Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout06-24-02 Utilities Committee Qommittu *oat: Comm Wu ltepor t: tiiitigs 1Ommittte The June 24, 2002 Utilities Committee meeting was called to order by its Chairperson Council Member Al `Buddy"Kirsits at 4:15 pm in the Council Informal Meeting Room. Persons in attendance included Council Members: Kelly, Varner, King, Aranowski, Coleman, Pfeifer,Ujdak, Kirsits and White; Mayor Stephen Luecke, Citizen Member Khadijah Muhammad, City Controller Rick 011ett, Director of the Division of Environmental Services John J. Dillon, Assistant City Attorney Aladean DeRose, Community and Economic Development Director Jon Hunt, Mr. John Mountsier, Mr. John Skomp, Attorney Ann Bruneel, Lou Nanni, William Hoye and Paul Keiniff of the University of Notre Dame, Terry Bland of the uo volt' trihutt , and Kathleen Cekanski-Farrand, Council Attorney. Council Member Kirsits noted that the first item on the agenda was to review Substitute Bill No. 43-02 which would amend Chapter 17, Article 2, Section 17-21 of the South Bend Municipal Code by establishing new sewer rates both inside and outside of the city limits. Mayor Stephen Luecke stated that it has been a long time since the sewer rates have been changed. Major investments are being made to the plant and its facilities which have added expenses to the overall operations. Mayor Luecke requested that Bill No. 43-02 have public hearing tonight, and requested that the third reading and vote on the Bill take place at the July 22, 2002 Council meeting rather than the July 8, 2002 Council meeting. The Mayor stated that the additional time will allow the City Administration to have discussions with various customers and perhaps recommend a phase in of the proposed rates. Mr. John J. Dillon, Director of the Division of Environmental Services, continued the formal presentation for the Administration. He noted that it has been fourteen(14) years since there was a rate increase. $ 13 million were received in revenues in year 2001. All monies would be used for operations and maintenance of the wastewater treatment plant and sewers. Approximately $50 has been spent on improvements since 1988. Mr. Dillon noted that $ 8 million is allocated to debt service reserves as required. Mr. Dillon explained that there is a"fixed factor" based on the size of the water meter and a"flow amount"which are taken into consideration. Most customers have a 5/8" water meter which impacts the fixed charge. The flow change will go from $0.74 to $2.07. per month, plus a surcharge 50% higher for municipal sewer users located outside the City of South Bend. Mr. Dillon presented two (2) handouts with the first providing examples of monthly charges for residential users only, and the second being a copy of a page setting forth the proposed rates from Bill No. 43-02. The overall outcomes will result in an emphasis on flow. Fifty percent (50%) of the seniors who are customers may see their bills go down. Mr. Dillon stated that customers can control their bills by controlling the amount of water usage and gave the example of turning off the water when brushing one's teeth, as just one cost saving measure. Mr. Dillon concluded his remarks by requesting that the "Cost of Service Study" dated May 20, 2002 and prepared by Crowe Chizek be added to the record(copy attached). Council Member King stated that based on his analysis of the proposed rates that "it looks like some users will get a real wack in the head". Council Member King stated that according to his calculations Allied Signal would see their bill doubled and it would reflect an increase of$350,000 in one year. Memorial Hospital's bill would double. I/N Tech and I/N Kote would have their bill triple, with their cost going from $600,000 to $2 million. Council Member King noted that all of Utilities Committee June 24, 2002 Page 2 these proposed increase are proposed in the middle of a budget year for each of those entities. Mr. Dillon stated that Council Member King's math is correct. He noted that a number of the larger customers will be affected and that many of them have voiced their concern to the City Administration. Dr. Varner questioned whether the City currently has the authority to have a surcharge of up to 150% on users outside of the city limits. Dr. Varner question that if this is correct and the City already has this authority, why was the City not billing properly? Mayor Luecke stated that he believes the City currently has the authority to bill up to 150% for non-city users. Dr. Varner voiced concern about the proposed rates, noting that the City attempted to remove the water works operation away from the jurisdiction of the Indiana Utility Regulatory Commission (IURC). He inquired when the sewer operation became under the sole authority of the City. Mr. John Skomp of Crowe Chizek stated that there are no sewer operations under the jurisdiction of the IURC. Dr. Varner noted that it is difficult for the Common Council to review the proposed rates when the "cost of service study" is proposed by a firm hired by the Administration. He noted that perhaps an independent study should be authorized by the Council, since the Council has the final authority on the rates and must determine if they are"fair and reasonable". The Council may feel compelled to accept the Administration's report. Dr. Varner inquired about how the city should distribute the increases, noting that the CSO comes up every five (5) years and that that was one of the reasons given as to why COIT should be passed. Dr. Varner concluded his remarks by stating that the Council needs much more information before it can entertain a request to increase the rates. The Mayor's July 22nd date may be reasonable, but at this juncture, that date appears to be premature. Assistant City Attorney Aladean DeRose sated that she believes that the 150% surcharge rate may have been authorized in 1975, but she believes that it was never codified. Mr. John Skomp of Crow Chizek stated that an increase