HomeMy WebLinkAbout06/00/1990, 1 - THE CITY AND WATER RATES - AN OVERVIEW FRAMEWORK FOR THE STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS MEETING DATE:
city of San Luis OBlspo - 12-90
COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT rITEwNUMBER: :Z
May 25, 1990
MBMORANDIIlI
TO: City Council
FROM: John D
SUBJECT: The ity and ater rates - an overview framework for the
sta endations
The attached staff memorandum performs a rather thorough and
complete analysis of the water rate situation, and is based upon
City Council direction to the staff. The report contains very
specific information and suggestions. The purpose of this
memorandum is to provide an overview of this complex and important
issue which is facing the Council.
The "Big Picture" - the City's legal/moral imiperative.:
City government, most fundamentally, exists to address the needs
of its citizens. The most basic needs are those relating to the
safety and security, health and welfare of our citizens, generally
the government's assurance that our citizens' lives and property
are secure and protected. The City is a creature of the State, and
is delegated many of the responsibilities of the State,
particularly those relating to safety and health.
The City of San Luis Obispo has historically been responsible for
the provision of water service. Many cities in California and
elsewhere do not have this responsibility, as private water
companies or public water districts or other agencies perform this
function. In the case of those cities not directly providing water
service, probably the majority in California, increased costs can
only be met by increased water rates and it would be inadvisable
if not illegal to use municipal general funds to subsidize the
water operation or rates. Our City has historically accepted the
responsibility for the provision of water, for adopting appropriate
financial policies, and for maintaining established water quality
standards.
The City, then, must meet its obligation of providing water which
meets established water quality standards. The City is also
responsible for adopting those regulations, standards, processes
���H�i�N�IVllllll m�ui� city of San LUIS OBIspo
IIIc �U COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
Memorandum
Page Two
which are necessary to meeting its "implied contract" with its
citizens. For now, that means getting through the present drought
situation as gracefully and equitably as possible and, for the
longer term, to provide an adequate water supply. The City also
has a responsibility, as a unit of general government, for placing
the water service in proper relationship to all the other services
that the City provides, with Police and Fire, Planning and
Recreation being but a few examples of our total responsibility.
The City's current water emergency situation:
The City, like much of California, is currently in the fourth year
of a drought cycle. In the last several years there has been
insufficient rainfall and insufficient drainage basin runoff to
replenish our two reservoirs. Recognizing the situation, the City
Council took early action and consequently San Luis Obispo became
became one of the first cities in the State with an effective
water-rationing program. Because of the earliness of the Council's
response, and the cooperation of our citizens, we have a water
conservation program which is working and which is accepted by the
community. There are many cities, with even worse water supply
situations which still do not have a water conservation program,
or they have one which was adopted later and, .because of that, is
more severe in nature.
Another major factor to our being able to sustain ourselves during
this period has been our utilization of our groundwater resource
through the Council's water exploration and well-drilling program.
That program was more complex than earlier envisioned mainly
because of two factors:
A. We have had to surmount substantial water quality concerns,
primarily filtering out the TCE's from our two highest
producing wells, and
B. Most of the groundwater is produced in the southwesterly
portion of the community, and major changes had to be made to
the City's water distribution program in order to fully
utilize the groundwater production.
The City earlier envisioned a groundwater well program producing
2,000 acre feet per year; currently we are producing about 2, 500
acre feet per year and are currently working towards 3, 000 acre
feet per year. we are also surveying the underground water supply,
because we do not want to be overdrafting the underground water
table.
i
I
city of san tuis oBispo
Me COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
Memorandum
Page Three
While our current water shortage situation is difficult and real,
the City government and our citizens have done an excellent job in
responding to it, thereby preventing the situation from becoming
even worse.
The city's dilemma - the need for a water-rate increase during a_
period of rationing 1 .
A water shortage situation, in contrast to more normal times,
produces a dilemma; less water is available for sale but the cost
of production increases. We are reminded in this situation that
water is not unlike other commodities - when supply is plentiful
the cost usually goes down and when the supply is scarce the cost
usually goes up. The dilemma has created an unfortunate
perception: that the citizens who have cooperated by saving more
water are being penalized by having to pay more for it.
The more fundamental longer-term truth, as the City goes into the
future, is that the supply of water will be a leading element of
our quality of life, and the modern costs of providing this supply
will be greater than has historically been the case. A fundamental
and valuable commodity such as water, in a geographic area with a
semi-arid climate, is only going to be produced at a substantial
cost; we have no choice but to either pay that cost or to learn to i
live with a lesser amount. While the present focus is one of
sustaining ourselves through the drought situation, only 14% of
the previously recommended 59% rate increase was directly related
to decreased revenues as a result of water conservation. Most of
the remaining needed funds are required for essential capital
improvements to our water system - rehabilitating our outdated
treatment plant, replacing dilapidated water mains, and
strengthening our future supply.
Therefore, our program is a program of necessity, not one of luxury
or extravagance, nor solely related to the drought; it is one where
there is a cost to be paid for living with the vicissitudes of
nature and for achieving sufficiently high standards of service in
the future. Though intensified by water rationing, the Water Fund
would have required significantly more revenues, even without the
current drought situation. Yes, we must cope with the present; as
importantly, we must plan for the future through substantial
investment in the water system.
Protecting the. General Fund
While the City clearly has a responsibility for the provision of
water, a major function of local government is to also raise and
conserve its revenue so that a balanced program of municipal !
services can be provided.
/'3
���n�►�►►►�NIIIII�U° �����11 city of san Luis oBispo
COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
Memorandum
Page Four
The General Fund is that collection of municipal revenues which
provides for the provision of those municipal services which our
citizens and our City Councils have determined to be in the best
interest of the community. As we examine the fiscal health of
cities within California, as the League of California Cities has
recently done, those cities with a weak General Fund have a reduced
capacity to respond to the needs of the community. Conversely,
those communities which have committed to maintaining a strong
General Fund have an increased capacity to provide effective
municipal services and desired community facilities. .
In particular, the City of San Luis Obispo has made a strong
commitment to protecting our environment and our quality of life.
We are presently considering programs such is improved
transportation systems to reduce air pollution and additional parks
and open space and playgrounds. These "quality of life" programs
are in addition to our normal programs of maintaining strong police
and fire and other City operations. However, given that police and
fire, and other basic services compose most of the General Fund
budget (Public Safety represents 45% alone) , any substantial
weakening of the General Fund is likely to diminish our "quality
of life" programs and goals. Therefore, we must keep our General
Fund revenue picture strong so that the City has the capacity and
resources to deal with the strong demands that are constantly
before us, pressures which will only increase in the years ahead.
A Balanced Program: Assisting the Water Fund while protecting the
General Fund
The Water Fund, during the drought, may need help from the City's
General Fund. However, the City, as a matter of policy, has
established three "enterprise funds" , with water being one of
these, which are to operate like successful businesses and to be
self-sustaining, and thereby not be a drain on the City's General
Fund.
Essentially, the Water Fund is sustained by the sale of water to
our water customers, and this is done by setting rates which
produce sufficient revenue to offset the cost of water production,
treatment, and distribution. The Council's actions over the years,
in establishing and sustaining the enterprise concept, have been
appropriate. Routinely utilizing the General Fund to offset what
is considered to be excessive Water Fund costs would eventually
erode the General Fund to a point which could diminish other
essential municipal services, such as public safety and public
works.
On the other hand, staff can appreciate the Council's view that the
City is not in a "routine" situation and thus unique measures are
needed to avoid sending the "wrong signal" to residents who are
i
11111$1$10111 li city of San Lws OBISpo
i COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
Memorandum
Page Five
already making a substantial contribution to assist the situation.
In following up on Council direction, staff has attempted to
structure alternatives which mitigate the size of the rate increase
yet still preserve the City"s long- term policies concerning
enterprise funds and the protection of the General Fund. As such,
the attached report includes among its several recommendations the
following key points:
• General Fund support for the Water Fund should be
temporary in nature.
• General Fund "contributions" should only support Water
Fund capital costs, and not ongoing operations.
• Most or all of the General Fund contribution should be
in the form of a loan.
