The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1986-05-27 Info Packet of 5/23City of Iowa City MEMORANDUM DATE: May 23, 1986 TO: City Council FROM: Acting City Manager RE: Material in Friday's Packet Informal agendas and meeting schedule. yo 3 Agenda for special meeting of May 27, 1986. 9/ O Information on water and sewer systems. 411 Memorandum from the Fire Chief regarding Iowa City insurance classification.a,, Memorandum from the City Attorney regarding review of bidding procedure used in purchase of microcomputer. Article: Sewers runneth over yjtL Calendar for June 1986. ams i r of CITY OF IOWA CITY -,A; r - EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This report covers three topics which will require City Council approval: A. water rate increases, B. sewer rate increases, and C. a financing plan for the scheduled Wastewater Treatment Facility (Sewer Plant) Improvements. Each of these topics is discussed in more detail in Sections A, B and C, respec- tively. PROPOSED RATE INCREASES Rate increases are being proposed for both water and sewer. These rates were last increased in December, 1981. The increase in water rates is needed to cover the increased cost of operating the water system, to pay the Debt Service cost on the bonds issued to finance the construction of the Eastside Water Storage Tank, and to pay the Debt Service cost on the anticipated issuance of bonds in 1987 to fund the replacement of the computer system which operates the plant. The proposed water rate increase was developed by City Finance Staff and has been reviewed by Public Works staff. That de- tailed proposal appears in Section A of this report. A sewer rate increase is needed to cover the expenses associated with the proposed expansion and upgrading of the wastewater conveyance and treatment facility (sewer plant). Planning for this project began over ten years ago at a time when federal funding was available to cover 75% of the project costs. Since that time, federal funding has been eliminated and the City is now forced to fund the project 100% from user fees. The rate study was prepared by Metcalf 8 Eddy, Inc. and has been reviewed by City staff, the City's financial advisors and bond counsel. This rate study appears in Section B of this report. Preliminary estimates indicated that sewer user rates would need to increase by 300-400% in order to fund all project costs from user rates. Changes to the proposed project combined with the current financing plan will result in a total rate increase, over the three years, of 254%. Although additional review of this project has delayed its implementation, such a delay has proven beneficial in that the project has been refined in such a manner that user rate increases have been kept as low as possible. Exhibit 1 one page 4 shows the proposed rate increases for water and sewer. It is recommended that the rate increases be implemented over a three year period. This three year period is particularly important for the sewer rates. Repayment of debt service costs on the bonds issued to finance the wastewater treatment facility project will be repaid from user fees. Therefore, it is necessary that the user fees be increased prior to the time of the bond sale to provide assurance to potential bond purchasers that funds will be avail- able for debt service. The proposed rates provide for rate increases to be phased -in over a three year period, at which time revenue is projected to be adequate to cover annual debt service payments for the remainder of the bond issue. Future increases following this phase-in period would be needed to cover only the increased cost of system operations or any further major capital improvement projects. 74/ _Al Water rate increases are also proposed to occur over a three year period. This proposed schedule will allowing for a phasing in of rates which would sufficiently cover substantial increased water system costs which result not only from inflationary costs over the last five years but also from the additional cost of property and liability insurance and capital improvements (Eastside Water Storage Tank and new computer system). -I Since water and sewer are billed on a single bi-monthly billing and since a substantial increase was expected in sewer rates, the water rate increase was deferred from a year ago until a sewer rate increase was determined so that both rate increases could occur at the same time. Knowing that the total required sewer rate increase would be phased -in over several years, it was not desirable to add another year of rate increases to the water/sewer bill- ing. Exhibits 2-5 on pages 5-8 show comparative water and sewer rates for 17 communities for both the average residential user and the large business user. Iowa City's current rates are extremely low in all cases. The pro- posed rates, effective after the first year's increases, are still below the average in all cases. In a nutshell, consumers in Iowa City have received water and sewer services in the past at bargain prices. And, even the pro- posed increased rates will be extremely reasonable. Exhibit 6 on page 9 shows the impact of the rate increases on an average residential billing. Since it is likely that consumers will think in terms of their total