HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - 08/11/2014 - Committee of the WholeCOMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE
MEETING
AUGUST 11, 2014
Mayor Low called the Committee of the Whole meeting of August 11, 2014 to order at 7:00 p.m. In
attendance were Mayor Low and the following Alderman: Santi, Glab, Blake, Wimmer, Peterson, and
Condon. Absent: Alderman Schaefer. Also in attendance: City Administrator Morefield, Deputy City
Administrator Martin, Deputy City Administrator Hobson, City Engineer Coggin, City Engineer Pieper,
Director of Public Works Schmitt, Director of Finance Lynch, Water Superintendent Mike Palmer,
Wastewater Superintendent Russell Ruzicka, and Assistant Water Superintendent Steve Wirch, and
Administrative Assistant Nancy Lorch
No one spoke at the Public Input Session.
PUBLIC INPUT SESSION
City Administrator Morefield provided a brief summary of the water sewer rate study. On
January 6, 2014, Council approved retaining HR Green to undertake a comprehensive water and sewer
rate study and cost of service analysis. The analysis was needed due to revenues falling short of
department costs and planned infrastructure improvements. It will determine if the City is generating
enough revenue to cover operations and maintenance costs as well as planning to have ample funds to
cover upcoming loan payments and needed capital improvement projects. The City is also interested in
determining if their customers were fairly charged for the water and sewer service. He noted
Administration understands that any discussion regarding the potential for increased costs for service to
the residents of the community is difficult.
PRESENTATION AND DISCUSSION OF WATER/SEWER RATE STUDY
City Administrator Morefield explained the City’s Water and Sewer Fund serves as a proprietary
or enterprise fund. Ideally, as such, revenues derived through the Water and Sewer Fund should be at
levels sufficient to fund the operations of the Water and Wastewater Divisions of the Department of
Public Works, as well as to fund capital projects that improve or expand the capacity of the water and
wastewater utilities through the Utility Improvements Fund.
City Administrator Morefield advised Council that the purpose of this water/sewer rate study
presentation is to give Council the opportunity to discuss and ask questions.
City Administrator Morefield requested that City Engineers Pieper and Coggin provide Council
with an outline of the study.
City Engineer Pieper stated that the rate study objective is to determine if adjustments to the
rates are necessary. Historical water use, number of customers, and financial statements from the
Water and Sewer Departments were reviewed, and the information was used to project future net
income and end-of-year cash reserves. Comparison to other communities was also considered in the
study.
COW Meeting
Page 2
August 11, 2014
City Engineer Pieper explained that all inside City customers are currently charged the same
minimum bimonthly rate and volume/usage charge for both water and sanitary sewer service.
Furthermore, the City has not been receiving revenue to cover their standard base costs for water
service within the minimum bimonthly flat rate. Two alternates were considered for proposed water
and sewer rates part of this study. Option 1 for both water and sewer rates determined what rate
increase would be required amongst all customer classifications similarly. Option 2 for both water and
sewer rates were based on the Cost of Service Analysis portion of this study. Option 2 varied rate
increases structure implementing rates based on Cost of Service is recommended, especially since the
City plans to be purchasing new software to accommodate the various structures. A Cost of Service
Analysis directly considers the cost of service per each customer classification. This study determined
that Option 2 would be favorable in the City’s current position considering long-term planning and with
changes in billing software. Therefore, Option 2 is recommended at this time for both water and sewer
rate increases as further discussed in this report. Additional surcharge fee increases are recommended
based on cost of service findings though this shall not impact any current customers. The City wishes to
implement a debt service fee amongst all customers to assist the 20-year SRF loan for the WWTP
Decommissioning Project. Two alternates during the allocation were also considered for the debt service
fee. Option1 determined what debt service fee would be required amongst all customer classifications
similarly. This simply disperses the annual payment of $1,795,729 (20-year term loan with 2.25%
interest) amongst FY 14/15 projected customer base. Amongst the projected 8,165 customers, this
would require each customer to contribute $36.65 per billing cycle (every 2months). Option 2
determined what debt service would be required per customer classification based on allocation of
sewer usage amongst all customers. For example, the Residential customer classification makes up 82%
of the customer base; however, residents only contribute about 55% of the sewer usage. Since this
project is based on treatment of sewer, only 55% of the annual loan payment was allocated to the
Residential customer classification. Therefore, each resident would only have to pay $24.65 per billing
cycle. This has a smaller impact on small usage customers versus larger commercial and industrial users.