• General Fund projects deferred to make funds available
to the Water Fund should not impact ongoing
operations or have health and safety implications.
• General Fund assistance to the Water Fund will only be
considered during "severe" or "critical" action levels.
i
With appropriate safeguards, staff believes that the Council can
adopt a balanced program which supports current community water
conservation efforts, preserves existing policies which have served
us well, and mitigates to the degree possible the long-term
implications for both the Water and General Funds.
In closing, we all must recognize that the tough decisions
regarding enterprise fund rates and General Fund needs are not i
behind us with action on the attached staff report. In some
respects, this issue marks the beginning of a difficult but
necessary effort to assure the long-term financial health of the
community. As you know, staff is currently working on developing
our recommendations to you. We look forward to working with the
City Council on this most-important effort.
I
e:citywtr
pI ppIJO MEETING DATE:
city of San 11S OBISPO June 12 1990
Omms COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT ITEM NUMBER:
FROM: John Dunn, City Administrative Officer n�
Prepared by: William C. Statler, Director of Finance Lk
SUBJECT: WATER FUND REVENUE REQUIREMENTS
CAO RECOMMENDATION
■ Adopt the policies outlined in this report which limit the use
of General Fund resources in supporting water system operating
and capital needs to specific circumstances and conditions.
■ Approve additional water fund revenues in the amount of
$1,883,000 from the following sources: direct General Fund
subsidy of $150, 000 by allocating water utility user tax
revenues to the Water Fund; General Fund loan of $866, 500; and
Water Fund rate increase of $866, 500 (27.4%) .
■ Defer $1. 02 million in currently approved programs and
projects in order to finance the General Fund's contribution
to the Water Fund.
REPORT-IN-BRIEF
The purpose of this agenda report is to recommend an approach to
funding the City's water operating and capital needs consistent
with Council direction from their May 8, 1990 meeting. In
financing the $1.883 million required in additional water revenues,
the scope of the report includes the following four areas:
■ Funding approach which includes a combination of subsidy
($150, 000) and loan ($866, 500) from the General Fund totaling
$1, 016, 500 along with a water rate increase of 27.4%. In
developing this recommendation, three other funding
alternatives were reviewed with General Fund support ranging
from $753 ,200 to $1, 255,400, and water rate increases ranging
from 20% to 36%. Additionally, the utility users tax on water
service charges as well as the appropriate use of these
revenues is reviewed and evaluated in accordance with the
related Council work Program objective for 1989-91.
■ Policies governing the use of General Fund support for the
City's water operating and capital needs which will best
ensure the City's overall financial health with the least
negative impact on the City's existing favorable credit
rating.
■ Programs and projects recommended for deferral in order to
provide the funding required for the recommended level of
General Fund support along with the criteria used in
developing this listing.
■ Long-term financial implications for the General and Water
Funds.
�uN�i�HiIViIIIIII�P° �glU�ll city of san Luis ogispo
COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
BACKGROUND
At the Council meeting of May 8, 1990, staff recommended that the
Council approve a water rate increase of 59% in order to meet the
water system's operating and capital needs. This recommendation
was made in accordance with the City's existing Financial Plan
policy of setting rates at levels which fully recover the total
costs of the City's water operation. As noted at that time, the
primary purpose of the rate increase was to cover additional
operating and capital costs of the water system summarized as
follows:
operations and Maintenance
■ Groundwater wells, phases II and III $ 500, 000
■ Extended water conservation program 230,000
Capital Improvement Plan Projects
■ Groundwater well development, phase III 21350,000
■ Design, water treatment plant upgrade 650, 000
■ Design, Salinas Reservoir expansion 550, 000
These new programs and projects total $4 .28 million. In
conjunction with deferrals of $2 .29 million in previously approved
water CIP projects, reductions in water fund balances, and other
operating expense savings and revenue offsets, the water system
requires an additional $1.883 million in revenues in order to meet
its operating and capital needs through the end of Fiscal Year
1990-91. Based on projected water sales revenues of $3, 163, 000
under 35% conservation; this requires an equivalent rate increase
of 59% to meet these revenue requirements.
Supporting detail for the projected revenue requirements is
provided in Attachments is and lb. Attachment la summarizes
projected revenues, expenditures, and changes in working capital
for Fiscal Years 1989-90 and 1990-91, and identifies new revenue
requirements of $1.883 million through the end of Fiscal Year 1990-
91 if ending working capital balances are to be equal to 10% of
operating expenditures as of June 30, 1991. This identified
revenue need is based on the following assumptions:
■ Increased rates for Cal Poly and Cuesta.
■ Increased capital improvement charges.
■ New operating program and capital improvement plan (CIP)
projects funded in the amount of $4.28 million as
summarized above.
C O
iiIN�IIIVIII�IIIIIhNulll�l`� City of San Luis osispo
COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
■ Operating program savings of $80, 000 each year due to
reduced treatment plant and source of supply operations.
■ Deferral of previously approved water CIP projects in the
amount of $2 ,288, 100 as summarized in Attachment ib.
■ Reduction in Water Fund working capital balances from
policy levels of 20% to 10% of operating expenditures.
As outlined on page B-9 of the 1989-91 Financial Plan,
the City has established fund balance policies in order
to accommodate cash flow requirements, revenue downturns,
and contingencies for unforseen operating or capital
needs. Accordingly, use of water fund balances at the
10% level is appropriate at this time.
Water Funding Summary - Why Are More Revenues .Required?
The need for additional revenues is directly attributable to
additional operating and capital costs. Although the water system
will experience a reduction of $698, 000 under existing rates in
water revenues under a 35% conservation program, this revenue loss
is more than offset by the water CIP project deferrals of $2 .29
million already being recommended as an integral part of the
overall funding approach. Staff believes that this is an important
concept:
■ If there were no additional operating and capital costs,
no rate increase would be required at this time to fully
fund the water system; the temporary loss of water
revenues could be offset ':)y the $2 .29 million in project
deferrals and reduction in fund balance levels already
being recommended.
Accordingly, any consideration of General Fund support for the
Water Fund should be made in the context of financing unusual
operating and capital needs during a difficult drought situation,
not offsetting revenue losses due to increased levels of
conservation.
GENERAL FUND SUPPORT POLICIES
In accordance with Council direction from their May 8, 1990,
meeting, General Fund sources are being recommended in supporting
the City's water operation. However, General Fund support is only
recommended under the following conditions:
■ General fund loans and direct subsidies will only be
considered during "severe" and "critical" action levels
(35% and 50% conservation) .
■ With the possible exception of a temporary direct subsidy
from the utility users tax on water, all General Fund
support should be in the form of a loan.
�,�nai�H►iVi�II��IIa�u►���II city of san lues o8ispo
COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
■ General fund loans will be considered for capital
purposes only, and will be paid back as soon as possible
after the "severe" action level has ended. Interest
costs will be charged for any amounts loaned.
■ Any capital and related costs incurred during this
period, including the General Fund loan, will be eligible
for subsequent debt financing.
■ Efforts will be made to structure grants and loans to
have the least impact possible on the City's credit
rating.
■ The Financial Plan policy of setting minimum fund balance
levels of 20% of operating expenditures will be
maintained in the General Fund; and Water Fund balances
will be returned to policy levels as soon as possible.
Credit Rating Considerations - Is There an Impact?
Use of General Fund sources to support water programs and projects
will negatively impact the City's credit rating. Although it is
difficult to quantify this impact (which will be primarily on the
City's general purpose credit rating, not water revenue
financings) , extending the scope of General Fund programs and not
adhering to established City policies regarding enterprise fund
financing will be negatively received by the bond market community.
The cost associated with the decision to use General Fund resources
for water programs and projects will not be known until the City
goes to the capital markets to finance General Fund projects. It
should be noted that the acquisition of property for Fire Station
No. 1, rehabilitation of the Recreation Center, and several other
projects and acquisitions are scheduled for debt financing in the
very near future.
Based on discussions with the City's financial advisor, Evensen
Dodge, the negative impact can be mitigated by limiting General
Fund exposure through the following actions:
■ Using General Fund loans to the maximum extent possible,
rather than direct grants or subsidies, which reflects
a commitment by the City to maintaining the Water Fund
on an enterprise fund basis.
