles south of Mentor.
5.
The "Assaria Well Field," a partially explored area about
one mile southeast of Assaria.
3
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
The 1968 Report recommended. a detailed ground water investigation covering
the Smoky Hill River Valley from the north side of Salina to the vicinity
of Bridgeport. This investigation would include additional test drilling
and an analog model study, the results of which would furnish reliable
information as to the ultimate water yield of the area, the specific
locations for well fields, the general characteristics of the water quality,
and the rates at which withdrawals could be made from each well field. The
ground water investigation should be included in the current Capital Improve-
ments Program, to provide additional information on which to consider the
long range water supply requirements.
The long-range aspects of the 1968 report included the construction of a
second water treatment plant, to be located in the vicinity of the present
Schilling Water Treatment Plant; and the construction of a second river
intake in the same vicinity.
The 1968 Report also made recommendations regarding the long-range require-
ments of the water distribution and storage facilities, particularly the size
and location of arterial mains and of new elevated storage tanks.
The recommendations as to arterial mains within the present distribution
system were made without the benefit of a hydraulic study of the system.
Such a study has been made as a part of the current Engineering Report and
the size, locations, and estimated costs of the new mains have been up-dated.
WATER TREATMENT PLANT IMPROVEMENTS (Report)
This Report was prepared in 1970. It recommended the expansion of the treat-
ment basins and secondary settling basins to provide a total water plant
capacity of 20 mgd. In addition, the Report recommended facilities and methods
for reclaiming sludge for calcining and disposing of plant wastes unsuitable
for calcining. Water Treatment Plant waste disposal facilities meeting State
and Federal regulations must be in operation by December 1975.
4
I
I
DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS
I
I
I
I
I
A hydraulic analysis performed as part of this study of the existing
Salina water distribution system revealed the following items:
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1.
Under average loading conditions (the quantity of water
demanded by all the City's customers on a normal day)
adequate pressure is maintained throughout the City
with the existing water distribution system.
2.
Under peak loading conditions (the quantity of water
demanded by all the City's customers on an extremely
hot day) three general areas of low pressure occur.
These areas are the section of town north of Euclid
Street, several blocks of town surrounding the inter-
section of Minneapolis and.Ohio Street and the section
of town extending north and south several blocks from
west Crawford Street.
3.
The general lack of a complete system of large arterial
mains is causing high velocities in the smaller distri-
bution pipes which are trying to serve the function of
the missing arterial mains. This causes high pressure
loss resulting in low pressure areas as well as a dis-
lodging of material deposited on the pipeline walls
resulting in customer complaints.
In order to correct or lessen the deficiencies found in the water distri-
bution system, several improvements are required. It is recommended that
the improvements tabulated in Table 1 be constructed in the next 5 years
and that the long range improvements illustrated in Plate 2 be used as a
guideline in an attempt to avoid future problems.
I
I
I
5
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PROGRAM
In order to provide a unified approach toward water system improvements,
a Capital Improvements Program has been developed. This Plan, described
in Table 1, lists 15 major improvements needed in the next 5 years in
order that the water utility be able to provide adequate service to its
customers and comply with existing regulatory requirements. It is
recommended that this Capital Improvements Program be implemented with
the realization that it provides a highly useful guideline but can be
modified if final design analysis dictates.
6
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
TABLE 1
SALINA, KANSAS
WATER DISTRIBUTION STUDY
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PROGRAM
CONSTRUCTION PROJECT COSTS
WITHOUT POSSIBLE WITH
PROJECT NAME PROJECT DESCRIPTION PRIORITY START COMPLETE GRANTS GRANTS GRANTS
WTPPLANTIMPROVEMENTS Expansion of capacity and new 1 1973 1975 $1,000,000 $460,000 $540,000
sludge disposal facilities at the
water treatment plant.
GROUND WATER SURVEY Ground water survey of the 2 1973 1973 50,000 - 50,000
Smoky Hill Valley.
SOUTH U.S. 81 MAIN 12" main along U.S. 81 from 3 1973 1973 67,000 28,000 39,000
Wayne to Magnolia & 12"
main to Key.
MAGNOLIA MAIN 18" main along Magnolia from 4 1973 1973 61,000 26,000 35,000
U.S. 81 to Key Acres Tower.
EAST WAYNE MAIN 12" main along Wayne from 5 1973 1973 62,000 26,000 36,000
4th to Ohio.
CLOUD CONNECTOR 12" main along Cloud from 6 1973 1973 13,000 5,000 8,000
Dover to Haskett.
MARYMOUNT ROAD MAIN 20" main along Marymount 7 1973 1973 71,000 30,000 41,000
Road from Glen to Crawford.
SOUTH SANTA FE MAIN 30" main along South St. 8 1974 1974 95,000 40,000 55,000
from WTP to Santa Fe then
along Santa Fe to Crawford.
WEST CRAWFORD MAIN 18" main along Crawford 9 1974 1974 113,000 47,000 66,000
from Santa Fe to Broadway.
EAST CRAWFORD MAIN 30" main along Crawford 10 1975 1975 184,000 77,000 107,000
from Santa Fe to Ohio.
SOUTH OHIO MAIN 20" main along Ohio from 11 1975 1975 381,000- 160,000 221,000
Crawford to Cloud & 18"
main along Ohio from Cloud
to Magnolia & 18" main
along Magnolia from Ohio
to Key Acres Tower.
NORTH 4th MAIN 20" main along 4th from WTP 12 1976 1976 285,000 120,000 165,000
to Ash then along Ash to
Front then along Front to
Lincoln & 20" main along
Lincoln from Front to the
Downtown Tower at Santa Fe
& Lincoln.
NORTHEAST MAIN 18" main along Front from 13 1977 1977 229,000 96,000 133,000
Lincoln to Euclid then along
Euclid to 9th (new Thomas
Park Tower).
THOMAS PARK TOWER 0.5 mg. elevated tower in 14 1977 1977 236,000 99,000 147,000
Thomas Park Area.
NORTHWEST MAIN 12" main along Grand from 15 1977 1977 123,000 52,000 61,000
Woodlawn to 9th then along
9th to Euclid (new Thomas
Park Tower).
TOTAL CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM COSTS $2,970,000 $1,266,000 $1,704,000
(72-37
\\\
t \
")2~)-
,l~",,~
"l, \-;"'1
, \. I
\ ~~~ J
- "--1\fE~~\ ~E~",~ ,'---
C( /{~r- I ~ \
'~~ F \ 1 ~ I
\'. \ ~I
\ I,
--\ -~-
~ , I
j ;
47 I. I
//=;;;,( -.f
-.-.-.... _..l;.":'.:iml''':.Il:I';..,(_.~~.l -11
24" .-J HIGH LEVEL SOUTH SYSTEM ~30" 'I ~
~ ~li -
__ J
, =~R si~~!:~ ~"T.l"=",,
SERYICE PlJI31trl; STATUJi---E-.:J n
/' i
------\- .---_.--- --+-
H
PLATE 2
WATER DISTRIBUTION STUDY
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PROGRAM
j
.-!:...-
EXISTING ARTERIAL MAIN
"
"" /
'. ,.
\ \
\ i
\ \
i I
\ \
1\
i i
I!
I
, !
i!
~
PROPOSEO ARTERIAL MAIN
(Capital Improvements Program)
---242--
PROPOSEO ARTERIAL MAIN
(Long Range Improvement)
&
&
If'
PROPOSED PRESSURE REOUCING ,SJATI
II
, !
, I
1 (
\\
\ \
\ '\\''-'-~--'-''-'-'---'" """"
'." WA llER~,"-~t
~IS~~ff1'1lg~
\~'" ,;;;t"iiNA.
ENGINEERIN
W/LS\
,~COMP y
I i4''WOll'lf.E.R-~
'J':::'"""" ~.
'? ,:... t
;..........L "
- -1
/'
"
">
12"
I
.1
Iia
Iii
iii
[If
rl
r
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
FINANCIAL PROGRAM
It is recommended that the total annual costs incurred by the Water
Department be financed through the collection of revenue from the sale
of water. It is further recommended that the Capital Improvements
Program be financed through the issue of revenue bonds and retired
through revenues from the sale of water.
If no federal grants are obtained to aid in the financing of the Capital
Improvements Program, then it is recommended that the proposed Water Rate
Schedule shown in Table 2 be adopted.
If federal grants can be obtained to aid in the financing of the Capital
Improvements, then it is recommended that the proposed Water Rate Schedule
shown in Table 2A be adopted.
The proposed rate schedules should provide sufficient revenues to meet the
Water Departments obligations and recover cost of service in an equitable
manner. The present water rate schedule appears in Appendix A.
7
I
I
TABLE 2
I
I
I
I
PROPOSED WATER RATE SCHEDULE WITHOUT GRANTS
Rates Inside City
First
Next
AllOver
2,000 cubic feet @ 46 cents per 100 cubic feet
28,000 cubic feet @ 29 cents per 100 cubic feet
30,000 cubic feet @ 27 cents per 100 cubic feet
Monthly Minimum Charges
Meter Size
Minimum Charge
Cubic Feet Allowed
I
I
5/8"
3/4"
1"
1-1/2"
2"
3"
4"
6"
8"
$ 2.20
3.40
4.35
7.10
8.75
16.25
88.00
123.00
145.00
300
500
600
1,000
1,100
2,000
25,000
30,000
30,000
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Multiple users served by a master meter
charged 46 cents per 100 cubic feet for
all water consumed in excess of the minimum
Rates Outside City
Minimum charge is 1.25 times minimum charge for water consumed
inside City.
Water consumed in excess of minimum is the regular rate plus
25 percent thereof.
Multiple Residential or Rural Water District customers served
by a master meter are charged 57.5 cents per 100 cubic feet for
all water consumed in excess of the minimum.
8
I
I
I
I
I
I
TABLE 2A
PROPOSED WATER SCHEDULE RATE WITH GRANTS
Rates Inside City
First
Next
AllOver
2,000 cubic feet @ 39 cents per 100 cubic feet
28,000 cubic feet @ 27 cents per 100 cubic feet
30,000 cubic feet @ 24 cents per 100 cubic feet
Monthly Minimum Charges
Meter Size
Minimum Charge
Cubic Feet Allowed
I
I
I
I
I
5/8"
3/4"
I"
1-1/2"
2"
3"
4"
6"
8"
$ 2.00
3.10
3.90
6.50
7.95
14.75
77.00
110.00
125.00
300
500
600
1,000
1,100
2,000
25,000
30,000
30,000
Multiple users served by a master meter
charged 39 cents per 100 cubic feet for
all water consumed in excess of the miminum
I
I
I
Rates Outside City
Minimum charge is 1.25 times minimum charge for water consumed
inside City.
Water consumed in excess of minimum is the regular rate plus
25 cents thereof.
I
I
I
I
I
Multiple Residential or Rural Water District customers served
by a master meter are charged 48.75 cents pr 100 cubic feet for
all water consumed in excess of the minimum.
9
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM ANALYSIS
GENERAL
This section of the Report examines the distribution of water from the
treatment facilities to the individual users within the City during
periods of peak consumptions. The distribution and storage system
includes underground and overhead storage, high service pumping stations,
arterial mains and distribution mains, valves and hydrants. While all
of these are important parts of the water distribution system, the
scope of this Report is limited to pumping, storage and arterial mains.
Supply points to the distribution system are fixed items; i.e., they
cannot be moved from one place to another. Pumping stations, as supply
points, can be economically increased from time to time to deliver more
water, higher pressure, or both. Underground and overhead storage cannot
be economically changed (after once being constructed) to yield either
more water or higher pressure. Therefore, the arterial main system must
provide for adequate distribution of water. Taken as a whole, these
water works facilities interact to form a complex, dynamic system. Advance
planning must be performed to insure that as the City grows, each new area
receives sufficient water at an acceptable pressure without jeopardizing
these same factors in the established parts of the City.
The arterial mains are the "backbone" of the water dis'tribution system.
If they are not properly sized and routed, much of the effectiveness of
the other water works facilities, no matter how well designed, is lost.
