Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout12/06/2001 BAKERSFIELD Mike Maggard, Chair Harold Hanson Mark Salvaggio Staff: Darnell Haynes BUDGET AND FINANCE COMMITTEE of the City Council - City of Bakersfield Thursday, December 6, 2001 4:00 p.m. City Manager's Conference Room, Suite 201 Second Floor - City Hall, 1501 Truxtun Avenue, Bakersfield, CA AGENDA 1. ROLL CALL 2. ADOPT ,OCTOBER 4, 2001 AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT 3. PUBLIC STATEMENTS 4. DEFERRED BUSINESS A. Review and Committee recommendation regarding application of the business license ordinance to commercial and residential rental property businesses - Thiltgen B. Staff report and Committee recommendation regarding Sewer Service User Charges for hospitals - Rojas 5. NEW BUSINESS A. Review and Committee recommendation regarding 2002 Budget and Finance Committee meeting schedule. 6. COMMITTEE COMMENTS 7. ADJOURNMENT S:~Darnell~200 IBFComrnittee~bf01dec06agen.wpd DRAFT B AKER.SFIELD Alan Tandy, City I~ager Harold Hanson Darnell Haynes, Assistant to the City Manager Mark Salvaggio AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT BUDGET AND FINANCE COMMITTEE Thursday, October 4, 2001, 4:00 p.m. City Manager's Conference Room 1. ROLL CALL Call to Order at 4:09 p.m. Present: Councilmembers ~Mike Maggard, Chair; and Harold Hanson Absent: Councilmember Mark Salvaggio 2. ADOPT AUGUST 30, 2001 AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT Adopted as submitted. (Councilmember Salvaggio absent) 3. PUBLIC STATEMENTS 4. DEFERRED BUSINESS A. Review and Committee recommendation regarding. Bakersfield Senior Center request for financial assistance The Budget and Finance Committee reviewed the audit report provided by the Bakersfield Senior Center. Alexander Lark, Ph.D., Executive Director of the Bakersfield Senior Center responded to questions regarding financial statements and accounts payable. Lynn Edwards, Senior Center Board Member, discussed current liabilities and explained the Center has contracted with an agency that helps get past IRS debt waived or reduced. City Attorney Bart Thiltgen cautioned that the City should not pay any IRS penalties owed by the Senior Center, because that may involve the City in any future liabilities owed to the IRS by the Senior Center. staff explained they would need a schedule of what is included in accounts payable that confirms the current liabilities account balance. DRAFT AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT BUDGET AND FINANCE COMMITTEE Thursday, October 4, 2001 Page -2- Economic Development Director Donna Kunz explained HUD funding regulations for non-profit operations and the need. to show enhanced or expanded services each year, or .if that is not possible, a waiver can be requested from HUD. This HUD requirement would not apply until the application is submitted for the second year of funding. Also, past expenses cannot be included when applying for HUD funding. Staff explained the City Council apProved in concept a contribution of $50,000 per year for the Bakersfield Senior Center. The first year would be funded by Council Contingency and starting with FY 2002-03 an application would be made yearly to HUD with Council approval for CDBG funding of $50,000. Dr. Lark spoke about his plans for fund-raisers and income generators. The Health Services Program is critical and they will be applying for grants to pay for health screening. They will be having educational classes. Some will be tuition paying and include GED classes and computer classes, which Dr. Lark has taught previously at Fresno College. There is a parenting class. There will be fine arts and entertainment for seniors as well. They will be having fund-raisers including expanded Bingo with new boards starting immediately. He is confident that they will be able to be successful with the plans they have for income generators and assistance from the City of $50,000 per year and the $10,000 per year from United Way. Committee member Hanson made a motion.that in concurrence with Council's policy for funding non-profits, the-Committee recommendation to Council is to fund $50,000 for the Bakersfield Senior Center out of Council Contingency to be disbursed in partnership with the Center's board for amounts to be determined after review of the accounts payable schedUle and approval of the Finance Director with the understanding that this will be funding through June 30, 2002, and in the interim, CDBG funds will 'be applied for from HUD for FY July 1, 2002-03. Also, included in the motion at staff's request were the four recommendations of the.Finance Director: 1 ) an audit of records at June 30, 2001, which has been completed; 2) annual audits if the support is to be ongoing; 3) compliance with Federal and State laws, especially as they apply to payment of payroll, . payroll records and taxes; and 4) accounting records to be in compliance with Generally Accepted Account Principles. The motion was unanimously approved (Committee member Salvaggio absent). Staff will prepare an agreement for execution by the Bakersfield Senior Center. NEW BUSINESS A. 