in revenues is needed. It has been calculated that$ 19 million in revenues is needed rather than the current$13 million. He noted that the "Cost of Service Study" provides the data for such an increase, and referenced operation/maintenance data,capital improvements addressing combined sewers, and infra-structure repairs. Council Member Kirsits then opened the public portion of the hearing. There was no one present from the public to speak in favor of the proposed Bill. Mr. John Mountsier, President of I/N Tech and I/N Kote, spoke against the Bill. Mr. Mountsier stated that his company would receive a four-fold increase. He questioned why the $13 to $19 million increase is really necessary? He questioned why a new rate structure is necessary? Why is the fifty percent (50%) surcharge necessary? Mr. Mountsier stated that their sewer cost will go from $650,000 to $2.7 million under the proposed Bill. I/N Tech and I/N Kote compete on a global basis, and they cannot absorb this increase nor can they pass it on to their customers and remain competitive. Utilities Committee June 24, 2002 Page 3 Mr. Lou Nanni, Vice-President of the University of Notre Dame, spoke against the Bill. Mr. Nanni questioned the fairness of the proposed rates, focusing on the "severity and suddenness"of the contents of the proposed Bill. The University of Notre Dame will experience their bill going from $625,000 to $2.5 million per year which results in an increase of 425%. Mr. Nanni stressed that 4 million dollars of the 6 million dollars which the City of South Bend is seeking in increased revenues would what Notre Dame and I/N Tech & I/N Kote would pay alone. Mr. Nanni questioned whether the rate increase is really needed? The University of Notre Dame cannot move, however they can look into having their own treatment facility which would ultimately result in a "loose/loose"situation for all parties concerned. Mr. William Hoye, Assistant General Counsel of the University of Notre Dame, spoke against the Bill. He noted that there is no justification being provided for this level of increase. He stated that there must be a "reasonable basis" clearly shown for rates, and that the City has failed to show that, especially for the increase proposed for those outside of the city limits. Mr. Paul Keiniff, Utilities Director of the University of Notre Dame, spoke against the Bill. The University currently divides its storm and sanitary wastes and sends a "pure stream of waste" to the City. He reaffirmed the University's intent to look at building their own plant as another viable alternative. Mr. Hoye stated that between the two (2) customers present at today's Committee hearing, $ 4.7 million would be raised which represents a disproportionate increase. More time is necessary to study and have discussions. The Council must have proper legal standing to justify the proposed rates which is currently not present. Rates must be fair and reasonable and must be based on the cost to provide services. The University pays all costs for their 6,200 foot line which is in need of replacement. None of the proposed improvements which the City is contemplating would benefit the University of Notre Dame, yet the University would be funding a major portion of the costs of those improvements. The proposed rates would result in being a dis-incentive to economic development at the very time that the City needs further development. Mr. Hoye stated that sewer profits reported by the City were: $900,000 in 1999 $1,000,000 in 2000 $1,100,000 as of June 30, 2001 Under the rebuttal portion,Mayor Luecke stated that members of the City Administration have met are providing information. The profit amounts are the amounts before capital programs. There are a variety of ways to assess costs and the Mayor stated that the City Administration would again look at their overall philosophy,and perhaps look at phasing in the proposed rates. Mr. Gary Gilot, Director of Public Works, stated that three(3) test years were looked at as the pro- forma basis for the rates. The City has a forecast of future capital needs, and has studied the aging combined sewer system. The bottom line impact is significant, however the City may be able to "tweak the rates"in order to work with major customers. Council Member King stated that there must be a sound strategy for developing economic development in the City of South Bend. All of the major customers should have been talked to before this Bill was even filed for Council consideration. Customers like the South Bend Community School Corporation and Allied Signal who are not present today should have been Utilities Committee June 24, 2002 Page 4 contacted. Council Member King called the proposed ordinance "half-cooked". He stressed the need for dialogue which should have taken place before filing the proposed Bill. Significant changes are being requested with limited information being provided. Council Member King stated that at this point he preferred that the Administration withdraw the proposed Bill rather than just request a delay until July 22nd. There should be no winners or losers, but it is very evident that there will be many losers if the Council goes forward on the proposed Bill. It will take months to exchange ideas and information. Millage rates are often turned down because people feel uncomfortable. Much work needs to be done before action can be taken. The City should meet with the top fifty (50) customers and a process of working with them on an ongoing basis should be developed. Separate meetings are necessary where one meeting is devoted to the opportunity to have Mr. Skomp of Crow Chizek review the entire process as well as the cost of service study in "lay man terms". A positive solution is needed for the entire community. Dr. Varner stated that the "whys" behind proposing going from flow to fixed rates, must take place. He inquired "what's wrong with a comparison?" He noted that he worries about economic development. If two (2) major players like ND and I/N Tech