Attention Ogden City citizens. Here's a heads-up concerning possibly the most important Ogden City Council meeting yet this year, about which we provide the following information gleaned from this February 29, 2012 News Advisory, which is posted on the Ogden City website:
On Tuesday, March 6, 2012, the Ogden City Council will hold a Fact Finding Work Session to discuss the water and sewer utility rate study that is currently underway.View Tuesday evening's full Council Packet here:
This Fact Finding session is designed as a forum for education and public input. Three presentations will be given to provide background information and describe the considerations being made as part of this study:At the conclusion of the presentations, citizens will have the opportunity to express their ideas and views, with comments being limited to three (3) minutes. Comment cards will also be available, [Emphasis added].
- Jay Lowder, Ogden City Public Services Director, and Justin Anderson, Ogden City Engineer, will describe completed and future projects that address the City’s water and sewer infrastructure needs
- Cody Deeter of Lewis, Young, Robertson & Burningham, will provide a brief overview of the guiding financial principles for the rate study
- Glenn Symes, Ogden City Council Policy Analyst, will discuss the results of the preliminary survey and policy considerations related to the study
Having reviewed the packet, we're uneasy about one element of Tuesday night's discussion which seems to have been "glossed over":
February 21, 2012Specifically, this item appears to refer to proposed water infrastructure improvements and an associated 55% water rate increase which we discussed here on Weber County Forum on 2/22/12:
A work session was held to review preliminary analysis of revenue sufficiency for the water utility. Several general scenarios were presented to the Council for the funding of capital projects included in the proposed capital improvements plan and the proposed culinary water master plan.
As Ogden City water users are well aware, Ogden's water rates are already higher than those of virtually all other northern Utah cities; and now our water consultants are setting the stage to soak water rate payers even more?
As one wary WCF reader commented beneath the upper-linked WCF story, which pretty much dropped in outta the blue...
Just a year ago, the city had lots of extra money on this water bonding fiasco, due to falling interest rates.We're not sure the situation's quite so dire as that... but on the other hand, with Ogden City BIG GUMMINT, you really never do know exactly what Boss Godfrey's residual "A" Team has up its sleeve, until you find out "the hard way," no?
Today, they need twice as much money, according to their corrupt consultants.
It's the developers who are driving this show.
They want the pipes and tanks laid in, so the bench can be bulldozed and condo'd out on the cheap.
Simple.
Although it's been relatively quiet on the Ogden City government front since our new mayoral administration was installed, now's no time for we fiscally-prudent Ogden City lumpencitizens to let down our guard, don'tcha think?
With that in mind we encourage all steely-eyed Ogden City citizens to mark their calendars and show up at Tuesday night's meeting, trusty torches and pitchforks in hand.
It ain't every day that the Council gives Council Work Session attendees three minutes of "floor time." Let's not let 'em down folks. Let's pack the council chambers and give our city government elected representatives a real ear-full.
Beleguered Ogden water rate payers "petition" their governmentThe Meeting starts at 6:00 sharp. Hoping to see you all there and then.
We'll leave the lower comments section open of course, for anyone who'd like to comment, before, during or after Tuesday night's meeting.
Update 3/6/12 6:05 p.m.: Dan Schroeder is now live blogging from tonight's Council Work Session.
Update 3/7/12 7:02 a.m.: The Standard is carrying a story this morning on this topic, with this Mitch Shaw piece, reporting that "water rates could increase by as much as 45 percent over the next 10 years and 22 percent in the next three years, to pay for bonds issued to fund the needed water and sewer infrastructure projects":
Mr. Shaw needs to check his math, btw. Doing the calculations, the proposed water rates increase actually works out at the originally stated 55%, taking into account compounding interest, which is an element that Mr. Shaw apparently neglected.
Just to be sure we've touched all the bases, here are some helpful graphs, prepared earlier by Dan Schroeder, and used in last night's 3-minute Council presentation:
That's it for now, folks.
60 comments:
More bad news: U.S. water bills to triple
An extremely confusing article. Americans currently pay about $400 a month in water taxes and fees?!? Is that for each individual American, or for all Americans combined? Obviously it's neither one so what the hell is it?
Be aware Ogden Water and Sewer customers, there is a Utah Consumer Group funded by the State in Salt Lake that can provide legal and other assistance to consumers that are confused and frustrated by their utility companies rates or procedures. The problem is, their charter does not provide for a staff to deal with Water and Sewer, only Telephone, Gas, and Electric utilities!
Feel left out?????? Now you may ask why the State Consumer Group's charter does not provide for a staff for Water and Sewer. Good question! Why not ask your elected state representatives Allan Christensen and Gage Froerer?