'Review and Committee recommendation regarding Bakersfield Senior Center - Senior Housing Project Economic Development Director Donna Kunz stated in February this year the Bakersfield Senior Center came to the Budget and Finance Committee with a request for assistance to buy additional land for approximately $560,000 to expand their Senior Housing Project. At the time staff had only identified about $280,000 that was available from prior year CHDO/HOME funds. The Budget and Finance Committee directed staff to look at financing plans or structure some type of loan with the organization and bring it back to the Committee. Several months have AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT BUDGET AND FINANCE COMMITTEE Thursday, October 4, 2001 Page -3- passed and it has been difficult to find funding that' would work for this particular project. Currently there is about $420,000 on hand of CHDO funds, which is a 15% reserve set-aside of HOME funds, which is part of the City's entitlement block grant program. These funds are unprogrammed and accumulated over the past two fiscal years. This is insufficient to fund the Senior Center's request for $585,982. Staff :has had many meetings with the Bakersfield Senior Center and Retirement Housing, Inc., co-sponsor of the project. They are proposing to build an 80-unit senior housing project. They have receive a 202 capital advance allocation from HUD for $7 million, which is essentially a grant, there is no debt service. Along with the 202 Grant, comes a guarantee of Section 8 Certificates, so they will have rental income to pay its operations, replacement fund for paint, etc. The way a 202 is designed the minimum contribution that you have to put up is $25,000 into a loan reserve fund and-is held on deposit with HUD. The 202 money can be used to pay acquisition, design, and construction. The project is restricted to Iow-income seniors, age 62 and older. It is a 40 year forgivable loan, there is no debt service. Anything that is saved under the original 202, not used for construction, can be put into an operating account. Donna Kunz presented two financial options for the Committee to review. There is full funding available for Option1, approximately $335,000. Option 2 will require all of the HOME/CHDO funds available this year and-part of next year's allocation. Option .1 would use the original site (1.8 acres) that was submitted in the 202 .application. The proposed assistance of $335,000 is based on per square foot value of comparable land in the area. There has not been a negotiated price. The Bakersfield Senior Center and Retirement Housing, Inc., as co-sponsors, must form a new entity and the Senior Center must sell their land to that entity. Staff used a comparable square foot average for analysis. One of the advantages of building on the original site would be whatever you saved from the 202 moniesl could be used for future operations of the housing project. Option 1 does not require any acquisition or relocation. Option 2 would provide assistance of $495,000 to acquire land for an expanded site (approximately 2.6 acres). Land for the expanded site is what is being requested-by the Senior Center. Under Option 2, the proposed assistance is based on several budgets and estimates and the use of City departments and outside consultants to develop the relocation, demolition and acquisition costs, with City staff handling the relocation services. This would provide about 2.6 acres and allow for a very nice project. This budget is predicated upon having willing sellers that are also willing to sell close to our appraisals. If that is not the case, the City's Redevelopment Agency would have to step up and use its eminent domain powers, which would add additional costs to the $495,000. The costs savings the City shows, $495,000 verses the amount being requested by the Senior Center of $585,982, is possible as the City would be using City staff to do the acquisition and relocation activities and our analysis has lower estimates on the demolition and relocation. Informal appraisals were used by the City and the Senior Center to estimate the costs. The biggest concern with the expanded project is there is no fund to be put into the operating reserve DRAFT AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT BUDGET AND FINANCE COMMITTEE Thursday, October 4, 2001 Page -4- account to assure on-going maintenance. You have very-low income, very-low revenue stream and expenses grow. It is always good to have an operating reserve and also to be able to give some extra amenities. One key missing is a formal agreement