HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 41
City of Lakeville
Finance Department
Memorandum
To: Mayor and Council
From: Jerilyn Erickson, Finance Director
Date: November 27, 2017
Subject: Utility Rate Study
The purpose of this agenda item is to update the Council on the Utility Rate Study (URS) that is
being completed by Northland Public Finance (part of Northland Securities). The attached
memo details the study’s objectives, work performed to date and preliminary findings and
analysis. Staff will provide some comments on the next steps and timing for the URS.
Attachment: Northland Public Finance Utility Rate Study Memo dated 11/21/2017
45 South 7th Street, Suite 2000, Minneapolis, MN 55402
Main: (612) 851-5900 / Direct: (612) 851-4992 / Email: rfifield@northlandsecurities.com
Member FINRA and SIPC
MEMORANDUM
To: Lakeville City Council and Staff
From: Northland Public Finance
Tammy Omdal, Jessica Green and Rusty Fifield
Date: November 21, 2017
Re: Utility Rate Study
Northland Public Finance has been working with City Staff to study user charges and to lay the
foundation for financial planning for the Water and Sanitary Sewer Utilities (the “Utilities”). This
memo presents the initial findings and recommendations from our work. Specifically, this memo
addresses the following items:
Objectives of the utility rate study
Work performed to date
Preliminary findings and recommendations
Next steps in the process of financial planning for the Utilities
These items will be the focus of our presentation at the November 27 City Council workshop.
Study Objectives
This project is more than a simple analysis of alternative user fees for the long-term financial
management of the water and sanitary sewer utilities. A significant objective of the study is to create
a computer model (Excel spreadsheet) that can be used by City Staff to analyze the financial
implications of future scenarios. Other study objectives are:
Review existing plans and projections
Collect and analyze customer usage from LOGIS
Inform City on best practices
o Water conservation rate structures
o Billing frequency (quarterly or monthly)
o Rates in comparable cities
Prepare written report of findings and recommendations
The Study is not intended to resolve all critical policy issues and create finance plans for the Utilities.
The Study creates the resources needed to undertake these tasks. A discussion of next steps appears
later in this memo.
Utility Rate Study
November 21, 2017
Page 2
Work Performed To Date
Model Development
Much of the work to date has focused on preparing the planning model and creating financial
projections for the Sewer and Water Funds. The model is based on existing financial information -
2016 audit, 2017 estimates, and proposed 2018 budget. This information enables us to verify the flow
of funds, compare to City Staff estimates, and create an accurate foundation for projecting future
financial condition.
Northland worked with City Staff to obtain customer data from LOGIS. Actual 2016 water and sewer
volumes for all customers are built into the model. This data provides a useful check on the customer
information used by the City and provided to Northland for the Study. This detailed information is
important for the City to explore changing volume, tiers or the implications of increased
conservation.
The model is designed to be used on an ongoing basis and allows for adjustment to a new fiscal year
with limited inputs required.
An important aspect of the model is the “dashboard” that facilitates analyzing future scenarios. The
dashboard consists of four windows: 1) planned rate adjustments; 2) overall financial summary; 3)
customer impact based on water volume; and 4) capital improvements plan (see below). The
dashboard shows the effects of changes in rates or capital improvement funding on overall financial
condition and on customer charges.
Illustration of Dashboard – Water Fund
Utility Rate Study
November 21, 2017
Page 3
Illustration of Impacts Table
Water
Change
Quarter Annual Quarter Annual
20.76 83.03 21.59 86.36 4.0%
34.62 138.47 36.00 144.01 4.0%
94.73 378.92 98.52 394.08 4.0%
282.16 1,128.62 293.44 1,173.77 4.0%
657.01 2,628.02 683.29 2,733.14 4.0%
Sewer
Quarter Annual Quarter Annual
49.89 199.57 52.89 211.55 6.0%
91.40 365.61 96.89 387.55 6.0%
215.93 863.73 228.89 915.55 6.0%
423.48 1,693.92 448.89 1,795.55 6.0%
838.58 3,354.30 888.89 3,555.56 6.0%
Combined
Water Sewer Quarter Annual Quarter Annual
10.00 10.00 70.65 282.61 74.48 297.90 5.4%
20.00 20.00 126.02 504.08 132.89 531.56 5.5%
50.00 50.00 310.66 1,242.65 327.41 1,309.63 5.4%
100.00 100.00 705.64 2,822.54 742.33 2,969.32 5.2%
200.00 200.00 1,495.58 5,982.33 1,572.18 6,288.71 5.1%
Projected Change for Residential Customer
(1,000 Gal)
2018 2019Use
(1,000 Gal)
10.00
20.00
50.00
100.00
200.00
2018 2019
Residential
Use
Use
Impacts
2018 2019
10.00
20.00
50.00
100.00
200.00
The “Impacts” table shows the quarterly
and annual change in customer cost from
rate changes. This table is designed to
quickly view a variety of customer
perspectives:
Water and sewer volumes used in the
table can be set to any amount.