■ Establishing clear policy direction and action plans for
restoring the Water Fund to self sufficiency.
Evensen Dodge believes that the credit rating agencies will be
sensitive to the factors surrounding the City's decision to use
General Fund resources for the Water Fund, but making this support
in the context of the policies recommended above is essential if
the City is to limit the potential lowering of its credit rating
(and related increase in financing costs) by allocating General
Fund resources to water programs and projects. A 9
"'��►�� �IIIIIiIIi ��Ipl City of San Luis oi3ispo
COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
RECOMMENDED FUNDING APPROACH
As summarized in Attachment la, rate increases of 59% are required
to meet the operating and capital needs of the water system. Staff
continues to believe that the existing Financial Plan policy of
setting rates at levels which will fully cover the cost of the
water system is appropriate and should not be modified. However,
in accordance with Council direction at the May 8, 1990 meeting,
the following funding approach is recommended:
■ Direct General Fund subsidy to the Water Fund in the
amount of $150, 000 by allocating utility user tax
revenues from water sales to the Water Fund. As
discussed under the General Fund support policies
outlined above, this allocation is only recommended
during "severe" or "critical" water action levels. This
subsidy has a rate increase offset of 4 .7%.
■ The balance of the Water Fund's revenue needs
($1,733 , 000) is evenly financed through a General Fund
loan in the amount of $866,500 to be used for capital
purposes only and a water rate increase of 27% to
generate the remaining $866,500 required. In accordance
with the General Fund support policy outlined above,
loans from the General Fund should only be considered
during "severe" or "critical" action levels and will be
paid back with interest as soon as possible.
The recommended funding approach is summarized as follows:
Equivalent
Amount % increase
General Fund Support
■ Direct subsidy by allocating
water utility user tax revenues
to the Water Fund $ 150, 000 4:7%
■ Loan for capital projects
(50% of remaining revenue needs
after direct subsidy) 866, 500 27.4
Total General Fund 1, 016, 500 32 . 1
Water Fund
■ Rate increase
(50% of remaining revenue
needs after direct subsidy) 866, 500 27.4
TOTAL $1,8831000 59 . 5%
/0
��� ► i�IIIIIII�P°Nu'�I�III city of San Luis OBISpo
COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
What is the Impact on Our customers?
The following is a summary of how the proposed rate increase of
27 .4% will impact the average residential customer. For comparison
purposes, monthly water costs are shown for 10 billing units
monthly (the usage target for an average residence under 25%
conservation) and 8 billing units monthly (the usage target for an
average residence under 35% conservation) . The summary also
includes the impact on customer bills if rates were increased by
59.5% as originally recommended:
Monthly Cost
10 Units 8 Units
Current Rate $14.99 $11.99
New Rates @ 27.4% Increase 19. 10 15.28
New Rates @ 59. 5% Increase 23 .91 19. 12
Under a 27.4% rate increase, average customers who reduce their
consumption to meet revised targets will experience an increase in
monthly costs of 29 cents (less than one penny per day) . Under a
59.5% rate increase, those same customers would experience an
increase in monthly cost of $4 .13 . In essence, the General Fund's
support of $1.02 million will result in a daily savings of 12 cents
to our average customer.
Under any of the rate proposals under discussion, monthly water
bills of $15 to $25 compare favorably with any other utility costs:.
■ Telephone: $30-$75 monthly
■ Cable Television: $20-$40 monthly
■ Gas: $40-$70 monthly
■ Electric: $40-$70 monthly
■ Water: $15-$25 monthly
Discussion of the Utility Users Tag on Water
During the 1989-91 Financial Plan review process, the Council
discussed the use of General Fund revenues generated from the
utility users tax on water service charges. As a result of this
discussion, an evaluation of this revenue source was adopted as a
Council Work Program objective in the 1989-91 Financial Plan (page
B-45) . Provided in Exhibit A is a "white paper" on this topic
prepared by the Director of Finance which addresses the following
three questions:
m,11111imllillqp city of San Luis OBISpo
COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
■ How much does the General Fund receive in utility users
tax revenues in total and from the Water Fund?
■ Do other cities include water sales in their utility '
users tax?
■ What alternatives exist for the use of utility user tax
revenues?
It is recommended that the option of allocating General Fund
revenues from the utility users tax on water service charges to the
Water Fund be considered only when "critical" or "severe" action
levels are in effect.
FUNDING ALTERNATIVES
In between the staff's original recommendation to fully recover
water operating and capital costs through rates and the revised
funding approach recommended in response to the Council's direction
from their May 8, 1990 meeting, there are an infinite variety of
funding arrangements that could be developed and implemented. For
comparison purposes, three alternative funding approaches are
outlined in Attachment 2. The revised funding approach recommended
by staff is also provided in this summary for reference purposes.
As reflected in the summary, each of the alternatives generates
$1.883 million in revenues for an equivalent rate increase of
59.5%. General Fund support - alternatives (subsidies and loans
combined) range from $753 , 200 to $1, 255, 400; and water rate
increases range from 19.8% to 35.7%. The following is a brief
description of these alternatives:
Alternative A (19.8% Rate Increase)
Water revenue requirements are divided evenly into thirds of
$627,700 for each component: direct General Fund subsidy; General
Fund loan (total General Fund support of $1, 255,400) ; and a water
rate increase of 19.8%.
Alternative B (27.4% Rate Increase - Staff Recommendation)
This is the recommended funding approach which provides a direct
subsidy of $150, 000 by allocating water utility user taxes to the
Water Fund with remaining revenue requirements evenly divided
between a General Fund loan ($866, 500) and a water rate increase
of 27 .4%.
Alternative C (29.8% Rate Increase)
Water revenue requirements are evenly divided between a General
Fund loan ($941, 500) and a water rate increase of 29 .8%.
Alternative D (35.7% Rate Increase)
Forty percent (40%) of water revenue requirements are met through
a General Fund loan ($753 , 200) and 60% through a water rate
increase of 35.7%.
������Ai�►�Il��po�ugl�lll MY of San Luis OBISPO
A COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
RECOMMENDED GENERAL FUND DEFERRALS
Under the General Fund support policies discussed earlier, General
Fund balances should be maintained at the Financial Plan policy
level of 20% of operating expenditures. Under this policy
guideline, no additional General Fund resources are available at
this time to support the Water Fund. As such, currently approved
General Fund programs or projects must be deleted or deferred to
provide Water Fund support.
In developing the CAO's recommendation for which specific programs
or projects should be deferred, the following process was used:
■ Each Department Head was requested to consider activities
in their operating program and capital improvement plan
(CIP) project areas which could be reduced or deferred
to generate General Fund savings for the Water Fund.
■ The Assistant CAO and Director of Finance jointly
prepared a preliminary list of criteria to be used in
selecting potential project and program deferrals and
identified programs and projects which appeared to meet
this preliminary criteria.
■ The Management Team met to discuss the preliminary
criteria and potential program and project deferrals.
Subsequent to this meeting, each Management Team member
evaluated potential program and project deferrals on a
scale of 1 to 5 ' in accordance with the preliminary
criteria, and submitted their rankings to the CAO.
The CAO's final recommendations reflect the benefits of this
process but are not based exclusively on it. The following
criteria has been used in recommending General Fund program and
project deferrals to the Council:
■ The program or project can be deferred up to 2 years
without significant public health and safety impacts.
■ Deferral will not simply result in accumulating
maintenance and replacement needs.
■ No revenue losses will be experienced due to deferral or
deletion such as grants, loans, or other service charges
and reimbursements.
■ There are no federal or state "mandates" to perform the
program or project.
■ Deferral of the program will not impact a specific
component of a negotiated labor agreement.
0 The program or project is not yet in the bidding process.
imilvI11III1q1*1city of san Luis oBispo
i COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
■ No other projects or programs are contingent upon its
completion.
■ The project does not complete another phase of a project
currently in progress.
■ Deferral will not reduce service levels that were
actually delivered during 1989-90.
Under this criteria, a total of $2, 599,300 in programs or projects
were initially considered for deferral as summarized in Attachment
3. The following is a brief description of each of these projects
which has been organized into two sections: those programs and
projects recommended for deferral in order to reduce the required
water rate increase to 27.4% (totalling $1. 02 million) ; and those
considered for deferral but not recommended at this time.
