HomeMy WebLinkAbout05/25/1999, 2 - 1999 SEWER FUND REVIEW council Ma Dw
25 1999
j acEnaa RepoRt 12hr°Nb�
CITY OF SAN LUIS O B I S P 0
FROM: John Moss, Utilities Direct
o
Prepared By: Sue Baasch,Administrativ Analyst
Dave Hix,Wastewater Division Manager
SUBJECT: 1999 SEWER FUND REVIEW
CAO RECOMMENDATION
1. Review and discuss the 1999 annual sewer fund financial review; and
2. Adopt a resolution increasing sewer service charges by five percent(5.0%), effective July
1, 1999; and by four percent(4.0%), effective.July 1, 2000.
REPORT IN BRIEF
This report presents the annual review of the sewer fund and requests adoption of increases to the
sewer service charges by 5.0 percent, effective July 1, 1999; and 4.0 percent, effective July 1,
2000. Based on the assumptions explained in this report, these modest rate increases, slightly
higher than inflationary increases, will provide the revenue necessary to match projected
expenditures in this financial period.
Within this analysis are two prior years of financial information, an update to projections for the
1998-99 year end, and a forecast for the next four years through 2002-03. In summary, this
analysis confirms that with the recommended rate increases, the sewer fund will meet the fiscal
policies established by the City and will support the recommended operating budgets and capital
improvement plan contained in the preliminary 1999-01 Financial Plan. In addition, this
analysis includes preliminary information from the sewer master plan and begins to anticipate the
revenues required to fund the identified improvements.
The need to increase sewer service charges is the result of several factors, described below. One
of these, establishing sewer fund franchise fees to be paid to the general fund, is not strictly
related to the operations of the Department. However, it is a fee paid by the water fund, and it is
a fee paid by all private utilities operating in the City.
In an effort to mitigate the effects of some of the factors driving the need for this rate increase,
Utilities staff has eliminated or deferred a number of capital improvement projects proposed for
this financial planning period. Deferral of additional projects at this time could have detrimental
effects on the maintenance of the sewer system infrastructure, and result in increased future
expenses. Operating program expenses have been held to a minimum.
Council is asked to consider two recommendations to reduce the impact of sewer charges on the
community: monthly utility billing and a study of residential sewer rate structure alternatives.
2-1
Council Agenda Report- 1999 Sewer Fund Review
Page 2
DISCUSSION
Background
Two years ago, Council approved rate increases of 2.5% for 1997 and 1.5%for 1998, following a
review of the 1997 sewer fund analysis. The 1998 fund analysis confirmed that course. That
report projected no rate increases for 1999 and 2000. What has changed?
Factors driving need for additional sewer revenues
• Per Council direction on May 17`x, this analysis assumes the Sewer Fund begins paying
franchise fees to the General Fund(estimated at$120,000 in 1999-00), as do all other utilities
operating in the City of San Luis Obispo. In addition, the General Fund will begin paying
sewer service charges (estimated at $25,000 in 1999-00) as do all other sewer customers in
the City. Net cost to the sewer fund of approximately 2% ($95,000).
• There have been increased operational expenses and reduced revenues. Operating expenses
in 1999-00 are anticipated to be 2% higher than projected ($3,719,500 compared to
$3,646,600, net change of$72,900), while revenues in 1998-99 are projected to be 2% lower
($6,649,900 compared to $6,506,200, net change of$143,700) than in the 1998 fund review.
This results in a net negative impact to the sewer fund of approximately 4%.
• Increased capital project expenses, some unanticipated, have reduced available fund working
capital to minimum required levels so the fund no longer has the ability to absorb any
additional projects or program upgrades. The more significant of these capital projects
funded by use of the working capital include: Laguna Lift Station improvements, creek bank
stabilization at the WRF, Y2K preparation, 879 Morro remodel, and sewer projects advanced
ahead of schedule associated with efforts to coordinate the timing of sewer CIP with water
and General fund CIP to reduce impacts of construction to streets and residents.
• Being developed in conjunction with Airport Area Specific Plan, the Sewer Master Plan will
address capacity demand issues in the Airport Area as well as system improvements
necessary to meet full General Plan build-out projections. The administrative draft of the
Sewer Master Plan has identified some improvements which will be required in the planning
period covered by this fund analysis. Construction of a new lift station on Tank Farm Road
and decommissioning of the existing Tank Farm and Rockview Lift Stations is projected to
be required to serve existing and new development in the Broad-Tank Farm areas by 2001.
Funding for the construction of a new lift station on Tank Farm Road and associated sewer
infrastructure of$4.5 million has been included in this analysis for the 2001-02 fiscal year.