between Bakersfield Senior Center and Retirement Housing, Inc,, which outlines who is doing what and also how the board is going to be established, because the City's proposal will be an escrow type situation. The City would acquire the properties and transfer the land through the Senior Center and right on to the new entity which must be formed by the Bakersfield Senior Center and Retirement Housing, Inc. The entire parcel would be put into the project. Staff did not recommending one alternative over the other, but wanted to give the Committee two options, as Option 2 will not leave funds available for any other project in the City. Vernon Strong, Bakersfield Senior Center Project, stated he would like to see schedules of the totals showing how the City can do this cheaper than their cost and recommendations given to the City of $585,982. He explained their request to the City was to purchase land for the expanded site, as the original site is too small to build a quality project. Mr. Strong explained when they came to the Committee in February, the Committee approved their request for CHDO funds, which were available for the first $280,000, and the Committee requested staff to work with the Senior Center to "make the project happen." He continued, based on this, they went out to the property owners and developed options to purchase the properties they needed. If HUD-is to consider expanding the project, they need to be able to go onto the property. Option agreements were entered into with the property owners on what we anticipated the property would be appraised for. He expressed it is easier to work from an estimate and an option than it would be to get yourself in a box with an appraisal when that becomes the value of the property. Ms. Kunz stated she .would completely agreed if this were a private transaction. However, this is a public acquisition and as such, there are certain HUD regulations requiring appraisals that the City must follow for acquisition and relocation that were not followed in obtaining the option agreements. The City cannot use the options provided by the Senior Center in the application to HUD. Under Option 2, staff is proposing the City would be acquiring the land and as we do with any other public acquisition, notice the tenants and property owners and do appraisals. Dr. Lark spoke about the options and agreements they already have obtained being a better procedure because it avoids eminent domain and the opportunity of losing the whole project because of the time factor. The Committee discussed funding. The City has approximately $420,000 in unprogrammed HOME/CHDO funds. If the Committee decides to recommend Option 2 to the Council, staff would recommend $495,000 and taking the balance of funds needed out of next year's entitlement. DRAFT BUDGET AND FINANCE COMMITTEE Thursday, October 4, 200~ Page -~- Mr. Edwards explained there is no comparison between the original site and the expanded site. There are traffic problems with the entrance to the original site, because of the school traffic from 7:30 a.m. until 9:00 a.m. with busses and parents dropping children off. The crime on 5"' Street is another problem with the original site. The expanded project will take out the apartments and empty houses and close the street, which will help cleanup the crime. Dr. Lark spoke about the quality of life tenants would have with the expanded project. A quality project will have a direct affect on the value of the lifestyle of the people who are going to live there. Committee member Hanson stated'he would support Option 2 as proposed by staff with the City getting appraisals and purchasingthe proPerties providing we have willing sellers. If the sellers are not willing, then this needs to be brought back for further negotiations. Committee .member Hanson made a motion to recommend Option 2 to the City Council providing that it does not exceed $495,000, which takes into consideration that the property owners are willing sellers. The Committee unanimously approved the motion (Committee member Salvaggio absent). B. Review and Committee recommendation regarding First Night~) Bakersfield request for financial assistance Assistant City Manager John Stinson stated last year the City provided support services of approximately $40,000 in-kind contributions to provide Police, Fire, Public Works, Recreation and Parks, Economic and Community Development staff and office space. Staff recommended that the City continue to provide in-kind services this year for First Night~). Staff is not recommending the request for additional funding of $10,000, costs of facilities or covering the amount they currently owe Centennial Garden, as these expenses do not fall under the Council's policy for contributions to non-profits. The City did not 'cover the costs of facilities last year and those charges were only for actual