For those projects recommended for deferral at this time, the
description also includes the basis for recommending its deferral.
If the Council decides to extend General Fund support beyond the
level recommended by staff ($1. 02 million) , the list of projects
"considered for deferral but not recommended" can be used as a
basis for determining additional funding sources. Additionally,
the Council can use this list to alter the CAO's recommended
deferral program.
Recommended for Deferral
Hazardous Waste Inventory ($60,000)
Research and develop hazardous waste regulations to inventory and
track all hazardous materials used by businesses within the City
including outputs and disposal. $35, 000 was budgeted for this
activity in 1989-90 and $25,000 in 1990-91 for a total recommended
deferral of $60, 000.
■ As noted during the mid-year review of goals and
objectives, the County Health Department (which is the
authorized regulating agency for this activity) has
denied the City's request that they transfer this
responsibility. This may be a program which the City
will continue to pursue in future years, but existing
funds are not expected to be utilized prior to the end
of Fiscal Year 1990-91.
Historical Preservation ($300,000)
Rehabilitate historic buildings by expanding the amount of funding
available for restoration activities. During the 1987-91 Financial
Plan, the City established a revolving loan program with a funding
level of $50, 000 per year. This program was augmented by an
additional $100, 000 per year ($150, 000 per year total) . The types
of expanded preservation program have not yet been identified.
■ Council deferred this program activity to 1991-92 at the
mid-year goals and objective review. H
city of San Luis oBispo
Mass COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
Greek Row Study ($30,000)
Develop a strategy to implement a Greek Row and draft City
regulations to encourage the creation of same.
■ Council deferred this program activity beyond 1991 at the
mid-year review of goals and objectives.
Recycling Contract with County ($50,000)
Contracting with the County to coordinate recycling activities.
$25, 000 annually was budgeted for this contract . for 1989-90 and
1990-91.
■ In response to AB939, a County-wide task force on solid
waste management was formed. As a result of this effort,
a Memorandum of Understanding has been executed by all
cities in the county to fund necessary recycling efforts
through a $1. 00 tipping fee at the county's landfill
sites. Consequently, this regional effort has now
replaced the initial concept of contracting separately
with the County. The City's internal staffing needs to
support recycling efforts will be presented to the
Council at their June 18, 1990 meeting. $50, 000 is
currently allocated in the 1989-91 Financial Plan for
1990-91 to support these internal efforts, and will not
be affected by this deletion.
Fire Training Facility ($300,000)
Study, design, and construct a Regional Fire Training Facility on
7 acres at California Polytechnic State University. Completion of
this project is contingent on County and State participation or the
formation of a JPA and financing arrangements as an enterprise
activity. $300, 000 is remaining from the amounts designated in the
1987-91 Financial Plan for this project.
■ The actions required to finalize funding for this project
(State and County participation or the formation of a
JPA) will not occur during the 1989-91 Financial Plan
period, and accordingly, funding of the City's portion
for this project can be delayed.
Downtown Sidewalks and Bulb-Outs ($100,000)
Expand the City's effort to reconstruct sidewalks in core area of
downtown to "Mission Plaza" style standards and build additional
pedestrian-oriented improvements that help beautify downtown.
■ Pursuant to Council action in September 1989 and
confirmed at the mid-year goals and objectives report,
this project has been deferred pending completion of the
downtown physical concept plan. Accordingly, recommended
funding for this program is reduced by $100, 000 from the
original amount of $700,000 over two years ($350, 000
annually) to $600,000 in total.
a
a� d�il�(V►IIllli�p�' ����II City of San tins OBISPO
j COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
Intersection Improvements at Higuera and Tank Farm ($100,000) l
Widen the east side of Higuera Street (pavement only) from Tank
Farm Road to a point 200 feet south, making this section of Higuera
Street 64 feet wide, with four traffic lanes, one left turn lane,
and two bike lanes.
■ An industrial subdivision project is currently being
processed by the County at the southeast corner of
Higuera and Tank Farm Road. As part of the County's
review process, City staff has recommended that most of
the improvements included in this project scope be
constructed by the developer as a condition of
subdivision approval. Storm drain improvements proposed
for this location would be excluded from the conditions
as they are of benefit to downstream parcels, and do not
directly benefit the proposed subdivision site. As such,
this project is recommended for deferral pending County
approval of the City's recommended conditions and
construction of these improvements by the project
developer.
Firefighter Monument ($80,000)
Design and construct a monument honoring those persons who fought
the 1985 Las Pilitas Fire.
■ As noted during the mid-year review of goals and
objectives, design and installation of the monument is
proposed to coincide with the construction of Fire
Station No. 1, which is not scheduled until the 1991-93
Financial Plan timeframe. Accordingly, funding for this
monument, which will be reviewed as part of the Fire
Station CIP project in accordance with the City's new
public art policy, can be deferred until that time.
Considered but Not Recommended for Deferral
Enhanced Tree Maintenance ($110,000)
Expand contracting for street tree pruning in residential areas at
a cost of $50, 000 in 1989-90 and $60,000 in 1990-91. Under a trial
contract in 1988-89, the City pruned about one fourth of the street
trees outside of the downtown. During 1989-90, a portion of the
proposed contract funding is budgeted to create a comprehensive
tree inventory and work order system.
Art-in-Public Places ($551000)
Increase the placement of art-in-public places by developing a
comprehensive program of incentives to encourage the development
of art in both public and private projects intended for public
viewing and enjoyment. This $55, 000 only represents funds set
aside primarily to match private art projects. It does not include
the 111$" amount recently set aside by Council policy from City CIP
projects as no additional funds have yet been appropriated to
support this component of the program.
����� ►�hlllll��j�►U MY Of San tins OBISPO
COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
Horizontal Control/Satellite Survey ($50,000)
Contract with a private engineering form to conduct a satellite
survey of San Luis Obispo. This survey will be the foundation of
a computer-drafted base map within the city's computer-aided
drafting system. Having this base map will improve the accuracy
and completeness of planning and engineering maps and reduce staff
time needed to design projects and update mapbooks. In accordance
with the deferral criteria established above, this project has gone
completely through the City's bidding process, and as such,
deferral is not recommended.
Downtown Street Lights ($117,300)
Replace all of the remaining 25 "modern" street light poles in the
downtown with a fluted style pole which is more compatible with the
downtown's character. The sixteen-flute replacement pole would
match the older-style poles which were originally installed in the
19401s. $45, 000 for this project was included in the 1987-91
Financial Plan; an additional $72, 300 is estimated to be required
to construct this project in its original scope. In accordance
with the deferral criteria established above, this project has gone
completely through the City's bidding process, and as such,
deferral is not recommended.
Murray/Broad Street Improvements ($97,000)
Study, design, and construct improvements as identified in Phase
I of the Circulation Element Study in order to improve neighborhood
traffic management in the Murray/Broad Street area.
Neighborhood Traffic Management Improvements ($100,000)
As part of Phase II of Circulation Element. Study, identify and
construct improvements that better control and distribute thru-
traffic within residential neighborhoods similar to those proposed
for the Murray/Broad Street area.
Downtown Sidewalks and Bulb-Outs ($600,000)
As indicated above, $100,000 of the two year total of $700, 000 for
this project is recommended for deferral at this time. If
required, the remaining two year funding for this program
($600,000) could be deferred.
Freeway Commercial Signing ($50,000)
Eliminate visual blight caused by non-conforming signs along
Highway 101 and preserve scenic values while providing for the
identification of freeway-oriented businesses.
Bikeway Improvements ($400,000)
Create a continuous network of bikeways throughout the City that
encourages bicycle use as an alternative to the automobile.
LONG-TERM IMPLICATIONS FOR GENERAL AND WATER FUNDS
The revised funding approach recommended in this report only
addresses General and Water Fund needs and resources through the
end of Fiscal Year 1990-91. Although we must live and act in the H
o
�,��►� ���ulli�p� q�lll city San .UIS oBISPO
COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
present, we must also ask ourselves: what are the long-term
financial implications of the course we are setting? The purpose
of this section is to address this question.