Does this smack of political influence by the owners of Water and Sewer Companies to keep the State Consumer group out of their businesses????
I for one am hoping that Mayor Mike Caldwell will get out of his bunker and condemn any near-term increases in Ogden water rates.
I'm awaiting any encouraging news at all, that Mike Caldwell will assert any formidable leadership, rather than just sitting back and being led along with a ring through his nose, and allowing Boss Godfrey's still lingering right wing socialist "A" team to run the show.
Not So confusing, actully.
Breaking news: 19th Century water infrastucture needs to be fixed !!!
Imagine THAT!
Some of us care about the details and the numbers.
Some of us aren't quite so anal as YOU, Dan.
Make your argument please, or forever hold you peace.
Some of us are more concerned about not getting ripped off for our water use, Dan.
Thanks for speaking up.
Amen. The contractors control the city government, through the city's hoard of bureaucrats, like they always have. Godfrey was never in charge, but only thought he was. Mike Caldwell doesn't even go through the motions of being in charge like Godfrey did.
Without quite endorsing such a sweeping generalization, let me say that there is good evidence to back this view. Just within the water utility operating budget, the "contracted agreements" line item has increased from $250,000 in 2003 to $2.5 million in 2011. This doesn't include contracts for new capital projects, which have been much more. I've asked for an itemization of that $2.5 million, and it's starting to look like the finance department doesn't want to provide it.
Wasn't one of the main uses for BDO funds to upgrade city infrastructure? Why hasn't t6hat happened? How much money did Godfrey siphon off to fund his cockaminie ideas?
Over the years, Godfrey and a compliant and irresponsible Ogden City Council have siphoned off over $10 million of BDO money over the past twelve years. This is all money that was intended by the Glenn Meachem administration to go into infrastructure, of course.
I'm now reporting live from the city council "fact finding work session" on utility rates. Council staff member Glenn Symes is starting the presentation.
All council members are present, as is CAO Mark Johnson. Mayor Caldwell is not here.
Symes is giving a very general overview of the goals of the process: revenue sufficiency, establishing capital needs, forecasting growth, creating appropriate rates, etc.
Now Jay Lowder (public services director) and Justin Anderson (city engineer) are getting up to make their case for all the new projects they want money for.
Lowder reminds the council that some of these projects were anticipated in 2007 and at the time the council knew they were putting off some of the hard decisions. On the other hand, construction costs have been low so the money from the bond went further than originally anticipated.
Anderson now recaps the improvements made over the last few years, with the bond that was issued in 2008.
Among other projects, Anderson reminds council that about $1 million was diverted to Ogden River Restoration project (which wasn't originally included in the list of proposed projects). Stephens and Van Hooser help Anderson explain how important it was to do this.
Stephens asks Anderson to review why new storage tanks were necessary. Andserson reminds of incident on north side of city when supply line broke and there was no water due to lack of storage in that area. Van Hooser again helps him out, reminding of importance of fire suppression.
Now Anderson shows table of pipe diameters and ages, hinting at need to replace many more miles of pipes. However, less than 12% of all pipes are older than 1950. Some pipes will fail after 40 years but others will last 100 years. On the other hand, 52% of all pipes are only 6 inches in diameter and they'd like to upgrade those to 8 inches.
Dan. Can you fill us in one the turnout? How many people showed up to tonight's meeting?
Proposed projects looking forward include: a scheduled pipe replacement program; treatment plant replacement; address canyon water line; new wells to accommodate future growth; regular maintenance schedule.
Now Anderson shows photos of some of the kinds of problems that can occur: line breaks, corrosion, deteriorating filter plant building.
There might be about 20 citizens here, plus all the bureaucrats.
Thanks!
Thanks!
Consultant Laura Lewis, in response to a question from Gochnour, says that there's a reasonable expectation that all bond funds will be spent within 3 years. In this case that hasn't happened, so the city must document why. Presumably, much of the reason is because construction costs went down due to the recession.
Now consultant Cody Deeter (Lewis's side-kick) gets up for his presentation. From his introduction, it sounds like his presentation will be very general, discussing goals and requirements in the abstract.
Everything Deeter has said so far is a repeat of his (and Lewis's) presentations to the council during their earlier work sessions. The council members must be bored to tears. But I suspect that this presentation is really intended for the audience, to get us in the mood to accept more debt and higher rates.
We've now been here an hour and so far there has been no actual mention of the proposed rate increase.
Bill Francis is here filming, so if anyone else out there has the patience to watch it, the video will presumably be available.