water/sewer/refuse bill, the increased rate should be looked at in terms of the impact on the total bi-monthly billing. The bi-monthly billing for a household with a consumption of 2,000 cubic feet of water usage is $32.92 at the current rates. The increased rates would result in a bill- ing of $44.40 or a 35% increase. The fact that the refuse fee is not in- creasing holds down the total percentage increase for the billing. Another helpful comparison appears on the bottom of Exhibit 6. It shows that the monthly costs for water/sewer/refuse at the proposed increased rates is 16% of the average monthly cost of all utilities. Cost -wise this is a small price for such essential services as water and sewer. It is recommended that the proposed rate increase be made effective on all billings sent out after September 1, 1986. This will cover water used in July and August and will give customers advance notice of the rate increase prior to their actual usage of service at the higher rates. A public hearing will be held at the June 3, 1986, City Council meeting to receive public input on the proposed rate increases. At that same meeting, the Council will be asked to consider passing the first reading on the rate ordinances. The Council will be asked to consider the second and third readings on the rate ordinances at its June 17, 1986, meeting. It is necessary to increase sewer user fees prior to the time of bond sale to provide assurance to potential bond purchasers and to the bond rating agency (Moody's) that sufficient funds will be available from user fees for debt service costs. Our preliminary schedule calls for a presentation to be made to Moody's on June 26, 1986, as part of the bond rating evaluation and for the bonds to be sold on July 22, 1986. The closing of the bond issue is 9// _A] r - scheduled for August 22, 1986. It is essential that the bond closing occur prior to September 1, 1986, to avoid problems associated with pending federal tax legislation which would severely restrict future bond issues. FINANCING OF WASTEWATER TREATMENT FACILITY PROJECT City staff has been evaluating the type of financing best suited for this project. Section C of this report reviews the considerations which have been a part of the financial planning process. Preliminary research was done by City Finance Department staff and more recently the City's Financial Advisor, Evensen Dodge, Inc., has been assisting with the evaluation. The total estimated construction cost for the project is $33,911,000. After adding to this amount funds required for a debt service reserve, capitalized interest, issuance costs and defeasance requirements for refunding a portion of the City's general obligation debt previously issued for sewer purposes, the total estimated financing is $38,950,000. It is recommended that the financing be provided by a single issue of sewer revenue bonds and that those bonds be sold competitively as opposed to being sold on a negotiated basis. The justification for this recommendation is provided in detail in Section C of this report under "Financing Alternatives" and "Method of Sale." Section C also includes a preliminary financing sched- ule. 9�/ `I _4l -,J� EXHIBIT 1 WATER SYSTEM PROPOSED WATER RATE SCHEDULE MONTHLY USAGE Cubic Feet) _---------- RATES PER CURRENT 100 CUBIC FEET----___--_-_ 07-01-86 07-01-87- First 200 07-01-88 . Next 2,800 MMC... MMC $ MMC MMC MMC Next 17,000 .60 $ .75 $ .83 $ Over 20,000 36 .45 '50 .87.53 $ 3.60 32 .40 1 � 3.75 .44' .46 MINIMUM MONTHLY CHARGE ' 1piC METER SIZE (Inches) --------------- CURRENT -------- --RATES- 07 ---__-__ ----------------- 5/8• -01 -86 07-01-87 p7.01-88 3/4 E 2.60 3.00 $ 3.25 $ 3.60 E 3.80 1 � 3.75 1 1/2 3.50 4.40 4'15 4.85 4.35 2 7.00 8.75 5.10 3 9.40 11.75 9.65 - 10.15 4 17:40 21.75 12.95 13.60 6 30.35 37.95 23.95 25.15 61.10 76.40 41.75 43.85 84.00 88.20 SEWER RATES CURRENT 07-01-86 Minimum Monthly Charge.........................$ 07-01-87 07-01-88 (includes the first 200 1 .625 E 3.00 $ 4.75 cu, ft. used) $ 5.75 Each Additional 100cu.ft. .355 .66 1.04 1.26 4 9f/ EXHIBIT 2 COMPARISON OF USER CHARGES SEWER - AVERAGE RESIDENTIAL USER LANES $76.60 CEDAR FALLS $77.58 NEWTON $28.00 SIOUX CITY $27.61 DUBUQUE 725.20 XEOXUX 725.00 DAVENPORT $22.60 NARSNALLTOWN $22.50 BETTENDORP 321.56 CLINTON $20.62 f WATERLOO $16.70 IUISON CITY 315.58 i I MARION $15,16 � NUSCATIRE 317.66 i CEDAR AA►$03312.12 OES MOINES $12.80 * i AVERAGE EXCLUDING IOWA CITT fi1.0] I faucltt".eI CURRENT RATES lam COY 516," PROPOSED RATES Based on sewer use of 2,000 cubic feet per two month period. *Due to the size of the community and their large industrial base, this system is not,/ comparable to Iowa City's system. 5 i i -Al =14 EXHIBIT 3 COMPARISON OF USER CHARGES SEWER - LARGE BUSINESS USER AKS $1.702.60 Si011A CITY $1,261.6 Oug"A $1.260.00 KEOXU $1,250.00 CEOEN EKE$ f1,IB9.9$ OAYGPoNi $1,061.00 NEWTON $1,016.00 6EflFN W $$99.60 I WXON sm. I iwrt9iao s95o.]0 t ! m No[KEs u>s.n 'N16GTIIIE 3567.22 i �f WEFW IWIOS $591.22 M1951W1TOM $$12.50 MASON CItt $]51.70 i AR" EXCLUDING IOWA CItt $910.79 1 INA CITY isss:9f CURRENT RATES IOw CITY SULM PROPOSED RATES Based on use of 100,000 cubic feet per two month period. 