|
<br />-6-
<br />
<br />Fiscal Year
<br />
<br />Estimated Sewer
<br />Fun d Re'ven ues
<br />
<br />1979-80
<br />1980- 81
<br />1981-82
<br />1982- 83
<br />1983- 84
<br />
<br />1984- 85
<br />
<br />$818,000
<br />879,000
<br />897,000
<br />915,000
<br />933,000
<br />952,000
<br />
<br />Increasing an existing flat rate requires little analysis since the burden
<br />is evenly distributed among all customers. The consideration is primarily one
<br />of degree, and the question is simply one of how much additional revenue is
<br />required to support anticipated expenditux"es, In this case, the basic proposal
<br />is to increase the sewer service charge by 15<1:, creating a monthly minimum rat.e
<br />of $2.60, plus an additional 65<tl for each 1,000 gallons of water used in excess
<br />of 4,000 gallons.
<br />
<br />If this proposed service charge were in place, the monthly cost effect on
<br />our customers, and as compared to other sewer utilities in the state, would be
<br />as follow s :
<br />
<br />*
<br />
<br /> I CUSTOMER WATER USAGE PER MONTH IN GALLONS
<br />City fUtility
<br /> 4,000 6,000 8,000 10,000 100,000 500,000 15,000,000 50,000,000
<br /> . -- ---
<br />J::!?rtin sville - C urre n t $2.00 $3.00 $4.00 ct. 5.00 $ 50.00 $250.00 $ 7,500.00 $25,000.00
<br />~)
<br />Martinsville- Proposed 2.60 3.90 5.20 6.50 65.00 325.00 9,750.00 32,500.00
<br />Henry Co. P.S.A. 6.00 6.00 8.00 10.00 100.00 500.00 15,000.00 50,000.00
<br />Danville 6.00 7.66 9.00 10.48 77 .22 339.00 8,604.00 28,554.00
<br />--
<br />Lynchburg 4.40 5.76 7.58 9.40 91. 28 272.78 4,567.78 14,717.78
<br />Salem 4.50 5.40 7.20 9.00 78.00 348.00 7,628.00 25,128.00
<br />Coving-ton 2.11 2.79 3.47 4.15 34.75 144.75 3,189.75 10,539.75
<br />Radford 2.24 3.36 4.48 5.60 56.40 282.00 8,460.00 28,200.00
<br />Petersburg 5.48 7.80 10.12 12.44 77.54 298.54 6,863.54 22,613.54
<br />Winchester 3.20 4.80 6.40 8.00 80.00 400.00 12,000.00 40,000.00
<br />Roanoke 3.1G 4.74 6.32 7.90 79.00 395.00 11,850.00 39,500.00
<br />
<br />*1'here is an additional charge based on water meter size.
<br />
<br />With the new proposed rate and still assuming a 2% increase in overall
<br />water usag"e, beginning with fiscal year 1980-81, Sewer Fund revenues would
<br />be improved in projection, as follows:
<br />
|