General Fund Implications
Beginning with the 1987-89 Financial Plan, evaluating the City' s
financial condition and establishing programs and policies to
ensure its long-term financial health has been a major goal for the
Council and Management Team. In May of 1989, the Council was
presented with the results of a comprehensive long-term financial
planning effort which identified future General Fund revenue needs
of over $4 million if current service levels are to be maintained
and adopted capital improvement goals are to be achieved.
The distance between existing revenues and expenditures and those
projected in this long-term financial planning effort has only
grown since this issue was last before the Council on January 30,
1990. Rather than restating all the findings of the Comprehensive
Financial Management Plan (CFMP) , the following is a brief summary
of the factors which further challenge the City's ability to meet
its long-term financial goals:
■ Sales tax revenues are flat. At $6. 1 million annually,
this is the City's single largest revenue source,
composing 30% of General Fund revenues. The CFMP
projections assume that sales tax revenues will grow at
rates that reflect past trends: 9% to l0% annually.
Based on this long-term projection, the 1989-91 Financial
Plan projected sales tax revenues to grow at a
conservative rate of 6% annually over the next two years.
If sales tax revenues remain flat over this two year
period, the negative impact. on General Fund balances
compared with original Financial Plan projections is $1. 4
million. The cumulative impact of flat sales tax
revenues over a ten-year period is obviously even
greater.
■ Expanded scope of desired operating programs and capital
projects since the Comprehensive Financial Management
Plan was prepared. Although not exhaustive, the
following is a brief summary of new or enhanced programs
and projects since the CFMP was prepared: significant
expansion of open space and parkland acquisitions;
bikeway improvements; downtown sidewalks and bulb-outs;
Fire Station No. 1 site acquisition, Mission Plaza
improvements and acquisitions; management information
systems; and emergency communications.
II city of San LUIS OBISPO
A COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
■ With Council action on this agenda report, there will be
significant General Fund financial commitments to water
programs and projects. As discussed under Water Fund
implications below, this support can become extremely
costly over the next several years depending on the
financial needs of the City's water system and the
Council 's willingness to use General Fund resources to
meet them.
Water Fund Implications
It is very difficult to project the long-term financial needs of
the water system due to the significance of any underlying
assumptions used for the amount of water that will be produced and
sold. Provided in Attachment 4 is a summary of four water revenue
requirement scenarios using 1993-94 as a base year under the
following action levels:
■ Normal water usage (no mandatory conservation)
■ Serious action level (25% mandatory conservation)
■ Severe action level (35% mandatory conservation)
■ Critical action level (50% mandatory conservation)
The attached scenarios have been prepared based on the following
operating and capital assumptions:
■ Under normal water usage conditions, water consumption
- will be 90% of 1987 levels (10% ongoing conservation
based on hardware and life style changes made during
mandatory conservation) .
■ Groundwater well operation will not be required under
normal water usage conditions.
■ Operating the upgraded treatment plant using ozone as the
primary disinfectant will cost an additional $150, 000
annually.
■ All other operating costs will increase at an inflation
rate of 5% annually.
■ Ongoing capital maintenance (primarily water main
replacements) will return to Water Management Plan target
levels of $400,000 - $600, 000 annually.
■ The General Fund loan recommended in this agenda report
($1.02 million plus accrued interest of $150, 000) is
repaid through an inclusion of this cost in a subsequent
debt financing.
���»�NNVIIIIIII�p� ► ��I city of san Luis oBi spo
COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
■ The Council approves a 27.4% rate increase at this time.
■ Treatment plant upgrade and Salinas Reservoir expansion
projects are completed at a cost of $14 million and are
funded through a debt financing.
■ Water Fund balances are restored to policy levels.
As reflected in the attached scenarios, there is a wide range of
additional revenue requirements ranging from $214, 000 to $4, 138, 400
annually summarized as follows:
Annual New Rate Increase
Revenue Needs Required
Normal Usage $ 214 ,700 4%
25% Conservation $ 215370000 53%
35% Conservation $ 31178, 300 76%
50% Conservation $ 4, 138,400 129%
Under normal water usage, which reflects 10% conservation from 1987
levels, periodic cost of living adjustments alone will more than
offset the. small deficit projected. However, under 50%
conservation, additional rate increases of 129% would be required
to offset the projected $4 . 14 million revenue shortfall.
Long-Term Rate Increase Needs
While the funding program outlined in this agenda report will
reduce the size of the rate increase required for 1990-91,
additional Water Fund capital investments, and corresponding rate
increases, will be necessary in future years. Any subsequent use
of the General Fund to support such rate increases will be far more
difficult and can not be recommended by staff.
CONCURRENCES
This agenda report has been reviewed by the Utilities Director, and
he concurs with its findings and recommendations.
SUMMARY
The purpose of this agenda report is to recommend a revised funding
approach in meeting the water system's operating and capital needs
in accordance with Council direction from their May 8, 1990
meeting. The recommendation includes:
/-w?o
city of san tuis oBispo
i COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
■ Funding $1.883 million in additional revenue requirements
through an allocation of utility user taxes on water
service charges from the General Fund to the Water Fund
($150, 000) ; General Fund loan in the amount of $866, 500 ;
and a water rate increase of 27.4%.
■ Revised financial policies establishing conditions under
which General Fund support of the Water Fund should be
considered.
■ Deferrals of previously approved programs and projects
totalling $1. 02 million in order to fund the recommended
level of General Fund support.
Upon council approval of these recommendations, staff will
incorporate these policy and expenditure changes into the 1989-91
Financial Plan and 1990-91 Budget which is scheduled for Council
adoption at their July 3 , 1990 meeting.
Attachments:
1. Water Revenue Requirements
a. Revenues, Expenditures, and Changes in Working Capital
Balances, Fiscal Years 1989-90 and 1990-91
b. Water Project Deferral Summary
2. Water Funding Concepts
3 . Summary of Programs and Projects Considered for Deferral
4 . Projected Water Revenue Requirements, Fiscal Year 1993-94
'Exhibit A:
Utility User Tax Evaluation
90-91810GET/WFREVREO-WPF
Attedlment
Water Revenue Requirements: 1989-91
1989-90 1990-91
Revenues
Water rate revenues $3,400,000 $3,163,600
Other revenues
from cal poly and cuesta 76,000 100,000
connection fees and meter sles 90,000 50,000
capital improvement charges 65,000 150,000
hydroplant revenues 61,000 0
interest earnings 420,000 250,000
surcharges 250,000 0
other revenues 20,000 20,000
Total revenues 4,382,000 3,733,600
Expenditures
Existing programs and projects
Operations and maintenance 3,719,400 3,412,500
Capital projects 4,298,600 484,000
Debt service 677,400 679,700
Total existing programs and projects 8,695,400 4,576,200
Expenditure changes
Groundwater wells operations 150,000 500,000
Extended water conservation 230,000
Revised capital projects
salivas reservoir design 550,000
treatment plant design 650,000
groundwater well development, III . 2,350,000
Deferred projects (1,888,100) (400,000)
Expenditure savings (80,000) (80,000)
Total expenditure changes (1,818,100) 3,800,000
Total expenditures 6,877,300 8,376,200
Revenues over(under) expenditures (2,495,300) (4,642,600)
New Revenue Requirements 1,883,000
Working capital, beginning of year(1) 5,669,200 3,173,900
Working capital, end of year(2) $3,173,900 $414,300
1. Excludes debt service reserve of$488,800.
2. Ending working capital is equal to 10% of operating expenditures
at the end of fiscal year 1990-91.
4 '0 Attachment
Water Capital Project Deferral Summary
1987-90 Cost
Remaining 1987-89 projects
Water main projects
morro (monterey-higuera) $30,000
court(monterey-higuera) 30,000
monterey/andrews 20,000
oakridge to ferini tank 90,000
Transmission improvements
emergency pumping hydrants 20,000
alrita pumps 10,000
highland/oakridge pr valve 30,000
Treatment plant improvements
to be separately funded
originally 1,600,000
Source of supply
all projects underway
Total remaining 1987-89 projects 230,000
Remaining 1989-90 projects
Water distribution improvements 485,000
Treatment plant improvements
to be separately funded
originally$440,000
Source of supply
all projects underway
Total remaining 1989-90 projects 485,000
Total remaining projects 715,000
Projects which should be funded
Distribution projects 45,000
1
Telemetry truck 15,000
Telemetry improvements 170,000-
Total projects which should be funded (1) 660,000
Capital control account balance
as of June 1, 1990 2,548,100
Balance available (1) $1,888,100
Note
1. Assumes that all other projects listed above can be deferred without
significantly affecting overall water operations.
