Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1932-12-02 Board of Public Works Minutes -1- Reading, Mass . , Dec. 2, 1932. ' The Regular Meeting of the Board of Public Works was called to order at 7:30 P.M. Messrs . Fairclough, Putnam and Merrill were present: Superintendent also present. Mr. Putnam acted as chairman for this week's meeting. Minutes of previous meeting read and approved. Miss Merritt of 219 West St. interviewed the Board relative to the building of a gravel sidewalk on East side of West St. It was her desire to build sidewalk on the opposite side. Board voted to grant her wish. Mr. Timothy J. Cullinane, 119 Washington St. , complained to Board of his excessive water bill, caused by water wasted to ' make same clear and clean, stating the 1 1/4" pipe has been continually breaking in street. Board voted to adjust this bill to $5.80, the amount of the previous billing. Mr. Frank Edwards interviewed the Board. relative to ditch which drains Memorial Park. He claims that ditch should be straightened. Superintendent to investigate same and make a report. Mr. Edwards to be advised. Board of Survey met at 8 P .M. on the Intervale Terrace lay-out. No one appeared. Board approved it. Mr. Ray and Mr. Chapman of Palmer Hill Road complained of surface water on West St. Superintendent to investigate and report. To notify Mr. Ray. -2- Dec. 2, 1932• Cont. Letter received from A. L. Levin, 27 School St. , Boston, ' relative to water bill serving Mac's Lunch. Superintendent to investigate and allow bill to be paid in five monthly installments, the first payment to be $7. 50 3/4 Board considered the raising of Hydrant Rentals to $13,125.00 per year as suggested by Engineers Weston & Sampson in their report filed herewith, and would consider raising the 800 cubic foot limit to 1000 cubic feet water rates. Letter received from Mr. Samuel H. Davis, on the 4% water guarantee for Bates Avenue construction. Board to have deed and release signed by four parties interested in this property and when same is completed Board will sign Order of Taking for Town. Mr. Davis requested Board to assume the $200.00 settlement made to Earle Steele from Highway appropriation. Board voted to so do. Board voted to purchase approximately 1000 ft. of metaforms for granolithic sidewalk construction. Approximate cost $600.00 Board voted to make Pearl Street passable from Forest Glen _ Road to Main Street. Board voted to adjourn at 11:45 P.M. A True Record:- Attest:- Robert E. Fowls SECRETARY PRO TEM. 1 f C 0 P Y ' WESTON & SAMPSON Consulting Engineers 14 Beacon St. , Boston, October 25, 1932• Board of Public Works, Reading, Mass. Gentlemen: Complying with your request we have made a study of hydrant rentals for the Town of leading, and present tate following report. IN GENERAL It is a just and well established principal, recognized by public utility commissions, that private water companies are entitled to an adequate return for the cost of supplying fire protection to municipalities. This protection is paid for by the municipalities , and is .obtained from the general tax levy. The cost of furnishing water for domestic service ' and industrial used is paid for by the water takers at the established rates . It is equally just that the income necessary to operate municipally owned water works should be eq,titably divided between fire protection, domestic service and industrial uses. It is manifestly unfair to saddle any part of the cost of public fire protection upon the private water consumers. Such protection is a direct benefit to the property protected and should be borne by property owners. In order to provide adequate fire protection, it is necessary to install supplying works, pumping equipment, stand- pipes, tand- pipes, and distribution mains of greater capacity than would be required for domestic and industrial uses. Although the total amount of water used for fire protection during the year is only a small percentage of the total consumption, the rate of demand during a serious fire is several times that needed for all other requirements, and facilities must be provided for this emergency. Experience has shown that the cost of that portion of a water supply system necessary for fire protection is as follows: -2- Reading, Mass. - Oct. 28, 1932 Municipalities with a population of 59000 60% - 80% , Municipalities with a population of 10,000 55% - 70% Municipalities with a pdpulation of 20,000 45% - �0$ Municipalities with a population of 50,000 30% - 40% Municipalities with a population of 100,000 20% - 30% Large cities 10% - 20,% For the Town of Reading, we estimate that 60% of the total cost of the water works has been on account of fire protection. At the endof the year 1930 the cost of the works aggregated about $610.000, of which 6R or $366,000 was due to fire protection. The cost of fire protection service