6 9j/ i 1 r =14 EXHIBIT 3 COMPARISON OF USER CHARGES SEWER - LARGE BUSINESS USER AKS $1.702.60 Si011A CITY $1,261.6 Oug"A $1.260.00 KEOXU $1,250.00 CEOEN EKE$ f1,IB9.9$ OAYGPoNi $1,061.00 NEWTON $1,016.00 6EflFN W $$99.60 I WXON sm. I iwrt9iao s95o.]0 t ! m No[KEs u>s.n 'N16GTIIIE 3567.22 i �f WEFW IWIOS $591.22 M1951W1TOM $$12.50 MASON CItt $]51.70 i AR" EXCLUDING IOWA CItt $910.79 1 INA CITY isss:9f CURRENT RATES IOw CITY SULM PROPOSED RATES Based on use of 100,000 cubic feet per two month period. 6 9j/ EXHIBIT 4 COMPARISON OF USER CHARGES WATER - AVERAGE RESIDENTIAL USER IaOKLC $79.05 aWM $38.61 w—xm 10M 82L38 Daum szs.zo aYOMRT $21.29 WSm CITY $19.$1 NOMM $19.38 M WKS SILK NES SIL78 NKGITIIE SILfl KNUON SILO! CEOI! WIGS f16.69 SIM CITY ins." Q61R $N1S fll.!! Waaoo slz.zf NrcOM EIauoT99 IOW CITY s21.17 IOWA CITY $14.to CURRENT RATES tau CITY 119.so —� PROPOSED RATES Based on water use of 2,000 cubic feet per two nLonth period. II o, a, EXHIBIT 5 COMPARISON OF USER CHARGES WATER - LARGE BUSINESS USER KEOKUK f1.tl1.16 OU3m m $909.90 IDES MOINES $998.43 CEINION $953.11 MAR.WALLIOYN f130.74 xANt9N 5161.32 AME$ $732.53 DOCKPONf $663.10 i i SIMI Cin $526.53 j ¢osw NAMIDS 3513.33 i MASON CITY $412.15 MO CATIn 3351.05 CfOM $ALL$ 3701.63 WTEAl00 1243.][ IAYENAM EXCLUDING IOWA CITY $668.11 IONACIn 3355.00 CURRENT RATES tauctnl:s.sD PROPOSED RATES Based on water use of 100,000 cubic feet per two month period. EXHIBIT 6 FOR AN AVERAGE HOUSEHOLD . . . (May, 1986) I. TOTAL BILLING FOR WATER/SEWER/REFUSE Based upon 2,000 cu. ft. consumption for a two month period = At Current Rates At Proposed Rates Water $ 14.80 $ 18.50 *Tax .59 .74 Sewer 8.93 16.56 Refuse 8.60 8.60 Total U;92 $ 44.40 35% Increase *Sales tax applies to water service only. II. AVERAGE MONTHLY COSTS FOR UTILITIES Gas & Electricity $ 94.28 Phone Service (unlimited local, no long distance) 14.30 Cable T.V. (basic service) 9.80 **Water/Sewer/Refuse (proposed rates) 22.20 Total Utilities $ 140.58 **Water/Sewer/Refuse is 16% of total utilities. 9 911 r UZI PREPAI _,A� r Iowa City Water System Proposed Rate Increases May, 1986 The water system is a self -supported enterprise and as such all costs of operations and capital related costs are funded entirely from user fees. Operating costs include the direct system operating costs plus the cost of maintaining the system facilities and equipment. Capital related costs include debt service (principal and interest payments on bonds), transfers to bond reserve funds and capital outlay costs for replacements and improvements to the system. Water rates were last increased in December, 1981. At that time, a substan- tial fund balance existed in the Operating Fund and in the Depreciation, Extension and Improvement Reserve. It was decided to utilize those fund balances for costs of operations, main extensions and capital outlay pur- chases. Thus, the available fund balances provided funding for a portion of the annual system costs instead of those costs being funded from user rates. This funding arrangement has for several years aided in keeping user rates down. Exhibit A shows past years revenues and expenditure for FY81 through FY85. It shows that annual revenues have consistently been less than annual expendi- tures and that the system has been relying upon existing fund balances to make up,the variance. Increases in water sales revenue is due to growth in the customer base and variation in actual consumption. Increased expendi- tures are due to inflationary costs and to the increased costs of maintaining an aging facility and equipment. The debt service costs have been decreasing annually as bonds were paid off and because no new bonds were being issued. FY83 through FY85 show that several of the years have large capital outlay expenditures. The majority of that capital outlay was for water main extensions and is indicative of in- creased residential construction in the community. Exhibit B shows projected revenues for the current fiscal year (FY86) and the next four years through FY90. The expenditures in FY86 show a substantial increase over FY85. This is due to increased costs in salaries and insur- ance. The Water Superintendent retired this fiscal year and his replacement was hired at the beginning of the fiscal year to provide for training and a smooth transition of the system management. In addition, several retirements of long term employees will result in a substantial payout of termination wages during the fiscal year. Both items added costs of approximately $52,000 to this year's expenditures. The other large increase came from the decision to charge all enterprise funds directly for their prorated share of property and liability insurance costs. Insurance for the water system is provided through the City's blanket insurance coverages. In past years, the actual costs have been paid from the tort liability property tax levy instead of being charged to the water sys- tem. Insurance costs increased 300% this fiscal year and the decision was made to prorate applicable insurance costs back to the individual enterprise fund to provide an additional funding source. It is appropriate to charge the insurance costs to the water system as such costs are direct costs of A-1 9// operating the system and should be paid by user fees. Insurance costs will add $85,000 to the operating expenditures in the current