Presentation to CITY OF PALM COAST, FLORIDA WATER AND WASTEWATER RATE STUDY AND BOND FEASBILITY REPORT Prepared in Conjunction with the Issuance of Utility.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Sanitary Sewer System Rate Study September 2012 Keystone Municipal Services.
Advertisements

City of South Burlington City Council Adopted January 12, 2013 FY 2014 Budget - Keys to Financial Success Prepared by Sandy Miller, City Manager and Bob.
City of Farmersville, Texas Water and Wastewater Rate Study February 2011.
Municipal & Financial Services Group Water and Sewer Rate Study Revenue Requirements and Rates Workshop April 18, 2012 King George County Service Authority.
May 30, Meeting & Outreach efforts  February 27th – Proposed Compensation Plan Distributed to Joint Admin/WWOC  March 5th – Joint Admin/WWOC Meeting.
Revised FY 2007 & Proposed FY 2008 Operating & Capital Budgets Retail Rates Committee January 4, 2007.
1 Combined Utility System Cost of Service Rate Study Presentation April 6, 2010.
City Of Phoenix Water Rates June 30, 2011 Denise Olson Deputy Finance Director Finance Department.
Council Workshop, February 24, Image Date: 1/15/2014 Future WWTF No. 2 Capacity 2.0 MGD., Expandable to 6.0 MGD. Future WWTF No. 2 Capacity 2.0.
2014 Budget Department Presentations Infrastructure Funding Options.
Presentation to CITY OF PALM COAST, FLORIDA WATER AND WASTEWATER RATE STUDY AND BOND FEASBILITY REPORT Prepared in Conjunction with the Issuance of Utility.
City of Houston Long Range Financial Management Task Force City Financial Overview Part I August 29,
Wilderness Rim Association Water Rate and Reserve Study Board Meeting April 23, 2014 Presented By: Chris Gonzalez, Project Manager.
Contacts February 12, 2012 CITY OF PALM COAST, FLORIDA Mark Galvin Senior Vice President 450 S. Orange Avenue Suite 460 Orlando,
Page: Water and Wastewater Rate Study and Financial Forecast Council Presentation City of Cottonwood July 2009.
Independent Review of FY 2008 Proposed Rates D.C. Water and Sewer Authority Public Hearing June 13, 2007.
City of North Miami Beach Quarterly Financial Analysis Second Quarter – FY 2015 Data as of March 31, 2015.
1 Why Budgeting Matters NC Local Government Budget Conference Wilmington, NC July 2007.
One Step Ahead: Using a Finance Plan for Regional Water System Operations Deena Hood Central Wyoming Regional Water System Carol Malesky Integrated Utilities.
February 2, 2011 Joe Yew City of Oakland California Debt and Investment Advisory Commission Debt 2: Accessing the Market Debt Policy and Plan of Finance.
APPA’s Financial Planning for Municipals Mark Beauchamp, CPA, CMA, MBA September 27, 2005 Business & Finance Workshop.
Presentation to CITY OF PALM COAST, FLORIDA WATER AND WASTEWATER RATE STUDY AND BOND FEASIBILITY REPORT Prepared in Conjunction with the Issuance of Utility.
CITY COUNCIL WORKSHOP DECEMBER 14, Sec Review requirements. (a) The City Manager shall each fiscal year prepare a preliminary capital improvement.
CITY COUNCIL WORKSHOP DECEMBER 21, Sec Review requirements. (a) The City Manager shall each fiscal year prepare a preliminary capital improvement.
2016 Water and Wastewater Rates Committee of the Whole November 16, 2015 Presenter: Mike Mayes – Director, Financial Services/Treasurer.
Pasadena Water and Power Public Hearing Date Water Capital Improvement Charge Pasadena City Council Meeting November 16, 2015 Agenda Item #13.
Commission Meeting November 18, 2015 WSSC Customer Use and Pricing.
Borrego Water District Revenue Workshop. Potential Revenue Sources  Background  Service Area Relatively Small  Largely Undeveloped  Absentee Owners.
