HomeMy WebLinkAbout2007-0619 Documents Submitted at Meeting
City Of Ashland
Utility Rates
Water, Wastewater,
Transportation & Storm Drain
Public Hearing - June 19, 2007
...
....
.....
....
....
...
..
Important Points On City's
Rate Increases
...
....
....
...
..'"
_$&
#
· Increases previously staggered between years
· Few Rate Increases during 2000-2003
· Regular Increases during 2004-2006
· Not always what was anticipated in budget process
· March 2007: Electric rate increase for FY 2006-
2007 deferred to FY 2007-2008 (1/1/08?)
· No other utility increases done in FY 2006-2007
· Proposed increases effective in FY 2007-2008
(8/1/07?)
1
Focus
Operations v. CIP
. Operations Perspective
. Annual Revenues
. Annual Costs:
Personal Services,
Materials & Services,
Capital Outlay (small)
Debt Service
. Target Ending Fund
Balance (unreserved)
...
....
....
...
.. f
. $
t
. Capital Improvement
Program is not directly
addressed with
operational rate
adjustments
. Financing (borrowing)
does result in annual
debt service
Water Charge
. Old Resolution 2005-23
Effective Aug. 1, 2005
. From $9.99 and $1.16
to $10.29 and $1.20
. Proposed for FY 2008
is $10.91 and $1.27
. Typical House Average
Monthly change from
$33.25 to $35.25
...
....
....$
...@
..$$
.$$
$$
2
Key Water Issues
...
....
....'"
...<.l'
..*@
-*
<11>*
· A significant capital improvement program to meet
water quality and operational needs.
· A revenue stream highly susceptible to weather
changes.
· Budget includes $177,000 for Conservation.
· Budget includes an estimated $180,000 for base
(excluding grants) Forest Interface work.
· This fund paid approximately $220,000 to the
General Fund in 2007 franchise fees and $88,000 to
the Street Fund.
Water Fund
Operational R/E Comparison
...
....
....*
...
..
-**
*
$7,<XXI,<XXI
$6,00),00) ----
$5,<XXI, <XXI
$3, <XXI,<XXI
$2, <XXI, <XXI
$1, <XXI, <XXI
$-
2lXl4)>dua1 2005 JlduaI 2006 JlduaI 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
Estimate Prcjecled Prcjecled Prcjecled Prcjecled Prcjecled
1_ QJerairg -..... -+- QJerairg Expenses I
3
Wastewater (Sewer) Charge
...
....
....0
... "
..
.
$&
. Old Resolution 2005-24
Effective Aug. 1,2005
. From $11.55 and $1.73
to $11.90 and $1.78
· Proposed for FY 2008
is $13.09 and $1.96
. Typical House Average
Monthly change from
$16.94 to $18.63
A
--..
Key Wastewater Issues
...
....
....$
...lI!
..$@
.@$
S@
· Annual WWTP debt service is $1.8 million until FY 2021-22.
· State loan requires one year of debt service as a reserve.
· F&B tax revenue stream is $1.6 million until it sunsets in
December 2010.
· Shortfall between tax and debt service paid by SDCs or rates.
· Rates may eventually need to increase 57% to replace the food
& beverage tax proceeds.
· Near future capital costs include improvements for DEQ
compliance.
· This fund pays approximately $150,000 to the General Fund in
2007 franchise fees and $60,000 to the Street Fund.
4
Wastewater Fund Operational
R/E Component Comparison
$4,faJ,OOJ
$4,OOJ,OOJ
$3,faJ,00J
$3, OOJ, OOJ
$2,faJ,00J
$2, OOJ, OOJ
$1.faJ,00J
$1,00J,00J
$faJ,00J
$-
2JJ4 :m; :m; 2fJJl 3nl 3nl 2110 2111 2112
Adl.lll Adl.lll Adl.IlI EslilTllle Prrjected Prrjected Prrjected Prrjected Prrjected
1_ F&B Taxes CZ2I Q:aairg fe.m.e -Q:aairg ~ '+CEO CEtt Sa\j~
Street Fund
. Street Operations
. Storm Drain
. Bus service subsidy
. Grounds Maintenance
. Debt Service
. Local I mprovement Districts
. Capital Projects
...
....
....$
...$
..$$
.$
**
...
....
....
...
..$
.
5
Key Street Fund Issues
...
....
....$
...
..$&
. ;II
$>$
· Task force is reviewing this fund, operations, capital
improvement needs and financing with a report due in early FY
2007 -08.
· Gas tax revenue is allocated by the state based upon
population and the tax is per gallon sold, not price per gallon
· SDCs and gas tax revenues are restricted in use.
· If a grant becomes unavailable or the project does not meet
City needs, both revenue and expenditure are removed from
the budget.
· LIDs are treated as capital projects and the City only pays for
its share of the project and debt service.
· Street Fund receives franchise payments from Water,
Wastewater and Telecommunications operations.
· RVTD bus service to Ashland is funded here.
Street Fund
Operational R/E Comparison
...
....
....$>
...$>
..'.ll#
.'.ll'.ll
$>'.ll
$4,500,000
$4,000,000
$3,500,000
$3,000,000
$2.500,000
$2.000,000
$1,500,000
$1,000,000
$500,000
$0
2004Pdua1 20051'dua1 2006Pdua1 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
Estimate Projeded Projeded Projeded Projeded Projeded
1_ Operairg fEI.en.e -+- Qlerairg Expenses I
6
...
....
....$
...$
..$
.$
$
Transportation Utility Fee
· Old Resolution 99-31
Effective July 1, 1999
· From $3.27 to $5.12
· Adjusted by ENR to $6.51
. FY 2008 ENR adjustment
would be to $6.76 (3.8%)
· Proposed for FY 2008 is
increase to $7.49 (15%)
. Typical House Average
Monthly change $0.98
...
