Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSpecial City Council Minutes 09.15.2004MINUTES OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF LAUREL September 15, 2004 A special meeting of the City Council of the City of Laurel, Montana, was held in the Council Chambers and called to order by Mayor Ken Olson at 5:30 p.m. on September 15, 2004. COUNCIL MEMBERS PRESENT: Dick Fritzler Kate Stevenson Gay Easton Jennifer Johnson Doug Poehls Mark Mace Daniel Dart COUNCIL MEMBERS ABSENT: John Oakes Mayor Olson led the Pledge of Allegiance to the American flag. Mayor Olson asked the council to observe a moment of silence. Mayor Olson mentioned that former alderman Dan Mears was admitted to the hospital last Thursday with a viral infection, and he went home from the hospital today. PUBLIC INPUT: None. WASTEWATER RATE PROPOSALS: Earl Tufte, Mon'ison-Maierle, gave a presentation on the wastewater rate proposals for the City of Laurel. The overhead projector was used to show the following information. GOALS: Evaluate Overall Rate Requirements (Revenues, Expenditures, Cost Allocation) Assess Requirements for Reserves, Capital Projects, Inflation, Debt Service, Growth Restructure Rates Recommend Program of Annual Rate Increases COMMON GOALS TO RATEMAKING: Cost Recovery Fund Capital Projects Fairness Legal Simplicity Administrative Costs Rate Comparisons Political Factors FINDINGS: Revenues with existing rate structure do not meet financial goals of the City. Minimum of 3.5% required just to meet O&M and debt service requirements (no CIP) Base Rate is 50% of what fixed costs are Over reliance on Volume Charge (variable) 33% of revenue from Base Rate vs. typically 50%-60% Reserves will be depleted without increases Not using EDUs as a basis for the Base Rate Correlation of winter water consumption to sewer usage Large variance in monthly sewer revenue Refinery, MRL, Schools should be evaluated RECOMMENDATIONS: Reference the Flow of Funds Table for Increasing Base Charges Implement the recommended annual increases Target a level of $500,000 in reserves Size meters appropriate for service line or demand. If not, bill as separate minimum bills. Continue use of 6 months winter water consumption for basis of sewer bills Do not include volume in Base Rate ~ II Council Minutes of September 15, 2004 Randomly audit 50 accounts to insure appropriate collection Evaluate the City's System Development and Connection Fees Earl distributed a spreadsheet that analyzed what $1.00 Base Rate increase on January 1, 2005 would generate with EDUs. A second spreadsheet analyzed what $2.00 Base Rate increase on July 1, 2005 would generate with EDUs. Another spread sheet showed the flow of funds with $1.00 to $4.00 per year rate increases for the next five years. A fourth spread sheet showed the flow of funds with $2.00 per year rate increases for the next five years. Copies of the handouts are attached to these minutes. Earl distributed copies of the Executive Summary section of the Wastewater Utility Rate Study for the City of Laurel, September 2004, to the council. A copy is attached to these minutes. Nathan Tubergen explained the proposed timetable for adoption of the five-year plan for sewer rate increases. The sewer rate increase proposal will be presented at the council workshop on September 28th, and the resolution of intent to increase sewer rates would be presented at the council meeting on October 5th. Advertisements of the intent to increase sewer rates would be published on October 6th, 13th, and 20th. Notices would also be mailed to customers at that time. The public hearing would be scheduled for November 2n~l, with final adoption at the November 16th council meeting. The rote increase would be effective on January 1, 2005, with the reading of meters on January l0th. Mayor Olson thanked Earl Tufie for his presentation. Mayor Olson recessed the council meeting at 6:30 p.m. Mayor Olson called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. OPTIONS FOR ADDRESSING THE SHORTFALL IN THE GENERAL FUND: Nathan Tubergen completed the report on the General Fund options. Copies of Nathan's memorandum to Mayor Olson and the city council members were distributed last week. Flow charts for the recommendations were included in the memo. A copy of the information is attached to these minutes. Nathan thanked the department heads for their input in putting these options together. He went through the recommendations, which were listed in no particular order in the memo. Nathan recommended the following list of revenues and/or transfers from the General Fund to address the shortfall and provide capital funds. During the discussion, Nathan explained the flow chart for each recommendation. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. Overall mill levy increase for the General Fund. Public safety mill levy. Consider moving the ambulance services out of the General Fund into an enterprise fund. Create a park maintenance district. Move the maintenance shop operations into an internal service fund. Review all rotes and charges in the General Fund. Move the library into special revenue. Franchise fees implementation. Annexation of new subdivisions based on the state law and by working with the planning director. Promote new business in the city to bring in new jobs and new buildings. Nathan's two main recommendations are the creation of a park maintenance district and the public safety mill levy. With the creation of a park maintenance district, the City of Laurel could save approximately $204,000 per year in General Fund operations. It would be an additional tax on the tax bill through a special assessments fund, and it would require a vote of the residents of Laurel. The public safety mill levy would be for the police and fire departments. A special revenue fund would be set up to account for the additional mills, and a five-year plan for wages, operation and maintenance, and capital would be developed. Council Minutes of September 15, 2004 Nathan mentioned the time frame options for a mill levy election. The first option would be with the May 2005 school election; the second option would be the general election for the City of Laurel in September 2005; the third option would be a special election. Nathan stated that the election should be completed by June 30, 2005, in order to include the assessments on the November 2005 tax bills. Nathan requested that the council give direction regarding which revenues to consider in the future. Mayor Olson mentioned that further discussion would be on the council retreat agenda scheduled for Saturday, October 16th. Other agenda items include parliamentary procedure and goal setting. HEALTH INSURANCE: There was no discussion regarding health insurance. ADJOURNMENT: There being no further business to come before the council at this time the meeting was adjourned at 8:03 p.m. Cind~ecretary Approved by the Mayor and passed by the City Council of the City of Laurel, Montana, this 21st day of September, 2004. Attest: Mary K.bEmbleton, Clerk-Treasurer nl~th E. ~)ls~n, Jr., M~,~r Base Rates with EMFs #2 9/9/'2004 LAUREL WASTEWATER RATES BASE RATE REVENUE ($1.00 PER MONTH ON 1/1/05 + EMFs) la~-i~-R NO. OF METER EQUIVALENT CURRENT CURRENT PROPOSED PROPOSED SIZE METERS FACTORS METERS RATE, $ REVENUE RATE, $ REVENUE 5/8"-3/4" 2430 1.00 2430 9.57 $ 23,255.10 10.57 $ 25,685.10 1" 52 1.25 65 9.57 $ 497.64 13.21 $ 687.05 1 1/4" 3 1.85 6 9.57 $ 28.71 19.55 $ 58.66 1 1/2" 16 2.50 40 9.57 $ 153.12 26.43 $ 422.80 2" 24 4.00 96 9.57 $ 229.68 42.28 $ 1,014.72 2 1/2" 0 6.25 0 9.57 $ 66.06 $ 3" 6 7.50 45 9.57 $ 57.42 79.28 $ 475.65 ¢" 0 12.50 0 9.57 $ 132.13 $ $ 6" 1 25.00 25 9.57 $ 9.57 264.25 $ 264.25 8" 0 40.00 0 9.57 $ 422.80 $ 10" I 60.00 60 9.57 $ 9.57 634.20 $ 634,20 12" 0 80.00 0 9.57 $ 845.60 $ 14" 0 100.00 0 9.57 $ 1057.00 $ TOTAL 2,533 2,767 $ 24,240.81 $ 29,242.43 MONTHLY INCREASE ANNUAL INCREASE $ 5,001.62 $ 60,019.48 NOTES: 1. No. of meters from 5/26/04 Black Mountain Report 2. Equivalent meters from City water system EMFs (EDUs) 3. Miscellaneous Base Charges could be added for Cenex, MRL, Schools, etc. 4. Spreadsheet analyzes what $1.00 Base Rate increase generates with EDUs Sase Rates with EMFs #3 9/9/2004 LAUREL WASTEWATER RATES BASE RATE REVENUE ($2.00 PER MONTH ON 7/I/05 + EMFs). Mt=i~-R NO. OF M~-i~-t< EQUIVALENT CURRENT CURRENT PROPOSED PROPOSED SIZE Mm i ~-~[S FACTORS METERS RATE, $ REVENUE RATE, $ REVENUE 5/8"-3/4" 2430 1.00 2430 10.57 $ 25,685.10 12.57 $ 30,545.10 1" 52 1.25 65 13.21 $ 687.05 15.71 $ 817.05 1 1/4" 3 1.85 6 19.55 $ 58.66 