The comparison year can be set for any
future year in the model.
The impact calculations can switch to
any customer classification (e.g.,
residential versus commercial).
The billing period can change from
monthly to quarterly.
The Impacts table provides a thorough and
efficient tool for understanding the impacts
of policy decisions on Sewer and Water
customers.
Literature Search for Best Practices
Northland researched existing literature
related to the effectiveness of using rate
structures to influence customer behavior
and reduce consumption. The City Staff
requested a “best practices evaluation”. A
summary of our research can be found in
Attachment A. To date, our initial research
has not explored changes in the rate
structure. We will discuss the application of
our findings in the final report that will be provided to the City.
Comparison to Other Cities
Northland was directed to compile and compare water and sewer rate information for the following
cities: Lakeville, Shakopee, Prior Lake, Apple Valley, Eagan, Eden Prairie, Maple Grove, Plymouth,
Burnsville, Chanhassen, Savage, Woodbury, Blaine, and Inver Grove Heights. Comparable cities
were chosen based on similarities to Lakeville in one or more of the following areas: population,
market value, growth, median income, and stage of development cycle. The preliminary results of
our investigation on comparison of rates appear in Attachment B.
In addition to providing a comparison of rate information to other cities, we also gathered
information on rate structure designs used in the Minnesota Metropolitan Region. The Metropolitan
Council, Twin Cities Regional Water Billing Analysis 2016 Report (the “MC Report”), includes the
following findings (for the approximate 273 cities included in the MC Report) that are informative to
the Study and the City’s policy decisions:
Utility Rate Study
November 21, 2017
Page 4
• Customer Classes. Cities within the metropolitan region use numerous combinations of
customer classifications. Of the 273 various rate structures, 80% use different customer
designations for rates charged (i.e., residential, multi-family, commercial, irrigation, etc.)
• Billing Cycle. Approximately 57% of the cities within the Region bill on a quarterly basis, 35% bill
monthly, 4% bi-monthly, and the remaining 4% is a mix such as residential monthly and
commercial quarterly.
• Uniform vs. Tiered Rate Structure. Tiered rate structures with increasingly higher rates for
higher tiers of water use are used in 69% of the rate structures within the Region.
• Number of Tiers. Approximately 20% of the rate structures with tiers have only two tier, 44% of
the tiered rate structures have three tiers, and another 34% have either four or five tiers. The
remaining 2% consist of rate structures that have from six to ten tiers.
• Other Aspects. Limited cities offer special discounts for residential customers who are senior
citizens or have disabilities. Nine of the 273 municipal utilities included in the MC Report, which
includes Lakeville, offer such discounts.
• Rankings. The MC Report shows that Lakeville has one of the lowest monthly residential water
bills in the Metropolitan Region.
• Conservation Rates. The MC Report attempts to address the question of whether or not a
noticeable shift in water use occurs after a municipality implements a conservation rate. The
results were mixed and not conclusive. The MC Report notes that many factors influence overall
water demand, including improved water efficiency among residential water-using fixtures. In
addition weather, demographic changes, changes in the mix of residential and non-residential
customers, and water rates affect water use. (This correlates with the national literature search
completed by Northland for the Study and included in Attachment A of this memorandum.)
• Average Residential
Volume. The MC
Report includes data
that compares water use
versus average annual
growth rate and
concludes that there is
no discernible pattern
evident when the
average annual growth
rates are compared to
average residential
gallons per day (GPD)
per connection as shown
in the chart (Figure 17
from the MC Report).
There is no “normal” for
water consumption.