decide not to remain major players, how will that impact our operations. The City cannot afford to loose its competitive edge, but is cannot afford to force current customers to go elsewhere. The City must look at all ways of funding and look at the pros and cons of each alternative. Council Member Coleman stated that he cannot support the concept of a separate and independent study being undertaken by the Council. The Council's role is one of proving proper oversight. The Council has always used due diligence in reviewing matters pending before it. We must extend the process so that the users of our services are educated and look at options. Council participation is necessary, and he suggested that Council President Kelly and Utilities Committee Chairperson be included in such discussions. If discussions need to go beyond July 22nd, then they should to place if determined to be necessary. The Council will determine what rates are "good and fair" and how they will be balanced. Many users have been getting an "awfully good deal". The City ran two(2) lines to I/N Tech and I/N Kote at a substantial cost to the City. In the 1960's the University of Notre Dame choice not to be within the City of South Bend. Council Member Coleman concluded his remarks be stating that he hopes that we can move forward in the "spirit of cooperation". Council Member Kirsits noted that "there is no free lunch". Because of being out of town on a family vacation, he has not had the opportunity to review all of the material. The Council must figure out the"fair share"when developing a proper rate structure. Council Member Pfeifer suggested that perhaps there is a compromise. There should be consideration of what the Common Council would like to have, which does not happen very often. Most of the time it does not happen at all,and then we end up in situations like this. Council President Kelly noted that much of the information provided is technical information. He would favor an extension until July 22nd as requested by the Mayor, and would further support going beyond that date if necessary in order to"get it done right". "If we hurt the major customers that would be ridiculous", rather we must decide what is"fair and reasonable". Mayor Luecke then requested to withdraw Bill No. 43-02 from further consideration by the Council. He stated that there would be a number of work sessions with the Council in the future, and that there would be meetings scheduled with major users. Discussions will also take place on • Utilities Committee June 24, 2002 Page 5 phasing in proposed rate increases. The Mayor added that if rates are adjusted downward that it would result in smaller capital programs. Council Member King again noted that it is a question of fairness which must be thoroughly discussed. A lay person cannot look at this information without discussion; rather meetings with the Council,the affected users,and the public must take place. Council Member Coleman suggested that the City Administration provide a brief explanation tonight as to why they would like the Council to remove this item from the Council agenda. He noted that he and Council Member Kelly were present in 1988 when the last rate increase was proposed. The attorney for Park Jefferson inquired whether there would be a public hearing on the proposed Bill this evening. Council Member Kirsits noted that there would not be a public hearing tonight on the Bill. There being no further business to come before the Committee, Council Member Kirsits adjourned the meeting at 5:13 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Council Member Al `Buddy"Kirsits, Chairperson Utilities Committee KCF:kmf Attachments 6 °�� Example calculations of monthly charge 5/8 inch meter Flow fixed rate Rate/ 100 cu. ft. Old $7.90 $0.74 Assume 800 cubic feet of water consumed. Monthly Charge = $7.90 + ($ 0.74 * 8 ccf) = $7.90 + $5.92 = $13.82 New Rate inside City $1.16 $2.07 Monthly Charge = $1.16 + ($2.07 * 8ccf) = $1.16 + $ 16.56 = $17.72 New rate Outside the City $1.74 $3.11 Monthly Charge = $1.74 + ($3.11 * 8ccf) = $1.74 + $24.88 = $26.62 .4, --c-'r-G-L, L,.- -,_-4, • as hereinafter provided and shall be in an amount determined as follows: (b) All class I users: (1)The sewage rates and charges shall be based on the quantity of water used on or in the property or premises subject to such rates and charges as the same is measured by the water meter there in use, plus a base charge based on the size of water meter installed except as herein otherwise provided. For the purpose of billing and collecting the charges for sewage service, the water meters shall be read monthly and the users shall be billed each month (or period equaling a month). The water usage schedule on which the amount of said rates and charges shall be determined is as follows: Treatment rate per one hundred (100) cubic feet of usage per month: User Debt Total Inside City Outside City Charge Service Limit Limit $6:59 $0.15 $0.74 - $2.07 $3.11 plus base rate per month: Water Meter 5/8" $5.66 $2724 $7.90 $1.16 $1.74 3/4" 7.52 . 3.13 10.65 1.16 L74 1" 12.60 5766 18.20 2.97 4.46 1 1/4"-1 %2 27.85 13.00 40.85 6.68 10.02 2" 47.24 22.41 69765 11.88 17.82 3" 107.36 5177-0 159.00 26.73 40.10 4" 190.46 92.04 282.50 47.51 71.27 6" 426.O8 206.42 6.32750 106.91 160.37 8" 758.72 368.28 1,127.00 190.05 285.08 10" 1,183.76 574.24 1,758.00 296.96 445.44 1,705.82 827.18 2,533.00 (2)For users of the sewage works that are unmetered water users or accurate meter readings are not available, the monthly charge shall be determined by equivalent single-family dwelling units, except as herein provided. Sewage service bills shall be rendered once each month (or period equaling a month). The schedule on which said rates and charges will be determined is as follows: Monthly-Raft Usci Debt Inside City Outside City Charge &nice Total Limit Limit Residential: Single family dwelling unit $9.79 $3.39 $13.09 $17.72 $26.58 (3)For the service rendered to the City of South Bend said City shall be subject to