fiscal year and $105,000 to FY87 operating expenditures. Another variance which occurs between FY85 and FY86 operating expenditures results from the change in accounting method for sales tax. In past years, sales tax charged on water sales was receipted in as a cash receipt. The disbursement to the State of sales tax collected was accounted for as an expenditure. Current accounting methods now net the disbursement to the State against the actual receipt. This results in a comparable reduction to both receipts (miscellaneous revenues) and to operating expense of $60,000. Future years' operating expenditures were projected to increase at an annual inflationary rate of 5%. It should be noted that the FY87 operating expendi- tures do not include the additional salary costs which are occurring in the current fiscal year (those described above). Therefore, the increase between FY86 and FY87 is less than the projected annual inflationary increase of 5% being used for the following years. Debt service costs show a substantial decrease in FY86. Work is being com- pleted on a proposal to restructure the current outstanding water revenue bonds. There is a sufficient fund balance in the Sinking Reserve Fund and in the Bond and Interest Reserve Fund to permit the establishment of a trust fund which would be sufficient, along with future interest earnings, to pay all principal and interest due on the outstanding revenue bonds through their maturity dates. This proposed action will reduce the revenue requirements for the water system by $460,910 through FY93. The current balance in the Bond and Interest Reserve is $597,212. Bond covenants require that $30,000 is transferred to this fund on an annual basis. The fund is to be utilized to pay principal and interest on the bond issue when the balance in the sinking fund is not sufficient to do so. The monies in this reserve cannot be used for any other purpose and would have to remain intact in the reserve until all bonds mature (FY93) Therefore, it makes more sense to utilize the balance in this reserve fund to set up a trust fund or to defease the current revenue bond issues. The Council will be provided with more detailed infor- mation on this restructuring and will be asked to take formal action on this proposal during the month of June, 1986. Debt service expenditures shown will cover the 1985 GO bond issue and the 1986 GO bond issue, both of which fund the construction cost of the East Side Water Storage Tank. Debt service also covers expenditures for a proposed 1987 bond issue of approximately $300,000 which would fund the replacement of the water plant computer system. Revenues from water sales are projected based upon the proposed rate increases of 25% in FY87, 10% in FY88, 5% in FY89 and 3% in FY90. Since the available fund balances will have been utilized, it will be necessary to fund all expenditures from user fees and this will necessitate the proposed rate increases. The rate increases as proposed would allow a phasing in of annual increases to slowly bring the system up to the point where sufficient reve- nues are generated to support all fund expenditures. Starting in FY90, it is recommended that regular rate increases be implemented on an annual or bi-annual basis to keep rates at an appropriate level which will provide A-2 911 -I =11+ i _A1 adequate funding for the water system. This should be reviewed on an annual basis with a proposal presented to Council annually on the sufficiency of the rates. It should be noted that the proposed user rates would not be sufficient to fund additional major capital improvements (i.e., Clear Creek Development Project or West Side Development Project water main extensions). If similar projects are undertaken, additional rate increases would be required. The year-end fund balance is projected to increase annually through FY90. In order to provide necessary cash flow and to function as an emergency funding reserve should revenues decrease or expenditures increase unexpectedly, the fund balance should be built up to and then maintained at a level of between $200,000 to $300,000 or an amount equal to approximately 10% of annual expen- ditures. The three year proposed rate increase, to be effective on July 1 at the beginning of each fiscal year, corresponds to the recommendation being made for sewer rate increases in that the Council is asked to approve the rate increase for all three years at this time. Since it is necessary to estab- lish three years of rate increases for sewer, it would be beneficial to do the same for water since the two services are jointly billed for. This will also let the consumer know what to expect for rate increases during the next three years during which time there will be substantial rate increases for the sewer system. Exhibit C shows the current rate structure and the proposed rate structure under each of tha nrmm.,f ..