� I.
/-�3
AnechrnenL.,�-
Water Funding Concepts
Alternative A
• Revenue needs financed 33% from a direct General Fund subsidy, 33% from a General
Fund loan, and 33% from a rate increase.
Alternative B
• Direct subsidy from utility users tax revenues on water service charges.
• Balance of revenue needs financed 50% from General Fund loan and 50% from rate increase.
Alternative C
• Revenue needs financed 50% from General Fund loan and 50% from rate increase.
Alternative D
• Revenue needs financed 40% from General Fund loan and 60% from rate increase.
Alternative Cost Summary
General Fund Support
Direct Capital Total General Water Fund
Subsidy Project Loan Fund Support Rate Increase TOTAL
Alternative A
Percent of Total Funding 33.3% 33.3% 66.7% 33.3% 100.0%
Amount $627,700 $627,700 $1,255,400 $627,600 $1,883,000
Equivalent Rate Increase 19.8% 19.8% 39.7% 19.8% 59.5%
Alternative B
Percent of Total Funding 8.0% 46.0% 54.0% 46.0% 100.0%
Amount $150,000 $866,500 $1,016,500 $866,500 $1,883,000
Equivalent Rate Increase 4.7% 27.4% 32.1% 27.4% 59.5%
Alternative C
Percent of Total Funding 0.0% 50.0% 50.0% 50.0% 100.0%
Amount $0 $941,500 $941,500 $941,500 '$1,883,000
Equivalent Rate Increase 0.0% 29.8% 29.8% 29.8% 59.5%
Alternative D
Percent of Total Funding 0.0% 40.0% 40.0% 60.0% 100.0%
Amount $0 $753,200 $753,200 $1,129,800 $1,883,000
Equivalent Rate Increase 0.0% 23.8% 23.8% 35.7% 59.5%
0
C Attachment 3.
Summary of Program and Project Deferrals
Financial Plan
Page Reference Cost
Recommended for Deferral
Hazardous waste inventory ' D-14 $60,000
Historical preservation ' D-70 300,000
Greek row study D-71 30,000
Recycling contract with the county ' D-83 50,000
Fire training facility(1987-89) E-11 300,000
Downtown sidewalks and bulbouts ' E- 8 100,000
Higuera @ Tank Farm widening E- 8 100,000
Firefighter monument E-11 80,000
Total recommended for deferral 1,020,000
Considered but Not Recommended for Deferral
Enhanced tree maintenance ' D-58 110,000
Art-in -public places ' D-65 55,000
Horizontal control (satellite survey) D-75 50,000
Downtown street lights (1987-89) E- 8 117,300
Murray/Broad street improvements E- 8 97,000
Neighborhood traffic improvrmrnts E- 8 100,000
Downtown sidewalks and bulbouts ' E- 8 600,000
Freeway commercial signing E- 8 50,000
Bikeway improvements ' E- 8 400,000
Total considered but not recommended for deferral 1,579,300
TOTAL $2 599,300
' Two year cost savings
Attachment¢
Projected Water Revenue Requirements: Fiscal Year 1993-94
Scenario A Scenario B Scenario C Scenario D
Normal Usage 25% Cnsrvtn 35% Cnsrvtn 50% Cnsrvtn
Revenues
Water service charges $5,760,600 $4,801,300 $4,160,400 $3,200,300
Other revenues 796,000 320,000 320,000 320,000
Total revenues 6,556,600 5,121,300 4,480,400 3,520,300
Expenditures
Operations and Maintenance
Source of supply 1,818,200 1,818,200 1,818,200 1,818,200
Treatment 1,407,300 1,407,300 1,407,300 1,407,300
Distribution 840,900 840,900 840,900 840,900
Enhanced conservation program 279,600 279,600 279,600
Groundwater wells 607,800 607,800 607,800
Total operations and maint 4,066,400 4,953,800 4,953,800 4,953,800
Debt service
Existing 679,900 679,900 679,900 679,900
Projected 1,525,000 1,5.25,000 1,525,000 1,525,000
Total debt service 2,204,900 2,204,900 2,204,900 2,204,900
Ongoing capital maintenance 500,000 500,000 500,000 500,000
Total expenditures 6,771,300 7,658,700 7,658,700 7,658,700
New Revenue Requirements $214,700 $2,537,400 $3,178,300 $4,138,400
Exh .
MEMORANDUM �
June 4 , 1990
TO: John Dunn, City Administrative Officer
FROM: William C. Statler, Director of Financel0 --
SUBJECT: WHITE PAPER - EVALUATING THE UTILITY USERS TAX ON WATER
SERVICE CHARGES
OVERVIEW
During the 1989-91 Financial Plan review process, the Council
discussed the use of General Fund revenues generated from the
utility users tax on water service charges. As a result of this
discussion, an evaluation of this revenue source was adopted as a
Council Work Program objective in the 1989-91 Financial Plan (page
B-4.5) .
In evaluating the utility users tax on water service charges, the
following three questions are addressed:
■ How much does the General Fund receive in utility users _\
tax revenues in total and from the Water Fund?
E Do other cities include water sales in their utility
users tax?
■ What alternatives exist for the use of utility user tax
revenues?
UTILITY USER TAX REVENUES
The City adopted the utility users tax by ordinance on August 21,
1972 (Chapter 3. 16 of the Municipal Code) . The rate was set at 5%
for all users of the following five services, and has not been
changed since its adoption:
■ Telephone
■ Electricity
■ Gas
■ Water
■ Cable television
A summary of revenues received from each source over the last five
completed fiscal years is provided in Attachment Al. As reflected
in this summary, utility users taxes are an important source of
General Fund revenues, accounting for almost 11% of total general
revenues in 1988-89. Of the $2 . 18 million in utility user tax
revenues received in 1988-89, 8. 6% ($187 , 340) was from water
service charges.
C1 PRACTICES IN OTHER CITIES
The survey provided in Attachment A2 was prepared in order to
determine how other California cities use and assess utility users
taxes. This survey was conducted using information provided by
the State Controller's Office for Fiscal Year 1987-88 (the most
current year available) and follow-up telephone surveys with each
of the listed cities. The survey provides the following
information for each of the 88 cities which collected utility users
taxes during 1987-.88:
■ Population
■ Utility services affected
■ Tax rates
■ Customer class affected: residential(R) or commercial (C)
■ Whether the city provides water service
■ 1987-88 utility user tax revenues
® Ratio of utility user tax revenues to total general
� . revenues
The following are highlights from the survey results:
M Utility user taxes in 1987-88 represented 13 .5% of
general revenues for these cities compared with 12 .0% for
the City of San Luis Obispo.
■ Utility user tax rates range from 1% to 10%, compared
with 5% for the City of San Luis Obispo. The average
rate charged is slightly over 5%. Twenty-Five cities
have rates greater than 5%.
■ 43 of these cities include _water services in their
utility user . charges. Of these 43 cities, 24 provide
water services themselves. The following is a summary
of whether the city includes water- in its utility user
tax and whether they provide water service:
City Does Not
Provides Provide
Water Water Total
Tax base includes water 24 19 43
Does not include water 29 16 45
Total 53 35 88
r"
In summary, the City falls in the average range of utility user tax
revenues as a percent of total general revenues, the tax rate, and
in including water services with the scope of utility user taxes. o
C O
ALTERNATIVES TO THE CURRENT SCOPE AND USE OF THESE REVENUES
There are three basic alternatives to the ,City's current policy of
including water service charges in the scope of utility user taxes
and allocating these revenues for General. Fund purposes:
■ All or a portion of tax revenues from water service
charges could be allocated to the Water Fund. This
restriction on General Fund revenues is not recommended.
