Loading...
05/16/1996FISCAL REVIEW COMMITTEE CITY OF CLEARWATER May 16, 1996 Present: John Rich Board Member Janet MacNutt Board Member Daniel Moran Board Member Daniel Fleck Board Member Carol Warren Board Member Tina Wilson Budget Director Chuck Warrington Managing Director, Clearwater Gas System Jim Lewin Board Member Gwen Legters Board Reporter Tina Wilson, Budget Director, opened the meeting at 8:04 a.m. and introduced Mr. Warrington. Chuck Warrington, Managing Director, CGS (Clearwater Gas System), discussed investments, dividends and administrative charges. Margie Simmons, Finance Director, had calculated by the end of the strategic plan, the actual return of the dividend and earnings in 1992/93 was 19%, and 7.5% in 1994/95. Bob Bublitz, CGS Controller, computed dividends and earnings of 18.5% by the end of the strategic plan. Based upon this information, earnings dropped during years cash was spent to build the system, and recovered to a higher percentage. These figures were derived by adding administrative interfund charges and dividends, and comparing them to fund equity. Ms. Simmons’ calculation used retainer and denominator rather than fund equity. Mr. Warrington indicated when the Public Service Commission determines calculations for an investor-owned utility, two levels of authorized earnings are computed; 1) return on equity to stockholders, generally approved at 12%; and 2) total return on assets, generally in the 7% range, including stocks, bonds and other assets. It was estimated if CGS disappeared tomorrow, approximately 30% to 50% of administrative charges would be eliminated. Mr. Bublitz handles most of CGS’ budgeting function and Tina Wilson’s department gathers budget data. The question arose whether fair shares were being paid for administrative charges in the transfer fund. Since charges are based on total budget, transfer funds are not paying quite as much as other enterprise funds. CGS bases charges on a percentage of budget across all funds. It was determined transfer funds are paying their fair share, and all departments and funds are treated equally. Mr. Bublitz mentioned other enterprise funds do not pay dividend, and the City is throwing in the extra million dollars other enterprises are not. The City does not have to be in the gas business, but remains because gas can be a viable income producer. For this reason, the gas fund is treated differently than other funds. The water system brings in a profit at the end of the year. The water and sewer funds pay their own bills, administrative charges and a payment in lieu of taxes. Profits stay within each fund and are used to expand the system or build more facilities. The City has a payment in lieu of taxes which is billed and treated as a franchise. Mr. Warrington stated the City Manager’s philosophy on other funds was basically to be healthy, not necessarily make a tremendous profit, and pay for themselves, passing costs on to citizens. The City expected the gas system to make a profit to offset the tax base. Mr. Warrington also stated in a recent City Commission meeting, the City Manager was hopeful the FRC would have the opportunity between now and June 6, 1996, to review the rate case and provide recommendations. CGS relies on Citrus Marketing Company, which buys gas from multiple sources, puts it in the line and divides gas costs among cities. Costs are incurred for use of their transmission lines. Prior to 1993, gas was purchased from Florida Gas Transmission, which bought gas and weight-averaged it, setting monthly prices. Mr. Warrington explained how gas is obtained currently, and market fluctuations. Today gas may be: 1) purchased from well heads; 2) purchased at market prices at the beginning of each month for the entire month; 3) purchased on a daily basis during each month at different prices; 4) purchased on a contractual basis; or 5) purchased at market prices in a given month with a guaranteed collar it will not go below or above a certain rate. The guaranteed collar choice requires an insurance premium, due to frequent market fluctuations. Due to the volatility of the industry, CGS found it necessary to hire a professional manager to monitor price fluctuations and recommend appropriate buying times. The alternative would have been to employ a large staff to monitor market activity. CGS’ current rates are set by the PSC last year, and contain a purchase gas adjustment clause. Gas prices are billed as a separate line item on customers’ bills. In the event gas prices change, the bottom line is not affected, because revenue and expenses are rolled into billing prices. Efficient gas purchases afford low rates to customers. Rate approvals by the Commission affect marginal costs and charges for services such as metering, reading meters and servicing accounts. An example of a rate increase to a residential customer was reviewed in Section C, page 2, entitled “Graphical