------------ - r - CITY OF IOWA CITY EXHIBIT A WATER TEM PAST YEARS' REVENUESSAND EXPENDITURES A-4 9i/ I FY81 $ FY82 3 FY83 FY84 . Revenues: SFY85 $ $ Water Sales Other Services 1,288,065 35,527 1,377,538 1,428,681 1,534,471 1,553,390 Contribution - Plains Miscellaneous 65,765 39,576 58,456 46,880 142,937 63,471 184,827 68,327 Transfers from Reserves 111,706 -- 114,617 716,860 116,627 92,253 133,557 Total Revenues 1,501,063 54,964 1,645,151 103,800 150,000 173,318 Expenditures: _1,839,158 2,049,015 2,020,845 Operating Expense 1,039,929 1,242,900 1,290,538 1,363,865 Capital Related Costs: 1,450,310 Debt Service Bond Reserve Funds 389,398 66,000 340,412 295,449 275,391 268,560 Capital Outlay 66,000 107,349 66,000 66,000 66,000 Total Expenditures 1,650,12701,76611,194)915 377,666 267,264 Revenues Over (Under) 846,902 2,022,922 2,052,134 Expenses (149,064) (111,510) (7,744) 26,093 (37'289) Beginning Balance- 273,514 124,450 12,940 Ending Balance _ 5,196 _ 31,289 124,450 72,940 5,796 31,289 -0- A-4 9i/ I ' r EXHIBIT B CITY OF IOWA CITY WATER SYSTEM PROJECTED REVENUES AND EXPENDITURES Expenditures: Operating Expense FY86 FY87 FY88 FY89 FY90 Capital Related Costs: 5 5 5 5 S Revenues: 7,107 109,165 230,676 223,565 214,712 Water Sales 1,592,800 1,899,360 2,089,296 2,193,761 2,259,574 Other Services 54,300 55,000 55,000 55,000 55,000 Contribution - Mains 50,000 65,000 65,000 65,000 65,000 Miscellaneous 41,500 41,500 41,500 41,500 41,500 Transfers from Reserves 55,873 - - _ 49,894 Total Revenues 1,794,473 2,060,860 2,250,796 2,355,261 2,421,074 Expenditures: Operating Expense 1,654,600 1,677,113 1,760,969 1,849,017 1,941,468 Capital Related Costs: Debt Service 7,107 109,165 230,676 223,565 214,712 Bond Reserve Funds -- 30,000 30,000 30,000 30,000 Capital Outlay 164,000 184,000 185,000 185,000 185,000 Total Expenditures 1,825,707 2,000,278 2,206,645 2,287,582 2,371,180 Revenues Over (Under) Expenses (31,234) 60,582 44,151 67,679 49,894 Beginning Balance -- 31,234) 29,348 73,499 141,178 Ending Balance 31,234) 29,348 73,499 141,178 191,072 A-5 ?'/ i F r - EXHIBIT C WATER SYSTEM PROPOSED WATER RATE SCHEDULE MONTHLY (Cubic USAGE Feet) ----------------RATES PER CURRENT 07-01-86 100 CUBIC FEET ---------------- 07-01-87 07-01-88 First 200 MMC MMC MMC MMC Next 2,800 $ .60 $ .75 $ .83 $ .87 Next 17,000 .36 .45 .50 .53 Over 20,000 .32 .40 .44 .46 MINIMUM MONTHLY CHARGE METERSIZE (Inches) (MMC) -------------------------RATES-------------------------- CURRENT 07-01-86 07-01-87 07-01-88 5/8 $ 2.60 $ 3.25 $ 3.60 $ 3.80 3/4 3.00 3.75 4.15 4.35 1 3.50 4.40 4.85 5.10 1 1/2 7.00 8.75 9.65 10.15 2 9.40 11.75 12.95 13.60 3 17.40 21.75 23.95 25.15 4 30.35 37.95 41.75 43.85 6 61.10 76.40 84.00 88.20 A-6 i PROPOSED c PREPARED City of Iowa City MEMORANDUM Date; May 23, 1986 To: City Council and Acting City Manager nr'� From: Rosemary Vitosh, Acting Assistant City Manager`J`�xr"_�) Re: Proposed Sewer Rates The rate study for sewer rates was prepared by Metcalf & Eddy, Inc. The study was based upon financing assumptions provided by Evensen Dodge, Inc. Since completion of the rate study, the financing assumptions have been further refined. This results in changes to required rate increases which are shown on the chart on page 8-2. This chart is the basis of the proposed rate increases being recommended for approval by the City Council. The tight time schedule for preparation of this report did not permit time for Metcalf & Eddy to revise their rate study. However, the data on page B-2 has been reviewed with Metclaf & Eddy and they will be providing an updated rate study using these revised financing assumptions. The updated study is necessary as it will be utilized as a data source for the Official Statement used in the marketing of the bond issue. A major change made in the financing assumptions involve the reduction in the amount of capitalized interest to be funded from bond proceeds. Instead, system revenues in FY87 and FY88 will be utilized to pay debt service inter- est costs. This will result in a reduction of the year-end fund balance amount and a reduction of the bond issue (from $41.45 million to $38.95 million). It also permits a lower user rate increase in the third year (FY89) . Since debt service costs are lower in FY87 than in the following years, a year-end fund balance of approximately $723,000 is projected. It is recom- mended that the entire balance be placed in a Capital Improvement Reserve to be used for future capital costs. This will permit a faster build-up of funds available for capital expenditures. This fund will be required by the bond resolution covenants and its availability will prevent a further major rate increase should needed capital expenditures occur in future years. An annual transfer of $240,000 will be required until the fund balance reaches $2 million. bj5/1 B-1 I// 01 _A1 A May, 1986 CITY OF IOWA CITY, IOWA CASH FLOW ANALYSIS—WASTEWATER TREATMENT FINANCING 1 I I 4 5 6 7 B 9 10 11 12 13 Investment Transfer 8 - 2 • 9 Cunulative t • 2 Repul r:d InvesMvnt Income Fund 5 e 6 • 7 To Capital Trevsfer Gpl tal CuwuL tl ve Oparatl Ing 0.Wt Tatal Revenues System Income Balance { Total IwprovewvnL To Fund Iwprevewvnt Fund Bea• Use Coats Surl av [oats 1)11.1 2 B....... O.S.R. I.P. Reserve Revenues Reserve Balance Pause Balance Ae to Rate t� 1987 f 981,000 $1,016,129 $2,000,129 52,I0i,711 $2.723,559 $2.723,559 3723,130 f 777,4]0 7.00 .0066 N 1988 /,Oq,010 3.018.3"/ 1',091,127 \,396,765 1,315,191 311,100 1,388,591 240,000 f 57x167 96],430 f 57x167 4.75 .Ot01 1989 1,555,062 3,655,76! 