Utility Rate Study
November 21, 2017
Page 5
Initial Analysis
Financial Management Targets
A detailed model produces a lot of information. The challenge is interpreting what the information
says about the long term financial condition of the Utilities. The first criteria for evaluating a funding
scenario are revenue over expenditures. Does the scenario produce sufficient revenues to cover
planned operating and capital improvement expenses? The Utilities must do better than break even,
but by how much? The model helps to answer that question by allocating projected year-end cash
balance to the following purposes:
3-months of operating cash
Following year debt service
Next year planned capital expenditure (not paid from bond proceeds).
These factors assign cash to basic financial management objectives. It is also important for the
Utilities to have monies that are not earmarked for a particular purpose, but available to manage
unexpected changes in revenues and expenditures. The model uses two criteria to evaluate the
amount of available cash at year end:
“Unassigned cash” is not less than $500,000. The amount of this target is a policy decision for the
City Council. Based on our experience in working with other cities and in discussion with City
Staff, we believe that $500,000 is an appropriate minimum balance for Lakeville. In evaluating
the appropriateness of this amount, factors to consider include annual capital spending and
exposure to costs in excess of planning estimates, frequency of emergency repairs, as a few
examples.
Unrestricted net assets not less than 50% of projected operating expenditures. This target is
meant to be a utility fund equivalent of a target for an unrestricted fund balance for a city general
fund. The City of Lakeville, for example, has a stated policy to maintain an unrestricted fund
balance in the General Fund of an amount not less than 40% and not greater than 50% of the next
year’s budgeted expenditures of the General Fund.
Taken together, these targets show if future financial scenarios provide adequate amounts of
available cash balance.
The third proposed financial management target is net revenues are not less than 125% of annual
debt service on existing and planned debt. A debt service coverage ratio is essential when bonds are
secured solely with utility revenues. There is little formal use of this ratio in Minnesota because debt
is backed by the general obligation of the issuer. Nonetheless, debt service coverage is a useful
statistic to evaluate the financial health of the utility revenue system. The 125% target is suggested as
a financial planning target based on consideration of the rating agencies methodology for evaluating
financial strength of utility revenue debt.
One point of clarification is needed about the debt service coverage ratio shown in this memo. The
calculation applies solely to revenues attributed to the specific utility fund (debt paid directly from
that fund, including revenue transferred from a utility fund to a governmental debt service fund).
This comment applies primarily to the Water Fund. Only bonds paid directly from the Water Fund
(2016B and 2017A) or from a transfer from the Water Fund to a governmental debt service fund
Utility Rate Study
November 21, 2017
Page 6
(2014A and 2015A) are included in this debt service coverage calculation. Other bonds (2016A) are
paid directly from a transfer from the Trunk Fund to a governmental debt service fund and are not
included in the calculation.
Methodology
The Northland model is based on the 2018 Budget and uses many of the same assumptions that form
the projections made by Staff. The model incorporates several changes in methodology that should
be noted (certain methodology used in the model varies from the methodology that has been used by
City Staff in its planning, as noted below):
Future water volume is calculated using projected growth in customers and an average use per
customer. This methodology allows projected volume to change with growth assumptions and
average use. This methodology varies from the quarterly prior year averages methodology City
Staff has been using.
Linking water volume to growth also affects the Sewer Fund. The volume used to calculate
Sewer Fund revenue is assumed to be 66% of water volume (based on data from LOGIS). These
volumes also drive the projected disposal charges paid to Metropolitan Council Environmental
Services (MCES).
The growth projections for increase in customers used in the analysis presented in this memo are
the same as current City projections. The growth projections for financial planning are based on
75% of the City’s overall annual projected growth in customers (i.e., housing units). The
assumed annual growth for financial planning is below the estimates used in the City’s CIP. As
the utility planning proceeds, the City should consider the merits of basing all planning on
common growth projections.
For future capital improvements financed with debt, the model includes estimated costs of
issuance and creates an amortization schedule to calculate annual principal and interest.
Initial Findings
Northland has prepared a “base scenario” for the Water Fund and the Sewer Fund using the model.
The base scenarios were prepared using the City’s financial planning assumptions for operating and
non-operating expense, capital improvement plans, and planned rate adjustments.