Pasadena Water and Power Public Hearing Water Capital Improvement Charge Pasadena City Council Meeting January 11, 2016 Item #12.
Presented to the City of Dover, Delaware June 6, 2006 Revenue Requirements, Cost of Service and Rate Adjustments for the Electric Utility.
Water System Master Plan & Rate Study City of DeKalb, Illinois City Council Presentation May 16, 2015.
RATE ANALYSIS FY FY 2019 March 6, 2014 CARSON VALLEY WATER UTILITY FUND 326 – DEPARTMENT 864.
SUMMARY OF FY2016 PROPOSED BUDGET July 21,
1 Water Department FY 2014 Sources and Uses FY 2014 Sources Retail Sales$54,788,834 Wholesale Sales646,250 Other Operating Revenues145,000 Non-Operating.
Sanitary Sewer Fee Study March 4, Summary Sausalito’s 75-year-old sewer system is old and deteriorated. While the current rates have allowed the.
Christopher M. Quinn, MACC, CPA, CFE, CGFO, CGMA Finance Director Tuesday, May 3 rd, 2016.
1 New Territory Municipal Utility Districts Strategic Partnership Agreement Discussions With the City of Sugar Land.
Resolution 2014R-100 December 18,  Board Direction ◦ Establish a “Stabilized” cost-of-service rate of $ for FYs 2015 & 2016 that includes.
Resolution 2014R-099 December 18,  Board Direction ◦ Establish a monthly cost-of-service rate of $ for FY 2015 and utilize a General Fund.
City of Fernley, Nevada – 164 th Ave. NE, Suite 300, Redmond, WA April 18, 2007 Rate Study Findings Water and Sewer Utility Rates.
Water and Wastewater Rates Public Hearing July 15, 2015 The Reed Group, Inc. 1.
Christopher M. Quinn, MACC, CPA, CFE, CGFO, CGMA Finance Director Lina Williams Budget & Financial Analyst Tuesday, June 7 th 2016.
City of East Point FY 2012 Budget Presentation. Comparison of FY11 vs. FY12 Budget Policies Proposal FY 11 TotalFY12 O&M Changes FY11 Current Budget 94,652,326.
Operating Efficiencies Costs to operate and maintain the water and sewer system have not varied significantly during the first 5 years of operation.
Presentation to CITY OF PALM COAST, FLORIDA FINANCIAL FORECAST AND CAPITAL FACILITIES FEES ANALYSIS Prepared in Conjunction With the Utility System Revenue.
1 City of Cocoa Michael Burton - President Andrew Burnham - Senior Vice President Ashley Venturoni – Project Consultant Presented by: FY 2013 Water, &
City of Fernley, Nevada – 164 th Ave. NE, Suite 300, Redmond, WA April 18, 2007 Rate Study Findings Water and Sewer Utility Rates.
FY 2016 Budget Workshop June 11, 2015 Brian Maxwell, City Manager Dan Buckley, Deputy City Manager Mike Loftin, Finance Director 1.
May 31, 2016 WATER & SEWER RATE STUDY PRESENTATION 5/9/2016 City of Greenfield, California.
Current Water Rates $26.66 per month readiness to serve fee (billed on a quarterly basis at $80.00) 5.14 per 1,000 gallons of water used The City of Flushing.
City of Petersburg Water and Wastewater Rates
CITY SERVICES INSTITUTE
Queen Anne’s County Commissioners FY2018 Proposed Budget April 24, 25, 26, 2017 Gregg A. Todd, County Administrator Jonathan R. Seeman, Director,
Water and Wastewater Rates
Water & Wastewater Capacity Charge Work Shop
MOUNTAIN REGIONAL WATER
City of Somersworth, New Hampshire
SEWER SERVICE FEE RATE STRUCTURE ALTERNATIVE
Proposed Budget FY August 7, 2017
City of Rialto Midyear Changes Budget-Fiscal Year 2012/2013
City of Sisters, OR 2017 Water & Sewer Rate Study
FY Proposed Budget and Rates
Water & Sewer Rate Study Presented by: Chris Gonzalez, Project Manager
City of Fernley City Council Meeting
BUDGET WORKSHOP February 15, 2017.
Work Session Follow UP Aug. 23, 2018.
2018 Water/Wastewater Rate Study and Financial Forecast
Bond Basics Bradley D. Viegut, Director / Fax.
Agenda FYE June 30, 2020 Operating Budget
Agenda FYE June 30, 2020 Operating Budget
Presentation transcript:

Presentation to CITY OF PALM COAST, FLORIDA WATER AND WASTEWATER RATE STUDY AND BOND FEASBILITY REPORT Prepared in Conjunction with the Issuance of Utility System Revenue Bonds, Series 2013 January 15, 2013 Public Resources Management Group, Inc. Presented by

Agenda  Recap of Initial Rate Study Results Presented at the 10/30/2012 Workshop  Series 2013 Bonds  Financial Forecast Customer Statistics / Revenue Projections Capital Improvement Funding Revenue Requirements Adequacy of System Rates  Rate Study Results  Rate Design  Bulk Water and Wastewater Charges  Capital Facilities Fees  Conclusions and Recommendations 2

3 Recap of Initial Rate Study Results – 10/31/2012  Prepared in Anticipation of the Issuance of the Series 2013 Bonds  Last Formal Rate Study Prepared in FY 2007  Support Issuance of Series 2007 Bonds  Rates Adjusted Uniformly 12.5% Effective November 1, 2008  City has Annually Indexed Rates (Inflation) Fiscal Years 2010 to 2012 Average Annual Increase = 1.67%  Evaluate the Sufficiency of Rates  Five-Year Financial Forecast & Funding Analysis – FY  Fully Fund System Expenditures  Develop Capital Improvement Financing Plan  Establish Rates Sufficient to Support Issuance of Series 2013 Bonds  Includes Meeting Rate Covenants Defined in the Bond Resolution  Maintain Financial Stability of System and Maintain Favorable Bond Rating

Series 2013 Bonds  Refunding of the Existing Series 2003 Bonds  Low-Interest Rate Environment / Achieve Interest Rate Savings  Annual Savings of Approximately $450,000 to $550,000  Free-Up Debt Service Reserve Fund of Approximately $6.2 Million – Available to Fund Future Capital Projects  New Money to Fund Capital Improvements = $15,000,000  Total Funds for Capital Projects = $21.2 million  Series 2013 Bonds-Funded Projects Include:  Water Treatment Plant No. 1$1,550,000  Water Treatment Plant No. 2$12,420,000  Water Treatment Plant No. 3$2,225,000  Water Mains$2,150,000  Wastewater Treatment Plant No. 1$1,080,000  Lift Stations and Pump Stations$1,775,000 4

5 Series 2013 Bonds (cont'd.)  Issuance of Series 2013 Bonds Requires:  Preparation of Financial Forecast  Adoption of Utility Rates  Preparation of a Bond Feasibility Report  Debt will be payable from Pledged Revenues which includes Rates and Capital Facilities Fees (Impact Fees)  No Tax Revenues will be used to Support the Debt

6 FINANCIAL FORECAST

7  During FY 2012 the City Served on Average:  42,720 Water Accounts  35,102 Sewer Accounts  Active Account Growth of System  Compounded Growth Rate FY 2000 to FY 2006 – 11.60%  Compounded Growth Rate FY 2007 to FY 2012 – Less than 1.0%  Utility Customer Growth Projections FY 2013 through FY 2017  Forecast Assumes Conservative Growth Projection of Less than 1.0% – Less than 100 Connections per Year  Average Use per Customer  Relatively Consistent by Class  Typical Residential Customer = 4,100 Gallons per Month of Water Customer Statistics Revenues Projections

8  Projected Revenues from Existing Rates Based on the Following:  Customer and Sales (Use) Forecast  Current Rates and Charges as Adopted – No Indexing to Identify Total Rate Needs Customer Statistics Revenues Projections (cont'd.)