By definition, tax revenues are levied for general
government purposes. Accordingly, there is " no purpose
in levying general purpose taxes and then allocating them
to an enterprise operation where rates are intended to
recover costs.
■ The utility users tax could be removed from water service
charges. For the General Fund, this has the same effect
as allocating revenues back to the Water Fund. As
we have discussed with Council, community groups, and
City staff on a number of occasions, the City faces
significant financial challenges in the future, and any
action which reduces existing General fund revenues on
an ongoing basis is not recommended at this time. As
discussed in the survey results, it is not an unusual
practice for cities to include water service charges in
their utility user taxes, even when they also directly
provide water services. However, if the Council
determines that a loss of $150, 000 to $180, 000 annually
in General Fund revenues is acceptable, eliminating the
utility users tax on water service charges and then
increasing water rates correspondingly by 5% is
preferable to collecting a General Fund tax and then
allocating the proceeds back to water. The financial
effect is the same, but the important policy distinction
which should be maintained between General Fund_ and
Enterprise Fund revenues is much clearer.
■ General Fund utility user tax revenues from water service
charges could be allocated to the Water Fund during
periods of "critical" and "severe" action levels. Staff
continues to support the concept that rates should be set
at levels which fully recover water system operating and
capital needs. However, this alternative would be
consistent with the General Fund support policies
developed in response to Council direction from their May
81 1990 meeting.
90-91BUDGET/UTILUSEW.WPF
Attachment
Utility Users Tax Revenues: Last Five Fiscal Years
1984-85 198586 1986-87 1987-88 1988-89
Utility User Tax Revenues
Revenues By Utility Service
Electric $619,636 $609,098 $646,618 $708,951 $818,922
Telephone 624,310 708,546 688,224 783,753 766,581
Gas 296,282 252,949 267,222 267,571 268,389
Cable television 48,328 56,519 105,018 128,850 142,709
Water 105,767 88,799 122,172 120,628 187,340
Total revenues 1,694,323 1,715,911 1,829,254 2,009,753 2,183,941
Annual percent increase -- 1.3% 6.6% 9.9% 8.7%
Total general revenues 17,130,704 18,134,561 18,840,631 20,566,124 20,201,424
Annual percent increase -- 5.5% 3.7% 8.4% -1.8%
Utility user tax revenues
as a percent of
total general revenues 9.9% 9.5% 9.7% 9.8% 10.8%
f_3o
Auachment= . .
O O CO O J •O N ^ O• t0
O i0 00 N O IA N W M O Y1 . M M ^ `O N `O �t �f •O �t M M ��
O
P O M N P M N ^
W W
2 �
A � �
P
O 'O N A .O yO�At 10 P M �.Oy A A
�p � O N M � d N ^ NMO N N
t0 7 A N .p P N N O O N 00 V A O p P 'O N .7
X 2 00 O 00 O A M ^ N O •O N P iA �A N M
N0 -C N 00 ^ ^ 1A M ^ ^ WN �t N �f A �t 'o ^ N O
P W ^ M ^ ^ A
^ O[
N
W K
r r z Y z 2 r r z Y 2 2 '2 2 Y 2 Y 2 2 2 z 2 r
U o s -
o.
o 0 0 0 0 0 0 02-C alf OR at 0
'o 0
U M N N N N O IA 1A N O M
Or ^ ^
xxOpxpxp
j VOi O O 0 0 0 0 COD 0 O
at . M1 A N Oa( 11 IA IA O M
O O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O
O N O . . . .
A N.O to V1 IA O IA M .
^
G 00 O 0 0 0 0 0 0 u1 0 0
U 00 , MM N W;N O IA IA O N N'M
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O 0 0
. 0 0 U Y 0 0 0 O { 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 O O
UM N O N N N O Au; M
M M 'O O IA IA A
O 7-t X X X X 0 X X X X X 0X X X �t X
S O O O O O O O O O O O O O O
W 1 O O V1 N O O O Y1 0 0 0 0 0 0 IA O O
U M M M 'O O M A 1A N O 14 61 V1 O A Yt M
OC
W
y X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X
0 0 0 0 00 0 00 O O 'O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
O O o Y\ 00 O I O 1A 0 0 0 0 0 0. 000
U M M M .O 1A u4 64'^ A N N O w; IA IA O N YY M
^ ^
Q X X X X X X X. X X X X X X X X X X X
O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 IA Y1 O O I O Y 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 . O
iA N O u; VN HA A O �A M
X XX 'X X X X X X X X' X X X X X X ae X X ^
O O O O O O O O O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
O OY1 N 0 0 0 O IA O I 0 0 0 0 0 0 N O O 00
U
M M •O O IA 1A IA ^ A IA N O N N Y1 O A IA M b
.+ X X X X x
U o-0 ;pt 0 0 0 0 ale 0 O 0080000000
W O O I 0 0 0 O I O 0 00 0 0 0 0 N O O
O W 0 64 ^'N O IA N O IA u1 61 O A 1A M 00
^ ^ O
' C
^
O G
2 0
O O 00 P O 00 M N .O V1 d co 7 0 N M �Q N M �.
M N O .T M N 0 O M N O "d'
f- IA IA P 1A O O 17 N Y1 M N
W OO A 1�
J N ol W V1,^ O ^ ^ O N ^
^ ^ ^
O 40
> a
� W y
W pp
X � ~
Q W
� Y •
y J J C 6 J O W w
LC
W W W 6 :J N O W J_ CL O
y J J S W W � Y < O d Q CO V CC O
Q Q J C J U y or W 10. W U
m Q 2 O r 00 U S W p t _ y
J U 6 0 W K r O F•• W 6 y i i7 > O O O O
2 2 ^
W J I < rc 6 U Q ^ J J W Q Q ^ < Q
r O7 U W W W i7 r y y s v < W S O O. 6 6 y y
/-3l
A P p O }t ► P N1 '� Cep M M O 0 O �O tO N P A
C N d O O O A M J
J w .- ^ .t ► O ► .O P eD P ► N N ► ^ m O ' m ^ M
X 6Q Z ► N N ► ► M ►
Z �
W W
AO V i
r �
M A N M P M O N ��yy ► P N A d M �t N P A P .}
O N M N ' t0 A A N U1 M O {c MM v O
► O O �t A P ► U1 N ► M ^ A P N
W ► M A M P O O ► A A .O
g.