The projected year-end cash balances for the Water Fund for the base scenario is shown in the chart
included in Attachment C. The scenario for the Water Fund assumes the following rate changes for
consumption and base fees: Year 2018 – 5%%; Year 2019 – 4%; and Years 2020 to 2027 – 3%. The base
scenario for the Water Fund meets all of the financial management targets:
Minimum unassigned cash balance of $948,000 (estimated as of 2018)
Minimum unrestricted net assets as % of projected expenditures of 233% (as of 2018)
Debt service coverage of 186% (as of 2018)
No new debt after 2020
These projections show that lower rate increases may be possible for the Water Fund depending on
actual growth in customers.
Utility Rate Study
November 21, 2017
Page 7
The projected year-end cash balances for the Sewer Fund for the base scenario is shown in the chart
included in Attachment D. While overall cash balance is projected to be positive, the Sewer Fund
unassigned cash balance is projected to be at a deficit for the financial planning period, with the
exception of year 2027. The scenario for the Sewer Fund assumes the following rate changes for
consumption and base fees: Years 2018 to 2021 – 6%%; Years 2022 to 2025 – 4%; and Years 2026 to
2027 – 2%. The base scenario for the Sewer Fund does not meet the financial management targets,
with the exception of debt service coverage and no debt issuance.
The financial results are driven in part by projected increases in MCES disposal costs. As with Water,
we have not determined an alternative scenario pending input from the City Council. As with the
Water Fund, actual future growth in customers will impact the cash projections.
Next Steps
Following the November 27 meeting, Northland will conduct any follow-up analysis from the
meeting, finalize and deliver the computer model to City Staff, prepare and provide written Study
report. These steps lay the foundation for more in-depth discussions with the City Council about
factors that shape the future finance plans for the Water and Sewer Utilities. We anticipate that these
discussions may occur in a series of City Council workshops in 2018.
The City Council and City Staff will determine the issues to be considered as this financial planning
process continues. We have some suggestions based on the work performed in Lakeville and with
other cities:
Growth assumptions. We believe that the projected growth in Utility customers should be
grounded in the projections used in the CIP. The method of using 75% of projected annual
growth (or some other factor) builds in some cushion.
Distribution of costs. It would be useful to understand how the current rate structure distributes
costs among the customer base. Do all users pay an equitable share or fixed costs or are some
groups subsidized? This information will help frame a discussion of alternative rate structures.
Policy Considerations. The rate structure can be used to promote other policy objectives, such as
economic development or conservation.
Trunk Fund. The City should continue to consider the financial management of its Trunk Funds
in conjunction with the Utility Funds. The statutory authority to collect trunk/connection
charges, which is the authority the City has used, comes from the operation of water and sanitary
sewer utilities. In addition, the 2016A Bonds were issued under the authority of Minnesota
Statutes, Section 444.075. The use of this authority means the Bonds are backed by a pledge of net
revenues from the Water Fund. Accounting for this debt in a governmental debt service fund, as
the City does, understates the real obligations of the Water Fund.
We look forward to discussing these matters with you on November 27.
Utility Rate Study
November 21, 2017
Page 8
Attachment A - Summary of Literature Search
1. Irrigation / Rate Structures
a. Research regarding the relationship between inclining rate structures and demand
for water is readily available. Research specific to rates versus irrigation demand is
less so, particularly for residential customers as these customers often lack separate
irrigation meters.
b. Research has shown that inclining rate structures are often successful in reducing
overall water demand, which would suggest that demand for water used for
irrigation purposes would also decline.
c. Most studies specific to irrigation focus on the use of metering, consumption control
devices, and the use of other measures specific to landscaping (soil additives, drought
tolerant turf, etc.)
d. Separate irrigation metering has proven to be a successful tool in reducing demand
for water as it better identifies the specific use of outdoor watering rather than being
included with normal residential use.
e. Consumption control devices, such as weather sensitive irrigation control switches
(WSICS), have become powerful tools in reducing irrigation demand, particularly for
municipal clients (i.e. city parks, ball fields, etc.) and institutional users (i.e. schools
and universities). WSICS act to override automated or timer-controlled irrigation
systems to prevent overwatering during rainy or wet weather.
f. WSICS have also proven to be valuable tools for residential customers with
automated irrigation systems, particularly in suburban areas. Studies have shown
that suburban properties are more likely to have in-ground irrigation systems. This,
coupled with the fact that suburban lot sizes are generally larger than those in more
urban environments, often leads to a greater demand for outdoor watering,
particularly in areas with higher property values (research indicates that property
owners in these areas are more likely to be concerned with the condition of
landscaping and maintaining lawn health).
g. High-demand residential water users are particularly sensitive to increasing rate
structures as their outdoor water usage tends to be rather discretionary and can easily
be scaled back should the cost of water become less palatable.