Now Symes steps forward again to review the results of the public online survey that the council staff conducted.
Survey was open December through early March. 361 responded, and most of those left comments (in addition to the multiple-choice questions, I guess). Of course, this is a self-selected group of respondents, so the results are virtually meaningless.
Common written comments about changing the rate structure:
* lower rates for those without secondary water
* rates aren't affordable
* expensive to keep yards green
* rates should be based on consumption
* too expensive for smaller households
* recent rate increases have been too steep
* low income residents are disadvantaged
* other cities have lower rates
There will be another survey later during this process.
Most respondents signed up to receive email notification of further developments.
Symes comments on the presentation from two weeks ago, when consultant presented three scenarios. The first was "no action" (no new projects) and the second was paying for all new projects with cash (and hence huge but temporary rate increase). Scenario 3 was with a bond, and that's the one that had the 55% rate increase but of course, Symes does not mention the 55% figure (or any other). Symes claims that that scenario was not an actual recommendation!
Schedule for the process going forward: Further discussions next Tuesday and the Tuesday after. Then on March 21 (Wednesday), policy discussion at Megaplex Theater. CIP finalized March 27. Town meeting Thursday, April 5, where recommendation will be presented and public input received. Second online survey will open April 9, close April 20. Public hearing April 24. New rate structure will take effect June 1.
Time for public input!
Seems to me that somebody needs to mention Scenario 2 B, i.e. paying for all new projects with BDO Lease Revenue Cash
I spoke first, showing graphs of comparative water rates and where the money has been going.
Next speaker questions hiring the same consultant as last time, when the outcome last time was so unfair. She also asks why it takes to many meetings to do this. "I think you guys know what the right thing is to do."
John Thompson speaks next, asks questions about the rate structure and how to tell what his rate is.
Scott Handy is next speaker. He has also compared rates to other cities. He also asks why the Bona Vista water department, which buys water from Ogden City, can then sell the water to its users (in west Weber County) for less than Ogden sells its water.
Next speaker owns a building (apartments? offices?) with low occupancy. Doesn't like getting bills that are suddenly much higher with no warning. He's unhappy, and he's now way over his time. Chair Garner smiles.
Next speaker is Matt [didn't catch last name]. Got a $770 bill (presumably in 2008) and says he does everything he can to save water and still gets bills for $300-$400. Has a problem with subsidizing water to other communities. [The council is sure getting a different perspective from the citizens than they've been getting from the consultants and the administration!]
Same speaker now mentions that some properties have a separate meter for outdoor water use, and these are classified as having secondary water. Sounds like something to investigate.
Next speaker is Warren Bowen (?). Says he can't conserve any more than he already does without taking out all his grass and trees.
Next is Tim Ackerman (?) who owns rental properties throughout Ogden. Keeping lawns green is hard because of the cost of water. Renters sometimes leave the water on and he get the bill.
That's all the public comments. Chair Garner thanks those who spoke and promises to get questions answered. This concludes this session. Next they'll move into the other room for a continuation of the work session.
The work session now reconvenes in the smaller conference room, with the consultants presenting. They'll be starting this time with the sewer and storm water financial situation.
Cody Deeter: Storm sewer utility fund is in really good financial shape.
This time they'll split rate increases into basic inflationary (CPI) increases, and any further increase on top of that. For storm sewer, no further increase is necessary but presumably there would still be CPI increases each year.
Sewer and storm sewer funds are currently combined in the city's financial reports, but they've worked with comptroller to split them apart for separate analysis.
I tuned out a while while checking the Super Tuesday election results. But it sounds like the consultants are still recommending some bonding for storm sewer projects--just no rate increase beyond CPI to pay for it.
Garner asks about contracted agreements. Lewis speculates that many of the contracts are associated with capital projects, even though they're classified as operating expenses.
Lewis says several other cities will be having to raise their storm sewer rates in the next few years, so Ogden is in relatively good shape in this regard. [Because our rates are already the highest!]
Now Deeter turns to sanitary sewer finances. This fund is also in relatively good financial shape.
Deeter points out that a large part of the sewer charge is passed through to the Central Weber Sewer District. Van Hooser asks another softball: How can we better educate users about how we have no control over this? Lewis responds more generally to earlier public comments. Contracts for water sale may have been negotiated long ago and may be fixed for a certain time period. Council has general discussion about importance of holding public meetings and answering questions.
Back to Deeter: The upcoming Sewer District rate increase could be absorbed under current rate structure, rather than passed through to rate payers.