Several situations representing heavy demands on the water system were
analyzed. Fire demands, which in a smaller town are the heaviest loading
conditions, represent a smaller loading than peak consumption demands in
larger cities. While localized areas between arterial mains may have
problems in handling fire loads, the arterial mains (improved as recommended)
10
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
will satisfy the basic function of carrying the required volume of
water at the necessary pressure to within close proximity of any area
in the City. The study of small, localized deficiencies within the
system is beyond the scope of this Report. The Water Department is
continually pinpointing these areas and correcting them on an annual
basis within the limits of its budget.
METHODOLOGY
In order to plan for future development as well as solve the immediate
problems of the water distribution system, it is necessary to analyze
the effect improvements to the system would have before they are actually
constructed. This analysis is based on the judgment and experience of the
consulting engineer and aided by a series of mathematical simulations of
the water distribution system.
The analysis of the mathematically simulated system is based on the
Hardy Cross method of hydraulic network solution. This method is a
trial and error method in which the adjustments to be made in the assumed
values are computed and therefore controlled. The solution is effected
by the method of balancing head losses which are calculated using the
Hazen-Williams formula.
The complexity of the water distribution system for a City the size of
Salina is substantial. Also, the trial and error method used in the
computations can require as many as 2,000 separate equation solutions
for a single proposed modification to the water distribution system.
For these reasons, the solutions were effected through the use of a
digital computer. The use of the computer reduces the time required
for a single solution, thereby enabling a greater number of proposed
projects to be analyzed.
11
I
I
I
Salina's water distribution network was reduced to an equivalent skeleton
system. This skeleton system contained approximately 160 equivalent pipes
which simulate the water distribution system's response to quantity of
flow and pressure.
I
I
In order to check the model, tests were conducted on a relatively warm
day in June 1972. The tests included monitoring the quantities of flow
and pressure of the pumping and storage facilities supplying water to
the system. Also, the residual pressures were checked at various locations
throughout the system. The test period represented a slightly higher than
average consumption period for the City.
I
I
I
The water flowing into a system at any time period is equal to the water
consumed and/or placed in storage during that same time period. The con-
sumption for the test period was distributed throughout the model, in
proportion to the average use of a peak month (August 1970). This infor-
mation was supplied from the City's metering records.
I
I
I
The City was divided into 99 subdivisions. Each subdivision's consumption
was then summed from the metered consumption of the users contained therein.
The subdivision boundaries were fixed in a manner such that they encircled
a node (intersecting pipes of the skeleton distribution system). The with-
drawal of the summed consumption within the subdivision at its respective
node simulates the actual condition of consumption being withdrawn from
several points along branch pipes crisscrossing the subdivision. The
combined supply and consumption data were analyzed and compared against
the residual pressure test data for verification. The model was adjusted
and re-analyzed until it correlated with the test data.
I
I
I
I
I
The mathematical model of the existing water distribution system was then
altered to simulate proposed improvements. The results were then analyzed
and modified to compensate for errors inherent in simulation.
I
I
I
12
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
The results of the modified. models are illustrated in the Appendices.
These illustrations indicate trends which point out the relative differences
between various points within a single model and the relative difference
between the same point on different models.
CONCLUSIONS
The recommended improvements to the distribution system are shown on
Plate 2. They are also tabulated in the Capital Improvements Program,
Table 1.
In order to properly locate and size the improvements, eight conditions
were analyzed through mathematical simulation techniques, previously
discussed. Four of these conditions or models are presented in the
Appendices. Each Appendix shows the residual pressure contours overlain
on the map of Salina. These contours indicate the pressure in the arterial
mains at any given point. A user would have an actual pressure from 3
to 15 psi less than shown because of the pressure loss from the smaller
distribution mains and the user's service line and meter. The models
illustrated are as follows;
Distribution System; Test Model - (See Appendix B)
This model represents a slightly higher than average water demand on the
existing system and indicates in general that adequate pressure is maintained
throughout the City on average days with the existing water distribution
system.
Distribution System; Peak Flow Model; Existing Conditions - (See Appendix C)
This model represents the largest water demand on the existing system that
is expected to occur in the next 5 years. It indicates that the existing
system has several deficiencies which prohibit the system from providing
13
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
certain areas of the City with adequate quantities of flow and pressure
under peak loading conditions. These deficiencies are not noticed on
average days of usage but would become very apparent, for example, if a
fire would occur in one of the indicated low pressure areas during a hot
summer day. Also, new service that is continually being furnished to
expanding areas of the City will tend to worsen the indicated deficiencies.
There are three general areas of the City which are deficient. The first
is that area located north of Euclid Street. This area is serviced by a
single 8-inch main extending along U. S. Highway 81. A high demand in
this area will cause an extreme loss of pressure.
The second area lies between the Key Acres tower and the High Service Pump-
ing Station, located at the water treatment plant. This low pressure
area is centered around Minneapolis and Ohio Streets, and extends radially
with lessening effect.
Another area lies between the Sunset tower and the High Service Pumping
Station. This low pressure area forms a trough along west Crawford Street
and extends north and south of Crawford Street with lessening effect.
Distribution System; Peak Flow Model; 5-Year Improvements - (See Appendix D)
This model represents the largest water demand on the system improved as
recommended, that is expected to occur in the next 5 years. It indicates
that the recommended improvements should allow the system to provide adequate
quantities of flow and pressure to all areas of the City, under peak flow
conditions, with one possible exception. This exception is the area north
of Euclid Street. This area should receive much improved service as a
result of the recommended improvements. However, if accelerated future
growth should definitely occur in this area, the existing 8-inch main serving
the area will have to be supplemented. This has not been provided for in
14
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
the recommended improvements for the next five years. However, it should
be recognized that final design analysis may dictate an additional arterial
main to serve this area, and in that case the project cost will have to be
added to the Capital Improvements Program.
Distribution System; Peak Flow Model; Long Range Improvements - (See Appendix E)
This model is used to determine overall guidelines for the water system in
order that all improvements would complement an overall plan. The model
is only an estimate, subject to any number of changes, but the results help
set general trends which can reasonably be expected to occur.
RECOMMENDATION
System analysis should be repeated at.intervals of not more than five years,
and preferably two years, to investigate changing conditions and requirements,
and update the overall master plan.
15
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PROGRAM
GENERAL
The City of Salina should provide water utility facilities in advance
of the demands of its residents and industrial needs. In almost every
instance these additions, extensions and improvements should be designed
and sized to be sufficient for a reasonable period of continuing future
community growth. In other instances the new facilities must be designed
and provided to comply with changing regulatory requirements. The demands
and needs of private citizens, business and industry for municipal water
utility services are seldom static. On the contrary, experience has proven
that the community, as a whole, expects more and better services and
facilities.
Each project included in the Capital Improvements Program is considered
essential to provide services to existing areas of the City and provide
for orderly development of expanding areas of the City. Improvements and
extensions to the water utility system must be programmed and constructed
within the time frame of realistic forecasts of growth. The projects
included in the Capital Improvements Program have been selected as the
result of careful analysis with respect to existing or potential deficiences,
conformance with new or anticipated regulatory requirements, and expansion
to serve new growth areas.
The Capital Improvements Program presented in Table 1 is for the five year
period from 1973 to 1977. Long range capital improvements are discussed
thoroughly in the "Salina Water Study, 1968-2010" prepared by Wilson &
Company, in October of 1968. Both short and long range capital improvements
in regard to the water distribution system are illustrated on Plate 2.
16
I
I
I
The Capital Improvements Program presented in Table 1 lists the proposed
projects in order of priority and shows for each project the anticipated
construction dates and the estimated project cost. The projects are
grouped according to purpose and described in Table 3.
I
I
TABLE 3
Project Priority Numbers
Description
I
1
This project provides improvements to the
existing Water Treatment Plant. These improve-
ments will stop the discharge of plant wastes
to the Smoky Hill River as required by Federal
Regulation and provide for expansion of treat-
ment facilities in the plant.
I
I
2
This project provides for a detailed ground
water investigation of the Smoky Hill Valley.
I
3, 4, 5 & 6
These projects provide an upgraded water
system connection between the areas surrounding
the Sunset Tower and the Key Acres Tower in
order to provide adequate quantities of flow
and pressure to these areas during peak hourly
demands and fire demands.
I
I
7
This project provides an upgraded water system
connection between the existing Gypsum Hill
Tower and the area surrounding the intersection
of east Crawford Street and Marymount Road.
I
I
8 & 9
These projects provide an upgraded water system
connection between the existing high service
pumping station located at the Water Treatment
Plant and the existing 12-inch arterial main
serving the entire west side of the City.
I
9 & 10
These projects provide an upgraded water system
connection between the existing high service
pumping station area and the entire west area
of the City south of Crawford Street.
I
I
12, 13, 14 & 15
These projects provide upgraded water system
connections between the existing high service
pumping station, the existing tower on the north
edge of the central business district, the area
of the City north of North Street and the pro-
posed Thomas Park Tower. Also provided is a new
tower located on the south edge of Thomas Park.
I
I
17
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
BILLING SYSTEM
General
As the number of accounts grows in the Water Department, billing systems
which will handle greater volume in the same amount of time require
investigation. The number of accounts which makes a conversion economical,
is governed by the individual requirements of the Department. Several
factors must be weighed. It is beyond the scope of this Report to make
specific recommendations as to billing procedures or equipment. How-
ever, four basic billing systems are briefly described with the knowledge
that several variations of these systems are available and those listed
are to be used merely as guidelines in long range planning. No specific
recommendations are made for the five year Capital Improvements Program.
The approximate costs are based on 1972 prices.
Off-Premises Operation
This operation would entail the least cost. However, it also allows the
least flexibility and the greatest reduction of Department office personnel.
The meter readings operation would remain as it is now. However, the Water
Department would buy a key punch machine (approximate cost $9,000) and transfer
the meter readings onto cards. The cards would be given to the off-premises
operator who would calculate and print the bills. The general department
accounting would also be done in a similar manner. The approximate cost
would be $900 per month.
Magnetic Ledger System
This operation would require a computer system located in and operated by
the Water Department. This system would make use of a separate ledger sheet
for each account which would be placed in the computer and then the latest
meter reading typed in the computer. The bill would be calculated and
18
I
I
I
printed by the computer and the latest meter reading entered on the account's
ledger sheet. The ledger sheets would be filed and not stored in the computer.
General Department accounting would be done in a similar manner. This system
does not allow for future upgrading or rapid retrieval of information concern-
ing accounts such as desired to answer customers' questions. The approximate
cost would be $22,000 for purchase, or $650 per month for lease, and the
expense of retraining certain Department office personnel.
I
I
I
Batch Processing System
I
This system would require a key punch for supplemental use (approximate cost
$9,000). However, the actual meter reading recording would be done by
an optical scanner which would read the meter readings directly from the
numbers written down by the meter reader. The computer would calculate and
print the bills and handle general Department accounting. An on-line inquiry
unit would make information concerning a customer's account instan~ly avail-
able to the person answering the questions. However, the actual billing
operation would have to be scheduled at a different time than the normal
office hours when questions are answered, since these two units could not
operate simultaneously. A software package would have to be purchased.
This software package entails the actual programs necessary to instruct the
computer's operation and would cost approximately $30,000. The approximate
cost, excluding those items already mentioned, would be $3,100 per month for
the system, and the expense of retraining certain Department office personnel.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Multi-Processing System
I
This system is the same as the "Batch Processing System" but would allow
simultaneous operation of billing and on-line inquiry. This system would
also be used by other departments for their functions. The approximate
cost of the software package would be $60,000 and the monthly lease cost
would be approximately $8,500. This system allows the greatest flexibility
for future updating.
I
I
19
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
FINANCIAL PROGRAM
GENERAL
The operation, maintenance and extension of the Salina Water System may
be financed by general taxes, revenue from the sale of water or a combi-
nation of the two. The primary function of the water system is to supply
a necessary commodity to its customers and provide the service attendant
to that commodity. However, it also affords certain benefits to the
municipality as a whole. It safeguards public health, improves property
values, and contributes to fire protection. Except for fire protection,
these benefits are intangible and their values have no established base.
Any attempt to establish values for these intangible benefits would be
arbitrary and open to legitimate debate. The policy of Salina in the past
has been that the interests of the pu~lic and individual customer is best
served by a self-sustained water utility. It is recommended that this
policy be continued on the basis of being more equitable than the use of
general taxes which are based on property values and have no correlation
to cost of service incurred by the water system. Although fire protection
could be correlated to property values and the cost of this service paid
through general taxes, it is recommended at this time that the cost of
this service be paid through the proposed water rate schedule. This is in
keeping with past policy.