costs for labor, utilities, and security at the Garden and the Convention Center for approximately $14,000, which has .not been paid. At the Committee's request, staff explained the Economic and Community Development budget was prepared shortly after the First Night~ 2001 event and there was some uncertainty of their financial condition and Council direction for non-profit funding, so $10,000 was included in the Economic Development Marketing Promotion Account, which could be used for any promotional activities. Financial information including a balance sheet and profit and loss statement for First Night~ were provided. Elaine McNeamey, board member First Night~) Bakersfield, thanked staff for recommending the $40,000 in-kind support services, as that is how they were able to continue last year. She explained, the first year, 1999, they operated under the umbrella of the City and they took over in the second year and formed a nonprofit corporation, but inherited a $20,000 debt. She explained that they did not know 6,000 people would crash the event last year and so button sales would not cover expenses and they would be unable to pay their bills. They would like to go forward with the presumption that they will have an event this year. Their board DRAFT AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT BUDGET AND FINANCE COMMITTEE Thursday, October 4, 2001 Page -6- is now completely volunteer with no paid staff. Their current assets total about $16,000 from fund-raising. They are planning to pay their debts by separate fund-raisers for debt-reduction. However, new sponsors' money or any contribution from the City is earmarked for this year's event. Ms. McNearney explained they have scaled back their budget and will be relying on corporate sponsors, not just button sales. The schools will be partnering and allowing student button sales. They are planning a smaller event, shorter time frame, less performers, and to have security and a more controlled environment, while still having a quality event. If the facilities are not donated, they do not have the ability to-rent the Centennial Garden and will have to locate the event elsewhere. She said their request is for $40,000 in-kind services, donation of the use of facilities at the Arena, Plaza and the Convention Center, and 'for the City to absorb the past debt of approximately $13,000 still owed to the arena, and also release of the $10,000 in the current budget. Or secondly, if that is not possible, use the $10,000 as part of paying the past' debt at' the arena. Philip Belhumeur, First Night~), spoke about button sales and sponsors and expressed that they would like to keep the event at the same location, as it is the perfect venue and showcases the event. Committee member Hanson thought there should be an effort made to have the performing artists work at a reduced rate as a contribution toward the event. The event itself is very worthwhile for the community, but based on the debt still owing for last year, he would be more comfortable recommending support if there were a plan to show how this year's event will be financially successful. Committee Chair Maggard explained the Committee does not have the latitude to go beyond the Council policy, which was just reaffirmed, on the specific criteria for contributions. He explained this does not allow recommending the contribution of the $10,000. Also, itwould be difficult for the City to forgive payment owed to the arena when only actual hard costs were charged, as the operators who manage the arena are under a performance agreement. He would support staff's recommendation for in-kind support services of staff and office space. Committee member Hanson made a.motion to recommend to the Council that the City continue to support First Night(E) in a suitable venue with in-kind services of staff and office space up to $40,040 as detailed on the list by staff. The Committee unanimously approved the motion (Committee-member Salvaggio absent). C. Review and Committee recommendation regarding application of the business license ordinance to commercial and residential rental property businesses ' The Committee deferred this item to the next meeting. DRAFT BUDGET AND FINANCE GOMMITTEE Thursday, October 4, 2001 Page D. Review and Committee recommendation regarding Bakersfield Centennial Garden and Convention Center Financial Statements (This item heard after 5.A.) Finance Director Gregory Klimko gave a brief overview of the financial statements. Jim Foss, Executive Director, Bakersfield 'Centennial Garden and Convention Center, stated that energy costs have had a significant impact on the cost of operations. They are conserving energy whenever possible and although their usage is down, rate increases have significantly increased -their costs. The Public Utilities Commission is considering yet another increase to businesses and he wanted the Council to be aware of possible additional increases in energy costs, as it is the second largest line item in their budget. The Committee accepted and approved forwarding the Bakersfield Centennial Garden and Convention Center Financial Statements to Council for approval (Committee member Salvaggio absent). Staff was directed to include the energy cost information in .the administrative report. 