5,210,321 5,575,850 5,291,115 f 781,000 61,700 5,675,]35 740,000 185,011 1,703,430 ,747,1]7 5.75 .0176 1990 1,648,766 7,642,473 5,290,641 5,655,088 5,297,135 281,000 B6,IOD 5,660,875 240,000 129,991 1,117,430 372,172 5.75 .012fi j 1991 1,747,268 7,650,762 5,798,030 5,761,106 2BI FOOD 1992 1,052,104 3,654,150 5,506,754 3,871,669 281,000 1993 1,963,230 7,652,3"7 5,615,617 5,970,655 281,000 1991 2.081,021 3,645.215 S.726.249 6.0%- 71 ,., .- 1995 2,205,886 7,612,411 1996 2,338,739 1,678,000 1997 7,178,533 3,636,577 1998 2,627,245 3,652,937 1999 2,781,880 1,637,07S 2000 2,951,973 3,630,I37 2001 7,179,091 7,654.287 2002 ],316,877 7,633,787 7003 3,SIS,B17 3,656,562 2004 3,126,798 7,640,106 2005 7,950,IOS 3,636,662 7006 4,187,430 7,644,600 2007 1,138,675 1,678,363 2008 4,701,996 3,641,937 2009 4,987,296 3,652,611 7010 3,786,571 3,644,718 Z1 5,603,776 7,641,668 2 5.939.949 1.612.625 J9eRd1/3 r IOWA CITY RATE STUDY May 5, 1986 I. STATEMENT OF OBJECTIVES The objective in this report is to present various sewer rate alternatives for recovering the expenses associated with the proposed expansion and upgrading of wastewater conveyance and treatment facilities. II. ASSUMPTIONS For the purpose of this study, it was assumed that the Population of Iowa City increases linearly during the study period. Figure 3.3 of the Report on Wastewater Plan - Alternative Study Phase III" was used to obtain the Population projection. The 1983 Comprehensive Plan, low estimate line, was used for growth projection. Figure 1 represents the projected population growth trend. Other rate determining parameters like the number of sewer accounts, base flow rate, and total billable wastewater flow rate were assumed to increase linearly from current levels at the same rate as the population growth. The billable base sewage flow rate was estimated to be equal to the total number of accounts times the current base flow rate of 200 cu-ft./mo. Table 1 projects the parameters related linearly to population from their current numbers to the Year 2012 (last year of the study period). Table 1. Projections of Rate Controlling Parameters PARAMETER Population Number of Accounts 53,500 61,850 Total Billable Flow, ft3/mo 13,845 31,062,0381 16,020 35,913,138 Per Capita Flow, ft /person mo 581 Base Flow, Flow Above ft3/mo� Base, ft3/mo 2,769,000 581 3, 204, 000 28,293,038 32,709,138 1. Billable flow obtained from the Iowa City Financial Department Billing records of the City were evaluated to determine the ratio between volume of flow billed at base rate to volume Of flow billed at above base rate. It was also assumed that the ratio of base rate to rate per 100 ft3/mo, above the base would remainthe same. This ratio is currently 4.58 ($1.625/mo and $0.355/100 ft3). The assumed funding method B-3 9i/ 70 r used in the rate study was a revenue bond issue. One revenue bond issue was evaluated. This issue was for $41,450,000 and was repaid at a constant rate. Table 2 summarizes the annual payment for bond retirement and interest payment for the revenue bond issue. Table 3 summarizes the financial assumptions used to determine the size of the bond issue. The annual sewer bond debt was obtained from Evensen Dodge, Inc. for these combinations. Table 3. FINANCING ASSUMPTIONS $41,450,000 Issue Sources: Bond Proceeds $41,450,000 Investment Earnings 3,550,655 $45,000,655 Uses: Project Costs $33,911,000 Issuance Costs 175,000 Discount 829,000 Debt Service Reserve (Maximum Annual Debt Service) 3,758,813 Refunding of G.O. Debt 1,684,600 Capitalized Interest (18 months) 4,635,414 Rounding 6.828 $45,000,655 1. Interest Rates — Current market rates plus 35 basis points. 2. Investment Rates: Construction and Capitalized Interest Funds: 78 Debt Service Reserve Fund: 7.78 III. RATE CALCULATIONS The rates were calculated so that the total projects revenue over the study period would offset the total projected system expense. The sewer revenue is the sum of the base charge multiplied by number of accounts and the user rate multiplied by the flow rate above the base flow rate. The total expense is the sum of the bond debt and the projected system operating cost. The projected system operating costs were obtained assuming 6% annual inflation and a 1987 operating r - a a H TABLE 2. ANNUAL BOND REPAYMENT B-6 10 J.4 707 ANNUAL BOND YEAR '------------------------- DEBT 1987 $0 1988 41,548,137 1989 $3,744,688 1990 $3,751,061 1991 $3,752,681 1992 $3,749,669 1993 $33,742,906 1994 $3,755,837 1995 $3,738,550 1996 $3,740,906 1997 $3,736,900 1998 $3,750,475 1999 $3,755,550 2000 $3,752,288 2001 $3,740,900 2002 $3,745,350 2003 $3,739,586 2004 $3,747,537 2005 $3,743,638 2006 $3,751,819 2007 53,746,087 2008 $3,750,350 2009 $3,738,600 2010 $3,758,750 2011 $3,758,812 2012 $3,739,500 B-6 10 J.4 707 cost of $1,384,000. For all ra the cumulative fund balance was than 1.1 times the annual bond fund balance could be invested annually. IV. RATE ALTERNATIVES to development alternatives maintained at levels greater debt. It was assumed that the at a return rate of 68 Alternate 1 (Table Al) consists of a 1987 base rate sewer charge of $3.00/mo. and a user charge of $0.0066/100 -ft -I over the base volume of 200 ft3/mo. This is an 858 increase over the current rate. The rates are then increased to $4.50 in 1988 (508) and $6.10 in 1989 (358). For the remainder of the bond issue the sewer use rate is held constant at $6.46/month. Table Al summarizes this alternative. Alternate 2 consists of increases during the first three years identical to 1. During the remainder of the bond issue the sewer use rate is increased annually at 0.68. Table A2 summarizes this alternative. Alternate 3 consists of increases during the first three years identical to 1. The rate is increased in the year 2004 (238) and 2010 (118). Table A3 summarizes this alternative. V. SUMMARY Table 4 provides a general summary of the alternatives. Table 4. Summary of Rate Study Alternatives Base Rate Base Rate Number of Cummulative Alternative $/mo. $/mo. Rate Increase Fund Balance 3.00 6.46 4 High through 2008 3.00 7.00 Annual Moderate through 2007 3.00 8.30 5 Moderate throughout issue VI. CONCLUSION Either of these three alternates will provide the funds necessary to repay the revenue bonds. The final method of increasing user charges should be determined based upon local preferences and guidance from financial advisors. it is recommended, however, that the user charge rate be increased to the base rate of $3.00/month and $0.006/cu. ft. for usage over the base rate as soon as possible. If implemented during July or August of 1986, the sewer fund can begin to accumulate reserve funds. The schedules presented (Tables Al, A2, and A3) assume a rate increase in 1986. B-7 9�/ fi `rt TABLE At ALTERNATE NUMBER I BASE RATE REMAINS CONSTANT AFTER 1990 1987 BASE RATE IS 13.007M0. FUNDING ALTERNATE IS 1002 REVENUE BONDS 141.450M1 =1� AVG. YEARLY INTEREST TOTAL CUMMULATIVE NEN SYS. OP. CAPITAL CUMMULATIVE ANNUAL CUMMULATIVE CUMMULATIVE BASE RATE USE RATE REVENUES, EARNED, REVENUES, REVENUES COSTS INFLATED IMPROVEMENT OPERATING COSTS BOND DEBT DEBT SERVICE__ EXPENSES FUND BALANCE_»_ CHARGE Wo. CHARGE 1YCU.FT. YEAR DOLLARS DOLLARS DOLLARS DOLLARS AT 62 RESERVE ---------------- 1987 1988 12,723,559 14,110,814 $0 1104,374 $2,723,559 $4,215,248 12,723,559 16,938,807 ---------------------------------_--------------------------------'--------- 6984,000 $1,043,040 $0 $0 $984, 000 12,027,040 t0 11,545,137 10 $1,545,137 1984,000 $3,572,177 11,739,559 13,471,003 3.00 4.50 0.0066 0.0098 19119 15,607,135 1497,689 16,104,824 113,043,631 $1,555,062 $240,000 $240,000 $3,022,102 15,710,469 $3,744,688 13,751,081 15,289,825 19,040,906 $9,111,927 114,751,375 14,139,964 65,053,181) 6.10 6.46 0.0133 0.0141 1990 1991 $5,974,707 16,011,366 $537,027 1592,620 $6,512,534 116,603,986 119,556,165 126,160,151 /1,648,366 $1,747,268 1240,000 17,697,737 13,752,601 $12,193,587 120,491,324 15,972,019 6.46 0.0141 1992 16,048,025 $647,750 $6,695,775 132,855,926 11,052,104 $240,000 1240,000 19,7119,841 $11,993,071 13,149,869 03,742,906 f16,543,456 120,286,362 $26,333,297 132,279,433 16,080,951 17,776,321 6.46 6.46 0.0141 0.0141 1993 1994 16,084,684 16,121,344 1702,286 1756,008 {6,786,970 $6,817,352 (39,612,891 146,520,249 11,963,230 12,081,024 1240,000 $14,314,096 13,755,837 124,042,199 $38,356,295 10,630,533 6.46 0.0141 a' 1995 80* 16,159,003 1807,261 $6,965,264 153,485,312 $2,205,886 1240,000 1240,000 $16,759,981 119,338,220 $3,738,550 13,740,906 $27,760,749 131,521,655 $44,540,730 /50,859,875 $9,462,614 110,245,242 6.46 6.46 0.0141 0.0141 1996 1997 16,194,662 16,231,321 1057,186 6904,144 $7,051,848 $7,135,465 160,537,360 167,672,825 $2,338,239 $2,478,533 $240,000 $22,056,753 $3,736,900 $35,258,555 $57,315,308 $10,972,231 6.46 0.0141 1998 16,267,980 $947,763 $7,215,743 $74,800,569 $2,627,245 $240,000 924,923,999 127,940,819 $3,750,475 13,755,550 139,009,030 142,764,580 163,933,029 $70,713,459 $11,613,073 112,162,B42 6.46 6.46 0.0141 0.0141 1999 2000 16,304,639 16,341,298 $986,261 $1,019,200 $7,290,901 17,360,490 $82,179,468 $09,539,966 $2,704,BBD $2,951,973 $240,000 1240,000 $31,140,851 $3,752,288 146,516,068 $77,657,719 $12,612,018 6.46 0.0141 2001 $6,377,958 11,046,1SO 17,424,108 $96,964,074 13,129,091 $240,000 134,509,942 93,740,900 13,745,350 150,257,768 $54,003,119 184,767,710 192,069,097 112,953,085 113,152,593 6.46 6.46 0.0141 0.0141 20D2 2003 16,414,617 16,451,276 $1,066,614 11,078,585 17,481,231 17,529,860 $104,445,305 $111,975,165 $3,316,837 $3,515,947 $240,000 1240,000 $30,066,779 141,822,626 13,739,500 $57,742,706 $99,565,332 113,198,989 6.46 0.0141 0.0141 2004 $6,487,935 $1,081,368 17,569,303 $119,544,469 $3,726,798 1240,000 $45,789,423 $3,747,537 13,743,638 $61,490,243 165,233,881 1107,279,666 $115,213,710 113,056,742 112,711,591 6.46 6.46 0.0141 2005 16,524,594 11,072,834 11,052,124 11,597,428 $7,613,318 1127,141,896 6134,755,274 13,950,405 $4,IB7,430 $240,000 $240,000 149,979,829 154,407,258 13,751,819 168,985,700 $123,392,958 112,125,012 6.46 0.0141 2006 2007 16,561,253 16,597,912 $1,016,930 $7,614,842 1142,370,116 $4,438,675 $240,000 159,085,934 13,746,007 03,750,350 $72,731,787 1176,482,137 $131,017,721 $140,513,067 111,279,896 110,134,638 6.46 6.46 0.0141 0.0141 2008 16,634,572 1966,223 $097,507 $7,600,794 17,568,738 $144,970,911 1157,539,649 64,704,998 14,987,296 1240,000 1240,000 $64,030,930 169,258,226 $3,738,600 100,220,737 1149,478,963 $0,660,765 6.46 0.0141 2009 2010 16,671,231 18,701,890 $809,555 17,517,445 1165,051,094 15,286,531 1240,000 174,704,759 13,758,750 03,758,812 $83,979,487 1117,738,299 1158,764,246 $168,366,784 6,812,974 14,541,845 6.46 6.46 0.0141 0.0141 2011 