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PROGRAM
The amount of monies required to implement the Capital Improvements Program
dictates that financing of the Program be by revenue bonds retired on an
annual basis throughout their tenure.
20
I
~
~
I
,
li'\
,.
I
\ I
/
The present combined Water and Sewage System indebt~:ess was initially
/
incurred in 1961 for a face amount of $3,600,000</ The ordinance authorizing
this issue places some restrictions on new bond issues, the details of which
are beyond the scope of this Report. However, additional revenue bonds can
be issued without excessive penalties.
I
I
In order to project future bond and interest expense, it has been assumed
that the existing bond and interest debt payments will continue as described
by the 1961 ordinance and that additional revenue bonds will be issued for
purposes of financing the proposed Capital Improvements Program. It is
further assumed that the additional revenue bonds will be repaid on the basis
of equal annual principal and interest payments calculated for a 20-year life
at 5-1/2 percent interest. An annual net operating income to debt ratio of
1.40:1 was used for purposes of this Report.
I
I
I
I
I
The amount of the required bond issue,will depend upon the amount of federal
and state grants that the City can acquire. Approximately $500,000 of the
proposed program is for improvements at the Water Treatment Plant, which are
eligible for a 50% federal grant from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
and a matching 25% long-term loan from the State of Kansas. In the past, the
EPA grants program has been adequately funded and the time required for obtain-
ing a grant has been only contingent on processing the required applications.
However, the long-term loan program from the State of Kansas is new and no
loans have yet been granted.
I
I
I
I
The remaining improvements to the Water Treatment Plant are eligible for a
42% (approximate percentage based on past averages) federal grant from the
Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). The Ground Water Survey
Project is not eligible for federal grants, but all of the remaining projects
in the Program are eligible for HUD grants.
I
I
I
I
21
I
I
I
I
WATER RATE STUDY
I
Purpose
I
This section represents the results of a study of the City of Salina's
existing water rate structure and a recommendation for a new water rate
structure which will meet the City's future operating expenses and finance
the proposed Capital Improvements Program.
I
I
Scope
I
This study includes a review of Water Department income, expenditures and
debt retirement for the years 1962 through 1971, inclusive. Consideration
was given to the changes that could occur in the future period of 1973 to
1982. Debt retirement from past and proposed capital improvements was
analyzed and is included in this study. The year 1970 is considered repre-
sentative of normal conditions and all calculations are based upon the
relative water usage and revenue for that year.
I
I
I
Population
I
A decrease in population has occurred in Salina from 43,202 in 1960 to
37,714 in 1970. This drop was due to a number of inter-related factors,
most notably the closing of Schilling Air Force Base for military purposes.
However, the Air Force Base facilities, having been transferred to the City
of Salina, are proving to be catalyst for light industrial and commercial
growth. Other factors also indicate a growth in the future. Therefore,
a modest growth in population from 38,000 in 1973 to 41,300 in 1982, has
been projected for the City of Salina for use in this Report.
I
I
I
I
I
I
22
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Water Consumption
Water consumption has increased in Salina, from 90 gallons per capita per
day in 1962, to 124 gallons per capita per day in 1971, an increase of
38% per person. However, more importantly, yearly metered consumption has
increased from 189.84 million cubic feet in 1962 to 229.54 million cubic
feet in 1971, an increase of 21%. These trends are expected to continue
in the future. Therefore, the average daily consumption in gallons per
capita per day is expected to increase from 125 in 1973 to 134 in 1982,
an increase of 7%. Yearly metered water consumption in million cubic
feet per year is expected to increase from 231.8 in 1973 to 270.1 in
1982, an increase of 17%. These projections are conservative to insure
sufficient revenue in abnormal years. Specifically, if an unusually high
precipitation year is experienced by the City, the quantity of water sold
and therefore the revenue collected will decrease. However, during this
same year, the City's operating expen~es and debt retirement obligations
will decrease little, if any.
Revenue Requirements
A. General
The attached table entitled "TABULATION OF WATER DEPARTMENT EXPENDITURES
AND REVENUES; 1962 THROUGH 1971" shows the amounts of revenues and expendi-
tures in the past; and the attached table entitled "TABULATION OF ESTINATED
WATER DEPARTNENT REVENUE REQUIREMENTS; 1973 THROUGH 1982" shows the amounts
of expenditures that can be expected in the future. These tabulations include
the following expenses:
"Water Supply Expenses" consist of the maintenance and power costs
associated with the operation of the supply wells and river intake
structure.
23
I
I
SALINA, KANSAS
TABULATION OF WATER DEPARTMENT EXPENDITURES AND REVENUES
1962 THROUGH 1971
1962 1963 1964 1965 1966 1967 1968 1969 1970 1971
GENERAL
POPULATION 43,090 40,649 41,293 38,706 39,278 38,024 38,110 39,013 37,714 37,925
WATER PUMPED (million gallon/year) 1832.98 1872.87 1866.79 1617.55 1746.20 1790.32 1958.39 2039.19 2231.62 2152.72
PERCENT OF WATER METERED 77.5 76.6 79.8 77.9 81.4 76.2 79.3 80.5 78.3 79.1
WATER METERED (million cubicfeet/year) 189.84 191.80 199.18 168.49 190.16 182.36 207.52 219.32 233.69 229.54
METERED CONSUMPTION (cubic feet/capita/day) 12.1 12.9 13.2 11.9 13.3 13.1 14.9 15.4 17.0 16.6
(gallons/capita/day) 90 97 99 89 107 98 112 115 127 124
COSTS
Supply (centS/100 cubic feet) 0.84 0.54 0.83 0.49 0.39 0.94 0.73 0.78 0.55 0.42
Treatment (cents/l00 cubic feet) 7.11 7.13 7.90 6.81 7.08 7.48 7.60 8.24 9.54 8.78
Pumping (cents/l00 cubic feet) 1.24 2.10 1.98 2.67 2.29 2.61 2.45 2.36 2.05 2.21
Distribution (cents/100 cubic feet) 2.39 1.93 2.16 3.03 3.11 3.83 3.34 3.95 3.95 3.67
Customer Accounting (cents/l00 cubic feet) 3.26 4.18 4.31 4.12 3.78 3.80 3.63 3.52 3.48 3.75
Administrative (cents/l00 cubic feet) 1.55 2.01 1.94 2.95 2.62 2.89 3.59 3.51 3.60 3.78
Bond & Interest (cents/100 cubic feet) 10.75 10.09 8.99 8.77 5.99 6.51 5.88 5.44 5.02 5.02
Total 27.14 27.99 28.11 28.83 25.26 28.07 27.21 27.76 28.20 27.64
EXPENDITURES
WATER SUPPLY EXPENSES
Utilities. Well $ 4,464 $ 2,877 $ 5,084 $ 1,967 $ 2,108 $ 2,516 $ 2,420 $ 5,036 $ 6,264 $ 4,597
Utilities - River Intake 10,570 5,552 5,738 1,960 1,983 1,690 2,013 1,613 1,854 1,918
Maintenance 92 1,266 4,968 3,299 2,057 11,596 8,965 8,497 2,839 1,347
Well House Signals 810 743 810 957 1,174 1,438 1,666 1,994 1,858 1,840
WATER DEPT. SHARE $ 15,936 $ 10,437 $ 16,600 $ 8,183 $ 7,322 $ 17,240 $ 15,064 $ 17,139 $ 12,816 $ 9,702
SOFTENING AND TREATMENT EXPENSES
Supervision - 8,850 9,258 9,541 9,577 9,596 9,891 9,959 18,216 21,528
Salaries 39,99dJ. 25,896 26,356 26,415 28,681 31,536 35,766 39,654 40,714 43,137
Utilities, Supplies & Chemicals 92,796 97,764 107,982 74,358 89,824 89,377 108,380 122,119 152,896 129,987
Maintenance 2,277 4,214 13,820 4,346 6,623 5,850 3,620 8,923 11,171 6,854
WATER DEPT. SHARE $135,063 $136,722 $157,417 $114,660 $134,705 $136,359 $157,657 $180,655 $222,995 $201,505
PUMPI NG EXPENSES
Supervision - 8,677 9,105 9,484 9,544 9,929 10,688 10,657 10,676 13,340
Salaries 16,35D 16,807 17,639 18,064 18,186 18,918 20,303 21,647 21,409 25,910
Utilities 5,158 13,026 10,718 14,432 14,464 16,698 17,533 18,398 14,219 9,642
Supplies 209 467 287 743 789 855 1,286 414 1,243 1,239
Maintenance 1,806 1,316 1,591 2,273 529 1,218 952 693 470 664
WATER DEPT. SHARE $ 23,525 $ 40,293 $ 39,339 $ 44,997 $ 43,512 $ 47,618 $ 50,763 $ 51,810 $ 48,017 $ 50,794
DISTRIBUTION EXPENSES
Supervision - 4,750 4,806 4,881 4,851 5,116 6,257 6,643 7,310 7,830
Salaries 3,41f.1 10,127 9,817 17,325 17,429 25,054 28,680 28,844 38,609 43,870
Vehicle and Equipment Expenses 3,437 976 538 1,718 2,034 3,189 5,087 4,413 5,350 7,521
Tapping Supplies - 2,903 3,323 2,933 5,459 3,776 4,114 4,467 1,989 2,400
Meter Maintenance Salaries 5,225 5,522 8,295 8,183 9,633 9,257 9,947 10,660 11,318 12,266
-~_._- .- 1---'
Meter Maintenance Supplies 1,970 3,424 7,443 8,884 11,927 10,653 8,508 4,198 5,711 1,375
Maintenance - Distribution Mains 26,49s\t 2,643 2,607 1,808 5,016 6,026 4,034 3,849 10,063 5,672
Maintenance - Elevated Tanks - 714 1,512 857 1,112 1,214 1,042 22,567 9,283 259
Maintenance - Reservoirs - 14 - - - - - 100 104 455
Maintenance - Hydrants - 3,033 305 1,340 338 2,963 431 556 1,359 435
Miscellaneous Materials & Labor (Street) 4,800 2,915 4,446 3,155 1,429 2,516 1,255 261 1,268 2,090
WATER DEPT. SHARE $ 45,344 $ 37,020 $ 43,092 $ 51,083 $ 59,228 $ 69,764 $ 69,354 $ 86,556 $ 92,364 $ 84,172
CUSTOMERS' ACCOUNTING AND COLLECTION EXPENSES
Office Salaries 34,163 39,849 42,617 38,574 42,617 42,185 42,690 44,772 45,160 47,053
Servicemen & Meter Readers Salaries 16,690 34,611 36,500 35,030 32,928 31,848 34,917 37,954 41,174 44,9f1
Servicemen & Meter Readers Supplies - 2,427 168 788 520 439 603 421 670 391
Collection Stations - 1,371 1,553 1,354 1,563 1,561 1,737 1,765 1,797 1,815
Maintenance. Office & Equipment - 1,791 1,377 1,948 1,915 1,930 3,354 2,610 2,327 2,324
Postage 7,200 9,027 14,657 7,060 7,810 7,573 10,708 10,982 10,426 12,097
" 17,310~
Miscellaneous Supplies and Expenses 8,770 7,842 7,720 8,418 6,934 6,497 4,353 6,880 6,202
Sub Total $ 75363 $ 97 846 $104716 $ 92475 $ 95 773 $ 92470 $100505 $102858 $108,435 $114,802
WATER DEPT. SHARE (EST 75%) $ 61,798 $ 80,234 $ 85,867 $ 69,356 $ 71,830 $ 69,353 $ 75,379 $ 77,144 $ 81,326 $ 86,102
SEWAGE DEPT. SHARE (EST 16%) $ 13,565 $ 17,612 $ 18,849 $ 14,796 $ 15,324 $ 14,795 $ 16,080 $ 16,457 $ 17,350 $ 18,368
SANITATION DEPT. SHARE (EST 9%) - ~ - C3 -\g, $ 8,323 $ 8,619 $ 8,322 $ 9,046 $ 9,257 $ 9,759 $ 10,332
...,,-
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
-'
I
I
I
1962 1963 1964 1965 1966 1967 1968 1969 1970 1971
EXPENDITURES (cant.)