Factors decreasing projected revenues
Revenue from Cal Poly as well as impact fees were lower than forecasted. Cal Poly sewer
charges declined from a high in 1996-97 of $356,400 to an estimated $259,600 in 1998-99.
Based on the 1998 agreement for sewer charges, Cal Poly pays 71% (a one percent increase from
prior years) of the commercial sewer rate. Since the rate was relatively unchanged (increased by
2-2
Council Agenda Report- 1999 Sewer Fund Review
Page 3
one percent, in fact) all changed revenues are related to change in use. This decline in use is
assumed to be the result of improvements made by Cal Poly to their sewer infrastructure and
relatively dry weather patterns which have both resulted in a decrease in inflow and infiltration
(I&I) related flows. Cal Poly's sewer use is metered directly so the variation in -use is directly
related to change in flows.
Additionally, impact fees associated with new growth in the City were projected at $349,800 in
1998-99; the revised projection is $240,700. The precise timing of development projects and the
resulting collection of impact fees can be largely variable and have a significant impact on
revenues in any given year.
1999-01 Financial Plan
• Operating Programs'
There are no sewer operating program change requests in the 1999-01 Financial Plan. The
operating programs have experienced very small increases. Non-staffing line items continue to
be very stable with large line items such as electricity and contract services increasing only
slightly and chemicals significantly decreasing. The majority of operating program increases
come from negotiated salary increases and benefits.
• Capital Improvement Plan Requests
Wastewater Collection System Improvements
Replacement of over capacity or significantly deficient sewer mainlines will cost $111,200 and
$287,400 in 1999-00 and 2000-01 respectively. Replacement is an ongoing program that will
help to eliminate maintenance, capacity, customer service interruption and/or compliance
problems.
Vehicles
Replacing the wastewater collection section's hydro-cleaner truck will cost $150,000 in 2000-01.
This vehicle is the primary tool used in cleaning sewer lines and preventing overflows.
Voluntary Service Lateral Program
Annual spending for this program has been reduced to $50,000 from $100,000 to better reflect
customer participation. This program, designed to control Inflow and Infiltration (I/1) from
privately-owned sewer laterals, provides technical assistance and funding to homeowners. The
program continues to be very popular with customers.
UR=de of Laguna Lift Station
Upgrading of the Laguna lift station and the force main will cost $1,500,000 in 1999-00. The
facility is severely over-capacity and has become a limiting factor for future growth as outlined
in the City's General Plan.
2-3
Council Agenda Report- 1999 Sewer Fund Review
Page 4
Facility Master Plan Implementation
Replacement, upgrading and installation of infrastructure to serve the Airport, Margarita and
Orcutt annexation areas and existing service areas will cost$4,500,000. This project is shown in
the 2001-02 fiscal year and provides for improved service to existing customers, as well allow
future growth as outlined in the City's General Plan. As other projects are identified, they will
be brought forward for Council review and approval.
Water Reclamation Facility Equipment and Structure Maintenance
Maintenance of existing equipment and structures at the Water Reclamation Facility (WRF) is
critical to efficiently maintaining treatment levels and complying with mandated State and
Federal water quality requirements. The cost for maintenance and repair of these facilities is
$141,000 for 1999-00 and $335,000 for 2000-01.
Building_Improvement Project at the Water Reclamation Facility
Construction of a new maintenance shop and remodeling of the operations center will cost
$150,900 in 1999-00. These projects will upgrade existing substandard facilities and ensure
more efficient operations and maintenance at the WRF.
Energy Effect Lighting at the Water Reclamation Facility
Conversion of existing interior lighting at the Water Reclamation Facility to City standard,
energy efficient, fixtures will cost $34,000 in 1999-00. This project will save an $7,500 annually
with full cost pay-back in approximately 5-6 years.
Ongoing CIP associated with collection system and sewer facilities maintenance has been
deferred wherever possible to partially offset these other significant CIP projects. The
Department continues to struggle with escalating infrastructure maintenance costs as the City's
sewer infrastructure is aging and the amount of infrastructure reaching the end of its useful life
increases every year. In order to attain a 2% replacement cycle for the collection system
infrastructure alone, it was estimated in 1991 that approximately $750,000 per year should be
spent on collection system rehabilitation. This level of rehabilitation has never been realized as
other critical projects, such as the Laguna Lift Station replacement ($1.5 million) and the WRF
upgrade completed in 1994 (nearly$30 million),has strained the financial resources of the sewer
fund and the community. The Department has made extensive efforts to control CIP
expenditures, yet some escalation of CIP expenditures is required in order to avoid falling further
behind on required maintenance repair and replacement of our sewer infrastructure.