6. COMMrI'rEE COMMENTS 7. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 6:45 p~m. Staff present: City Attorney Bart Thiltgen; Assistant City Manager John W. Stinson; Finance Director Gregory Klimko; Assistant to the City Manager Darnell'Haynes; Deputy City Attorney Janice Scanlan; Deputy City Attorney Michael AIIford; Economic Development Director Donna Kunz; Economic/Community Development Business Manager Rhonda Barnhard; Community Development Coordinator George Gonzales; Economic/Community Development Principal Planner Vince Zaragoza; Assistant ' Recreation and Parks Director Allen Abe; City Treasurer Bill Descary; and Executive Director of the Centennial Garden and Convention Center Jim Foss. Others present: Alexander H. Lark, Ph.D., Executive Director, Bakersfield Senior Center; Lynn Edwards, Bakersfield Senior Center; Vernon and David 'Strong, Bakersfield Senior Center/Senior Housing Project; Elaine McNearney, First Night~; Philip Belhumeur, Longs Drugs/First Night~; James Burger, reporter, The Bakersfield Californian; and Peter J Rudy, KUZZ Radio cc: Honorable Mayor and City Council DWH:jp S:~Damel~2001 BFCommlttee~bf01 octO4summary.wpd 7 BAKE R S F I E L D PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM TO: BUDGET & FINANCE COMMITTEE DATE: NOVEMBER 1, 2001 SUBJECT: SEWER USER FEES FOR HOSPITALS At the May 3, 2001 Budget and Finance Committee meeting, direction was given to staffon the Sewer Service User Charges for the 2001/02 Fiscal Year. Part of this direction included modifying the rate structures for nursing homes and hospitals from the average "flat rate" charge to a usage rate based upon historical water flow data. Thc Committee also directed staff to identify alternatives for hospitals, nursing homes, and schools which offered the least impact to these users while still complying with state regulations. Subsequent to this Budget and Finance Committee meeting, it became apparent that the rates for hospitals would increase dramatically if a flow basis were to be used as proposed for the nursing homes. Therefore, at the May 16, 2001 Council Meeting, Council approved keeping hospitals on the flat rate schedule with a 7 year phase-in period which was the maximum allowable by the State. The attached administrative report prepared for this Hearing item indicated that staff w. ould meet with each hospital individually and discuss the impact of going to a flow charge basis and options available to them, such as installing a separate meter for landscaping. Because of the fiscal impact of going from a flat rate fee to a fee based upon actual flow, staff thought that the Budget and Finance Committee may want to revisit this item before staff began the process of meeting individually with the hospitals. It is important to note that we have plenty of time to meet with the hospitals because of the long phase-in period. But it would be beneficial to allow the hospitals as much time as possible to make adjustments if needed. We can either proceed as planned and meet with the hospitals on changing from a flat rate fee to a fee based upon actual flow; or, we could leave hospitals on the flat rate schedule which would still comply with state guidelines. G:~G ROU P DA'I~Memo~2001 ',sw~sr feesbosp, wpd Page 2 November 1, 2001 Sewer User Fees For Hospitals Following is an explanation of the attached tables: · Table 1- This table shows the impact for each of the 7 hospitals of phasing in the current per-bed flat rate (not adjusted for future inflationary increases) over the council approved 7 year phase-in period. · Table 2- This table compares the current per-bed flat rate at full implementation (end of the 7 year phase-in period) to what the sewer charges would be for each hospital based upon current water consumption data. Please note that this comparison is not adjusted for future inflationary increases. · Table 3- This table compares the per-bed flat rate for hospitals for several cities. As you can see, Bakersfield's fees are the lowest of the surveyed cities. Eleven of the surveyed cities charge hospitals based upon actual flow. Each of the 7 hospitals would realize an increase in their annual sewer charges if their fee was based upon actual water flow. Basing the fee upon actual water flow data would be more accurate than using the average "flat rate" per bed. Currently wastewater flow is estimated using 90% of the 3 winter months (December, January & February) actual flow data. The estimating method is to allow for landscape irrigation. If hospitals were to install separate water meters for landscaping, this would provide the most accurate data for estimating wastewater flow. Because of the time that has elapsed since this item was last discussed in May, 2001, staff thought it would be beneficial to meet once again on this issue for discussion purposes. O:~G ROU PDA'I~Me~m~2001 ~,w msdee sba sp. wpd ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council APPROVED FROM: Jacques R. LaRochelle, Interim Public Works Director DEPARTMENT HEAD~ CITY ATrORNEY~ DATE: May 9, 2001 CITY MANAGER.