Option 2 is the most equitable and recommended debt service fee to be implemented. To avoid
customer rate shock, it is also recommended to implement half the debt service fee two fiscal years
prior to beginning loan repayment to build reserves for repayment.
City Engineer Coggin stated Option 1 would bring in more revenue than Option 2, however if
implementing Option 2, it is possible residents could actually see a drop in costs because they would be
paying for what they actually use. The drop would not be in the rate but it would be in the total bill.
He also said that revenue is needed for infrastructure replacement, and maintenance issues such as the
roof at the SWWTP and lift station repair.
After City Engineer Pieper explained the bill comparison data for surrounding communities,
Alderman Glab asked why the Village of Algonquin has lower rates than the City. In order to benefit the
City, he said we should find out how the Village of Algonquin determined its rates. Alderman Blake and
Alderman Condon would also like to know why. Finance Director Lynch will look into this. City Engineer
COW Meeting
Page 3
August 11, 2014
Pieper also advised that every system is different and other communities might not be doing some
things that we are. He also stated that the cost of the chemicals is rising.
Alderman Glab wants to know how to save more money. He suggested that perhaps
Wastewater Division staff for the Wastewater Division could be reduced after the sewer plants
consolidation takes place. City Engineer Pieper replied that issue could be addressed but would entail
separate calculations and was not a part of this study.
As a cost savings measure, City Engineer Coggin said a new sludge drying system will be
implemented when the consolidation of the plants take place. This will reduce the amount of trips to the
landfill from six or seven per week to one per week. There will be a 10 year payback period before
savings can be realized.
Public Works Director Schmitt commented that conducting water/sewer rate studies more often
could assist in saving money.
Responding to Alderman Santi’s inquiry asking whether there are any debt services that will be
eliminated soon, Finance Director Lynch stated that the City has two debt services that still have
approximately 10 – 15 years remaining until payoff. He also said he appreciated the presentation and
asked how much the study cost. City Administrator Morefield responded $35,000.00.
Alderman Wimmer stated that he thinks Option 2 is the best option because residents will be
paying for what they use. He stated he thinks a consensus should be taken tonight.
Alderman Santi agrees that increasing the water and sewer fund is a good idea for future repairs
and maintenance instead of having to use money from the general fund. The general fund is needed for
other items..
Alderman Glab asked if McCullom Lake pays the outside of the City user rates; City Engineer
Pieper responded and was confirmed by Finance Director Lynch that they did not. McCullom Lake has
one meter that is charged at the McHenry resident rate and is then divided among the McCullom Lake
residents.
Alderman Condon stated that she appreciates the effort it took to create a document that is
easily understood and the presentation helped in her understanding of the issue.
It was the general consensus of Council that Option 2 would be in the best interest of the City
and its residents.
City Administrator Morefield and Public Works Director introduced City staff in attendance at
the meeting.
COW Meeting
Page 4
August 11, 2014
Mayor Low appreciated the work that was put into the presentation and thanked HR Green
and City staff for attending.
Motion by Wimmer, seconded by Blake to adjourn the Committee of the Whole Meeting at 8:14
pm.
ADJOURNMENT
Voting Aye: Santi, Glab, Blake, Wimmer, Peterson, Condon.
Voting Nay: None
Absent: Schaefer
Motion carried.
The meeting was adjourned at 8:14 pm.
_____________________________________ ____________________________________
Mayor City Clerk