ADMINISTRATIVE AND GENERAL EXPENSES
Supervision $ 11.480 $ 13,700 $ 9,738 $ 9,762 $ 9,786 $ 9,924 $ 10,398 $ 11,568 $ 12,396 $ 13,152
Salaries 3,796 3,962 4,145 5,218 5,121 3,968 4,503 4,841 5,136 5,208
Social Security 6,287 7,916 8,151 8,326 7,900 11,522 12,514 14,646 16,252 19,265
Employees' Retirement 7,652 9,247 7,965 8.457 7,599 9,136 10,678 15,981 17,595 18,549
Insurance. Building and Accident 4,700 5,695 11,027 13,926 14,604 14,967 19,642 17.466 18,013 23.427
Sales Tax 635 523 893 2,025 1.415 3,204 1,903 3,639 1,560 1,166
Property Taxes 10,0002 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 20,000 30,000 30,000 30,000
Services Performed. Other Departments - - - 12,825 13,140 15,312 15,600 15,000 15,000 15,519
Maintenance, Utilities, etc. - Building - - - - - - - 2,BOO 7.400 6,900
Miscellaneous Supplies and Expenses 4,33~ 13,153 12,400 13,692 14,793 11,309 30,960 14,500 19,308 14,066
Sub Total $ 4B,886 $ 64,196 $ 64,319 $ 84,231 $ 84,358 $ 89,344 $126,197 $130.441 $142,660 $147,251
WATER DEPT. SHARE (EST 59%) $ 29,332 $ 38,518 $ 38,591 $ 49,696 $ 49,771 $ 52,713 $ 74.456 $ 76,960 $ 84,169 $ 86,878
SEWAGE DEPT. SHARE (EST 39%) $ 19,554 $ 25,678 $ 25,72B $ 32,850 $ 32,900 $ 34,844 $ 49,217 $ 50,872 $ 55,637 $ 57,42B
SANITATION DEPT. SHARE (EST 2%) - C.!! - ~ - (E $ 1,685 $ 1,687 $ 1,687 $ 2,524 $ 2,609 $ 2,853 $ 2,945
I
SEWAGE TREATMENT AND COLLECTION EXPENSES
Supervision - 15,890 16.456 16,659 16,339 12,172 30,028 33,771 37,029 39,B60
Operating Salaries 48.44!lJ 39,634 42,935 44,312 49,207 64.495 53,361 58,502 63,396 70,859
Utilities and Supplies 18,016 23,224 26,708 23,962 26,830 27,912 28,154 30,886 31,278 31,266
Maintenance 6,759 9,614 8,161 19,511 8.466 10,449 9.486 11,797 14,910 15,062
Miscellaneous Expenses 382 2,924 29 3,632 4,060 3,890 4,961 5,931 5,591 6,732
SEWAGE DEPT. SHARE $ 73,602 $ 91,286 $ 94,288 $108,074 $104,902 $118,917 $125,991 $140,888 $152,204 $163,779
80ND AND INTEREST EXPENSE
Bond Principal Payments 103,200 103,200 103,200 103,200 138,300 136,000 87,000 120,000 120,000 120,000
Bond I nterest Payments 144,000 144,000 134,000 118,000 72,000 83,000 138,000 100,195 96,295 92,669
Bond Reserve Account 72,000 72,000 72,000 51,470 - - - - - -
Other City Fund 57,5001: 38,O~ U 21,OO<k5I) - - - - - - -
Sub Total $376,700 $357,200 $330,200 $272,670 $210,300 $219,000 $225,000 $220,195 $216,295 $212,669
WATER DEPT. SHARE (54.2%) $204,171 $193,602 $178,968 $147,787 $113,983 $118,698 $121,950 $119,346 $117,232 $115,267
SEWAGE DEPT. SHARE (45.8%) $172,529 $163,598 $151,232 $124,883 $ 96,317 $100,302 $103,050 $100,849 $ 99,063 $ 97.402
TOTAL OPERATING EXPENSES
WATER DEPT. SHARE $515,169 $536,826 $559,844 $485,761 $480,351 $511,847 $564,624 $608,826 $658,920 $634.420
SEWAGE DEPT. SHARE $279,250 $298,174 $290,127 $280,603 $249,443 $268,858 $294,338 $309,849 $324,254 $336,977
SANITATION DEPT. SHARE - (!l - ~ - ~ $ 10,008 $ 10,306 $ 10,009 $ 11,570 $ 11,866 $ 12,612 $ 13,277
COMBINED TOTAL $794,419 $835,000 $849,971 $776,372 $740,100 $790,714 $870,532 $930,541 $995,786 $984,674
REVENUES
REVENUE - WATER DEPT. SHARE
Revenue from the Sale of Water 555,359 564,696 576,895 506,849 546,234 546,851 587,536 611,470 653,658 651,739
Tapping and Frontage Service 38,744 26,771 13,390 11,090 5,858 5,688 5,972 6,169 5,502 11,608
Miscellaneous Income 4,356 5,104 6,917 6,301 4,392 7,375 4,223 34,698 11,647 13,684
I nterest on Investments 44.438 26,071 - - - - - - - -
Sub Total $642,897 $622,642 $591,202 $524,240 $556,484 $559,914 $597,731 $652,337 $670,807 $677,031
REVENUE - SEWAGE DEPT. SHARE
Revenue from Sewer Service Charges $333,160 $337,134 $344,101 $321,640 $309,867 $338,731 $349.462 $351,640 $357,777 $372,517
REVENUE - SANITATION DEPT. SHARE
Service Charge Paid to Water Dept. - - - $ 2,618 $ 2,730 $ 3,087 $ 2,943 $ 3,019 $ 3,062 '$ 3,124
GRAND TOTAL REVENUE $976,057 $960,374 $941,303 $848.498 $869,082 $901,731 $950,136 $1,006.996 $1,031,645 $1,052,673
PROFIT OR (LOSS)
WATER DEPT. $127,728 $ 85,816 $ 37,358 $ 38,479 $ 76,133 $ 48,067 $ 33,107 $ 43,511 $ 11,887 $ 42,611
SEWAGE DEPT. $ 53,910 $ 39,560 $ 53,974 $ 41,037 $ 60.424 $ 69,873 $ 55,124 $ 41,791 $ 33,523 $ 35,540
SANITATION DEPT. - ~ _ (6 - ~ ($ 7,390) ($ 7,576) ($ 6,922) ($ 8,627) ($ 8,847) ($ 9,550) ($10,153)
TOTAL $181,638 $125,374 $ 91,332 $ 72,126 $128,981 $111,017 $ 79,604 $ 76.455 $ 35,859 $ 67,999
~
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
./
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
.;.
I
I
NOTE:
CD Labor not split between supervision and general salaries
(3) Total maintenance; not split between mains, tanks, reservoirs or hydrants
@ Franchise tax
@Estimated general split between two categories; further breakdown not estimated
@Depreciation and Emergency Account
@Sanitation Dept.'s shares compensated by exchange of services
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
SALINA, KANSAS
TABULATION OF ESTIMATED WATER DEPARTMENT REVENUE REQUIREMENTS
1973 THROUGH 1982
1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982
GENERAL
EST. POPULATION 38.000 38,350 38.7 50 39,100 39,500 39,850 40,200 40,600 40,950 41,300
EST. WATER METERED' 231.8 235.8 240.1 244.2 248.6 252.8 257.0 261.5 265.8 270.1
EST. METERED CONSUMPTION
(cubic feel/capita/day) 16.7 16.8 17.0 17.1 17.2 17.4 17.5 17.6 17.8 17.9
(gallons/capita/day) 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134
COSTS (cents/l 00 cubic feet)
Operation, Maintenance and Taxes 23.49 24.05 24.55 25.06 25.52 25.99 26.44 26.85 27.26 27.66
Minor Capital I mprovements 1.73 1.74 1.75 1.76 1.77 1.78 1.79 1.80 1.81 1.81
Existing 80nd & Interest Expense 4.90 4.83 4.76 4.68 4.71 4.63 4.54 4.55 4.45 4.46
Proposed 80nd & Interest Expen.,Q)
Without Grants 10.72 10.54 10.35 10.18 10.00 9.83 9.67 9.50 9.35 9.20
With Grants 6.15 6.05 5.94 5.84 5.74 5.64 5.55 5.45 5.36 5.28
Total Annual Revenue Reauirement
(including coverage ratio reQuirement~
Without Grants 47.08 47.31 47.46 47.63 47.89 48.01 48.12 48.32 48.39 48.59
With Grants 40.68 41.02 41.28 41.56 41.92 42.14 42.35 42.81 42.81 43.10
EXPENDITURES
OPERATION, MAINTENANCE & TAXES
WATER SUPPLY EXPENSES $ 13,500 $ 14,000 $ 14,500 $ 15,000 $ 15,500 $ 16,000 $ 16,500 $ 17,000 $ 17 ,500 $ 18,000
SOFTENING & TREATMENT EXPENSES 220,000 225,000 230,000 235,000 240,000 245,000 250,000 255,000 260,000 265,000
PUMPING EXPENSES 51,000 52.000 53,000 54.000 55,000 56,000 57,000 58,000 59,000 60,000
DISTRI8UTION EXPENSES 88,000 91,000 94.000 97.000 100,000 103,000 106,000 109,000 112,000 115,000
CUSTOMER'S ACCOUNTING &
COLLECTION EXPENSES
(Water Dept. Share) 87,000 90,000 93,000 96,000 99,000 102,000 105,000 108,000 111,000 114,000
ADMINISTRATIVE & GENERAL
EXPENSES (Water Dept. Share) 85.000 95,000 105,000 115,000 125,000 135,000 145,000 155,000 165,000 175,000
Sub Total $ 544,500 $ 567,000 $ 589,500 $ 612,000 $ 634,500 $ 657,000 $ 679,500 $ 702,000 $ 724,500 $ 747,000
MINOR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS
MINOR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS $ 40,000 $ 41,000 $ 42,000 $ 43,000 $ 44,000 $ 45,000 $ 46,000 $ 47,000 $ 48,000 I $ 49,000
REVENUE REQUIREMENT WITHOUT GRANTS
EXISTING 80ND & INTEREST
EXPENSE (Water Dept. Share) $ 113,500 $ 114,000 $ 114,300 $ 114,400 $ 117,200 $ 117,000 $ 116,700 $ 119,000 $ 118,400 $ 120,400
PROPOSED 80ND & INTEREST
EXPENSE (C. J.P. without grant.G:1 248,500 248,500 248,500 248,500 248,500 248,500 248,500 248,500 248,500 248,500
Sub Total $ 362,000 $ 362,500 $ 362,800 $ 362,900 $ 36!l700 $ 365,500 $ 365,200 $ 367,500 $ 366,900 $ 368,900
TOTAL 80ND 8< INTEREST
EXPENSE (including coverage
ratio reqUiremen~ $ 506,800 $ 507,500 $ 507,900 $ 508,100 $ 512,000 $ 511,700 $ 511,300 $ 514,500 $ 513,700 $ 516,500
TOTAL ANNUAL REVENUE
REQUIREMEN~ $1,091,300 $1,115,500 $1,139,400 $1,163,100 $1,190,500 $1,213,700 $1,236,800 $1,263,500 $1,286,200 $1,312,500
REVENUE REQUI REMENT WITH GRANTS
EXISTING 80ND & INTEREST
EXPENSE (Water Dept. Share) $ 113,500 $ 114,000 $ 114,300 $ 114,400 $ 117,200 $ 117,000 $ 116,700 $ 119,000 $ 118,400 $ 120,400
PROPOSED 80ND & INTEREST
EXPENSE (C.I.P with grant.G:1 142,600 142,600 142,600 142,600 142,600 142,600 142,600 142,600 142,600 142,600
Sub Total $ 256,100 $ 256,600 $ 256,900 $ 257,000 $ 259,800 $ 259,600 $ 259,300 $ 261,600 $ 261,000 $ 263,000
TOTAL 80ND & INTEREST
EXPENSE (including coverage
ratio requiremen~ $ 358,500 $ 359,200 $ 359,600 $ 359,800 $ 363,700 $ 363,400 $ 363,000 $ 370,400 $ 365,400 $ 368,200
TOTAL ANNUAL REVENUE
REQUIREMEN,@ $ 943,000 $ 967,200 $ 991,100 $1,014,800 $1,042,200 $1,065,400 $1,088,500 $1,119,400 $1,137,900 $1,164,200
. million cubic feet/year
CD Annual Sums based on 20-year retirement at 5% percent average interest
@ Bond Coverage Ratio Requirement based on a ratio of 1: 1.40
@ Includes "Operation, Maintenance and Taxes," "Minor Capital Improvement" and "Total Bond and Interest Expense"
I72'3'l
I
I
I
"Softening and Treatment Expenses" consist of the labor, supplies,
power and fuel associated with the operation of the water treat-
ment plant.
