We just received some good news from Dan Schroeder a couple of minutes ago, regarding tonight's Ogden City Council Meeting, wherein the Ogden City Administration's $18 million water infrastructure bonding proposal, which was the subject of Dan's WCF writeup of yesterday, will be discussed and put to a Council vote.
Just to get you all into the spirit, here's a (slightly generic) video lead, which we nevertheless believe to be a highly suitable prelude for a council meeting of such importance as tonight's Ogden City "legislative branch" meetup:
Pull up your Barcaloungers and pop up your Oville Reddenbacher's folks...
Meeting kicks of at 6 p.m. sharp!
Look to our comments section, to read Dan's realtime posts.
Happy day! We have Dan's live blogging from the Ogden City Council Chambers tonight.
Thus there's still one more chance to lobby your council members to minimize the total debt to be bonded and interest to be accrued, people:
And with November's 2013 Municipal Election polling fast approaching, Ward 3 council challenger Turner C. Bitton demonstrates his attention to important Ogden City issues and chimes in with last evening's water infrastructure bonding-topical press release:
Additional thanks to Dan Schroeder for his dogged gavel-to-gavel coverage of last night's meeting.
Update 8/4/13 2:00 p.m.: The full Council video is now available for viewing:
65 comments:
Thanks for that intro, Rudi! I'm now in the council conference room for the pre-meeting work session. The administration is assembling, and consultant Laura Lewis has just arrived. Four of the council members are already here.
Jesse Glidden from UDOT is here to give an update on various projects including resurfacing the highway in Ogden Canyon. He passed around a handout and he's here to answer questions.
According to the schedule, the resurfacing in Ogden Canyon should be completed one month from now, but there could be unexpected complications. Originally it was scheduled for completion by the end of June, but that turned out to be impossible.
All council members are now present. Glidden says that although it was painful to switch to an open-trench method for replacing the pipeline, there was a benefit in that they were able to install some communication cables at the same time.
Glidden: The UDOT web site has a map showing all current projects. UDOT encourages cities to replace aging infrastructure whenever roads are already under constructions. Wicks asks how far in advance UDOT knows about these construction projects. Glidden says "it depends," and UDOT doesn't always follow through with plans. Legislature can be fickle with funding.
Bill Cook (council staff) now begins a quick review of tonight's agenda. One item concerns funding to hire a consultant to review of the city's IT department.
Finally they bring up the bond proposal. Janene Eller-Smith (council staff) says that tonight's presentation will help refresh council's memory of what was decided last year, and also a discussion why administration isn't recommending paying for the proposed projects with cash. She's also written some "motion language" that allows for any of the four options listed in the agenda packet.
Cook: We encourage the council to have a healthy discussion of the bond proposal.
Next agenda item will be approval of an emergency expenditure of $1.4 million to replace the pipeline near the mouth of Ogden Canyon that burst recently, flooding the highway (twice).
That's it for the pre-meeting study session. Now we head into the big room...
Breaking news: The mayor's and CAO's seats in the council chambers have been moved to the opposite side of the dais, where they're on the same level as those of the council members. As I recall, this was a suggestion of Mayor Godfrey upon his leaving office. The city attorney's and council director's seats have been moved to the opposite side, but are squeezed in so they're also at the same level. The two lower seats where the mayor and CAO used to sit are now occupied by other council staff (Janene Eller-Smith and Glen Symes).
The mayor, however, is not present tonight. All others are present.
First agenda item after the pledge and moment of silence was presentation of an award recognizing WSU track star Amber Henry.
Now they're proclaiming this September to be Attendance Awareness Month in the Ogden schools.
They're now approving a bunch of minutes, some from as long ago as last September(!!!).
Funding ($60,000) to hire a consultant to audit the city's IT department has been approved unanimously. There were no public comments.
And now the administration steps up to report on the utility bonds. Attorney Mark Stratford and finance manager Laurie Johnson will present, followed by consultant Laura Lewis. Let the bullying begin!
Stratford begins the story "five or six years ago" with the study that led to $50 million in bonding and major rate increases at that time. He's painting the picture that we're already on a set course toward more bonding and it would be unthinkable to change this course now. Not bonding would threaten "rate stability and the orderly provision of services."
Stratford: Upcoming sanitary sewer master plan will propose $7.5 million of projects over the next ten years. Together with known plans for water and storm drain, this means over $50 million in projects over the next ten years. Probably not going to be able to pay for this with cash on hand.
[Stratford fails to mention that over ten years, thanks to the new higher rates, the city will have approximately $50 million in surplus revenue after paying operating expenses and existing debt service.]
Stratford: Cash on hand is to meet "emergency and other unanticipated needs." Council already decided on the amounts. "Some people" can question keeping so much cash on hand. There are several reasons. First, there's always a potential for a decrease in revenue, for instance if there were an interruption in water service. Second, increases in operating costs. Third, emergency expenditures. Finally, maintain high bond ratings so we can borrow more when we want to. [This is all extremely vague: No explanation of what is a reasonable amount or why.]
