FINANCE COMMITTEE MEETING

 

FEBRUARY 13, 2006

 

 

The meeting was called to order by Mr. Fogt at 6:00 p.m.

 

MEMBERS PRESENT:  Dan Fogt, John Gore, David Burke

 

OTHERS PRESENT:  Kathy House, Phil Roush, John Morehart, Bill Kelley, Susan Ehlers, Roberta Ewers, Ryan Horns, Jim Wing

 

AGENDA:

 

1)     Organization (elect Chairman)

 

Mr. Gore nominated David Burke, seconded by Dan Fogt.  Affirmative voice vote was unanimous. 

 

2)     Water Master Plan implementation (specifically rates & tap fees)

 

Water Master Plan was completed late last year, but nothing was done with the rates until everyone had a chance to review the Master Plan.  Ms. House distributed 3 pages from the financial section of the Master Plan.  Would like to hold off on discussing rates until we know where we’re going with the reservoir and until after this evening when capacity fees had been discussed.

 

Ms. House referred to Pg. 7-11.  Recommendation of the Plan was to raise the water capacity fees from $1,450 to a total $4,450.  In comparison to neighboring communities, Marysville would be on the high side.  Mr. Gore asked if this increase was justified.  Mr. Roush referred to Table 7-3 which explains how they arrived at that figure.  Mr. Fogt asked if Administration supported this increase.  Ms. House stated Administration was very confident in the work done by Malcolm Pirnie for the Master Study and stated they would probably not have a reason not to recommend it at this point.  Mr. Burke confirmed that this was derived off this calculation of sharing the burden with the plant per tap.  Estimating an additional capacity of taps of 9,380.  What is the duration of those taps?  Mr. Roush responded approximately 20 years.  Mr. Morehart noted the new ERU’s started a five-year period for the fiscal years 2006 through 2010.  Ms. House stated those fees can be re-evaluated on a regular basis instead of waiting 10-15 or 20 years down the road.

 

Mr. Burke mentioned the original idea was to build in a certain percent increase on an index but had trouble defining what an accurate tap fee present value would be.  Rather than tag an increase into an incorrect number, they were trying to wait to define an accurate number and then adjust that on an inflationary index.  That would save going back every 4-5 years to rejustify it.

 

Mr. Roush stated some people use the Engineering News Record, as well as the Consumer Price Index. 

 

Mr. Fogt supports the increase as called for in the Study.  That fits in with current fee structure.  Mr. Fogt asked if just the 5/8’ and ¾” meter could be changed without changing all of them.  Mr. Roush believes all sizes would need to change because the changes are incremental from the 5/8” meter size.  Mr. Morehart asked for a legal opinion on this issue.   Mr. Fogt noted the money brought in with tap-in fees will allow the City to not raise the monthly bills as much.

 

Mr. Wing stated the builders don’t know what the City’s costs are, so they have to trust that the costs are fair.  He understands that costs to go up.

 

Mr. Burke will check with Mr. Aslaner to see about a dual rate.  Also check with Malcolm Pirne to see if they intended to extrapolate that data, and if it is truly expressed all the way across the board, or if there is an economy of scale and someone gets to a larger line. Uncertain what the percentages are. 

 

Mr. Morehart explained how the tap-in fees are figured.  The analysis determined what the estimated ERU’s are during the next five years, divide that into the cost to recover, and come up with the increase.  Assumed Malcolm Pirnie took the net cost divided by the estimated number of ERU’s, 9,380, to come up with the $4,450, which means the estimated growth is paying for the infrastructure anticipated for the next five years that needs to be financed by the City.  There is additional infrastructure expected to be financed by the developers for their projects over and above this. 

 

Administration would like Finance Committee to recommend to Council that the fees be increased to $4,450 per ERU. 

 

Mr. Gore proposed that the Committee support and endorse this rate increase contingent upon getting answers about numbers of taps and actual formulas used for this.  Committee will pass this recommendation on to Council.

 

Mr. Fogt asked to continue to look at tying this to an inflation index if at all possible.  Mr. Roush will assist in getting some index information. 

 

Mr. Wing asked for a comparison of Marysville’s rates to neighboring cities.  Administration will provide a fact sheet to area builders for tap fees.

 

3)     Multiple users on a single tap

 

This has to do with apartments and condos where one tap fee is granted, but yet there are multiple dwellings on that tap.  This causes loss of tap revenue. 