6 W M {O .p 0p O J N P A O ff�`O CCO N N N v M
P ~ W N 'o ► �- ► N N ► N ► ► ► N
► p� M
y
W OC
H H Y 2 2 Y Y 2 Z Z i Z i
U � 3
a
x X x x x
0 0 0 oo
U N ► M N V1 v U1 d `o
p� ►
aoex x �e xoX
z o 0 0xx
0 0 0 0 0
U4 ► M N ► d U\
aex at at xaoc aoex xpx
O O O P O O O O O O
r U Lnx►p M N Mxp ► Y� `O �xpt �O
6 O O O P O O O O O O
U Y U1 ► M N M ► NO d 'O
xxx34 'pA0 XXX 304 atp x �e
U OO O O O P O O O O O O O O O
W N 'n ► N M N 61 M U+ U\ 14 U• J �O
a WZ xp xp xp► p p xp xb
w a
00 O O O P O O O O 0 cc O O O
U OL Ut 11 ► 61 M N ► M J U4 U• IO U• d -Z
ec
W
xXxxxxxx x x at ,ex �esoeaR
00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 C
O O O O O 0P O U1 O O O O N O O O
u U1 LA ►_ N M N N �O M �T LA U1 IO M U1 d `O
< X X.X p xp X X x X X X x x x X X xpp X
c7
00
0 0 o P 0 UOi o o O G o YO 0 0 0
V> U1 ►X V7 M N ► `o M V U1 U\ 'o M U\ 4 �xxO
0 00 0 0 0 p xp 0 O O O O O O O O b
U O O O O O P O U1 O O O O O U1 O O O
U 11 U1 ^ N M N U1 U\ -Z M U; d '0 00
x X0 X0 0 x X0 X0 X iOt XO x X0 0 0 x x x0 0?[ ?[ x O
U 0 0 O 0 0 N
W O O O O O P O U1 O O O O O Y O O O
W U1 U1 ^ V♦ M N ► .p M �t Y1 in o M N v O '
O
O -
kn
Ln �rri �
M �p N7aa
L O v P O A�}} �.pp .Pp UP1 P ^ M'!Nq PC, .f O
< M Io O a0 OO ► �T �O O `O O O M �O `O N M O O P 0
O M CO ► A.►. O U1 P �t P O O A pp aDO
7 �f M d N M N M1 M It d H1 m �t M M .t M N M N M C-
A 6 _
1 ~
L co
7 y
y W
O
X
m
N QQ
O Y <_ V W W W zOz •�'
T I� LU Y O O Q W J UA
�+ r C O V. W y W = > J Q Y OC J U
U Vl
= = wow h h v
-3�
0 0
pp O P P •O �} N to O N J U1 M Ir Y� ED d' O d •O
W P J cO O N •O O V\ •d M ^ m O d /r M N A P •O m �f A l�.f •Op
A A M 0 0. ^ ^ N J .O CO ' 00
2 �
A 0 K
co
P
PM O co pppp O A N M J P O N 'O W P J a0 U, •O . O
.O 0 0 0 a0 0 .O A O N N O m A ..}} N �} U1 A A d
J M J' M M O• P O 1 O7 U1 U\ N 'O M P •O J U1 N M N
M O A .-- P U1 O O P O 0 0• N +r1 A J'M }O M P •O �t P d d d
X 2 pp. M J.U\ In O .O d V\ J N �} = J d N CO Op •O N P
P J Y1'A •O N W N d N •O M M 00 P M O
CO e-
P W N m M N N N N M N A M d M N P J N 1
00 eO
N
W OC
H 0 H 2 Y S Y Y Y 2 Y 2'. Y Y Y 2 Y Y 2 2 Y S
U O 3
fY'
a
x x x x x x x x x be
0 0 omu0, oI: � 0 0
U
pM �pM[ 'H�0 at
yds 1fl 'O
r �1
H O O O CO V1 O O O O
3 oc •c vi Fn en v+ .i in o n
0 0 00 0 o
N U\ M M J V1 U\ N •O m A U1
J
r x x x x yxy� x. x O O O O O
L O O 000 u0'+
CO O<. N Vt M fn J en 611 U1 •C 00 A 67 J
U
x x xit x at it X x.X ?OO xO x x x0 x0 x0 x x
00 00000 O O y�n� O 0 0 0
U 0 0 O O m U V O O A O O O 0000 N O
W N N A N M M M U\ It V\ N U\ U U\ .O Op A U;
a
` z o 0 00 0 0 0 0 o 'i 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
V = S 0 0 O O a0 en 0 0 0 O O O O O O N O O
U = U1 V> A V1 M 'If1 M V\ J V� U\ N Ut U\ .O 00 A U\ J
>'
O:
W
yr x X x x x x'x X.x x x x x x x x �t x x x x
0 o O O O 000 IOn N !� 0 0 0 0 0 0 000 U 0
cA
m A M
x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x X x x x x
Vl O O O O O O O O O y�n� O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Q O O O O O N Y1 O O A O 0 0 0 0 0 0 U1 O O
0 2 Vt N M A V> M M'r• M U1 d N N N 0 N •O co A V> J
x at be a0 x x x J[ x x X x x x x x x x x x x
O O 0 0 0 0 00 N O O y� O 0 0 0 0 0
O O O O O O N V1 O O /� O O O O O O O U1 O 00
Yl M A U1 M'M N M d'N N U\ U\ eft .O 00 A U1 O
U
OC x at x X at x at x at g x')t X it x st x x at'x x O
Y O O 0 0 0 0 O O 0 0O 0 0 0 0
U O O O O O 00 to N O O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 N O O
J OC U1 4 M A V\ M M M A d U\ U> V\, V\ U1 .O m A U1 J
W O
O
O
M �
a
P CO N N N O U1 P N pp .O .p M A A M .O N pppp
O P J a0 N J O d Nef� O� � v NNMOAd P d .O N A co
Le� MNP A P P10 P •O P .O P .O 7�
A C
ca
7
Vl
x Q
O OC
• O! Q Y d >• W ~ � K m � W 0
m 6 OC W O OO U 6 0 OC2 e-
6 'Q 2 Y 2 O 2. 2 6 N 00
Y Q O: a Y ZZ. 6 W J pp N W 4 m O 2' �+
1• Y O m 2 O 2 O O z Q
N •� W 'Z 6 W S '2 W H 2. O Y Z. 2 07 J Q Q. W Z
0 Z M Y V
U 6 0 2 m O. O H H O O J S Z Z J ► H
J � 2 J W 6• OC 2 7 2 J O O Q V J 2 2 2 2 J 110
yy It
00 2 �' _ C K K OC K N N N N N 7 3 3 v
7
/-33
��. W M IP A O .O ^ O 'O O M •O N O M P •O P N M
•O tna � O � P
O J
A •OO
T CDVP a0 NN N N '
N
2
GouoWc
a
IO P vAi p Nei Il1 ep N m 0 �A
CO yMy�1 oQoQ O P A
Ift � � � I� A •O � N P 5 � P N
tC �t If1 M N O R M M
7 M CO n O O N J p MV1 .p P M a ..pp •O M •O N m v1 IA
K S N CO =p A M 8 NN A � y1 N & O N " A A � 1l� co
4 w O v v A A N0 0 �` M N P m � v •O N •O Y1 V1 I�
N N r. m 00 M P d E0 O O P d O M •O d O M ^ a N
N M J N
1f1 A
fA
W CC
> O W
2 2 > Y Y Y > Y 2 Y Y Y Y Y > Y > Y > T Y >
C
a
0 00 oo 0 0
U
IA O_ Ilt If1 r A .p A Ifl N •O •O
x x X X X x
W
00 0 0 00 O O O O O O
H O O O O O O O Ift Y1 O O O
3 Y A N O N04 0 It D4
N A .O A Y1 •O •O
0 0 0 P N Y01 0 O O O
U N O Ifl m •O A Go In •O •O
X xX x X0 �t x 0
J 0 0 0 P Y01 Y01 O O O
cm
U �
3A &R xxxxale x xxxo0xxxx 'itaA
cc 000008 S 0 0 o $ o o o 0 0
In o 0 0 0 0 0 0 v o o o o o o o
W U `O Vf IA O N O 1/1 � A � •O A f0 Y1 Y1 �t V1 .O N .O
x x Xx
0 .p 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
W 0 Y01 000 0 0 00 0 00 00 00 S 0 O H1 N O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
d .O V1 A 1/1 O Y1 O 61 A P `O A 00 Y1 J 61 .O N Z
� r r
C
W
"' X xx it at be 0 x xxxXit xxx
0 0 0 0 0 080088000000
In 000In00 v1 061000000
U .
1l1 O V1 N Y1 A .O A ID 0 N 'f Y1 •O N .O
r r r
N O 000 0 0 0 0 OxD 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
• a v, o00000o u1olnlno 000000
c7 Y •G A W O V1 O V1 .' A P .O A O 61 r N •O N .O
r r
O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
IA O O O I. . . O O 1l1 {f1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
U
'O
61 O A N If1 r A r .p A 00 V1 V1 .f V1 .O N .O
U r r 0
O 0 0
00088 0 0 O O O O O DR 000000 0
U Ill 0 0 0 0 0 O O Y1 V1 O 0 0 0 0 0 0
J .O A.Vt O A O v1 r A P .O A O
W
L
d
0
a mNa � 2SmNn °�j �Ao $ � o � M �� $ � � �pv0i L
N IR 1 A 14 ' .p r co N N m a G O
T d O N .O CO O .� .p �t V1 N M O M .t J p M d CIO
�T M V N M A I� N I S C
i
� 7 N
N a W
W f=1 1 r
~ W 2 O C mU
V i
U {maIyy W 6 U `Q H x W d
Y W J W O G 2 W K Q NR 0 4 V
Q z 2 m z 22 0 W
0 m M
Q V1 W O 2
✓ W Q O -. W Q N QQ K C t W z X i odc u Q
•Y V m V V S J
0 Z Q O d N (Q/1 N N h h N v 0