~ SUBJECT: SeWer User' Charges: '~' 1. Continued hearing to consider a resolution establishing sewer service user charges for Fiscal Year 2001-02 (proposed revisions in sewer user charges): 2. Acceptance and approval of the City of Bakersfield's Revenue Program forWastewatar and Stormwater Facilities. ...F[E..C. OMMENDATION: Staff recommends adoption of the Resolution and approval of the Revenue Program. BACKGROUND: At the April 25, 2001, Council meeting, a hearing was held to establish Sewer and Storm Sewer Service User Charges for the 2001/02 Fiscal Year. In .addition, the proposed Revenue Program for the City of Bakersfield Wastewater and Storm Facilities was submitted for Council approval. As reported in a previous Council meeting, the proposed Revenue Program was necessary to implement for the following reasons: · The current rate structure did not adequately reflect a 'fair share" approach to the actual costs of treating effluent for some user groups (some user groups pay too much, while some too little). · The City received three Federal Clean Water Grants and one State Revolving Fund loan for treatment plant expansions, all of which required an approved Revenue Program. · The State threatened sanctions and penalties if the Revenue Program was not updated in accordance with current State guidelines. During the hearing, a constituent spoke in opposition to the proposed increase for nursing homes. Questions arose regarding the fa,mess of the proposed fee increase for the nursing homes category. After Council discussion, this item was referred to the May 3, 2001, Budget and Finance Committee for further review. Staff was also directed by Council to contact the State and determine if the State would approve a Revenue Program in which proposed rate increases were phased in over a longer period of time than the staff recommended 3 year phase in period for various user groups. At the May 3, 2001, Budget and Finance Committee meeting, 2 constituents (the one who protested at the Council meeting, plus one additional) spoke in opposition to the increased rates for nursing homes. They both stated the fee proposal was too high since their particular nursing home establishments contribute relatively ~'~ ;* '* A~DMINISTRATIVE REPORT Page 2 small volume of sewage. Staff pointed out that the proposed rate was based on average usage for the category and could be modified to an actual usage basis like other existing 'commercial accounts. Staff distributed a packet regarding the sewer user rates at the Budget and Finance Committee meeting. This entire packet has been included for reference. The information provided included various options for extending the term of implementation, with the rate impact of each option, summarized for hospitals, nursing homes, and schools. In addition, the report shows the subsidy, which will be borne by other users, for each of the phase in options. It is important to note that the subsidies on Attachment C of the Budget and Finance Committee packet have changed. The reason forthis is because each of the user groups (hospitals, nursing homes, and schools) realized the least Impact of the proposed rate Increases under different options. After some discussion, the Budget and Finance Committee directed staff to: · identify alternatives for hospitals, nursing homes, and schools which offered the least impact to these users while still complying with the State guidelines; and · modify the rate structures for nursing homes and hospitals from the average 'fiat rate' charge to a usage rate; and · implement the increase over the longest period of time the SLate would allow. Subsequent to the Budget and Finance Committee meeting, it became apparent that the rates for hospitals would increase dramatically if a flow basis were to be used as proposed for the nursing homes. As a result, staff recommends that hospitals remain on the flat rate schedule as identified at the Aprf125, 2001, Council meeting with the exception that the phase in period for the proposed rate increase be over 7 years, which is the maximum allowable by the State, rather than staff's initial recommendation of 3 years. This would give staff the time needed to meet with each hospital individually and discuss the impact of