11-12-1976 Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

VIRGINIA: At an adjourned meeting of the Board of S~pervisors of (~esterfield County, held at the Courthouse on November 12, 1976, at 9:00 a.m. Present: Also Present: Mr. E. M~rlin O'Neill, Chairman Mrs. Joan Girone, Vice-Chairman Mr. J. Ruffin Apperson Mr. C. L. Bookman Mr. Leo ~fers Mr. Lee O. Falwell, County Administrator Mr. Raynond Birdsong, Asst. Co. Engineer Mr. Craig S. Bryant, Asst. Co. Engineer Mr. James Condrey, Dir. of Cent. Acctg. Mrs. Susan H. Heatherly, Secretary Mr. C. G. Manuml, Asst. lb. Admin. Mr. Steve Micas, County Attorney Mr. t~bert Painter, County Engineer Mr. Charles Qugiff, Supt. of Accts. & Mr. Michael Ritz, County Planner Mr. Dave Welchons, Asst. Co. Engineer Mr. Painter introduced Mr. George W. Nichols and Mr. Jack D. Frietag of R. W. Beck & Associates who were present to review with the Board the proposed Water and Sanitary Sewer Rate Study. Mr. Nichols began by stating the purpose of the study was to determine the adequacy of the present rates with respect to revenue requirements for the next five years, ending in June, 19 81 and what rate changes need to be made. Mr. Nichols stated in determining the revenue requirements for sewer they f~rst.had to forecast the estimated increase in customers, exten- sic~ of lines, etc.; identify operation and maintenance o~sts--which included a slight increase in outside personnel for sewer; and determine capital needs--new plants. Mr. Nichols further stated that the capital improvements for the next five years as listed in the study is the barest capital program with nothing provided for additional facilities and most funds being available in fiscal year 1976-77; that there will be very little working capital left. The study proposes that the County float two general obligation sewer bond issues--S3,000,000 in January, 1977 and $2,000,000 in July, 1979. Mr. Nichols stated that even with the bond issues and generated receipts, the County can e~pect an estimated deficiency of revenues for sewer for the five year period to be $4,446,000 if rates are not increased. Mr. Nichols stated that the foll~ing basic guidelines were considered when developing the proposed rates: 1) Proposed rates and charges for each utility should be ada~tuate to pro- duce revenues to meet ~evenue requirements--sewer should be constructed to n~et peak demands in the areas such as treatment plants and transport facilities; 2) Sewer and water service rates should be based on reasonably equitable distribution of capacity costs, customer costs and volunm costs to each class of customer; 3) the criteria for measuring the capacity charges should be based on the size of the water meter for both sewer and water; 4) User charges and a system of industrial cost recovery for improvemant to the sewer facilities should reflect the requirements of EPA; 5) the basic volume charges for sewer service should be the sam~ for all classes of service, provided the characteristics of the sewage are a.lso the san~--a sur- charge over and above the basic vol~ charge should be made for sewage that exceeds normal residential sewage characteristics; 6) sewer and water service rates should be structured to facilitate the ease of administration of such rates. Mr. Nichols further stated that there should be created an equity between classes of customers; that sores large customers are not paying their fair share; that with the proposed rates there would be established an equity between the classes. Mr. Nichols stated they were proposing one rate for all classes of customers for the volun~ charge per premise as measured by the water meter which would be $0.57 per 100 cubic feet. Mr. Bookman expressed concern that there would be a deficit of $4,446,000 even with generated receipts and floating bond issues. Mr. O'Neill asked Mr. Painter if the water meters are sized properly throughout the County. Mr. Painter stated host are in line. Mr. Myers stated when the last sewer bond issued was floated the Board was told they were on safe, souad ground to float the bond and since then the Board has had to increase rates and would like to knew if the proposed study used any figures outstanding from the last bond issue. Mr. Nichols stated only present figures were used. Mr. Myers stated he was concerned about keeping the same thing from happening again if the Board should decide to float another b~nd issue. Mr. Nichols then reviewed the water portion of the rate study. He stated the study proposed water bond issues be floated in June, 1977 and July 1, 1979; that the County must .maintain a 1.4 coverage to pay the debt service on outstanding bc~ds and additional bonds. There followed a general discussion of revenue and general obligation bcnd issues.