 

Mr. Fogt said research shows that City of Columbus does not charge any extra. Pickerington is the only city in the area that has an extra charge.  For example, 30 unit complex with a 3/4” tap @ $3,000.  They would charge 30 x $3,000.  They master meter apartments and condos and take one reading and send one bill to the owner.  Sewer tap is based on per unit also.  Delaware is looking at charging per unit, but nothing is final yet.   

 

Mr. Fogt’s thinking is that someone in a condo creates as much water/sewage as someone in a single-family dwelling, yet they are not charged near as much.

 

Ms. House did not recommend putting individual meters on each unit.  She said the trailer park used to be metered individually and the service men spent three-fourths of their time in the trailer park. 

 

Mr. Burke suggested possibly the first tap would be at the regular rate, second tap one-half of that, third tap one-third of that, fourth tap is one quarter. 

 

Mr. Fogt stated a tap is the same as a system capacity charge, which is money used for capital improvements. 

 

Ms. House does not feel the City wants to go into having the multiple complexes become public beyond the street.  We’d have the same situation as with the trailer park.  There are other expenses if the City becomes owners beyond the street. 

 

Mr. Fogt proposed a 50% additional charge on top of the tap fee.   Mr. Gore commented that there have been additional charges in the past.  Mr. Fogt asked how it had been handled in the past.  Mr. Morehart stated there had been some multiple billings with one tap, and one tap with multiple billings.  Finance has been trying to streamline the process where one tap equates to one bill.  It simplifies it for Finance and the resident or apartment owner. 

 

Mr. Fogt is not proposing individual meters for each unit.  He’s proposing a master meter, but an additional per unit charge.  Mr. Morehart believes the size of meter attempts to do that.  The larger the meter, the higher the rate for the tap fee.  Mr. Roush stated from a department who issues permits, it would be easier to have a consistent number like 50%. 

 

Mr. Gore will work with Mr. Fogt and bring a proposal back to the next Finance Committee meeting.

 

Mr. Wing said in some instances, it’s not a fair system.  Some condos are 4-bedroom condos. 

 

4)     Impact Fees

 

Ms. House stated the Mayor has some concerns with impact fees as it relates to the legality or challenge ability of them.  Need to be very careful how we proceed with these fees. 

 

Public Service Committee is currently working on this project.

 

5)     Developments outside corporate boundaries but within our water/sewer service areas.

 

Ms. House distributed a flow chart.  Since the City has taken over sewer and water outside the City and have to sign off on plans for development, County and City staff have been working on how to make this happen so that nothing gets missed in the process.  As a part of this review, have found the code is a little deficient in defining what our fees should be as a part of that process.  She handed out the section of the code addressing water and sewer and the fees that go with the review and permitting for all of the City’s development.  Mr. Aslaner feels the code will need to be adjusted to be more specific to incorporate outside the City’s boundaries. 

 

Mr. Roush noted that the City currently has the ability to get only one sewer permit, so it costs the same for the permit for a Wal-mart as it does for a single-family dwelling, as far as the inspection.  Would like to incorporate language changes to cover that.  That language has not been drafted yet.  Administration will bring it back to Finance Committee once drafted and reviewed by the law director. 

 

6)     Third Frontier Grant Program and possible project.

 

Ms. House handed out initial guidelines for this program from the Ohio Department of Development.  Issue 1 passed last year and incorporated the Ohio Public Works Commission Funding with the Third Frontier initiative.  This is the resulting program.  There will be a limited number of grants available to all counties in Ohio up to $5M worth of funding to purchase and ready properties for commercial and industrial economic development.  Mr. Phillips is working with the City and the County Commissioners to come up with a project best suited for our County.  Will keep the Finance Committee posted as choice is refined.  Mr. Roush added there are two rounds of funding for this year, $30M for first round and $30M for the second round.  Divide that by five and that’s only 12 projects for the whole year for the whole State of Ohio.  There will be just one round the following years.  The Department of Development is partnering with Ohio Public Works Commission for project review and prioritization.  Each of the OPWC districts will review the submittals in that district and rank them.  Marysville is in District 11.  There are 8 counties in our district.  Ms. House added there is a 25% local match, so there will be some funding commitment on the City’s part. 

 

Mr. Burke thanked Mr. Fogt for his service as Chairman of the Finance Committee the past year and is happy to be a part of this committee.

 

Meeting adjourned.