going to a flow charge basis and options available to them, such as installing a separate meter for landscaping. For hospitals, the method most advantageous would be to phase in the proposed fiat rate increases over a period of years so that the increase is limited to approximately 15% per year, exclusive of future cost of living adjustments (This option is described in the attached packet which was supplied to the Budget and Finance Committee.). As noted earlier, staff will meet with the hospitals regarding the flow charge basis. This equates to a 7 year phase in pedod for hospitals, as noted above. For schools, phasing in the fiat rate increase equally over a 5 year period would offer the least impact. The rate schedule for nursing homes is recommended to change from a per bed fiat rate to a per facility fiat rate plus flow charges. The majority of the nursing homes will realize a decrease with this conversion, although there are a few facilities that would realize an increase. Based on the direction from the Budget and Finance Committee and subsequent information identified by staff, sewer user rates for the upcoming fiscal year for the 3 categories in question are proposed to be as follows: FY01-02....Oriclinal Pr0D0sal FY01~02 Modified Proposal · Nursing homes (3 year phase in) $42.94/bed $175.50/facility+flow charges · Hospitals (7 year phase in) ,$46.80/bed $39.68/bed · Schools (5 year phase in) $3.98/student $3.79/student The majority of the following information was given to the City Council at the April 25~h meeting. This text is repeated for informational purposes and it represents an overview of the revenue program, as modified by the Budget and Finance Committee: Single family dwellings are proposed to inCrease 1.74%, from $115 to $117. No rate change is proposed for multiple dwellings or mobile homes. These residential user groups comprise 94% of all customers. G:~ROUPOAT~NRPT~t~,byI6U~I.02 ~ Fe~3.wl~d ,~ Page 3 ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT Commercial and industrial user groups comprise 6% of all customers, Of this 6%, annual flat rate fees for 58% of {hese customers will increase 9%, However, 38% of these customers will actually realize a flat rata fee decrease. 2.6% of these customers will realize an increase greater than 9%. The remainder will realize a ,o:t.74% increase. Schools, nursing homes, and hospitals have been modified as described above. The proposed flat rate fees will be: User Grouo Cur[ent Fee prpoosed Fee-01/02, Fy Single Family Dwelling $115.00 $117.00 Mull Owelling/Moblle Home $92.00/Unit $92.00/Unit Small Stores & Nurseries $161.00 $117.00 Combination Store & Office $276.00 $117.00 Hospitals $34.501Bed $39.68/Bed Church $126.50 $117.00 Schools $3.571Student $3.79/Student Hotels - Motels ~34.501Room $35.10/Room All other Commercial & $161.00 $175.50 Industrial Users* 'Nursing homes will now be included in this category. The following, are examples of the .impact of the proposed fiat rate fees: FY00-01 FY01-02 Users-Examples Current Fee Prop~.~ed Fee (as modified) High School $2,592 $2,755 Hospital $6,222 $7,142 Hotel $4,140 $4,212 In ~td_dition to the,. fiat rat~ (;:harges, sqrcharae fees are charged to commercial (which now includes nursing homes) and industrial users (6% of all customers) whose demand of the Treatment Facilities exceed baseline amounts for fiat rate volumes. Approximately half of the commercial and industrial users may be subject to the ~'b,"~harge rates. Previous surcharge fees included Schedule 'A', Schedule "B". and 'Monitored Users'. In accordance with current State guidelines, the updated revenue program assigns the same surcharge fee to all users, with the fee dependent upon each users flow and strength of that flow. Of the three components (flow, BOD, and TSS) of the proposed surcharge fee, staff recommends that the surcharge rate for the flow component be phased in over a 3 year period because of its impact on some commercial and industrial users. Informational letters, describing the impact of the proposed surcharge fees, were mailed to all 'Monitored Users'. The proposed surcharge fees will be: FY00-01 FY01-02 Comoonents Current Fee Prop0.~d Fee Flow, MG $469.30-$703.40/MG/yr. $597.00/MG/yr. BOD, mg/L $67.20-$77.40/1000 lb. $62.00/1000 lb. TSS, mg/L $71.30-75.30/1000 lb. $71.00/1000 lb. ~ Page 4 ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT The following are examples of the impact of the proposed sUrcharge fees: FYO0-O 1 FYO 1-02 Users (~.urrent Fees Prooosed Fees Water Softener $6,838 $8,403 Oil Refinery $17,257 .$21,235 Laundry $8,920 $9,572 Industrial Laundry $25,243 $27,459 Food Processer $236,968 $233,700 Restaurant $3,394 $3,829 Car Wash $3,864 $4,135 The shortfall in revenues resulting from the phasing in of the rate increases as proposed above can be absorbed by existing fund balance. See Exhibit A of attached resolution for sewer user fee details. There will be no change for the following Sections of the MISCELLANEOUS SCHEDULE of Exhibit A: **° i1. Septic Discharoes ~ .... II1. Surcharae for Outside Se~tiq Oischarc[~..S IV. St~.rcharoes for Outside V. In~tu~tripl Waste Disch.