Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout11-20-02 Utilities Committee tontaitta Zoort tiiitiez tommitta The November 20, 2002 meeting of the Utilities Committee was called to order by its Chairperson, Council Member Al`Buddy"Kirsits at 3:30 p.m. in the Council Informal Meeting Room. Persons in attendance included Council Members Varner, Pfeifer, Coleman, Kirsits, Aranowski, King, Kelly, Kuspa and White; Public Works Director Gary Gilot, Chief Assistant City Attorney Aladean DeRose, City Controller Rick 011ett, Mr. Patrick McMahon, Mr. Robert L. Miller, Sr., Mr. Terry Miller, Mr. Steven K. Brock, Mr. Ted Foti, Mr. Paul A. Kempf, Mr. John DeLee, Mr. Matthew S. Cullinan, Mr. John Mountsier, Mr. Fred Dominick, Mr. Partick Cummings, Mr. William Hoye, Telly Bland of the gloutb ty tribune, Kathleen Cekanski-Farrand, Council Attorney,and other members of the public. Council Member Kirsits noted that all members of the Utilities Committee were present, namely Council Members Coleman, Aranowski, Pfeifer and himself. He noted that the Committee meeting was called to continue discussion of Bill No. 88-02 which would establish new sewer rates. Council Member Kirsits then provided copies of a letter dated November 18, 2002 from the Board of Commissioners of St. Joseph County which provided an update on the Water and Sewer District(copy attached). Mr. Gary Gilot, Public Works Director, then provided two (2) handouts to the Committee. He then reviewed the one-page hand-out listing nine (9) items (copy attached), and the multi-page handout entitled "South Bend Wastewater CIP 1998-2002 versus CIP Cost of Service Study for 2002-2005" (copy attached). Mr. Gilot stated that the 2d handout focuses on capital and that the public policy issues is "what type of capital program does the city wish to have?". Mr. Gilot contended that the proposed rates are just and equitable, and that they reflect an adjustment in light of the concerns voiced earlier this summer by the Council. He suggested that the city should get started on the capital programs so that a"good faith effort could be shown to EPA and IDEM". Chief Assistant City Attorney Aladean De Rose then addressed the committee. She showed the contents of one of two small banker boxes and indicated that much information has been provided, especially to the large users. Ms. DeRose stated that "the city has made every effort to be responsive and have provided many documents to the attorney for the large users". She noted that she sent an email to the Council Members which contains several hundreds of pages and has a CD which contains 1,825 pages of documents. Ms. DeRose stated that the Council should be aware that they are"cooperating and will provide as much information as possible". Dr. Varner inquired whether the expansion would be into unincorporated areas. Mr. Gilot stated yes,under the smart growth model. Dr. Varner asked how.that would be affected by the new sewer and water district in the county. Mr. Gilot stated that he has insufficient knowledge in that area and just received the county's letter a few moments ago. Mr. Gilot stated that the city would "defend serving the facility planning area",and that the city will continue"to build the tax base". Utilities Committee November 20, 2002 Page 2 Council Member Kirsits indicated that he had received a voice mail from the Director of the Division of Environmental Services Jack Dillon indicating that he would be unable to attend today's committee meeting. Mr. Matthew S. Cullinan, Executive Assistant to the President of the University of Notre Dame, stated that following the last committee meeting it was indicated that several Council Members would be receptive to receiving information about other funding alternatives. He then introduced Mr. Steven K. Brock of Therber,Brock&Kramer,Inc. of Indianapolis. li Mr. Brock provided two (2) handouts to the Committee, the first entitled "South Bend Municipal • Sewage Works, South Bend, Indiana, Calculation of Alternative Rate Increase Percentages Including Illustrating the Effect of Borrowing $27,000, 000 to Finance the Utility's Capital Improvement Program as Opposed to Financing the $25,857,767 Capital Imp rovement Program on a Pay-As-You-Go Basis and Borrowing One Year's or Two Year's Capital Improvements in Order to Implement a One Year or Two Year Rate Increase", and the second being a"Summary" version of the first document(copies attached). Mr. Brock stated that he a CPA with an MBA and has been working in this area for over twenty years. He is serving as a consultant for the University of Notre Dame, I/N Tek and I/N Kote, and Memorial Hospital to propose alternatives to alleviate the high percentage rate increases. He then reviewed his handouts. He highlighted a letter attached to the "Summary" dated November 16, 2002 from Ethel L. Morgan, PE of HomeTown Engineering, LLC(copy attached) which provides an analysis of the expected service of the various items proposed in the capital improvement program (copy attached). Mr. Brock noted that the expected life ranges from 5 to 50 years. He then reviewed the "side by side" reports. He concluded his remarks by stating that "bonds are typically used for the majority of capital improvements". Dr. Varner inquired of Mr. Brock whether his proposals assume a "flat rate for all". Mr. Brock stated that they do assume the continuation of the same rate for all users as is currently the format in effect now by the City. • Council Member King voiced concern that but for Dr. Varner pointing out the"flat rate premise", that that is a second fundamental difference which should have been highlighted by Mr. Brock. Council Member King stated that Mr. Brock's proposals incorporate borrowing instead of"paying as you go"and a flat rate for all customers. Mr. Brock stated that the goal was to lower the % increase to permit discussion of all other alternatives. He noted that his alternatives include the flat rate concept. Mr. Cullinan