I
I
I
I
I
"Pumping Expenses" consist of the labor, supplies, power and
fuel associated with the operation of the water distribution
pumping stations.
"Distribution Expenses" consist of the labor and supplies
associated with the operation of the distribution mains and
storage tanks.
I
I
I
I
I
I
"Customers' Accounting and Collection Expenses" consist of the
labor, supplies and postage associated with the meter reading
and billing operations. The City operates the Water and
Sewage Departments as a single administration department.
The Water Department's share of these expenses is estimated
to be 75 percent of the total costs. The Department also
bills for the Sanitation Department.
"Administrative and General Expenses" consist of the labor,
supplies, taxes, insurance, employee benefits and general
overhead associated with the entire Water and Sewage Depart-
ments. The Water Department's share of these expenses is
estimated to be 59 percent of the total costs.
I
I
I
I
I
"Sewage Treatment and Collection Expenses" are tabulated because
the Water and Sewage Departments are combined; however, none of
these costs are associated with the Water Department.
"Bond and Interest Expense" is the existing yearly debt retire-
ment. The Water Department's share is estimated to be 54.2
percent of the total cost.
24
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
"Revenues" consist of those generated by the Water Department
and Sewage Department as well as that paid to the Water Depart-
ment by the Sanitation Department for billing services.
"Minor Capital Improvements" is a future allocated expense for
capital improvements not covered by the proposed Capital Improve-
ments Program.
"Revenue Requirement Without Grants" is the expected future revenue
requirement of the Water Department including the expense of the
Proposed Capital Improvements Program, but not including any state
or federal grants to assist in the Program.
"Revenue Requirement With Grants" is the expected future revenue
requirement of the Water Department including the expense of the
Proposed Capital Improvements Program with assistance from state
and federal grants.
The Water Department's operating expenditures have increased from 1962 to
1971, approximately 2-1/4% per year. The projected operating expenditures
from 1973 to 1982 are expected to increase 2-3/4% per year.
B. Sunnnary
The revenue requirements of a publicly owned water utility are not generally
based on a rate of return, but on the cash or budget requirements of the
system as determined by local conditions. The City of Salina's Water Depart-
ment is typical in this respect. A cash basis reflects municipal financing
of capital improvements through serial bonds whose retirement must be pro-
vided for on an annual basis while they are outstanding. Also, the City's
water utility is not operated for a profit, but merely attempts to cover
total operation costs and to provide for investment in plant facilities.
Table 4 presents the "Annual Revenue Requirement" for the City of Salina's
25
I
I
I
Water Department. This annual sum represents the average requirement
for the next ten year period. This amount represents a minimum level
of revenue on which the water utility may continue to operate and provide
adequate service.
I
I
I
TABLE 4
AVERAGE ANNUAL REVENUE REQUIREMENT
I
I
Without
Grants
With
Grants
Operation, Maintenance and Taxes $
Existing Debt Service*
Minor Capital Improvements
Proposed Debt Service (Capital Improvements
Program) *
634,500
164,100
44,000
$
634,500
164,100
44,000
I
I
347,900
199,600
Total Average Annual Revenue Requirement $1,190,500
$1,042,200
* Includes Bond Coverage Ratio Requirement of 1:1.40.
I
Allocation of Cost of Service To Cost Functions
I
I
I
A. General
I
I
I
I
I
The total cost of providing service by a water utility is equal to the
annual revenue requirements of the Water Department. In providing service,
the Water Department is required to supply water in amounts and at such
rates as desired by the customer. The Water Department incurs costs in
relationship to the operating requirements and the necessary investment
in system facilities required to meet customer needs. Since these needs
or requirements for total volume of supply and peak rates of use vary
among customers, so does the cost to the utility of providing service to
respective customers or classes of customers.
26
J
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
To assure equity in charges to different classes of customers, the actual
cost of providing service to each class must be recovered from that class.
Cost-allocation procedures must recognize the specific service require-
ments of the class of customers for total volume of water, peak rates of
use, and billing related functions. For example, a customer on a poor
load factor (i.e., a high peak rate of use as compared with their average
rate of use) would require larger-capacity pumps, pipes and certain other
system facilities than a customer who has a comparable total consumption
but uses water continuously at essentially a uniform rate.
The revenue requirements discussed in the previous section can be stated
in terms of capital costs (Existing Debt Service, Annual Minor Capital
Improvements and Proposed Debt Service) and operating expenses (Operation,
Maintenance and Taxes). The method used in preparing the proposed water
rate structure is referred to generally as the "Base - Extra Capacity"
method. All costs of service are separated into three components; base
cost, extra capacity cost, and customer cost. Base costs are costs that
tend to vary with the quantity of water used plus those operating and
capital costs associated with service to customers under average load
conditions, without elements necessary to meet water-use variations and
resulting peaks in demand. These elements necessary to meet water-use
variations are extra-capacity costs and include capital and operating
charges for additional plant and system capacity beyond that required
for average rate of use. These extra-capacity costs are subdivided
into costs necessary to meet maximum day extra demand and maximum hour
extra demand. Customer costs are costs associated with serving customers
irrespective of the amount of water used or maximum demands. These customer
costs are subdivided into costs associated with meters and those associated
with billing.
27
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
B. Allocation of Operation, Maintenance, and Taxes Expense
Table 5 presents the distribution of Operation, Maintenance and Taxes.
Commodity related expenses, including power and chemical costs are assigned
directly to base cost, since these costs tend to vary with water usage.
Other expenses associated with facilities are allocated on the design-capacity
requirement of each facility. Such expenses, if designed to meet maximum-
day requirements are allocated on the basis of the approximate average day
to peak day ratio of 1:2.3. Thus, 43 percent of these expenses are allocated
to base cost and 57 percent to maximum-day extra capacity cost. Expenses
related to facilities designed to meet maximum hour requirements are allocated
on the basis of the approximate average day to peak hour ratio of 1:3.7.
This allocates 27 percent of these expenses to bbase cost and 73 percent to
maximum hour extra capacity costs. Allocation of Administrative and General
Expenses is made on the basis of the allocation of the other expenses.
After the Base Year Totals are derived, the allocation of the Proposed Annual
Revenue Requirement (Operation, Maintenance, and Taxes) is made in the same
proportion.
28
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
TABLE 5
ALLOCATION OF OPERATION, MAINTENANCE AND TAXES EXPENSE
Operation & EXTRA CAPACITY COSTS CUSTOMER COSTS
Maintenance BASE Maximum Maximum
DESCRIPTION Expenses COST Day Hour Meter Billing
WATER SUPPLY EXPENSES
Utilities $ 8,118 $ 8,118
Maintenance 4,698 2,020 $ 2,678
Sub Total $ 12,816 $ 10,138 $ 2,678
SOFTENING & TREATMENT EXPENSES
Salaries & Wages $ 58,930 $ 25,340 $33,590
Utilities, Supplies & Chemicals 152,896 152,896
Maintenance 11,171 4,804 6,367
Sub Total $222,997 $183,040 $39,957
PUMPI NG EXPENSES
Salaries and Wages $ 32,085 $ 8,663 $23,422
Utilities & Supplies 15,462 15,462
Maintenance 470 127 343
Sub Total $ 48,017 $ 24,252 $23,765
DISTRIBUTION EXPENSES
General Salaries $ 45,919 $ 12,398 $33,521
Meter Maintenance Salaries & Supplies 17,029 $17,029
Maintenance .. Mains 10,063 2,717 7,346
Maintenance .- Storage 9,387 2,534 6,853
Maintenance u Hydrants 1,359 693 136 245 197 $ 88
Miscellaneous Expenses 8,607 2,324 6,283
Sub Total $ 92,364 $ 20,666 $ 136 $54,248 $17,226 $ 88
CUSTOMER ACCOUNTING & COLLECTION EXPENSES
Office Salaries $ 26,847 $26,847
Service Men & Meter Readers Salaries & Supplies 41,845 $41 ,845
Other Expenses 12,634 8,505 $ 3,821
Sub Total $ 81,326 $50,350 $30,668
ADMINISTRATIVE & GENERAL EXPENSES
Salaries and Wages $ 10,344 $ 5,275 $ 1,034 $ 1,862 $ 1 ,499 $ 674
Social Security & Retirement 19,970 10,185 1,997 3,595 2,893 1,300
Property Tax 17,700 5,310 3,540 7,080 1,222 548
Building Expenses 26,358 13,443 2,636 4,744 3,819 1,716
Services from Other Departments 8,850 4,514 885 1,593 1,282 576
Sub Total $ 83,222 $ 38,727 $10,092 $18,874 $10,715 $ 4,814
BASE YEAR TOTALS $540,742 $276,823 $52,863 $96,887 $78,291 $35,570
Percentage of Total 100% 51.2% 9.8% 17.9% 14.5% 6.6%
AVERAGE ANNUAL REVENUE REQUIREMENTS ALLOCATION
With and Without Grants $634,500 $324,800 $62,200 $113;600 $92,000 $41 ,900
(72-37)
I
I
C. Allocation of Capital Costs
I
I
Table 6 presents the distribution of capital costs. The distribution
of facilities investment is predicated on the same percentages developed
in the previous section. Fire protection is distributed on the basis
of the resulting allocation of the other facilities. After the Water
System Totals are derived, the allocation of the Proposed Annual Revenue
Requirement (Existing Debt Service, Annual Minor Capital Improvements,
and Proposed Debt Service) is made in the same proportion.
I
I
I
Allocation of Costs to Customer Classes
I
A.
General
I
Prior sections have allocated both capital and operating components of
cost of service to cost functions (i.e., base costs, extra capacity costs,
and customer costs). This section will distribute the cost functions to
each customer class in the proportion the respective class responsibility
for costs bears to the total cost responsibility of all customer classes
served by the system.
I
I
I
B.
Customer Classes
I
I
Customer classes are decided on the basis of hourly or daily demand
characteristics. Typically, there are three principal customer classes;
residential, commercial, and industrial. However, the distinction between
commercial and industrial users is not clear and therefore, the customer
classes selected for Salina are residential, small commercial and industrial,
and large commercial and industrial. (The reference to small and large
refers to quantity of water used and not physical or corporate size.)
I
I
I
I
29
I
I
I
TABLE 6
ALLOCATION OF CAPITAL COSTS
Estimated EXTRA CAPACITY COSTS CUSTOMER COSTS
Capital BASE Maximum Maximum Fire
DESCRIPTION Investment COST Day Hour Meter Billing Protection
SUPPLY
Real Estate $ 5,000 $ 2,200 $ 2,800
Wells & Pumps 277,000 119,100 157,900
Collection Mains 48,000 20,600 27,400
Sub Total $ 330,000 $ 141,900 $ 188,100
TREATMENT
Rea I Estate $ 5,000 $ 2,200 $ 2,800
Plant & Improvements 1,878,000 807,500 1,070,500
Sub Total $1,883,000 $ 809,700 $1,073,300
STORAGE & PUMPING
Real Estate -- Pump $ 11,000 $ 3,000 $ 8,000
Real Estate -- Storage 21,000 5,700 15,300
Structures & Equipment -- Pump 130,000 35,100 94,900
Structures & Equipment -- Storage 667,000 180,100 486,900
Sub Total $ 829,000 $ 223,900 $ 605,100
DISTRIBUTION MAINS & EQUIPMENT
Mains $2,266,000 $ 611,800 $1,654,200
Manholes 55,000 14,900 40,100
Valves 224,000 60,500 163,500
Hydrants 166,000 $166,000
Miscellaneous Equipment 124,000 33,500 90,500
Meters 355,000 $355,000
Sub Total $3,190,000 $ 720,700 $1,948,300 $355,000 $166,000
GENERAL
Office Furniture, Equipment, Etc. $ 105,000 $105,000
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PROGRAM
WTP Improvements $1,000,000 $ 430,000 $ 570,000
Mains 1,684,000 454,700 $1,229,300
Storage 236,000 63,700 172,300
Sub Total $2,920,000 $ 948,400 $ 570,000 $1,401,600
TOTALS $9,257,000 $2,844,600 $1,831,400 $3,955,000 $355,000 $105,000 $166,000
Prorated F ire Protection 51,900 33,400 72,300 6,500 1,900 ($166,000)
WATER SYSTEM TOTALS $9,257,000 $2,896,500 $1,864,800 $4,027,300 $361,500 $106,900
Percentage, of T ota I 100% 31.3% 20.1% 43.5% 3.9% 1.2% 0%
AVERAGE ANNUAL REVENUE REQUIREMENT ALLOCATION
Without Grants $ 556,000 $ 174,000 $ 111,800 $ 241,800 $ 21,700 $ 6,700
With Grants 407,700 127,600 81,900 177 ,400 15,900 4,900
(72-37)
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
For each class of customers, the annual water use and maximum demand
characteristics, as well as the number of bills rendered and meters used
and serviced a year, are factors that provide a measure of customer class
cost responsibility. Table 8 presents the customer water use charac-
teristics, and Table 7 presents equivalent meter and billing factors.