23.25 $ 69.76 1 112" 16 2.50 40 26.43 $ 422.80 31.43 $ 502.80 2" 24 4.00 96 42.28 $ 1,014.72 50.28 $ 1,206.72 2 1/2" 0 6.25 0 66.06 $ 78.56 $ 3" 6 7.50 45 79.28 $ 475.65 94.28 $ 565.65 4" 0 12.50 0 990.94 $ 157.13 $ $ 6" 1 25.00 25 264.25 $ 264.25 314.25 $ 314.25 8" 0 40.00 0 422.80 $ 502.80 $ 10" 1 60.00 60 634.20 $ 634.20 754.20 $ 754.20 12" 0 80.00 0 845,60 $ 1005.60 $ 14" 0 100.00 0 1057.00 $ 1257.00 $ - TOTAL 2,533 2,767 $ 29,242.43 $ 34,775.5'3 MONTHLY INCREASE ANNUAL INCREASE $ 5,533.10 $ 66,397.20 NOTES: 1. No. of meters from 5/26/04 Slack Mountain Report 2. Equivalent meters from City water system EMFs (EDUs) 3. Miscellaneous Base Charges could be added for Cenex, MRL, Schools, etc. 4. Spreadsheet analyzes what $2.00 Base Rate increase generates with EDUs 5. Did not inflate number of meters for this analysis Wastewater Utility Rate Study for City of Laurel September 2004 Prepared by: MORRISON lVIAIER~, I~c. · Morrison-Maiede, Inc. * 2020 Grand Avenue * Billings, MT 59102 * (406)656-6000 · Fax (406)656-3432 1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY A. Introduction The City of Laurel provides wastewater services to 6,200 residents~. Wastewater services are also local industry, businesses, schools and local government. The City of Laurel wastewater utility is financially self-sufficient with funding for capital and operating requirements dedved primarily from rates, bond issue charges, interest and investment income, and other miscellaneous charges or sources. In providing wastewater service, the City incurs significant expenses related to capital and operating needs. These expenditures are increasing as the system deteriorates, required services increase, and costs inflate. Recognizing the importance of financial planning, the City authorized Morrison- Maiede, Inc. to conduct a rate study. The findings, procedures, and recommendations of this study are summarized in this report. B. Comprehensive Rate Analysis The wastewater utility rate analysis is based on a financial plan developed for the six-year study period that includes Fiscal Years 2004-20092: Development of a proposed rate structure involves three major areas of analysis. Development of Revenues and Revenue Requirements Distribution of Costs to Functional Cost Components Rate Design A number of considerations are common to rate studies. Among these are: · 0 & M Cost Recovery · Capital Projects · Debt Service · Fairness · Legal · Simplicity · Administrative Costs · Comparison to Others Political Constraints 2002 Wastewater Facility Plan. Fiscal years for Laurel run from July 1~t thru June 30~h. H:~0703~011 ~04~030 - WW Rate S[udy~Rate Analysis Report Final.doc 9115/04 C. Findings and Recommendations The goal of this rate analysis is to distribute the costs of providing utility service in accordance with service requirements and to develop rates that produce revenues equal to distributed costs. The principal findings and recommendations of this study are subject to certain design parameters placed upon the proposed rate structuring and result in the following key conclusions: Revenues under the existing rate structure do not meet the financial goals of the City of Laurel over the term of the study. A 3.5% increase in annual revenue is needed for the study pedod (6 years) to meet only the O & M and debt service requirements. o The Capital Improvements Plan as previously developed, will need to be modified during the term of the study pedod in order to keep capital costs within affordable amounts to meet the rate design goals of the City. A commitment of $300,000 per year ($250,000 sewer rehab + $50,000 equipment reserve) increases the annual revenue increases to 10% per year. Reserves will play an important role in the six-year plan. Reserves will be lowered from $890,000 at the beginning of FY 04-05 to approximately $500,000 at the end of FY 09-10. This is the minimum that the City of Laurel should reserve for emergencies, cash flow, discretionary projects, grant matches, etc. Based on comprehensive analysis of the utility, a schedule of proposed rates is presented in this study that meets the City of Laurel's rate parameters. It provides adequate revenue generation to meet the needs of the system over the six-year study period. The proposed rates