2. Water Conservation Elements and Rate Structures
a. National studies support the finding that the utility rate level itself matters more than
the rate structure. Rates that are kept too low in the short term, and not adequate to
cover costs and future replacement and infrastructure expansion, provide inaccurate
information to customers. The setting of rates and rate structure needs to take into
account both the city's current and future needs for revenue. The rates and structure
established needs to balance what is sometimes competing objectives when setting
utility rates and structure. Those objective may include:
i. Provide a stable source of revenue, recognizing water usage can vary from year
to year due to weather conditions and other factors, to cover both the City's
variable and fixed costs both in the short term and long term.
Utility Rate Study
November 21, 2017
Page 9
ii. Promote water conservation.
iii. Provide for affordable and fair structure for charging for services.
iv. Balance decision to pay for capital infrastructure with cash versus debt
recognizing that future customers will benefit from the improvements funded
today.
b. Research suggests that utilizing a three or four tiered-approach has been most
successful in reducing water usage and encouraging conservation.
c. Conservation measures include placing the lowest 10-20% users in the 1st tier, the
more average users of 10-30% in the second tier, and the highest 20-30% and 10-20%
of users in the 3rd and 4th tier, respectively.
d. Tiered rates should increase respective to the desire for water conservation; some
studies suggest that each tier should be increased by 10, 20 and 30 %, while more
aggressive rate structures have each tier increasing by 20 to 50%.
3. Monthly versus Quarterly Billing
a. Research has shown that monthly billing cycles can be helpful in promoting water
conservation as quarterly billing tends to disconnect users from monitoring usage.
b. Billing on a monthly basis can more easily help to identify issues with water supply –
i.e. plumbing that may be leaking, toilets running, etc.
c. Monthly billing keeps average water usage front of mind – utility customers are more
easily able to see the impacts of increasing or decreasing usage which can lead to
behavior modification.
d. Monthly billing, rather than quarterly, is often-times more budget friendly for rate
payers, and can be beneficial in reducing late payments, etc.
e. For the water provider’s purposes (City), monthly billing, as opposed to quarterly,
would have a direct impact to costs associated with utility billing due to the need for
increased support from LOGIS, mailing supplies, etc. As more users utilize online-
only billing, costs associated with printing and mailing physical utility bills would
decline.
f. To more accurately analyze the cost of monthly versus quarterly billing, more
information would be needed regarding data collection (meter readings), and
information gathered by the City and sent to LOGIS on a quarterly basis, billing
cycles related to specific user groups, etc.
Utility Rate Study
November 21, 2017
Page 10
Attachment B – Comparison of Rates to Other Cities
$0.00 $50.00 $100.00 $150.00 $200.00 $250.00BlaineMaple GroveWoodburyEaganLakevilleApple ValleyShakopeePlymouthChanhassenSavageBurnsvilleEden PrairiePrior LakeBlaineMapleGroveWoodbury Eagan Lakeville Apple Valley Shakopee Plymouth Chanhassen Savage Burnsville Eden Prairie Prior LakeWater$26.70 $27.30 $21.60 $43.49 $32.97 $44.05 $58.53 $44.36 $50.50 $93.88 $63.80 $83.55 $90.60Sanitary Sewer$51.00 $66.50 $78.80 $75.43 $86.31 $75.26 $67.90 $89.61 $88.81 $41.78 $84.60 $100.55 $105.20Example Customer Quarterly Cost for Water and Sewer - 2017(20,000 Gallons of Water)LakevilleNote: Rate data to calculate the estimated customer quarterly costs was compiled from city websites and the Metropolitan Council website. The information is believed to be correct based on the publicly available information. The information included in the chart has not been verified with the individual cities shown above for accuracy.
Utility Rate Study
November 21, 2017
Page 11
Attachment C – Water Fund Cash Balance
Utility Rate Study
November 21, 2017
Page 12
Attachment D – Sewer Fund Cash Balance