I
I
I
TABLE 7
EQUIVALENT METER AND BILLING FACTORS
I
I
Number
Equivalent Of Bills
Meters* Per Month
Customer Class Percent Number Percent Number
Residential 81.1 13,058 87.1 11,730
Conunercia1 & Industrial
Small 17.5 2,820 12.8 1,728
Large 1.4 222 0.1 17
Totals 100 16,100 100 13,475
I
I
I
* Equivalent meters are determined by relating costs of
the various sizes of meters to the cost of a 5/8-inch
meter.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
30
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
TABLE 8
CUSTOMER WATER USE CHARACTERISTICS
Customer
Class
Average
Annual
Usage
Average
Daily
Usage
Approximate
Demand
Factor
Total
Demand
Extra
Demand
Percentage
Of Extra
Demand
(mcfy)
(mcfd)
(percent)
(mcfd)
(mcfd)
(percent)
MAXIMUM DAY DEMANDS
Residential 152.5 .418 325 1.359 .941 80
Commerc ial &
Industrial
Small 49.7 .136 225 .306 .170 15
Large 26.6 .073 180 .131 .058 5
Totals 228.8 .627 1.796 1.169(1) 100
MAXIMUM HOUR DEl-1ANDS
Residential 152.5 .418 500 2.090 1.672 80
Commercial &
Industrial
Small 49.7 .136 350 .476 .340 16
Large 26.6 .073 225 .164 .091 4
Totals 228.8 .627 2.730 2.103(2) 100
(1)1.169 mcfd equals 427 mcfy
(2)2.103 mcfd equals 768 mcfy
mcfy = million cubic feet per year
mcfd = million cubic feet per day
31
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
C.
Unit Costs of Service.
Table 9 presents a summary of the total costs of service by cost functions
and the resulting unit costs of service. The base cost unit cost of service
is the minimum unit cost of service, after recovery of customer costs,
applicable only if a perfect load factor use could be achieved (perfect
load factor is use of water at a continuous, equal rate year around).
The unit base cost provides a measure of the lowest potential charge in
a schedule of rates for firm service, an important guide in preventing
possible establishment of charges that could result in the sale of water
by the utility at below cost. This unit base cost per 100 cubic feet is
21.80 cents for service without grants and 19.78 cents for service with
grants.
32
-------------------
TABLE 9
UNIT COSTS OF SERVICE
WITHOUT GRANTS
Cost Operating Capital
Function Costs Costs Total Units Unit Cost of Service
Base Costs $324,800 $174,000 $ 498,800 228.8 mcfy 21.80 c/ccf
Extra Capacity
Costs
Maximum Day 62,200 111,800 174,000 427 mcfy 4.07 c/ccf
Maximum Hour 113,600 241,800 355,400 768 mcfy 4.63 c/ccf
Customer Costs
Equivalent
Meters 92,000 21,700 113,700 16,100 Eq. meters 58.85 c/Eq. meter/mo.
w Billing -41,900 6,700 48,600 13,475 bills 30.06 c/bi11/mo.
w
Totals $634,500 $556,000 $1,190,500
WITH GRANTS
Base Costs $324,800 $127,600 $ 452,400 228.8 mcfy 19.78 C/ccf
Extra Capacity
Costs
Maximum Day 62,200 81,900 144,100 427 mcfy 3.37 clccf
Maximum Hour 113,600 177 ,400 291,000 768 mcfy 3.79 c/ccf
Customer Costs
Equivalent
Meters 92,000 15,900 107,900 16,100 Eq. meters 55.85 c/Eq. meter/mo.
Billing -41,900 4,900 46,800 13,475 bills 28.94 c/bi11/mo.
Totals $634,500 $407,700 $1,042,200
mcfy = million cubic feet per year
ccf = 100 cubic feet
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
D.
Allocation Of Costs To Customer Classes
Table 10 presents the allocation of the total costs of service incurred
by the Water Department to the customer classes in proportion to the cost
responsibility of each class.
34
-------------------
TABLE 10
ALLOCATION OF COSTS TO CUSTOMER CLASSES
WITHOUT GRANTS
CUSTOMER CLASS BASE EXTRA CAPACITY CUSTOM E R
MAXIMUM DAY MAXIMUM HOUR METER BILLING TOTAL
Percent Dollars Percent Dollars Percent Dollars Percent Dollars Percent Dollars DOLLARS
RESIDENTIAL 66.7 $332,700 80 $139,200 80 $284,300 81.1 $ 92,200 87.1 $42,300 $ 890,700
COMMERCIAL & INDUSTRIAL
Small 21.7 108,200 15 26,100 16 56,900 17.5 19,900 12.8 6,200 217,300
Large 11.6 57,900 5 8,700 4 14,200 1.4 1,600 0.1 100 82,500
Totals 100 $498,800 100 $174,000 100 $355,400 100 $113,700 100 $48,600 $1,190,500
WITH GRANTS
RESIDENTIAL 66.7 $301,700 80 $115,300 80 $232,800 81.1 $ 87,500 87.1 $40,700 $ 778,000
COMMERCIAL & INDUSTRIAL
Small 21.7 98,200 15 21,600 16 46,600 17.5 18,900 12.8 6,000 191,300
Large 11.6 52,500 5 7,200 4 11,600 1.4 1,500 0.1 100 72,900
Totals 100 $452,400 100 $144,100 100 $291,000 100 $107,900 100 $46,800 $1,042,200
(72-37)
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Development of Rate Schedules
A. General
Water rate schedules must be so designed as to recover the costs of
serving different classes of customers, maintaining reasonable equity
between the customer classes. Proper design concepts do not take
quantity discount into consideration or advocate lower rates simply
for water sold in larger amounts.
Rate design does recognize the costs of supplying the amount of commodity
used, the rate of use or demand for use, and the costs involved in main-
taining the customer's account and meter. It is reasonable and proper to
recognize that different classes of customers have characteristic and
measurable demand requirements on system facilities. It is also practical
to give recognition to customer class diversity in measuring costs to serve
different classes of customers.
Much more is known today concerning customer use and demand characteristics
then was true 20 years ago. Through analysis of use and demand data, it has
been found that the smaller users as a group, characteristically, have a high
demand factor (the ratio of maximum to average rate of use), which may require
capacities of 500 percent of average use. Conversely, it has been found that
large users as a group have a much lower demand factor, with capacity require-
ments of perhaps only 200 percent of average use.
B.
Establishment of Usage Blocks
The usage blocks that control the charges for the rate schedule have been
designed on the basis of customer-class water-usage information derived from
billing records of the City. Plate 11 shows curves that express the various
levels of monthly use per customer in a class as a percentage of the total
35
-------------------
PLATE II
MONTHLY USE PER CUSTOMER
VS.
TOTAL USAGE BY CLASS
(Base Year 1970)
(")
c:
r-
~
~
-t
<
I'T'I
""tI
I'T'I
:::tI
(")
I'T'I
:z:
-t
o
"'T1
-t
o
-t
~
r-
c:
en
]:I.
C')
I'T'I
"'T1
o
:::tI
]:I.
(")
r-
]:I.
C/J
en
00 ~ ~ SMALL COMMERCIAL
- - - '-
V ...- / & INDUSTRIAL I
CLASS
~ RESIDENTIAL / jr /
CLASS --;
80 / / LARGE COMMERCIAL /
& I NOUSTR I AL -
J CLASS 7
7v / / /
60
/ 7 If
/
50 V / /
/ /
j
110 / / /
/
I
30 / / /
/
/
20 I / ~I
/
~ /
10 ...- /1.....
,/ - ~ .-.'"
~ ~ ......., .,/
- ~
o
100
1,000
100,000
1,000,000
Salina, Kansas
(72-37)
10,000
AVERAGE MONTHLY WATER USE PER CUSTOMER
-------------------
(")
c::
r
~90
-l
<
I'T1
-0 80
I'T1
::00
(")
I'T1
:z
-l 70
o
"'TI
:z
~ 60
OJ
I'T1
::00
o 50
"'TI
(")
c::
en
d IlO
J::
I'T1
::00
en
"'TI
o
::00
%> 20
J::
I'T1
-l
I'T1
::00
en
N
I'T1
PLATE 12
MONTHLY USE PER CUSTOMER
VS.
NUMBER OF CUSTOMERS BY METER SIZE
(Base Year 1970)
100
"". -~ ~
I- ~ - -
/ ...... I--"" I,...- ....~ .......... ......
"",. ..,. ~ .....~ ./
y. V V V V /
/ / 1/ /
I / V ~I ~/
/ # ~I ~
-!/
/ I / / /
I
/ II ~/ /
I /
/ /j 1/ V
J / /
/ / // II /
V
/ / I ./
/ / / V/ V
/ l) ) / ~
/
/ ~ V .r /
/'
/ ~ ./ ,/ i.-"
..,.
~ /" ./ ...... ,
......
.-0""" - ~
30
10
0100
1,000
100,000
1,000,000
10,000
AVERAGE MONTHLY WATER USE PER CUSTOMER
Salina, Kansas
(72-37)
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
water use by that class. The cumulative percentage of total water
use by the class is shown on the vertical scale and monthly water use
per customer is shown on the horizontal scale.
The first usage block in the proposed rate schedules allows 2,000 cubic
feet per month which means that, of the water used by residential
customers, 84 percent is used by those customers using a total of less
than 2,000 cubic feet per month. Similarly, the curves in Plate 11
indicate that only 14 percent of the small commercial and industrial
class and essentially no large commercial and industrial use occurs in
the 2,000 cubic feet or less monthly usage block.
The second usage block in the proposed rate schedules allows 30,000 total
cubic feet per month. This includes 87 percent of the water used by the
small commercial and industrial class, the remaining usage in the residential
class and 2 percent of the usage in the large commercial and industrial class.
The final usage block in the proposed rate schedules accounts for all
monthly usage over 30,000 cubic feet per month which primarily applies
to the large commercial and industrial class.
c.
Establishment of Minimum Usage Blocks
Plate 12 shows curves that express the various levels of monthly use per
customer having a certain size meter as a percentage of the total number
of customers for that meter size. The minimum usage blocks for meter sizes
3/4-inch through 2-inch were established such that approximately 25 percent
of the customers having a certain size meter would use less than the monthly
minimum allowable quantity and that the remaining 75 percent would use more
than this minimum quantity each month. The larger size meter minimum usage
blocks were established based on the experience and judgment of the consult-
ing engineer.
36
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Plate 13 shows curves that express the various levels of monthly use
per customer in a class as a percentage of the total number of customers
in that class and is useful in recognizing the distribution of customers.
37
-------------------
PLATE 13
MONTHLY USE PER CUSTOMER
VS.
NUMBER OF CUSTOMERS BY CLASS
(Base Year 1970)
100
./ I---- l-- .....