Stratford: "It's not circular reasoning" that we need to bond in order to maintain a higher bond rating.
Stratford: It's not fair to make people pay today for a benefit that will last for 60 years. More fair to spread costs over the future, despite additional debt costs.
Stratford: We must bond because loss of service levels.
Wicks asks a question: What's a reasonable amount to keep on hand for emergency expenditures.
Stratford: Can't break it down because there are multiple reasons for cash on hand. No single industry standard. The resolution adopted last year was reasonable so stick with it. Don't want to break commitment made in resolution last year.
Wicks: We should be able to come up with some sort of number for what's a big disaster.
Stratford: Cost of the most expensive piece of infrastructure. That's the $13 million treatment plant.
Wicks: But failure of the treatment plant is a federal disaster situation. Likelihood is small.
Stratford: It's impossible to plan for a failure of that magnitude. Keeping 1000 days of operating cash on hand would be unreasonable. There could be vandalism to the treatment plant. We're self-insured. Replacing a water tank might cost 3-5 million dollars. If we lose a well, that might cost $1.5 million.
Gochnour: What have other cities of similar size done, in terms of cash on hand?
Stratford doesn't answer directly but says to remember that Ogden's infrastructure is old compared to many other cities. So be very afraid!
Garner throws Stratford a softball, asking about pressure issues in Ogden Canyon. Stratford says those issues will be addressed in phase 3 of the project, which is apparently the filter plant replacement, so don't delay this. [I don't think anyone is suggesting a delay so straw man.]
Having stood at the podium for half an hour, Stratford now turns it over to finance manager Laurie Johnson.
Johnson now presents the slides that were included in the council packet (see link from yesterday's WCF article).
Johnson confirms what I predicted last year: Water revenues were higher than anticipated during FY 2013, and expenses were lower. "Budgets are never exact." New meters are apparently reading higher than old ones; new water manager is keeping expenditures down.
Hyer: Will these kinds of numbers continue?
Johnson: It will level out. Won't guarantee that expenses will stay down.
Johnson now quotes resolution from last year, saying cash on hand should be enough to cover at least 150 days of operating expenses. "This is something that you obviously felt strongly about or you wouldn't have put it in writing" [as if the council members, not the administrative staff, wrote it].
Johnson has added a few slides to what's in the packet. There's a nice table adding up what it would take to provide a certain number of days of cash on hand.
And now Johnson too tells council to be very afraid of water not turning on some day.
Johnson admits that money can be loaned from one utility fund to another.
Hyer: At what point do we say "we're done bonding" and now we can start paying for stuff with cash? We just keep piling on the bonds.
Johnson: True, you can only go so far. At some point, investors would no longer buy the bonds. [So keep bonding until the investors say no???] I don't believe that this proposal does [exceed the limit].
Hyer: Can we move our cash to where it will get better interest rates?
Johnson: The law limits how we can invest our cash. These investments would be the slowest to react to increased interest rates.
Stephens: How healthy are our utility funds?
Johnson: They're looking good. [Shows another slide that wasn't in the packet, comparing bond amounts to cash on hand.]
Finally Johnson presents cost of issuance fees (worst case scenario). With that she concludes, and Stratford again steps up.
Stratford points out that much of the surplus cash is in the sanitary sewer fund and suggests we should "respect" the division of funds among the utilities, i.e., not lend money from one to another. Tells anecdotes about continual water leaks that need to be fixed, so city should dip into cash to fix some of these situations (but admits that administration has no such formal recommendation). Finally he summarizes a recent Utah appeals court case from Salt Lake County. A pipe was identified for replacement but wasn't replaced due to funding constraints. Pipe ruptured and flooded someone's property, owners sued and won (though still under appeal to supreme court). So the council should be very very very afraid.
Stratford: Administration recommends Option Number 1, full bond amount and repaid over 30 years. Reason is not to enrich investors but to keep more cash on hand [only in short term!]. It's now one hour since he began speaking.
Next consultant Laura Lewis steps up to the podium.
She's giving them another lesson on bond ratings.
Lewis: Salt Lake City water utility currently has about 205 days of cash on hand. Didn't look at sewer and storm drain utilities.
Lewis: In last six weeks, interest rates have gone up almost a full percentage point. [Does this mean that estimated interest rates in packet are too low?]
Gochnour address "Laura" by her first name. Asks question about four options. Lewis won't disagree with administration's recommendation [she was hired by them after all], but her second recommendation would be to reduce the term from 30 years to 20.
Gochnour: Will even more bonds be proposed soon?
CAO Mark Johnson: Probably not in the next 3-5 years, but the other pipeline coming down Ogden Canyon may need to be replaced before too long. It's 80 years old. Tells another anecdote about leaks in the distribution system.