Rate Review Exhibits
Financial schedules providing detail for the sewer fund analysis are provided in Exhibits A.1
through A.3. These include an analysis showing changes in fund balance from 1996-97 to 2002-
03; summary of key assumptions by year, and the proposed four year capital improvement plan.
Rate Setting Methodology
In determining sewer revenue requirements and setting recommended rates, the following
general methodology is used:
2-4
Council Agenda Report- 1999 Sewer Fund Review
Page 5
Step 1: Determine Sewer Fund revenue requirements for:
— Operations and maintenance
— Capital improvements and replacements
— Debt service obligations (existing and projected)
Step 2: Subtract from this amount"non-rate revenues" such as:
— Interest earnings
— Connection fees
— Other service charges (lateral installations and abandonments, etc.)
Step 3: Identify sewer rate requirements:
—Revenue needed to be generated from sewer rates is the difference between
sewer revenue requirements (Step 1) and "non-rate"revenues(Step 2).
Step 4: Determine new rates:
—Model the rate base(consumption and customer account assumptions) against
the existing rate structure and rate requirements identified in Step 3.
Because this analysis is performed over a multi-year period, other factors are considered, such as
working capital available to support capital projects, debt service requirements, and minimum
working capital policy.
Summary of Key Assumptions
The following is a summary of key assumptions for expenditures and revenues:
— Operations and maintenance costs are based on the preliminary 1999-00 Budget with an
inflation rate of 3%thereafter.
— Sewer customer growth rate is projected at 0.5% in 1999-00; 0.5%in 2000-01; 0.7% in 2001-
02; and 1%in 2002-03.
— Sales to Cal Poly are based on the 1998 Agreement, which fixed rates at a proportion of the
commercial rate(71%), increasing proportionately as all other commercial customers.
— Capital improvement charges (development impact fees) are estimated based on inflationary
and customer growth adjustments to the base year (1992-93) projection of$583,200, which
assumed annual growth of 1% in the City. The adjusted 1999-00 base is $699,600. This
analysis assumes 50%collection of these fees,based upon a growth rate of of one percent.
— Additional sewer revenues due to the installation of metron water meters for commercial
customers have been assumed as follows:
1. The 1997-98 sewer rate base was $5,745,000.
2. Commercial customers account for about 35% of the rate base.
3. Metron meters are estimated increased accuracy of reading of 15%
2-5
Council Agenda Report- 1999 Sewer Fund Review
Page 6
4. Therefore, $5,745,00 should be multiplied by 35% and then 15%, resulting in a total
of $300,000. To ensure revenue is not over-estimated, $200,000 per year was
assumed in the fund analysis. As implementation will begin in 2000-01, only half of
the revenue is assumed in that year. The full $200,000 per year of additional revenue
is assumed beginning in 2001-02.
— Impact fees were increased in 1999-00 to account for the DeVaul Property share of the
Laguna Lift Station. The engineer's estimate is that the DeVaul property represents eight
percent of the lift station capacity. Therefore, the DeVaul property would pay $133,000 of
the improvement costs.
— Master Plan implementation reserves are established in 2001-02 ($700,000) and 2002-03
($1,080,000). This is in addition to the design and construction of the Tank Farm Lift Station
(part of the Sewer Master Planning) in 2001-02.
— Annual debt service payments of$2,135,700 are to repay the State Revolving Loan Funds
received by the City for the construction of the Unit 3 and 4 improvements to the Water
Reclamation Facility and collection system improvement ("Relief Sewer Main").
— Annual debt service is increased by $315,000 in 2002-03 to pay for the $4.5 million Tank
Farm Lift Station project.
Conclusion
This review concludes that a five percent rate increase in 1999 and a four percent rate increase in
2000 is necessary to fund the recommended operating and capital projects in the 1999-01
Financial Plan and the community's sewer system master planning.
Staff is concerned about the impact of sewer rate increases on the community and would like
Council to provide direction on two alternatives which could minimise impacts to some or all of
the community. One alternative would be to consider monthly utility billing (discussion
included in the water fund report). Another alternative is to look at sewer residential rate
structures. A number of customers have expressed dissatisfaction with the sewer residential rate
structure, as it is a flat rate that does not account for lot size, number of dwelling unit occupants,
or size of structure. A single person household pays the same for sewer as a six person
household. Flat rates for residential sewer is the norm in California,but staff would like to study
the strengths and weaknesses of alternative residential rate structures. It must be noted, however,
that any change in rate structure would not change the total revenue required. It would only
change who pays what amount.