RESIDEN"7 ~ :/
CLASS ./
.....100- /
/ V ....... /
L .......... /
/ 7 SMALL COM- /
/ MERCIAL &
/ INDUSTRIAL
J CLASS
I / V
V V- I
1 ~ LARGE COM-
/" I- MERCI AL &
/ INDUSTRIAL
/ (,IA~~
/ 1/ V
/ J
V 1/
/
/ /
V /
/
V
C"")
c: 90
r
3:
>
-i
~ 80
""'C
IT1
;;>;;I
~ 70
:z.
-i
o
"'T160
:z:
c:
3:
OJ
~50
o
"'T1
g40
en
-i
o
3::
~30
en
"'T1
o
;;>;;I 20
>
C"")
r
~ 10
en
0100
1,000
10,000
100,000
1,000,000
AVERAGE MONTHLY WATER USE PER CUSTOMER
Salina, Kansas
(72-37)
I
I
D.
Design of Usage Block ~harges
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
As has been noted in Plate 11, each of the three usage blocks in the
proposed rate schedule applies as practically as possible to one of the
customer classes. Because of the high-capacity factors associated with
water use in the lower usage block, charges in these blocks for the two
proposed rate schedules must recover extra capacity costs in excess of
the lower capacity requirements representative of users in subsequent
usage blocks.
E.
Design of Minimum Usage Block Charges
The minimum monthly charges for the various meter sizes were established
based on the billing cost of each customer; the base and extra capacity
costs associated with each meter size's minimum allowable usage; and the
meter's maintenance and depreciation costs.
F.
Present and Proposed Rates for Water Service
The present rate schedule for the City of Salina is shown in Appendix A.
Two proposed rate schedules were developed to generate levels of revenue
for the two revenue requirement conditions. The rate schedule shown in
Table 2 should provide sufficient revenues to meet the Water Department's
Revenue Requirement if the proposed Capital Improvements Program is imple-
mented without aid from federal grants. The rate schedule shown in Table 2A
should provide sufficient revenues to meet the Water Department's Revenue
Requirement if the proposed Capital Improvements Program is implemented and
aided through federal grants.
The proposed rate schedules must generate from each class of customers revenue
sufficient to meet its cost responsibility. Table 14 shows a comparison of
the present rate schedule's projected revenues, costs of service, and projected
revenues under the proposed rate schedules.
38
-------------------
TABLE 14
COST OF SERVICE
VS.
PROJECTED REVENUES
Without Grants With Grants
Pro j ec ted
Revenue Revenue Percent Revenue Percent
Under Cost Under Increase Under Increase
Prese~b Of propotI~ Over Cost Of propo~I~ Over
Customer Class Rates Service Rates Present Service Rates Present
Residential $524,300 $ 890,700 $ 900,700(2) 72% $ 778,000 $ 789,100(2) 51%
Commercial &
Industrial
w
\0
Small 141,000 217,300 219,200. 55% 191,300 198,100 41%
Large 43,100 82,500 88 600(2) 106% 72,900 79,400(2) 84%
,
Totals $708,400 $1,190,500 $1,208,500 71% $1,042,200 $1,066,600 51%
(l)Estimate based on 1970 usage and projected to the required usage level.
(2)Slight excess due to out-of-city surcharge.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
City Codes; Policies, Rules and Regulations
Chapter 35, "Water and Sewers," of the City of Salina Code establishes
policies, rules and regulations governing the water and sewer utilities
of the City. The sections of this chapter concerning water rate schedules
have been previously discussed. Additional sections of Chapter 35 will be
discussed as follows:
Sec. 35-30 Taps and Charges. This section provides charges
for taps made by the Water Department to provide service to
a customer. The present charge of $1.50 per front foot was
established several years ago and no longer covers the costs
incurred by the Water Department for this service. Similarly
charges for 3/4-inch and 1-inch corporation cocks do not cover
actual costs. It is recommended that these charges be adjusted
to an equitable level determine~ by recent Water Department cost
records.
Sec. 25-59 Hydrant Rental. This section provides charges for
fire hydrants located outside the city limits. It is recommended
that these charges be adjusted as determined by Water Department
cost records. It is also recommended that consideration be given
to establishing charges for fire hydrants located inside the city
limits. These charges should be paid to the Water Department
from the City General Fund. The fire hydrants protect property
and the recovery of costs incurred should be based on property
tax. The charges should be established based on Water Department
cost records.
Sec. 35-64(2) Billing and Collection; Disconnecting Service for
Non Payment. This section provides for a service charge when a
customer takes service for less than 12 consecutive months for
the purpose of irrigating yards and lawns. The privilege created
40
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
by this section permits these high demand customers to avoid
minimum payments during winter months. This practice will not
allow for the equitable recovery of costs generated by these
customers since the water rate schedules are designed to recover
costs over a full year's service. It is recommended that this
policy be abolished. Further, in order to avoid possible abuses
of discontinuance and restoration of service, it is recommended
that a charge for restoring service at a location less than 12
months subsequent to discontinuance of service by the same
customer should be based on the accumulated monthly minimum
bills that would have been charged had service been continued.
This policy should eliminate the situation where a customer
disconnects service to avoid paying minimum bills during the
months service is not utilized. In addition, general charges
for disconnection and restoration should be established based
on Water Department cost records.
41
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
RECOMMENDATIONS
Adoption of Water Rate Schedule
It is recommended that the total annual costs incurred by the Water
Department be financed through the collection of revenue from the sale
of water. And further, that the appropriate water rate schedule developed
in this study be adopted with the knowledge that it represents an equitable
recovery of costs from the various classes of customers who cause the costs
to be incurred.
Establishment and }fuintenance of a Minor Capital Improvements Fund
It is recommended that a fund be established from yearly revenues generated
from the sale of water to provide monies for minor capital improvements. It
is necessary that monies be paid into this fund each year and that the monies
be used for required minor capital improvements as the need arises. The lack
of such a fund in the past has hampered the Water Department's effort to
upgrade localized portions of the water distribution system.
Charges for Billing Services for the Sanitation Department
The combined Water and Sewage Department provides billing service for the
Sanitation Department. It is recommended that this policy be continued in
order to avoid duplication of municipal services. However, the monies paid
the combined Water and Sewage Department for this service have been inadequate
to meet 'costs and it is therefore recommended that this charge be increased to
an equitable level.
Out-of-City Water Customers
Presently out-of-City water customers are required to pay a surcharge for
service. Several factors in favor and against this policy exist and it is
beyond the scope of this Report to make a recommendation regarding this policy.
42
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
However, regardless of the specific policy, an inequity exists due to a
special agreement between the City and one large out-of-City user which
allows this user to purchase water at below normal rates. It is therefore
recommended that regardless of the specific policy adopted by the City
concerning out-of-City rates, that this policy be applied equally to all
concerned.
Distribution System Operational Equipment
It is recommended that several pieces of equipment be purchased and installed
that will measure and record important statistics throughout the water
distribution system. This information is needed for better daily manage-
ment of the system and as aids in future planning. The specific recom-
mendations are as follows:
. 1.
Purchase and installation of recording devices for all tank
level telemetered indicators presently located at the Water
Treatment Plant.
2.
Purchase and installation of master flow meters and recorders at
the present high service pumping station.
3.
Purchase and installation of pressure gages with either local
or remote recorders to be placed at strategic locations through-
out the water system. A minimum of four is required.
Policies Manual
It is recommended that a policies manual be created for use by the
Water Department. This manual should reflect daily operational and
procedural methods of the Water Department not covered by City
Ordinance. This manual should be assembled under the direction of
the Director of Utilities with support from other City departments
as required to establish uniform municipal policies.
39
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
APPENDIX A
PRESENT WATER RATES SCHEDULE(l}
SALINA, KANSAS
Rates Inside City
First 2,000 cubic feet @ 25~ per 100 cubic feet
Next 3,000 cubic feet @ 22~ per 100 cubic feet
Next 5,000 cubic feet @ 19~ per 100 cubic feet
AllOver 10,000 cubic feet @ l5~ per 100 cubic feet
Monthly Minimum Charges
Size of Meter
Minimum Charge
Cubic Feet Allowed
I
5/8"
3/4"
I"
1-1/2"
2"
3"
4"
6"
8"
$ 1.75
2.45
4.20
7.70
11.20
16.20
27.20
46.50
78.08
500
700
1,200
2,200
3,200
5,000
9,000
17,000
32,000
I
I
I
I
I
Multiple consumers served by a master meter are
charged 25~ per 100 cubic feet for all water
consumed in excess of the minimum.
Rates Outside City
Minimum charge is two (2) times minimum charge for water
consumed inside city.
I
I
Water consumed in excess of minimum is the regular rate
plus 25% thereof.
Multiple consumers served by a master meter are charged
at 3l.25~ per 100 cubic feet for all water consumed in
excess of the minimum.
I
I
I
(l)In effect since June 1, 1959.
40
I
I
I
f~~
APPENDIX B
WATER DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM
TEST MODEL
I 50_ RESIDUAL PRESSURE (psil
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Note: Actual Customer Pressure will
3 to 15 psi less than shown.
SALINA. ,
ENGINEEfllN
WILS
tCOMP' Y
"~i::N(HN'EER~ ~
t ARCHITECTS ~
'~'~~1
l'ownVfr.vsmr'" ''''
--_.---.HiGH-rEv~~~.n';mM--.-
;t
r5f>~ '
--.--- ~_._._.-
,r
_~',",,,,,,,,,ud~"~
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
APPENDIX C
WATER DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM
PEAK FLOW MODEL
EXISTING CONDITIONS
r'\
r3!>~
50._ RESIDUAL PRESSURE (psil
Note: Actual Customer Pressure will
3 to 15 psi less than shown.
!1{!
'-&
:"~i:':-'
;; SALINA.
ENGlNEERIN
WJLS
It,COMP'
fu~~-~<<-'""'l
';<;L
t
......_._.~.-.~
! 10.' I
t .. .
. I
I, i
, 1._'_'1 i
__._._._...._._~.~~=::~=-].=~~."--._._._i_._._._._._._._. _._.i L.
HOGH UV" SOUTH SYSTEM l t~) ~7 ':
50. 80.
_.~~..;:~~.y.!!~~.
HIGH LEVEL SOUTH SVS
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
APPENDIX D
WATER DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM
PEAK FLOW MODEL
5~EAR IMPROVEMENTS
~~"'\
r4~"
, .J
f~~
I '
r/"J~
50_ RESIDUAL PRESSURE (psi)
Note: Actual Customer Pressure will
3 to 15 psi less than shown.
!;,,~
SALINA,
ENGINEERIN
WJLS'
~rOMP
t,~~*~oo"'""
j
,
,
, ,
; I
HIGH LEVEL GYP~HILL SYf'.
.-.-.-. -.- -.-, --
HIGH LEVEL so H SYSTE '
m<b-; "t I
_.~~~~~.Y.!I~M
HIGH LEVEl SOUTH SYST
}&;~~ 4;,,: 0 %" ~~
1
d6
f
68,
c: ,,:;f'
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
APPENDIX E
WATER DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM
PEAK FLOW MODEL
LONG RANGE IMPROVEMENTS
50_ RESIDUAL PRESSURE (psi!
Note: Actual Customer Pressure will
3 to 15 psi less than shown.
~~-~, =-~"~~q<:-,
I
J
1
!
I
I:'"
-_.__.-+-.HiGH~~W~;~mM--.-.
,
_._._._._._;_._._._._._.~......;_. .