is generally from 25% to 35% of the gross annual revenue,--the larger percentage obtaining in the smaller communities. For Reading, 30% seems to be a fair percentage. For the year 1931 the gross revenue from meter rates and hydrant rentals was about 156,000, 30% of which would be $16,800, which sum should be returned from hydrant rentals. The per capita cost of fire protection varies from $0.75 to $2.25, the larger figure applying to the smaller towns. For Reading, the figure would be about $1.75 per capita. For an estimated population of 10,000 (9,747 by the U. S. Census. of 1930) , the annual cost of fire protection would be $17, 500. The problem is to establish a charge that will equal the fixed charges on the capital expended for fire protection, plus operating expenses for maintaining this protection. METHODS OF CHARGING FOR FIRE PROTECTION The three general methods of establishing the annual charge for fire protection service are as follows: Method 1 - Charge per hydrant. Method 2 - Charge per mile of pipe (usually " or larger in diameter) with an addition- al charge per hydrant for maintenance. Method I - Charge per inch-foot of pipe (usually " or larger in diameter) with an additional charge per hydrant for maintenance. -3- Reading, Mass. - Oct. 28, 1932 Method 1 - Charge per Hydrant Under this method, usually referred to as the hydrant rental basis, the total annual charge is the number of hydrants in service multiplied by a fixed rate per hydrant. This was the first method established and the one most generally in use. The charge per hydrant was usually based on the charges fixed by nearby communities, which, in turn, were determined by the income that seemed necessary, in addition to that derived from domestic and industrial services. This method is the least desirable because it is determined arbitrarily and cannot fairly represent the cost of fire protection. The average annual hydrant rental as fixed by the public utility commissions of various states in a considerable number of decisions is $54 per hydrant. At this rate, the 247 hydrants in the Town of Reading would return an income of $13,338 per year. Method 2 - Charge per Mile of Pine This method of charge is based on a fixed amount per mile of pipe plus an annual charge per hydrant for maintenance, and is preferable to the hydrant rental basis because it takes into account not only the number of hydrants in service, but also recognizes that the cost of fire protection varies with the length of the mains to which the hydrants are connected. It gives no weight, however, to the relative size of the mains , which is also an important cost factor. The average annual charge, as determined from the reports of the public utility commissions of several states for municipally owned water works, is $317 per mile of pipe, plus $6.43per hydrant for maintenance. On this basis, the 36.9 miles of cast iron mains, 6" and larger, and 247 hydrants, as recently determined by Mr. Birnie, would return $13,285 per year, or the equivalent of $53.80 per hydrant. Method 1 - Charge per Inch-Foot This method of charge is based on a unit prive per inch-foot, plus an annual charge per hydrant for maintenance. The total number of inch-feet is obtained by multiplying the linear feet of pipe of each diameter by its diameter in inches. For example, a 6" main, 1,000 ft. in length, would have 6,000 inch-foot units . The annual charge per hydrant is based upon the average fixed charges on its cost of installation, plus maintenance, reparirs and depre- ciation. The charge per inch-foot as adopted by many municipalities ' and privately owned water works, varies from 0. 56¢ to $2.250 with a weighted average of 9.98¢ per inch-foot. The annual charge per hydrant for maintenance ranges between $5 and $10, with a weighted average of 38.73. The public utility commissions of several states, in a number of decisions involving the inch-foot Method, have fixed figures of from 0.6¢ to 1.0¢, with an average of 0.8¢, and maintenance per hydrant of from $6.00 to $10.00, with an average of $8.99. The sizes and lengths of the 6" and larger mains in the Town of Reading are as follows: 12" 19,650 ft. 10" 4,100 " 00 611 130,750 " On the basis of 9.8¢ per inch-foot, and 48.79 per hydrant, the total return would be $13,125. For the 247 hydrants, the equivalent hydrant rental amounts to $53.15. RECOMMENDATIONS As the result of our study of hydrant rentals for the Town of Reading, we submit the following recommendations: That your Board adopt Method 3 as the basis of charge for fire protection. This method consists of a unit charge per inch-foot of mains, plus a unit charge per hydrant for maintenance. That the unit charge per inch-foot be estab- lished at 0.8¢ and apply only to mains 6" and larger. Thatthe nits harge per hydrant be estab- lished Yours very truly, (Signed) WESTON & SAMPSON