2-6
Conned Agenda Report-1999 Sewer Fund Review
Page 7
FISCAL UYIPACT
The recommended changes to the approved residential rate schedule are as follows:
Effective Date Residential Sewer Change from prior rate
Service Rate
July 1, 1998 $21.79
(adopted)
July 1, 1999 $22.88 Additional$1.09/per month
recommended
July 1,2000 $23.79 Additional$ .91/per month
recommended
In July 1999, the recommended five percent increase establishes monthly sewer service charges
of$22.88 for single family dwellings. This is an increase of $1.09 per month over the 1998
single family monthly charge.
In July 2000, the recommended four percent increase establishes monthly sewer service charges
of$23.79 for single family dwellings. This is an increase of$ .91 per month over the 1999
recommended single family charges.
ATTACHMENT
Resolution adopting Sewer Service Rates
EDITS
Sewer Fund Review
L Changes in financial position
2. Assumptions for fund projections
3. Capital improvement plan
2-7
ATTACHMENT
RESOLUTION NO. (1999 Series)
A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
ESTABLISHING SEWER SERVICE RATES
WHEREAS, IT IS THE POLICY OF THE City of San Luis Obispo to review enterprise fund
fees and rates on an ongoing basis and to adjust them as required to ensure that they remain equitable
and adequate to fully cover the cost of providing services; and
WHEREAS, a comprehensive analysis of sewer fund operating, capital and debt service needs
has been performed for fiscal years 1999-00 through 2002-03; and
WHEREAS, the Council has reviewed the sewer service rates necessary to meet system
operating, capital and debt service requirements.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo as
follows:
SECTION 1. Resolution No. 8678 (1997 series)is hereby rescinded, effective July 1, 1999.
SECTION 2. The rates set forth in the exhibit are hereby adopted, adopting rates for July 1,
1999,and July 1,2000.
Upon motion of , seconded by ,
and on the following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
the foregoing resolution was adopted this day of 71999.
Mayor Allen Settle
ATTEST:
Lee Price,City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
- �"/ . - -'7�
J . Jor ense ity ttorney
2-8
EXHIBIT to Resolution
MONTHLY SEWER SERVICE RATES
Effective ate._-
Type of Account Juk: 13 1999 JUIN. 11 -7000
Single family dwelling, including
Single meter condominiums and townhouses $22.88 $23.79
Multi-family dwelling an any duplex, apartment
house or roominghouse,per each dwelling unit $18.02 $18.74
Mobile home or trailer park,
per each dwelling unit $13.60 $14.14
Public,private,or parochial school,average daily
attendance at the school $2.57 $2.68
All other accounts
Minimum charge $22.88 $23.79
Additional charge for every 100 cubic feet in
excess of 500 cubic feet of metered water
consumption
Each vehicle discharging sewer into City system
Minimum charge $75.38 $78.39
Additional charge per 100 gallons in excess
of 1500 gallons discharged $4.53 $4.71
2-9
Exhibit A-1
O O O O O O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O O
•'_. O_ M O O v C4 a �O %O N O O, O O N O
O O R F M m 0 a h v m m N N
m Go
M R N C v v
0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O O O
O O O O O O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O O O
GO M O M �D p N a O m t WL O O O F O F
• d O m�. N 0 a N N_ HCl O r` O% h N O O O O� M N O N a -e v a s m %D M a O O O O N
N m N h a O m a n 10 v> F m m m
h .=• ' �Ci n e•i ems. vi N �: R v e+i
O O O O O O O C. 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O O
O O O O O O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O O
O a v> a v 0 F F N a m F v N N a O
C) b a n N C� a C7 %6 an M O O �O NO M
O m m M Fm O 1O F N M M tef h a O
N v N M M O m m M — M v v F m
o ; a o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 CD 0 0 0 o e
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
r;-.ei O �c h 0o O O h O V1 00 r O Q
:� ;x1 Cl SCJ N O% vl N O+ M> v1 �D .•• 00 �O
m F M a O O M M M M N a
N O N Q O m m
HCl Ir epi M N N 00 v
0 00000 0 000000 0 0 0 o e
0 0 0 0 0 0 o 0 0 0 0 o p 0 0 0 0 0
aOO m %D F O N < %O O O F n m m M %C e?
M C�as O m %O vi a C el h m R t, h Go
v h M v O p r N N M F v v F O.