emphasized that their presentation utilizes the "existing rate structure used by the city". He noted that the capital projects are the key,and it is there hope that common ground for a workable proposal would be pursued. Mr. Cullinan stated that major public policy issues must be considered and debated. He suggested that a one or two year temporary rate be considered to allow discussions to take place. Mr. Pat Cummings, Public Works Director for the Town of New Carlisle then addressed the Committee. Mr. Cummings stated that he has reviewed the bar charts set forth in the Cost of Service Study and has talked with Mr. Gilot. He stated that the Town of New Carlisle would be Utilities Committee November 20,2002 Page 3 considered a wholesaler. Under the proposed rates the impact to New Carlisle would go from paying approximately$48,000 to paying approximately$168,000. He noted the following costs: $20-$25 per month to$60-$80 per month for a family of two $50-$60 per month to$150-$175 per month for a family of four He noted that much of the infra structure in place was paid for with TIF funds with over $18 million TIF funds being used in 1989 and 1990. He noted that TIF funds paid for the lift stations in that area which benefitted development in the Blackthorne Industrial Park area. Mr. Robert L. Miller, Sr. inquired whether New Carlisle currently pays $ .52 per 100 cubic feet. It was acknowledged that that is the current rate as a wholesaler. Mr. Miller noted that they should be concerned. Mr. Fred Dominick of the Marriot and a member of a local hotel.motel association voiced concern over the "degree and the suddenness of the proposed increase". He stated that the rates would have a dramatic impact on the hotel/motel industry. He added that overnight there rates would go up 45%the 1st year,an additional 13% the 2d year,and an additional 14% the 3rd year. Mr. Robert L. Miller, Sr., a local attorney representing the Ramada Inn and other local hotels/motels, then addressed the Committee and summarized a letter sent to Council Member Kirsits dated November 19, 2002(copy attached). Mr. Miller stated that since September of 1999 the City of South Bend has owned all assets of the former Clay Utilities, and that since that time has overcharged the customers in that area. No utility can charge a rate that has not been approved. He stressed that the 50% surcharge is the "deal breaker". He suggested out of fairness that the Council indicate whether there is a majority in favor of the Administration's proposal, so that something like what happened earlier this summer is avoided. Mr. Miller stated that when the last public hearing was set and advertised that there were many remonstrators in the audience with many of them traveling long distances to be there. They were not given the opportunity to speak, and that a repeat of that should be avoided. Mr. Miller stated that "the Town of Roseland is the city's cheapest customer". He noted that they have no lift stations, and that there is "no relationship of the service provided to the cost to be charged". He stated that he does not believe that a judge would sustain the surcharge. He suggested that the Council review Father Malloy's letter and the letter from I/N Tek I/N Kote and look at everyone's alternative plans. Mr. Miller stated that education loans are now going for 3% and that the City would qualify for loans at 4% which is" almost free money", with the capital improvement lasting for many many years. He stated that the City of Evansville established tier rates by agreement. He urged the Council to study the rates of$ .52 per 100 cubic feet for New Carlisle; $ .74 per 100 cubic feet for I/N Tek and I/N Kote, and $1.00 for the Ramanda Inn and similarly situated hotels/motels. He asked the Council to consider a "wholesale rates for the heavy hitters" and requested a response on whether there would be a hearing next Monday. He stated that there is "not a level playing field"and suggested that all of the documents and information needed by the Council could not be reviewed by then. He noted that people from Indianapolis would be coming for Monday's meeting. He concluded his remarks by stating that when Studebaker pulled out of the city it was difficult and that the city is still dealing with old Studebaker building today. He asked the Council to consider what would happen if New Carlisle, Notre Dame and others would pull out of the city's system. He suggested that more discussions take place. Utilities Committee November 20, 2002 Page 4 Council Member Kirsits stated that the Council takes its responsibilities very seriously. He stated that they will continue discussions which may result in " a compromise, having the bill pulled, postponed or continued". Mr. Terry Miller of the Chamber of Commerce then asked questions with regard to data on page 10 of the cost of service study regarding %580,000 property tax increase and whether the rate goes against that figure. Mr. Gilot noted that a policy decision would have to be made with regard to taxes and payment in lieu of taxes. Mr. Gilot stated that the payment in lieu of taxes is a commonly accepted formula Mr. Miller then inquired about information set forth on page 21 of the cost of service study and voiced concern over the refunding amounts. Mr. Gilot stated that he would contact the City Controller and/or bond counsel. Dr. Varner noted that by using the 2003 base rate that in 2008 the$800,000 plus figure would not be included in reference to the questions raised about the figures on page 21. Mr. Miller then inquired about the information on page 28 with regard to "o & m" and the inside costs and the 25%outside costs. Mr. Gilot stated that he would defer to Mr. Skomp. Mr. Miller stated that the CSO issue is a state-wide issue. Indianapolis and Gary are in "horrendous shape", and the state will have to address this issue in 2004. He stated that he does not believe that the problem can be totally addressed locally. He