9 Revenue Requirements  Evaluated Revenue Requirements – Based on Following Formula: + Operating Expenses +Debt Service Payments +Capital Funded from Operations +Deposits to Working Capital / Debt Compliance * –Other Operating Revenues and Income –Use of Working Capital (Fund Balance) = Net Revenue Requirements Funded From Rates * Includes: Maintain Council Fund Balance Policy Maintain Rate Covenant Compliance Maintain Favorable Bond Rating

10 Revenue Requirements  Operating Expense Forecast Based on FY 2013 Adopted Budget  Forecast Recognized:  System Growth in Accounts Served/Sales and Flows  Inflationary Allowances Ranging from 1.5% to 3.5% Based on Nature of Expense  Labor Cost Increases and Personnel Additions (8 Positions Over the Forecast)  Contingency Allowance of 3.0% was Included in Forecast to Account for Unanticipated Expenses

11  Capital Improvement Plan Assumed to be Funded as Follows: Capital Improvement Program Funding

12  Annual Transfer for Renewal and Replacements  Required Per Bond Resolution (5% Minimum)  Forecast Recognizes 10% of Prior Year's Gross Revenues or Approximately $3,000,000 per Year  10% Required for Sustainable Long-Term Operations  Series 2013 Bonds – Provide $15.0 Million in New Project Funding  Approximately $400,000 to $500,000 per Year Net Increase in Debt Service Payments after Refunding Benefit Capital Improvement Program Funding (cont'd.)

13  Future Bonds Recognized:  $43.9 Million Principal Amount of Bonds  Approximately $3,100,000 per Year Increase in Net Debt Service Payments Assumptions for the Series 2014/2015 Bonds are as Follows:  Assumed Level Debt Service Payments beginning in Fiscal Year 2015 Capital Improvement Program Funding (cont'd.)

14 Adequacy of System Rates  Existing Monthly Water and Wastewater Rates Not Anticipated to be Adequate to Meet:  Operating Expenditures and Capital Funding Requirements  Debt Service Payments and Coverage Requirements  Overall System Identified Required Revenue Adjustments:

Adequacy of System Rates (cont'd.)  Reason for the Proposed Rate Adjustments:  Lack of Historical System Growth Affecting Revenues – Utility Absorbed Price Increases Above Indexing Allowance – Significant Reduction in Capital Facilities Fees  Continued Inflationary Impacts on Cost of Operations  Need to Fund Capital Improvements to System – Regulatory Requirements  Increased Debt Service Requirements Associated with Additional Utility System Revenue Bonds 15

Adequacy of System Rates (cont'd.)  Reason for the Proposed Rate Adjustments:  Need to Have Sufficient Revenues to: – Meet Bond Issuance Requirements – Maintain Financial Creditworthiness and Favorable Bond Ratings  Increase in Annual Transfer to Renewal and Replacement Fund from 5% to 10% per Year of Gross Revenues – Reduces Future Debt Requirements – Improves Long-Term Utility Position – Viewed Favorable by Rating Agencies – Provides Rate Flexibility 16

17  Reason for the Proposed Rate Adjustments:  Maintain Adequate Debt Service Coverage Ratios and Bond Ratings in Support of Financing  City Currently an "A" Rated Utility By Fitch and Standard & Poor’s  Fitch “ A " Rated "All-In" Coverage Medium = 1.4X Adequacy of System Rates (cont'd.)