shift costs to the base charges. Base charges ara currently generating about 1/3 of the revenuo typically 50%-60% in communities. For the six (6) month period of October 2003-March 2004, Base Charges averaged of $24,400 of $73,600 in revenue (33%). This cost of service analysis indicates that Laurel is only recovering about 50% of what it should as fixed costs. A large variation in monthly sewer revenue is another indicator that revenue should be stabilized. Two other concerns also point to an over-reliance on volume charges. First, billed sewer volume is as Iow as 26% of the water volume during winter months. A correlation of 80%-90% is common. Second, billed sewer volume ranges 33% from high to Iow for the 6 months noted above. H:',0703~011 ~04~030. WW Rate 8tudy~Rale A~alyals Repor~ Final.doc 9/15/04 2 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. Once the reallocation of charges is completed, annual rates increases are proposed on the base charges (leave volume charge as is). Increasing Base Rates $2.00 per month per year would near the City's overall financial goals. The proposed rate structure includes the standard practice of allocating base costs according to water meter size by the concept of EDUs, as Laurel does with its water rates. Review of the rate structure should be conducted on a frequent basis to correspond to updated estimates of revenues, revenue requirements, capital improvement needs, and capital finandng requirements. The City is receiving less revenue than it should because: (1) some meter sizes are not matched to service line sizes and (2) some service lines are significantly undersized. Meters for existing services should be sized to conform to Chapter 10 of the Laurel Rules and Regulations. This is being done on new installations. The City should change the billing to the appropriate meter size for the application, or bill a separate base charge for each dwelling or business unit. The City of Laurel averages six (6) months of winter water consumption data to determine summer sewer bills. While most communities use 3 or 4 months, we recommend the continued use of six months to help insure adequate revenues. Some communities include volume ranging from 100 cu. ft. to 500 cu. ft. in the base rate. Given that Laurel's rates are currently Iow, we recommend that you do not include any volume in the base charge. We recommend that the new rates be implemented January 1, 2005. About three (3) months of lead time is needed to properly prepare for this. Special rates for the Cenex Refinery, MRL, schools and others should be examined. They do not have a fair basis to them. If they are not required to conform to the traditional rate structure, they should be required to meter flows for billing purposes. The City should perform a random audit of 50 accounts. The purpose being to insure that there is the proper correlation aroong the water meter, quantity, land use, charge rate and other factors. This action will increase the confidence level that the City is collecting what the sewer rates allow. The City should evaluate its system development and connection fees, and consider buy-in fees as additional steps to insure adequate revenue, H:~0703~011\04~030 - WW Rate 81udy~,ata Analysis Rep0tt Final,doc 3 9/15/04 TO: The Honorable Mayor and City Council Members FROM: Nathan IL Tubergen; Administrative Assistant DATE: September 15, 2004 SIfBJECT: Genera/Fund Options Working with the departments heads, I have come up with the following list of revenues and/or transfers fi-om the General Fund to address the shortfall and provide capital funds. 1. Overall mill levy increase for the General Fund. This would cover all operations in the General Fund. City would need to havea five-year plan explaining how the additional revenue would be used. This would require an election. 