There's not yet a completed, updated master plan for sanitary sewer upgrades. If there are additional needs that aren't known at this time, his projections would change. Meanwhile, his projections show very little in upcoming capital needs (under $2 million). Lewis thinks this number will increase dramatically when a study is completed.
A sewer master plan will take 6 to 7 months, and they've budgeted $300,000 for doing the study.
Meanwhile, they're suggesting CPI increases to sewer rates but no further sewer rate increase.
Prepared presentation is finished. Time for questions from council.
Gochnour asks about 17%, says that seems like a high overhead rate. Lewis enumerates all the reasons for the city to charge overhead, and points out that reducing the percentage would be bad for the city's general fund. It's pretty clear on who is on whose side here. Gochnour pushes back, and it's clear that the whole council is becoming aware of this issue and wanting more information. Lewis says the city would need to do an internal services study and there's no time. Gochnour says we need to be able to explain it to the citizens. Interesting back-and-forth. Eller-Smith (council staff) starts siding with the consultants, saying there's no time to answer these questions. Hyer says it's "academic", as if the answer wouldn't affect his decision(!).
Garner asks about definition of "secondary water" and the citizen who commented about having two water meters. A woman from the water department explains that the meter feeding the home is classified as a customer with secondary water. She estimates that there are "less than 4000" of these so-called "lawn service meters". Wicks requests more information and statistics on these customers.
Garner asks if it's possible to get more customers connected to secondary water. Lowder says they looked at that some time ago, and it's expensive and disruptive to tear up a neighborhood to add the pipes to put in a second water system. One small neighborhood is actually moving forward on such a project, but this is in an area where it's relatively easy ("low-hanging fruit"). Other areas would require pumping stations and other complications.
Van Hooser asks why the city doesn't have a program of equalizing bills over the seasons. CAO Johnson says they can't do that until everyone has automated meters which can be read year-round. The council would like to get the meters upgraded quickly! [But that will increase the need to borrow money.]
Question: How many delinquent bills? They send about 500 delinquent notices per week, and end up shutting off about 35 per week. There's a $20 charge and another $20 to have service resumed. Also a $15 notice fee.
That seems to be all for tonight. Signing off!
Thank You DAN! You, sir, are a real trooper! Many thanks!
Has any serious discussion been given to changing landscaping rules and regulations to allow landscaping to reflect the fact that we live in a desert? Using either city culinary water or pineview secondary water merely to maintain a full housing lot of grass is a waste of resources,
As usual, it seems the city council consists of:
Mentally outgunned neophytes whose hearts are in the right place, but have little clue.
Suck ups and paid hacks like Hyer.
Caitlin Gochnour who actually has a clue and who stands up for it on occasion.
It looks like Dan will have to save us with his information provided to the council, if he can. Bottom line is how come Ogden pays so much, and must pay more? It's ridiculous.
The city council needs to find a way to get objective information, not the pro-contractor propaganda they get from whores like Lewis, and from condescending liars like Justin Anderson.
Dan and other Ogden residents, I think that we should demand an audit of the City's water program. The City bonded in 2007 for millions of dollars to fix those crumbling water pipes. The only pipes that I know that were replaced were in the north part of the city and on the east bench. We got three new water tanks (and it's questionable that one of them was really needed).
It doesn't matter if the comptroller wants to provide the information you requested, Dan, he has to because the City uses taxpayer (public) monies. When I left the Council at the end of 2009, there was a huge balance in the water fund.
The increases of residents' water and sewer bills were not what the Council approved. We approved periodic increases, but my bill increased every month! It has now doubled from what it was when the Council approved the rate increase. It was only supposed to be an increase of $8.00, but even to start with it was more than that. I really feel that residents need their questions answered, and if it takes an audit to get them answered, then lets have an audit by a firm who has never been contracted by Ogden before and has no connection in any way with any City administrators.
After reading Dan's report of the meeting, I remember being told that the bond in 2007 would take care of replacing water pipes throughout the City, and that another bond would be needed to address our aging water treatment plant in the future. We really do need to demand an accounting of the money used from that first bond and what the balance remaining is and an accounting of the money that has been received from citizens water bills. What is the process to get an audit?
Anderson has provided the council (and me) with a pretty detailed list of how the bond money was spent. What concerns me more is the increased operating expenses for "contracted agreements" and "fiscal charges". If these expenses could be reduced back to their 2007 levels, it would free up about $3 million per year to spend on new capital projects.
Interesting letter to the editor from a citizen who attended Tuesday's meeting:
http://www.standard.net/stories/2012/03/08/dont-be-fooled-twice-about-ogdens-water-rates
Post a Comment