Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Water Utility Budget topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Water utility budget shows lower purchased water and added capital needs for trailers and shoring box
Summary
Staff reported a drop in purchased water to about $510,000 and modest electricity savings; the water budget includes a tilt‑trailer request and a $23,795 shoring‑box recommendation to keep crews safe during excavations.
Signal Mountain staff told council the water utility’s purchase‑for‑resale line is projected to fall, as the utility has reduced water loss, and presented several capital needs tied to safety and efficiency.
Staff indicated the purchase‑for‑resale projection is roughly $510,000 for the coming year and said reduced purchases are expected to lower pumping electricity costs by about $10,000, producing an overall drop of roughly $11,000 in O&M pumping and power costs.
Transmission and distribution costs showed changes tied to a recent uptick in paving requirements and larger paved areas around utility cuts. Staff said new curb‑cut and paving rules mean the utility must cover wider paving repairs, which has pushed more paving work to contractors rather than in‑house crews, increasing paving costs by about $20,000 in the draft.
Capital requests for the water fund included a tilt trailer for the mini‑excavator (quoted at just under $12,000 on recent supplier quotes), which staff said would reduce labor, injury risk and difficulty in hauling the excavator with the town’s older ramp trailer. Staff also recommended purchasing a shoring box for trench safety; the figure discussed for the shoring box was $23,795. Staff noted they have borrowed shoring equipment from neighboring jurisdictions but recommended owning a box to avoid safety and scheduling risks when immediate excavation work is required.
Staff also noted a drop in membership fees and an increase in architecture and engineering costs for main replacement projects as design work resumes on previously planned capital projects. The water utility’s share of a town‑wide MCSJ contract for utility billing was shown as part of a larger annual contribution that staff broke out for the council (the townwide MCSJ utility‑billing contract was presented as $50,400 annually across affected funds, with a $6,500 portion identified for water for online payment/portal services).
Councilors asked staff to correct spreadsheet actuals and budget columns before the final adoption; no capital purchases were authorized on the floor during the session without separate procurement procedures.