2. Public safety mill levy. This would be for the police mad fire depaxtments. City will need to set up a special revenue fund to account for the additional mills. City will need to have a plan to show how the money will be used for the additional mills and what it will do for the residents of Laurel. Tiffs should cover at least a five-year plan for wages, operation and maintenance, and capital. City council will need to address how much of the current funding in the General Fund will be transferred for public safety. This would be the net of the revenues that are brought in by the police and fi.re departments. Consider moving the ambulance services out of the General Fund into an enterprise fund. All the revenues, i.e. charges for service, will be used to pay for the wages, opexation and maintenance, and capital. .They will need a rate increase to meet these needs. Note: this is not a basic service that ~s provided by most cities; therefore, I think you should consider th_is as an enterprise fund. This would not have a major impact on the General Fund shortfall. Create a park maintenance districL If the city created a park maintenance district, it could save approximately $204,000 a year in the General Fund operations. This would become a spedial assessments fund. This would also be an additional tax on the tax bill; therefore, it is a tax increase indirectly. This could give the city the ability to purchase new playground equipment and other capital needs for the parks. This is one way to have a major knpact on balancing the General Fund This will require a vote by the residents of the City of Laurel. 5. Move the maintenance shop operations into an internal serv/ce fund. The revenues would be based on a per hour rate, as is done in the private sector. This would increase expenses to some general fund departments because they were not cho. rged directly for the service, but it would be an offset for the tota~ general fund. Review all rates and charges in the General Fond. This would not bring in the mount of money needed to come close to balancing the budget, but it would bring them closer to what the rates and charges should be. Move the library into special revenue. The library is run by the Library Board, and the city has only budget authority. We would transfer the net amount the city is funding for the 2004/05 budget. The Library Board and staff would become responsible for presenting a balanced budget. Franchise fees implementation. The city attorney would need to research what ability the city has to/mpiement franchise fees. Annexation of new subdivisions based on. the state law and by working with the planning director. This may generate other areas that want annexation into the city for the benefits and services they could receive. This does have hidden costs for the utilities, but in the long run it may make sense as the city continues to grow. 10. Promote new business in the city to bning in new jobs and new buildings. This would be a long range goal. In reviewing the time frame for a mill levy election, you have the following options: *- The f~rst option is in May with the 2005 school election. The second option is the general election for the City of Laurel in September 2005. The third would be a spec/al election. The thing you need to keep in mind is that, if the mill levy, is approved, in order to get it on the tax bills for 2005 and in the 2005/06 budget, it would be advisable Io have an election by the end of June. The fo/lowing areas should be reviewed in the expenditure side of the budget. o Review General Fund operat/ons and maintenance expense. I have done a review and do not see much in savings to help the total impact of the shortfall. Consider holding the line on future wage increases. Consider reducing benefits through the un/on contract. Cuts in service though laying offpersonnel. Tkis should be the last area that you do, but if all the above does not provided a balanced budget, then you have no choice. Review the com mtm/cation center and see if the county can provide the same level of service at a lower cost. I realize that none of the above options are very popular ways to balance the budget, but the city council is going to have to make a decision on how and where to balance the budget. I would request that the City Council g/ye the mayor and me direction as to wh/ch of the revenues you would like us to consider in the future. This would allow me to prepare a five-year plan to show what m/il levy increase would be needed, along with other ways based on this i~formation that vie can take to city council for consideration. I would like to thank you for taking the time and your input with tlxis very difficult problem that has to be addressed.