added that most communities will not meet the CSO requirements set for 2003. Mr. Miller contended that at least$1.6 million should be deleted, and that further study needs to be done on further capitalization. He urged the Council to look at all alternatives so that there will be a"win/win for everyone". Council Member Coleman asked if everyone had received all the information they needed on PILOT since a specific formula is applied uniformly in this area Mr. Miller questioned about depreciation and urged that debate take place on the public policy issues. Council President Kelly asked for a reaction of the comments made by Mr. Gilot, the City's Public Works Director,and inquired"where do we go from here". Mr. Gilot stated that with regard to Mr. Brock's report that he would not support funding items with a useful life of 10 years and paying for them over 20 years. He noted that after four (4) years, there "would be zero for capital" available whereas the City's proposal provides ongoing investment for sustainable assets. Mr. Gilot stated that the City has made several:moves since their original proposal made-this summer---the proposed bill recommends three (3) phases and a partial debt service component. With regard to the comments from the New Carlisle Public Works Director, he noted that there is a 1989 agreement currently in place which provides that March 2, 2004 would be the 1st time that the City could negotiate rates with New Carlisle. Mr. Gilot noted that he has no comments with regard to the remarks made by the Marriott representative. With regard to the comments from Mr. Miller and Clay Utilities, Mr. Gilot stated that the lease period is not over, and that the City advanced paid Mr. Miller. He would have the date of the end of the lease by Monday's meeting. Utilities Committee November 20,2002 Page 5 Mr. Gilot noted that with regard to Mr. Terry Miller's comments on CSO, he noted that both he and Mr. Dillon are active at the state and federal levels in this area, noting that he is "unaware of any white horse coming to save the city". He noted that both Mr. Skomp and Mr. Dillon will be present for Monday's hearing. Council Member King noted that the allocation of 0 & M expenses and its effect on the outside surcharge have been calculated at 74% and others have calculated it at 34%, stressing the need for accurate information. Council Member King stated that he would appreciate receiving this clarification before Monday. Council Member Pfeifer encouraged the Administration to provide as much information well before Monday as possible, noting the difficulty of reading for the 1st time information provided and the Administration's presentation. She stated that this information should not be given listening to in' g to the Council at the last minute, and suggested that it be provided to the Council no later than Saturday. Council Member Pfeifer noted that Mr. Dominick stated that there rates would go up 45% overnight the 1st year. She inquired of him what they pay. Mr. Dominick stated that there current rate is $ .74 per 100 cubic feet and that they now pay $20,000 to $30,000 annually which till go to $50,000 plus annually based on consumption and they have not factored in the additional costs with regard to meter size and alignment. Mr. Dominick stated that the increase proposed would be 45%more the 1st year; 13% more the 2d year; and 15%more the 3rd year plus costs for meter realignments. Council Member White noted that a lot of points have been raised with regard to the need for a fair increase and the need to reach"common ground". She inquired whether there"is any way to reach common ground". Mr. Gilot stated that the City Administration has made " a lot of movement from their first proposal". He noted that the City of South Bend has a large portion of its population living on fixed income and have many poor persons, and that the City Administration does not want to subsidize its operations on their backs. He stated that they are working for "social justice". He stated that he would ponder and address this concern with Mayor Luecke. Dr. Varner asked what the definition is of the principle of"social justice". Mr. Gilot noted that "taking money out of the pockets of the little guys who are not represented here,while the larger customers are represented here and by legal counsel". Council Member Coleman focused on the bonding issue. He noted that the city needs to address: what dollar figure are we looking at in light of remaining bonding ability; what are all of the options with regard to the length of the issue; and what is the bonding capacity of the city in this area. Mr. Gilot noted that for items with a useful life of five (5) years of less that the lease option is possible. With regard to the bonding capacity, he noted that it is a matter of having revenue sufficient to cover the expense, and noted that Mr. Skomp stated that the city is "in a good range now". Utilities Committee November 20, 2002 Page 6 ' Notre Dame then provided Mr. William Hoye of the General Counsel's Office of the University of N p a one-page handout to the Committee addressing costs(copy attached). In response to a question from Council Member White, Mr. Hoye noted that the costs are annual additional expenses, which would result in the University paying three times more than they are currently. Mr. Gilot noted that the university currently pays $600,000. Council Member Kirsits thanked everyone for attending today's committee meeting. The Council Attorney noted that the Utilities Committee is scheduled to meet again on Bill No. 88- 02 next Monday, November 25, 2002, with the first committee meeting beginning at 3: 30 p.m. She thought that the Utilities Committee would begin at approximately 4:20 p.m. Council Member Kirsits then adjourned the Committee meeting at 4:50 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Council Member Al`Buddy"Kirsits, Chairperson Utilities Committee KCF:kmf Attachments