....
....
... t
..
.,$;
$ill;
Storm Drain Utility Fee
. Old Resolution 99-32
Effective July 1, 1999
. From $1.79 to $1.93
. Adjusted by ENR to $2.46
. FY 2008 ENR adjustment
would be to $2.55 (3.8%)
. Proposed for FY 2008 is
increase to $3.68 (50%)
. Typical House Average
Monthly change $1.22
7
Comparison Table
Impact on "Typical" House
...
....
......
...*'
..il
o.
.*'
; 8ectric Cha~~.
8ectric Surcha!l:)e
8ectric User Tax
Water Carges
; Waste\l\8l:er Cha~es
i Transportation utility~ee
Stonn Drain utility Fee
Total
i
Pnnual ; Monthly
i $ 976.23 i $ 81.35
106.37 8.86
244.-10 20.34:'
,^,..wm.,..,,,,~,_...,...,,.,.,.w,., ,'""
399.04 33.25
203.32 16.94
78.12 6.51
29.52 2.46
$ 2,036.70 $ 169.71
Increase Ne.v I
I i
0.00/0; $ 81.35!
i'--m 1
0.00/01 8.86
...~~~!~ .. m _~:~..
6.0%: 35.25 ;
10.00/01 18.63 I
I
15.00/0; 7.49 I
50.00/0 3.68 .
$ 175.60
1fll)aCl: on utility Bill
CXlIIa- Increase
Perrentage Increase
$ 5.89
3.47%
Summary & Options
...
....
....*'
....
..
o &
*'@
· FY 2006-07 budget adopted with increases
contingent upon more review and need
· Electric Fund Increase and Surcharge decrease
deferred to January 2008
· No increases done in FY 2006-2007
· Base revenues for FY 2007-2008 accepted with
budget increases equal to 6.7%
· Proposed increases would be less than 3.5%
(approx. $5.89/month depending on water use)
8
Requested changes to letter to June 19 USFS:
Cate Hartzell, June 19, 2007
Paragraph 4: The City remains gravely concerned that the Forest Service has not
developed a thorough list of restoration activities for the entire existing and expanded
ski area, nor an estimate of the restoration cost of the existing area. Absent this
information, we believe that the surety bond of $200,000 is not adequate guarantee of
restoration.
Add to paragraph 2: After sentence J: We request that the USFS provides us with the
reference to the contract language that would take effect in the event that the
improvement activity is deemed by the courts to be inadequate.
Paragraph J: line 4 should read "subleasee"
Requested changes to letter to QA/QC RFP:
Page 6, Paragraph 2: The primary purpose outlined in this paragraph (and throughout the
RFP) needs to specifically include the protection of the waterways that deliver the water.
The language hints but doesn't clearly state that our interest is ensuring against the kind
of collapse of waterways that occurred in the 1997 flood, and presumably past floods.
Page 7: Change #2: Eliminate here and elsewhere the task of insuring that construction
activities proceed in a timely manner. That should not be the job of the QAlQC team.
New #: "Endeavor to perform responsibilities in a manner that allows the overall project
to remain on schedule. Monitor implementation activities for minimal to no negative
impact with respect to erosion... processes are completed without environmental impacts
(spills, soil compaction beyond that approved)."
P8: Item 2. "Site meetings at least weekly and as often as twice a week on site, especially
during the construction period." I would like a second opinion on this requirement, the
cost implications and why it would be required during non-construction time.
P8, # 10: photo documentation is limited to outside the project area "at the edges' and in
#11 "other erosion treatment areas." I see no reason to limit the scope of the workplan
this way if the goal is to address problems with waterway integrity.
P8, #13: We require all specialists on QAC team to attend weekly meetings during
construction. Cost implications should be considered now, before we get the price tag.
We should invite the RFP to address the issue of monitoring the project.
P8, #14 and P9, Section B 1.-4., PIO, II. B.: are examples of where forest ecosystem and
hydrology is left out.
PI0, C. Sentence 2: typo "fit"
PI0, C. REMOVE: "It is desired, not specifically required that the individuals be
experienced with ski area expansion and/or restoration processes." This experience is
provided by MAA contractors and the USFS, it enters bias into the selection process, and
is not needed to obtain objective oversight of the project.
P 11, III.E.: Is this a legal requirement?
PII: IV. City Responsibilities A. Clarify in this and V.A. that this is one person "project
manager/liaison," not two people.
P13.I. REMOVE: "Proposals will be reviewed and evaluated by personnel from the city
of Ashland and MAA." This goes against everything that has ever been discussed on
selection.
P13.II. Criteria chart: I would like to get opinions from specialists on this weighting.
Tasks related to QAC Staff memo Proposed by Hartzell
Team
Review of proposals Review & evaluation by QAC Advisory Team
city staff and MAA (p 13) review and provide
assessment
Selection ofQAC Team Jointly by City and MAA CC & MAA
members (p7); proposed team from
staff
Approval of work plan ? Reviewed and
recommended by Advisory
Committee
Ongoing oversight of QAC Advisory Committee with
Team checkins with CC/MAA
Decision on how QAC team QAC Team CC & MAA establish
will report to City Council minimum requirements;
and MAA QAC Team propjoses
within plan with approval y
CC/MAA
QAC= QAlQC Team; CC = City Council
Criteria Maximum Score
A. Project Description: Degree to which proposal 30
responds to RFP
Duties and Responsibilities
Time commitments
Interdisciplinary interface with other team
members
B. Respondent's: 50
Qualifications, capabilities
Experience in this terrain or similar
References
Resources
Cost of services 20