Johnson: Former councils neglect our infrastructure. (Someone points out that that includes Johnson!)
Lewis again discusses advantages to shorter-term bonds over longer-term. [Good for her!]
Wicks: We as a council have not had a chance to discuss the four options. We had informal small-group (closed) meetings and that wasn't appropriate.
Wicks: This is one of the few things we do that binds future councils, for 20 to 30 years. We need to get it right. Utility rates have gone up substantially.
Van Hooser: This won't affect rates.
Lewis: Correct.
Lewis: This resolution doesn't bind you to issue the debt. It just starts the process...
Garner says he's comfortable with reducing term of bonds to 20-25 years.
Gochnour makes a motion to adopt the resolution "with option 1 offering other scenarios possibly going to 25 years." Van Hooser seconds.
Blair calls for a vote immediately.
Cook suggests having further discussion.
Wicks suggests also reducing the amount (i.e., going with option 4).
Van Hooser: If we don't do this, we haven't accomplished anything! Protect future generations. I'll be dead by the time the bond is up in 30 years. If we don't do this, then why bother with the treatment plant? Then you don't have a city!
Wicks: I wasn't suggesting that we put off the treatment plant.
Van Hooser continues, emotionally, suggesting that to fail to bond would be to abandon all our infrastructure.
There's some dispute over what scenario will result in higher or lower rates.
It's everyone's understanding that details of scenarios can be worked out later. They're voting.
Motion passes unanimously.
Cook's probably the worst factor in re the "Council," Dan. Pending query: When if ever will Bill Cook STFU!
Now they're separately discussing the storm drain bond. So I guess the motion just passed was for the water bond only.
Without delay they move and pass the resolution for the storm drain bonds. It passes unanimously.
To be clear, there will be a public hearing on August 20 before this is finalized.
On to discuss the emergency pipe replacement at the mouth of Ogden Canyon. Water manager Kenton Moffett is at the podium. This pipe was already scheduled for replacement this fall, preferably with left-over funds from Ogden Canyon water line. There's another parallel line but it can barely handle the volume flowing through it this time of year. Later in the year the volume demand will go down, but there will still be no redundancy. This also relates to pressure to residents in Ogden Canyon. The replacement will take about 45 days and another 30 days before everything's put back together.
Moffett: The south part of the city is still separate from the rest of the water system, despite the new pipeline connecting the 36th Street and 46th Street tanks. [???]
The motion to approve the emergency funding for the water line passes unanimously.
I tuned out for a while but they're now discussing the approval of election locations and poll workers. The council has some concerns about some polling locations being staffed by what appears to be a single family. But of course it's too late to actually say no to the proposal, so they pass it unanimously.
Time for public comments. So far we've had three Ogden Canyon residents complaining about the recent loss of water pressure. It sounds pretty bad.
I just spoke on the water bond for my allotted 3 minutes. Now they're going into a closed session to discuss a personnel matter--and I'm heading home. Thanks for reading and good night!
Thank you, Dan! You've provided us a real "eye-full" old buddy, a glimpse of dysfunctional Ogden City Government, about which it may take the 2013 Ogden City Municipal Election to correct.
Excellent work, Dan, O our honorary Ogden home-boy.
Many, many, many thanks!
Incidentally, Mr. Cook did the right thing here. For years the council chairs have had the bad habit of encouraging lengthy discussion before there's a motion on the table (thus wasting a great deal of time with off-topic comments), then calling for a vote as soon as a motion is made and seconded. This is contrary to Robert's Rules, which call for motion first, discussion second.
Too friggin! funny!
Ogden City Mayor Mike Caldwell is now
offering "free tips' for "conserving" Pineview Water. Too bad Ogden City
doesn't incorporate
conservation rate incentives for its own Ogden City water utility users
don't mention OgdenCity's rate schedule operates just the opposite of that, and
"discourages water conservation," in fact: http://wcforum.blogspot.com/2012/03/ogden-utility-system-discussion-bogs.html offering conservation
tips for Pineview Water. Too bad Ogden City doesn't incorporate
conservation rate incentives for its own Ogden City water utility users.
Ogden City's rate schedule operates just the opposite of that, and
"discourages water conservation," in fact: http://wcforum.blogspot.com/2012/03/ogden-utility-system-discussion-bogs.html
OK.
This is a night at the Godfrey palace, but without Godfrey. Like I said, it's the bureaucrats that run the city. The mayors are just pawns - albeit divisive ones like Godfrey or invisible ones like Caldwell.
Dan Schroeder has proven every point, easily.
The bureaucrats have proven nothing - they shy away from every question.
What is the problem? Lower the bonding amount.
Interesting, indeed, Dan. Here are some before and after shots which I've "stitched" into a single image:
Council Dais
Interessting indeed, Dan. Here's are before and after shots which I've stitched into a single image:
Post a Comment