Z , N f N N h m m IO V IO M t'
F., h Ki N M M N O, v R .�
LL .
i
w o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00
µ o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
O %D %D m m Oi M y 00 F C� C �D Ma
LU N 00 h h �O O� h
N m v r M v m m a a M N r M a
N m N �T m F F < N N �D F M
epi eti eq %D M a
C .
0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
MN r %C b .� h t, 00 M 0o C% qe O CT M M h Ok
O - 1 M b eA M M S v a N N' v v M N �O F M
.a N N M N M F O m O �-. N F
N e+i N \O til fy
a_ CLTar� _cdi oo- LUE s = ayiEa� G W O
Z .. UC >'M
0 00 Ec 1�.O...
d
ems.
Z
v 0C4 E u E d 00 V a > a y m °�
N - e L E 3 m >> a °> ami E u O o d CL .0
{1 i d m v) as C' o .�. y a e a v W m c m Q
aCi U o v> h . >y y o d 00 o d o E a> m o— a = M M
d E = U 5 U 0 1:4 E2 Y W a 0 V h c yrs ¢ d y e H � U U
Qo L a c � F V3 � tF o e e
t0 � 20 u c. $ `o
Q Coew o a ci 3 3
2-10
Exhibit A.2
o c 0 0
e p: p o e O 000 000 A
O ten O O o h O O b �6 V .,
O Oen
CD
000 vs m N 00 00 '' U
N NFA to 64 6A 69 69 d. p
6A
O a
O =
O o
cr
N p O h O O O c. N co
.R+
he c c Q r o O N %00 4 O.
e r o r o In p+
p r p+ N to O 00 Itr E .]
O r 69 N r h 3
N 6N9 69 69 6A 64 y
R t0
O y
N =
E-
CD t.7. .moi �..�
L+ 0 0 d
N p' e \ e N n o O 000 C
O •O N ep c t+1 O C
N N O n 664
69 69 69 69 �O m
Vi =
N
O N
� � N
OO y O O O 6
G O 00 a /� b W to d
_ 0 h e n to vY N
... m O V'1 t`' v1 01 eq fin \ 'UQ
m Nom' 69 A CA 69 Os
%+ 3
CN to m
X e
O o y
Nkn
Cl) O o t- o o x
Oo0 0 to o e o _r.• °v\i kn %Q 00 00 0
p+ toen N N w a 'Ir
H o+ � 69 0 se &
W rz
o
69
V
O o ._
d E c
C N
O
N y
= w E d N
Z d o = E 4?
CL
U.
W _ C y m 0 i c 4) o
00
Lu69
W LG J _ ti > s 69 _ ;
N O = '0 c a o d d 3 0 ° w c
O = �+ N
(.. R CA 3 = 00 U U N r U 00
0 C d N «. V) io d to •C ;fl a y .R. oo m
LL U > :3 ] m °' u H d = E ON o = 5 R E a ? _
V/ VG R V N R 7 �. U r U
r_ > c s i A o e y o � c m s c
Z Vtr.. R V C N E U W � m C R cr—'sco CD
3 y W E
O C ` rn 2-1 R O
`R fl n o c p `m o
d ti F- d E o o vy a ii C d v0i
o >
@3 o R = R h o d a � N
NN w7 Rd � _ d>� ¢id N
d
cq
2-11 M
Exhibit A.3
\/ 0 kkk \ 0w0 / /
\ k\ / \ k / � ' \ k
1-: _ k k ¢ 2
k k 0 0 k k
Nt § G . . § . . , § 0
_ _
0 k 0 0 0 k k Go
q � to0 5 , . . $ @ @
§ LO n 6 R
- 2 2
O
0 00 0 0 0 00
0 0 e8 0 0 ? 8
LL ) COk . 8 k , . . Q - k
cm LO n m co
W k
�
LU 0 000 000 0 0 0
$ q $ 7 $ $ 8 . 0 2
W � S / . � § C ' $ m
® 4 k
69�
O %
§ §
g t § e e
E
CD
CL E E c
CL
W EiIL sq E
CO w CD � 7 �ƒ � � t
�CL O ? 0d � n £ � 0
` C ' ; o- $ w 0 % a 0 - °
E dSEZ 2D EMB c » �
c � a » o (D : � % 2 ( _ 2 = �
e ; % 2 .0 � � Eoi (A ; m $
c � ' % a Q �£ � � � kCL /Q
� % � tII § § / � I � % $ $ k
$ ] 2 $ § 77 kwza 7 &LL I k § 2
\ & \ 2 >1 2 E 0 cu ° o/
I
4 E > to >1 6Mmw ■ X, 0
� j � 2 $ 0 2_}}