~me Monitorirtq VII. Connec;Iion Fee For Major Industrial Dischpr.qer * Fees for Section VI. Wastewater Services - Other AQencies will be determined in accordance with agreements entered into between the City and other agencies. Included with this administrative report is an Executive Summary (identified as Exhibit B) of the updated Revenue Program for Wastewater Treatment Facilities as prepared by Boyle Engineering Corporation. A copy of the REVENUE PROGRAM FOR CITY OF BAKERSFIELD WASTEWATER AND STORMWATER FACIMT1E$ will be available for review at the City Clerk's Office. Sewer user charges are collected with property taxes by the Kern County Tax Collector pursuant to the Bakersfield Municipal Code. Table 1 Hospitals Sewer Fee - Seven Year Phase-in Per-Bed Rate on FY00-01 $34.50 $39.68 $44.85 $50.02 $55.20 $60.37 $65.55 $70.20 15% increase $5.18 # of FY 2001/2002 FY2002/2003 FY 2003/2004 FY2004/2005 FY 2005/2006 FY 2006/2007 FY 2007/2008 $39.68 $44.85 $50.02 $55.20 $60.37 $65.55 $70.20 per bed per bed per bed per bed per bed per bed per bed beds Total char~le Total charge Total charge Total charge Total charge Total charge Total charge San Joaquin Hospital 178 $7,062 $7,983 $8,904 $9,826 $10,747 $11,668 $12,496 Mercy Hospital 194 $7,697 $8,701 $9,705 $10,709 $11,713 $12,717 $13,619 Bakersfield Memorial Hospital 338 $13,410 $15,159 $16,908 $18,658 $20,407 $22,156 $23,728 Bkfld Regional Rehab Hosp. 60 $2,381 $2,691 $3,001 $3,312 $3,622 $3,933 $4,212 Bakersfield Heart Hospital 47 $1,865 $2,108 $2,351 $2,594 $2,838 $3,081 $3,299 Memorial Behavioral Center 60 $2,381 $2,691 $3,001 $3,312 $3,622 $3,933 $4,212 Mercy Southwest 67 $2,658 $3,005 $3,352 $3,698 $4,045 $4,392 $4,703 P:\Divis4ons\ww~Hospital01 calc.wb3 11101101 11:05:37 AM Table 2 Hospitals Sewer Fee Evaluation Rate Comparisons # of fiat rate Difference beds by bed ** Total charge by flow * Total charge flow - bed San Joaquin Hospital 178 $70.20 $12,496 $117.89 $20,984 $8,489 Mercy Hospital 194 $70.20 $13,619 $199.08 $38,622 $25,003 Bakersfield Memorial Hospital 338 $70.20 $23,728 $139.62 $47,192 $23,464 Bkfld Regional Rehab Hospital 60 $70.20 $4,212 $148.94 $8,936 $4,724 Bakersfield Heart Hospital 47 $70.20 $3,299 $209.01 $9,823 $6,524 Memorial Behavioral Center 60 $70.20 $4,212 $130.82 $7,849 $3,637 Mercy Southwest 67 $70.20 $4,703 *** *** *using 90% of 3 winter months (Dec 2000-Feb 2001 ) water data to estimate WW flow **reflects per-bed flat rate at the end of the 7 year phase-in period ***water meter serves several buildings which includes the hospital and office buildings P:~Divis~)ns\ww~Hospita101 calc.wt)3 11/01/01 11:09:51 AM Table 3: Rates per Bed, 2001-02 Compared with other California Cities Pleasanton+* ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~i Fresno* Vacaville* Rialto* Oxnard* Modesto+* ~~ ~~~! Redlands* ~~~~~! Riverside* ~~ San Bernardino* ~~~~1 Visalia* Stockton* ~~ BAKERSFIELD ~~! $70.20/Bed $0 $100 $200 $300 $400 $500 + Indicates additional administrative/surcharges * These cities charge users by actual flow. Staff has converted this to a per-bed rate for comparison. P:\Divisions\ww\Hospital - new flow data.wb3 11/01/01 BUDGET AND F~NANCE COMMITTEE PROPOSED :2002 MEETING SCHEDULE OBudget and Finance Committee I I City Council Meeting Holiday 4:00 Budget Hearing or Department Presentations at City Counci~ Meeting JANUARY FEBRUARY MARCH S M T W TH F S S M T W TH F S S M T W TH F S 2 3 4 5 t 2 1 2 6 7 8 1t 12 3 4 516] 7 8 9 3 4 5 l.__.~J 7 8 9 20i i~i 22~ 24 25 2ei 19~ 21 22 23 t7 18 19 22 23 27 28 29 30 31 24 25 26 27 28 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 APRIL MAY JUNE S M T W TH F S S M T W TH F S S M T W TH F S 1 2 3 4 5 6 ~ 2 3 4 1 7 8 9 [....!Q_I~1_1~ 12 13 5 6 7[....~ 10 1i 2 4 5 6 7 8 ,4 15 t6_....¢¢__.17 19 20 12_13 t4 15 t7 18 9 10 11~ 1.~ 1 14 15 21 22 23~ 25 26 27 19I~1 2t 23 24 25 t6 17 18 19 ~ 21 22 28 29 30 26~ ............. 28 29 30 31 23 24 25 27 28 29 3o JULY AUGUST SEPTEMBER S M T W TH F S ~'~'""---'~ S M T W TH F S ~ 2 3 5 6 1 2 3 l ii~ ~ii~ 3 ~ 6 7 7 8 9 12 13 4 5 8 7 8 9 10 8 9 10 tl 13 14 14 t5 16 17 t9 20 11 12 13 t4~ t8 17i, 15 t6 17~ 19 20 21 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 18 19 20~ 22 23 24i 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 28 29 30~ 25 28 27 28 29 30 31 29 30 OCTOBER DECEMBER S M T W TH F S S M T W TH F S S M T W TH F S 112134 5 1 2 t 2 3 4 5 6 7 6 7 8' -'9'~! 11 12 3 4 9 8 9 10~ 12 13 14 13 14 t5 17 18 I9 10,I,i~[~,~.. 16 15 18 17 18 t9 20 21 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 17 18 231 22 23 26 27 28 27 28 29 30 31 24 25 30 29 30 *December 6, 2001