Analysis of Competition & Comparisons with Other Gas Utilities”. An average residential customer uses 25 therms a month of energy and currently pays $26.13 in base costs before utility taxes, franchise costs and other charges. In this instance, charges would rise by $2.25 under Phase II to a base rate of $28.38. Utility taxes of 7% to 10% and franchise charges are also incurred and paid to the City over and above the base rate. Franchise fees vary depending upon the city. The $2.25 example results in an 8.6% increase. When taxes are added, the total increase is $2.68, which is a total increase of 8.8%. C&L (Coopers & Lybrand, L.L.P.) performed a rate study for CGS on the billing system. C&L claimed we misinterpreted their findings. Another study by C&L would necessitate a new contract and fees. It is unclear where errors were made. Mr. Warrington stated C&L laid out our rates with the assumption we would never make any money and we would bond forever. This information was not discovered by CGS until February of 1996. C&L had performed audits for the City for four years and they had been reliable. Mr. Moran suggested gas management was lax in their responsibilities and may not have provided adequate information to C&L. Mr. Warrington indicated CGS was in a transitional state in the Finance Department, resulting in a lack of continuity in monitoring the study. Mr. Moran noted historically, when an audit is in progress, someone constantly monitors auditor activity, providing pertinent information as needed. It was noted C&L is a reputable company and would not want adverse publicity. They are sticking to their guns on the issue their study was indeed what CGS had requested. Per the City Manager and City Attorney, we have no recourse with C&L to reimburse us for the study results. As future audits are scheduled, gas management must constantly monitor and review results before the press is informed. An in-house financial management team was suggested. It was noted CGS’ current billing system is several years old and lacks the capability of running tandem parallel simulations. Concerns were expressed regarding long term capability of the billing system. Parallel running of billing has always been done to ensure no flaws are discovered. This eliminates explaining errors to customers. This capability will be in place with the new system. Currently, the technology necessary for an integrated repository of information is not available. A larger system would enable duplication of the customer service system, and CGS could take their readings and compare them to the Finance Department’s. Current rates are based on the number of customers which have been broken out from each class, and consumption under normalized weather for each class. Mr. Warrington stated an analysis has been done and comfort levels with customer base information are considered reliable. Mr. Warrington stated C&L projected an 8% increase in overall billing for CGS. This year, commercial and residential rates were billed too low, resulting in earnings 11.5% less than projected. Commercial rates were billed at more than the cost of service. Everyone in the industry has adjusted their rates based on costs of service to customer classes. Investor-owned companies changed to this process ten years ago. They adjusted rates and based them on cost of service, however the City of Clearwater has not made any adjustments to spread costs. Our philosophy was to keep residential rates as low as possible, while recognizing commercial rates cover cost of service. Section A, page 2 of the CGS Gas Rate Case notebook entitled “Executive Summary, Summary of Key Recommendations & Timetables” provides a summary of recommendations and justification for the CGS rate case. CGS’ marginal costs have risen 2.4% over a thirteen year period. Residential rates have been adjusted in the last three years and commercial rates are commensurate with cost of service. CGS operations were discussed. In a government, an enterprise operation is a money making operation. Operations such as police, fire department, budget office, legal department and city manager’s office provide services. Ad valorem taxes, franchise fees, user fees and utility taxes partially offset costs that could not normally pay for themselves. Priority enterprise operations are operations which serve citizens and are self-sufficient and self-earning. The gas system was never part of the general fund. It was losing money years ago. This prompted the decision to take a closer look at the system. Therefore, when a revenue bond pledges against future revenues of CGS and the City does not place the full faith of the City behind the bond, bond holders rely on CGS revenues. The gas fund is treated similarly to business operations such as the water and sewer fund and the recycling fund. “Fund” just means a different set of accounts or books are kept for each fund. City controllers