,(:07/t) J
55 ~ 65 70
110
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
APPENDIX F
WATER RATE COMPARISON BY AVERAGE MONTHLY USAGE
BASE YEAR 1970
Average Percent Increase
Monthly Number Monthly Water Bill of Monthly Bill
Usage of Present Proposed Proposed Proposed Proposed
(C.F. ) Customers Rate W/O Grants With Grants W/O Grants With Grants
Residential - 5/8" Meters
410 1,564 $ 1. 75 $ 2.71 $ 2.43 55 39
745 3,843 2.36 4.25 3.74 80 58
1,200 2,258 3.50 6.34 5.51 81 57
1,720 872 4.80 8.73 7.54 82 57
2,350 412 6.27 11.03 9.58 76 53
3,380 72 8.54 14.02 12.36 64 45
4,390 20 10.76 16.95 15.08 58 40
6 , 130 12 14.25 22.00 19.78 54 39
9,290 1 20.25 31.16 28.31 54 40
Irregular 2,150
To tal 11 ,204
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
APPENDIX F
WATER RATE COMPARISON BY AVERAGE MONTHLY USAGE
BASE YEAR 1970
Average Percent Increase
Monthly Number Monthly Water Bill of Monthly Bill
Usage of Present Proposed Proposed Proposed Proposed
(C. F. ) Customers Rate W/O Grants With Grants W/O Grants With Grants
Residential - 3/411 Meters
800 66 $ 2.70 $ 4.78 $ 4.27 77 58
1,220 80 3.75 6.71 5.91 79 58
1,740 47 5.05 9.10 7.94 80 57
2,500 57 6.80 11.75 10 . 30 73 51
3,540 23 9.09 14.77 13.11 62 44
4,440 6 11.07 17.38 15.54 57 40
6,160 6 14.50 22.36 20.18 54 39
7,580 2 17.20 26.48 24.02 54 40
10,270 1 22.20 34.28 31.28 54 41
Irregular 32
Total 320
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
APPENDIX F
WATER RATE COMPARISON BY AVERAGE MONTHLY USAGE
Average
Monthly
Usage
(C. F . )
Number
of
Customers
BASE YEAR 1970
Monthly Water Bill
Present Proposed Proposed
Rate wlO Grants With Grants
Percent Increase
of Monthly Bill
Proposed Proposed
wlO Grants With Grants
Residential - 1" Meter
1,250 18 $ 4.32 $ 7.34 $ 6.43 74 49
1,700 17 5.45 9.41 8.19 73 50
2,480 35 7.26 12.18 10.66 68 47
3,370 16 9.21 14.76 13.06 60 42
4,460 10 11.61 17.92 16.00 54 38
5,670 12 14.07 21.43 19.27 52 37
9,310 1 20.99 31. 99 29.10 52 39
12,.7 50 1 26.42 41. 96 38.38 59 45
Irregular 20
Total 130
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
APPEND IX F
WATER RATE COMPARISON BY AVERAGE MONTHLY USAGE
Average
Monthly
Usage
(C.F. )
Number
of
Customers
BASE YEAR 1970
Monthly Water Bill
Present Proposed Proposed
Rate WiD Grants With Grants
Percent Increase
of Monthly Bill
Proposed Proposed
WiD Grants With Grants
Residential - 1-1/2" Meter
1 ,760 3 $ 7.70 $10 .60 $ 9.46 38 23
2,440 18 8.23 12.98 11. 59 58 41
3,450 8 10 .45 15.90 14.31 52 37
4,730 3 13.27 19.62 17.77 48 34
6,070 6 15.89 23.50 21.39 48 35
8,640 3 20.78 30.96 28.33 49 36
11 ,870 1 26.16 40.32 37.05 54 42
Irregular 20
To ta 1 62
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
APPENDIX F
WATER RATE COMPARISON BY AVERAGE MONTHLY USAGE
BASE YEAR 1970
Average Percent Increase
Monthly Number Monthly Water Bill of Monthly Bill
Usage of Present Proposed Proposed Proposed Proposed
(C.F.) Customers Rate WiD Grants With Grants WiD Grants With Grants
Residential - 2" Meters
2,330 3 $11. 20 $13.85 $12.35 24 10
3,380 5 11.60 16.89 15.90 46 37
4,360 4 13.75 19.73 17.83 43 30
6,630 3 18.26 26.32 23.96 44 31
9,250 2 23.23 33.91 31.03 46 34
12,300 3 28.11 42.76 39.27 52 40
16,570 2 34.51 55.14 50.80 60 47
22,450 4 43.33 72 .19 66.67 67 54
45,260 1 77.55 135.29 123.68 74 59
Irregular 18
Total 45
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
APPENDIX F
WATER RATE COMPARISON BY AVERAGE MONTHLY USAGE
Average
Monthly
Usage
(C. F . )
Number
of
Customers
BASE YEAR 1970
Monthly Water Bill
Present Proposed Proposed
Rate wlo Grants With Grants
Commercial & Industrial - 5/8" Meters
Percent Increase
of Monthly Bill
Proposed Proposed
wlo Grants With Grants
400 129 $ 1. 75 $ 2.66 $ 2.39 52 37
730 134 2.32 4.18 3.68 80 59
1,200 52 3.50 6.34 5.51 81 57
1,720 36 4.80 8.73 7.54 82 57
2,300 38 6.16 10.89 9.44 77 53
3,590 24 9.00 14.63 12.92 63 44
4,130 6 10.19 16.20 14.38 59 41
6,160 11 14.30 22.08 19.86 54 39
7,840 1 17.50 26.96 24.40 54 39
11 ,440 1 23.76 37.40 34.12 57 44
Irregular 422
Total 854
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
APPENDIX F
WATER RATE COMPARISON BY AVERAGE MONTHLY USAGE
Average
Monthly
Usage
(C.F.)
Number
of
Customers
BASE YEAR 1970
Monthly Water Bill
Present Proposed Proposed
Rate wlo Grants With Grants
Commercial & Industrial - 3/4" Meters
Percent Increase
of Monthly Bill
Proposed Proposed
wlo Grants With Grants
410 17 $ 2.45 $ 3.40 $ 3.10 39 27
720 38 2.50 4.41 3.96 76 58
1,220 30 3.75 6.71 5.91 79 58
1,810 13 5.22 9.43 8.21 81 57
2,290 17 6.34 11. 14 9.73 76 53
3,610 7 9.24 14.97 13.30 62 44
4,530 7 11. 27 17.64 15.78 57 40
6,.240 13 14.66 22.60 20.40 54 39
8,530 8 19.01 29.24 26.58 54 40
11,930 7 24.69 39.10 35.76 58 45
17 , 720 1 33.38 55.89 51. 39 67 54
23,090 2 41.43 71. 46 65.89 72 59
Irregular 48
Total 208
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
APPEND IX F
WATER RATE COMPARISON BY AVERAGE MONTHLY USAGE
Average
Monthly
Usage
(C. F . )
Number
of
Customers
BASE YEAR 1970
Monthly Water Bill
Present Proposed Proposed
Rate wlo Grants With Grants
Commercial & Industrial - 1" Meters
Percent Increase
of Monthly Bill
Proposed Proposed
wlo Grants With Grants
1,230 12 $ 4.27 $ 7.25 $ 6.36 70 47
1,680 7 5.40 9.32 8.11 73 50
2,440 9 7.17 12.07 10.55 68 47
3,740 10 10 .03 15.84 14.06 58 40
4,450 6 11. 59 17.89 15.97 54 38
6,460 15 15.57 23.72 21.40 52 37
8,490 6 19.43 29.61 26.88 52 38
11,420 3 24.43 38.11 34.79 56 42
17,210 3 33.11 54.90 50.43 66 52
23,500 2 42.55 73.14 67.41 72 58
Irregular 53
Total 126
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
APPENDIX F
WATER RATE COMPARISON BY AVERAGE MONTHLY USAGE
Average
Monthly
Usage
(C. F . )
Number
of
Customers
BASE YEAR 1970
Monthly Water Bill
Present Proposed Proposed
Rate wlo Grants With Grants
Commercial & Industrial - 1-1/211 Meters
Percent Increase
of Monthly Bill
Proposed Proposed
W/O Grants With Grants
1,840 2 $ 7.70 $10.96 $ 9.78 42 27
2,520 8 8.40 13.21 11.80 57 40
3,280 11 10.08 15.41 13.86 53 38
4,500 6 12.76 18.95 17.15 49 34
6,350 4 16.42 24 . 31 22.14 48 35
8,440 5 20.40 30 .38 27.79 49 36
12,230 6 26.70 41. 37 38.02 55 42
28,160 2 50.60 87.56 81.03 73 60
38,520 1 66.14 115.90 106.45 75 61
55,975 1 92.32 163.03 148.34 77 61
Irregular 16
Total 62
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
APPENDIX F
WATER RATE COMPARISON BY AVERAGE MONTHLY USAGE
BASE YEAR 1970
Average Percent Increase
Monthly Number Monthly Water Bill of Monthly Bill
Usage of Present Proposed Proposed Proposed Proposed
(C. F.) Customers Rate wlo Grants With Grants wlo Grants With Grants
Commercial & Industrial - 21t Meters
2,550 12 $ 11. 20 $ 14 . 48 $ 12.94 29 16
3,580 7 12.04 17.47 15.73 45 31
4,570 15 14.21 20.34 18.40 43 29
6,120 23 17.29 24.84 22.58 44 31
8,570 19 21.94 31. 94 29.20 46 33
11 ,680 24 27.18 40.96 37.60 51 38
17,080 16 35.28 56.62 52.18 60 48
24,300 18 46.11 77.56 71.67 68 55
32,930 8 59.05 102.00 94.09 73 59
44,610 8 76.57 133.54 122.12 74 59
55,220 6 92.49 162.18 147.59 75 60
67,550 1 110.98 195.47 177. 18 76 60
71 ,920 1 117 . 54 207.27 187.67 76 60
74,380 3 121. 23 213.92 193.57 76 60
91,020 1 146.19 258.84 233.51 77 60
105,700 1 168.21 298.48 268.74 77 60
108,870 1 172.96 307.04 276.35 78 60
150,290 1 235.09 418.87 375.76 78 60
Irregular 38
Total 203
-------------------
APPENDIX F
MISCELLANEOUS ACCOUNTS
WATER RATE COMPARISON BY AVERAGE MONTHLY USAGE
BASE YEAR 1970
Average
Monthly Existing Numb e r Monthly Water Bill Percent Increase
Usage Meter of Present Proposed Proposed Proposed Proposed
(C. F . ) Size & Type Customers Rate wlo Grant With Grant wlo Grant With Grant
1,630 3" - Comm. or Ind. 1 $ 16.30 $ 16.25 $ 14 .75 0 (10)
26,220 4" - Comm. or Ind. 2 53.41 91.54 80.29 71 50
51,700 4" - Comm. or Ind. 1 91.63 161.09 142.58 76 56
255,930 4" - Comm. or Ind. 1 397.97 712.51 632.73 79 59
751,560 8" - Out-of-City -
Res. Multiple
User 1 2,686.00 4,380.83 3,693.82 63 38
700,000 8" - Special Rate 1 856.53 2,459.26 2,166.24 187 153
303,600 RDW 113 1 948.75 1,745.70 1,480.00 84 56
Total Customers 7
-------------------
APPENDIX G
WATER RATE COMPARISON(l)
KANSAS CITIES WITH TREAtMENT PLANTS
City Minimum Gallons
Charge 'Gallons 5,000 10,000 25,000 50,000 100,000 500,000
Pittsburg $2.35 2,000 $4 . 77 $10.35 $20.10 $38.85 $72.55 $276.85
Lawrence 2.00 2,000 4.10 7.60 17.10 29.60 54.60 174.60
Salina (w/o Grants) 2.20 2,244 3.89 6.97 13.91 26.60 42.99 190,67
Junction City 2.00 1,496 3.87 6.67 13.67 20.85 43.07 166.66
Manhattan 2.00 2,251 3.76 6.69 14.03 23.70 43.03 176.36
.t:- Salina (with Grants)2.00 2,244 3.44 6.04 12.25 20.74 39.33 172 . 66
....
Topeka 1.50 1,500 3.50 5.39 9.99 17.81 32.99 155.58
Wichita 2.00 3,000 3.33 6.67 16.67 28.67 48.00 224.00
Leavenworth 1.55 1,500 3.23 5.60 12.29 21. 73 40.50 165.88
Kansas City 1.80 3.05 5.25 11.65 22.30 43.61 195.65
Hutchinson(2) 1.60 3,000 2.80 5.20 11. 90 20.75 35.60 134.05
Salina (present
rate) 1. 75 3,750 2.17 3.83 8.43 15.27 26.60 106.60
(l)Information obtained from the Kansas Government Journal, May 1972,
based on domestic usage.
(2)Does not have treatment plant.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
STUDIES REFERENCED
Wilson & Company, "Salina Water Study, 1968-2010"; October 1968.
Wilson & Company, "Water Treatment Plant Improvements, Preliminary Engineering
Report"; July 1970.
Wilson & Company, "Water and Sewage System; Conditions and Operations Report
for the Years 1968 and 1969 with Reconnnendations for 1970 and 1971";
April 1970.
42