RATE DESIGN RESULTS

19  Proposed Cost of Service Analysis to Develop Rates  Proposed Rates Based on FY 2013 Revenue Requirements  Costs Assigned to Water and Wastewater System Separately  Individual Water and Wastewater Revenue Requirements Allocated between Base and Usage Charges  Future Proposed FY 2014 and 2015 Rate Adjustments to be Applied uniformly Across the Board to the Redesigned 2013 Rates  Study Identified Different Level of Rate Adjustments (Not Uniform Application):  Water and Wastewater System  Base and Usage Charges  Class of Service (Residential, Commercial, Bulk, etc.) Rate Design

20 Rate Design

21 Rate Design

22 Rate Design (cont’d.)

23  Water and Wastewater System Overall Increase  Overall Combined System – 8.00%  Overall Water System – 3.27%  Overall Wastewater System – 15.61%  Overall Water Base Vs. Usage Increases:  Overall Water System – 3.27%  Overall Water Base Charges – 2.21%  Overall Water Usage Charges – 4.05%  Overall Wastewater Base Vs. Usage Increases:  Overall Wastewater System – 15.61%  Overall Wastewater Base Charges – 19.60%  Overall Wastewater Usage Charges – 11.87% Rate Design (cont’d.)

24  Impact to the Various Customer Classes: Rate Design (cont’d.)

25  Impact to the Various Customer Classes: Rate Design (cont’d.)

26 Water and Wastewater Comparison Typical Residential 5/8" Meter Monthly Bill At 4,000 Gallons

27  Bulk Water and Wastewater Charges  Based on the System-Wide Revenue Requirements Allocable to Providing Bulk Service  City Currently Provides Bulk Water Service to Flagler County (Beverly Beach Area) Only  City Will Provide Bulk Wastewater Service to Flagler County (Beverly Beach Area) in the Future  City’s Existing Bulk Water Rate was originally developed in 2004 for the Dunes Community Development District (No longer a customer of the City)  Designed for specific circumstances applicable only to the Dunes Development District and not Other Bulk Users Bulk Water and Wastewater Rates

28  Analysis Identified to Need for the following Bulk Rate Adjustments: Bulk Water and Wastewater Rates (cont’d.)

29  Estimated Monthly Impact on Typical Flagler County – Beverly Beach Residential Customer: Bulk Water and Wastewater Rates (cont’d.)

30  Fees Last Established in 2007 Based on Large Capital Improvement Program Required for Anticipated Customer Growth  Proposed Capital Facilities Fees (Impact Fees)  Revised Capital Facilities Fees – Calculated Recognizing Current Fixed Assets and New Capital Improvement Program (FY 2013 through 2017)  Also Recommend a 20% Reduction to the Proposed Fees for Water Star Certified Properties Capital Facilities Fees (Impact Fees)

31 Capital Facilities Fees (Impact Fees)

32 Other Issues  Proposed Modification to Annual Rate Indexing Provision Change Section 10(d) The rates, fees and charges involving monthly base and usage charges, private fire protection services, reclaimed water service and bulk rates relating to the Systems of the City as set forth herein shall be adjusted annually on October 1 of each year, commencing on October 1, 2015 and thereafter, by the Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers as of June 30 of each year as published by the United States Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics. The rates, fees and charges involving capital facilities (connection) fees, installation fees, and taps relating to the Systems of the City as set forth herein shall be adjusted annually on October 1 of each year, commencing on October 1, 2013 and thereafter, by the Construction Cost Index as of June 30 of each year as published by the Engineering News-Record.

33 Conclusions and Recommendations  Existing System Rates are not Projected to be Adequate to Meet System Expenditures throughout the Forecast Period  Rate Increases Necessary to Fund Capital Plan / Issue Bonds and Maintain Creditworthiness of the System  The Financial Forecast Recognizes Need for Proposed Rate Adjustment  Council Should Adopt the Proposed Rates for Fiscal Year 2013 Effective March 1, 2013 Based on Proposed Cost Allocation Analysis

34 Conclusions and Recommendations  Council Should Adopt the Additional Proposed Rate Adjustments are as Follows:  Council Should Adopt the Proposed Decreased Capital Facilities Fees (Impact Fees) Effective February 6, 2013  Council Should Adopt the Proposed Bulk Water and Wastewater Rates  Proposed Rates Should be Adequate to:  Comply with the Rate Covenants as Defined in the City's Bond Resolution  Maintain Fund Balance Policy  Maintain Current Bond Rating

35 Discussion and Questions