work together to prepare information for auditors. There is no duplication of effort by CGS or the City. The question arose whether or not the seven enterprise companies would be better served having centrally located management. Some of the City’s enterprise functions are currently shared under one department director, such as the marina and sailing center operations, supervised by Harbormaster, Bill Held. All department directors report to the City Manager, and depending upon the size of the function, responsibilities may be shared. Responsibilities are reviewed on a regular basis. Residents in unincorporated parts of the county have previously been told they could not obtain service from CGS. Some hospitals and residents have since chosen electricity and CGS has lost business. Gas mains bordering subdivisions or residential areas which require a new extension to serve customers must have a seven year pay back on CGS’ investment before the project is feasible. Surveys are disbursed via direct mail to determine potential revenue earnings from new customers, and an analysis of construction costs completed. As a temporary lead-in, a co-pay service is offered until such time the area would be profitable enough to substantiate new construction. CGS won the American Gas Cooling Award. They sold more tons of air conditioning capacity per commercial customer last year than any utility in America. CGS installed fifteen triathlons and a 1200 ton chiller to Morton Plant. Fifteen units is impressive, especially for a municipal company. Growth potential is predicted with this technology, although initial costs are higher. A three-year marketing plan is in process and a priority for CGS. The plan will be updated annually and goals set. Presently, approximately $1 million in sales and marketing is being spent. Last year CGS signed 700 new customers and a net of 500 customers were installed. Lost customers were due to demolition of old housing. Approximately $1200 in marketing and sales was expended for each new customer. Section D, page 1 in the CGS Gas Rate Case Book, entitled “Revised CGS Revenue Requirement, Financial Projections & Bond Coverage Analysis” was reviewed. Operations are more streamlined and efficient than years past. Reengineering will be vital in coming years. The strategic plan was distributed. Individual departmental plans will be required beginning this year. Sears has national buying power, which presents enormous competition for CGS appliance sales. It was suggested future marketing plans include specific target areas and growth projections. Detailed, well-prepared marketing plans are vital to successful business. Safety of gas service will be included in the marketing plan. Mr. Warrington expressed confidence in achieving 10,000 additional customers in the next seven years. Providing residents with gas service is a priority. Saying no to potential customers should be eliminated. Due to high installation costs to CGS, convincing Lennar Homes and other home builders to contract with outside vendors to install gas pipes in homes will be a priority. Enticing plumbers to commit to installations and direct billing customers for the service would alleviate high installation costs to CGS. John Rich emphasized the need for CGS management to closely monitor operations. Plans must be in place continuously and management must maintain stringent controls in all areas of the operation. It was agreed this task is very difficult, but can be accomplished with current management. The bond issue arose. Mr. Warrington stated Ms. Simmons indicated bonds can only be re-funded twice. The current bond has been re-funded once, therefore unless a savings of 5% net present value is realized, it is not recommended to re-fund the current bond. The goal of this meeting was to talk about what transpired either here or at other meetings, and present recommendations to the Commission to proceed with the rate plan. Tonight is the first reading of the bond issue re-funding. On June 6, 1996, a second reading will be done, including the $9.7 million in construction bonds that actually pay for this fiscal year’s construction. The Commission has been advancing CGS money against this future bond issue. Should the bond not be approved, what happens? Ms. Wilson stated the City Commission has committed themselves to approval and are well aware funds were already pledged against future bonds. The Commission has approved $5.4 million in loans and CGS has spent $2.8 million against it as of last week, however the remainder of the $5.4 million is obligated to vendors and contractors. CGS is funding with a $9.7 million bond issue. The remainder will be needed this year for the installation of 850 new customers, and the balance of the Pasco construction. The next meeting is scheduled for May 28, 1996 at 4:00 p.m. Selection of a chairperson will be required. The meeting adjourned at 10:22 a.m.