16,744,549 $698,207 17,442,756 1172,499,85D $183,601,011 $5,603,726 $5,939,949 1240,000 $240,000 $00,628,485 $86,808,434 13,739,500 191,477,799 11711,286,233 15,588,089 6.46 0.0141 2012 16,781,200 14,320,753 H1,101,961 =1� TABLE A2 ALTERNATE NUMBER 2 BASE RATE INCREASES ANNUALLY AT 1.151 AFTER 1990 1987 BASE RATE 1S 13.00/MO. FUNDING ALTERNATE IS 1001 REVENUE BONDS (41.459A AVG. YEARLY INTEREST TOTAL CUMMULATIVE NEN SYS. OP. CAPITAL CUMMULATIVE ANNUAL CUMMULATIVE CUMMULATIVE BASE RATE USE RATE REVENUES, EARNED, REVENUES, REVENUES COSTS INFLATED IMPROVEMENT OPERATING BOND DEBT EIPENSES FUND CHARGE CHARGE YEAR DOLLARS DOLLARS DOLLARS DOLLARS AT 61 RESERVE COSTS DEBT SERVICE -------------------------- BALANCE ----------- ----------------- 1/MO. 1/CU0. ---------------- 1987 ------- 12,723,559 --------- 10 --------------- 92,723,559 ------- 12,723,559 -------------- $984,000 ------------- 10 --------------- $984,000 _--_--- 10 $0 1981,000 $1,739,559 3.00 0.0066 1988 $4,110,811 $104,374 14,215,218 16,938,807 $1,043,040 10 12,027,040 11,545,137 11,545,137 13,572,177 13,471,003 4.50 0.0098 1989 15,607,135 $97,6119 16,104,824 113,043,631 $1,555,062 1240,000 11,622,102 13,744,688 {5,2119,025 $9,111,927 $4,139,964 6,10 0.0133 1990 15,675,602 6537,027 16,213,429 119,257,059 $1,618,366 $210,000 15,710,469 $3,751,081 19,040,906 114,751,375 14,751,083 6.14 0.0134 1991 $5,711,608 $511,674 $6,319,362 125,576,421 $1,747,268 $240,000 17,697,737 13,752,6111 $12,793,587 120,491,324 15,370,343 6.17 0.0135 1992 15,814,349 $611,650 16,426,049 $32,002,470 $1,052,104 1210,000 19,7119,B41 13,749,869 116,543,456 126,333,297 15,991,394 6.21 0.0136 1993 15,881,710 $648,913 16,533,653 $38,536,123 11,963,230 $240,OD0 $11,993,011 13,742,906 $20,286,362 132,279,433 16,616,111 6.25 0.0136 1994 15,955,716 1686,349 $6,642,115 145,178,239 12,081,021 1240,000 $11,311,096. 13,755,837 $24,042,199 638,356,295 17,218,914 6.29 0.0137 1995 16,027,332 1722,564 $6,749,895 151,928,134 12,205,886 $240,000 116,759,981 $3,738,550 $27,780,749 111,540,730 17,870,539 6.32 0.0138 1996 16,099,592 $750,661 16,858,253 158,786,307 12,338,239 1240,000 $19,338,220 13,740,906 131,521,655 150,859,815 18,395,711 6.36 0.0139 X1997 $6,172,503 1793,174 16,965,676 165,752,064 12,470,533 $240,000 122,056,753 13,736,900 135,258,555 157,315,309 $0,940,500 6.40 0.0140 O 1998 16,246,069 1825,859 17,071,928 $72,823,991 $2,627,245 1240,000 $24,923,999 $3,750,475 $39,009,030 163,933,029 19,127,393 6.11 0.0141 1999 16,320,295 1655,073 17,175,368 179,999,359 12,781,080 1210,000 $27,949,979 $3,755,550 142,764,580 $70,713,459 $9,851,511 6.18 0.0141 2000 16,395,188 $880,522 $7,275,709 187,275,069 12,951,973 1240,000 131,110,851 13,752,288 146,516,868 $77,657,719 110,208,112 6.51 0.0142 2001 16,470,751 $901,936 17,372,687 194,647,756 $3,129,091 1240,000 134,509,942 13,740,900 150,257,768 114,767,710 110,492,552 6.55 0.0143 2002 $6,546,992 $918,982 $7,465,974 $102,113,729 13,316,837 $240,000 $30,066,779 $3,745,350 $54,003,118 192,069,897 110,673,385 6.59 0.0111 2003 $6,623,911 1929,832 17,553,746 1109,667,475 $3,515,817 1240,ODD 141,822,626 13,739,588 157,742,706 199,565,332 110,742,547 6.63 0.0145 2004 $6,701,523 $933,982 17,635,505 $117,302,980 13,726,798- $240,000 $45,789,423 $3,747,537 161,490,243 6107,219,666 110,667,867 6.67 0.0146 2005 $6,779,025 1929,501 17,709,326 1125,012,306 $3,950,405 1240,000 149,979,829 13,743,638 $65,233,881 $115,213,710 110,438,669 6.71 0.0147 2006 16,858,826 $915,749 17,774,575 1132,7[16,892 14,187,430 $240,000 $54,407,258 13,751,819 168,905,700 $123,392,958 110,020,211 6.75 0.0148 2007 16,938,531 1890,611 17,829,174 $140,616,056 14,438,675 1210,000 159,085,931 13,716,087 172,731,787 1131,817,721 19,399,550 6.79 0.0148 2008 $7,018,945 1053,402 17,872,347 1118,100,403 14,704,996 $240,000 $64,030,930 13,750,350 176,1112,137 1140,513,067 10,539,309 6.83 0.0149 2009 17,100,074 1801,788 t7,9D1,862 $156,390,265 14,987,296 1240,000 $69,258,226 13,738,600 100,220,737 1149,178,963 17,423,661 6.88 0.0150 2010 17,181,925 1734,849 $7,916,713 $164,307,038 15,286,534 1240,000 $74,784,759 13,759,750 $83,979,4117 $158,764,246 /5,988,212 6.92 0.0151 2011 17,264,501 1648,722 $7,913,223 $172,220,261 15,603,726 6240,000 180,6211,165 13,758,812 $87,730,299 $168,366,704 $4,212,770 6.96 0.0152 2012 17,347,811 14,301,001)111,648,819 $103,869,0110 15,939,949 1240,000 186,808,434 13,739,500 191,477,799 $179,206,233 15,835,614 7.00 0.0153 r TABLE A3 ALTERNATE NUMBER 3 BASE RATE INCREASES EVERY FIVE YEARS AFTER 1990 1981 BASE RATE IS 13.00/MO. FUNDING ALTERNATE IS 1001 REVENUE BONDS 141.45MNI AVG. YEARLY INTEREST TOTAL CUMMULATIVE NEN SYS. OP. CAPITAL COMMULATIVE ANNUAL CUMMULATIVE CUMMULATIVE BASE RATE USE RATE REVENUES, EARNED, REVENUES, REVENUES COSTS INFLATED IMPROVEMENT OPERATING BOND DEBT EIPENSES FUND CHARGE CHARGE YEAR DOLLARS DOLLARS DOLLARS DOLLARS AT 61 RESERVE COSTS DEBT SERVICE BALANCE $/M0. $ICU.FT. -----^------------------"__-----"---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 19B7 12,723,559 SO 12,723,559 12,723,559 $984,000 10 1984,000 10 10 19B4,000 $1,739,559 3.00 0.0066 1988 14,110,874 1104,374 $4,215,248 16,930,807 $1,043,040 10 $2,027,040 $1,545,137 91,545,137 13,572,177 $3,471,003 4.50 0.0098 1989 15,607,135 $497,689 $6,104,824 $13,043,631 $1,555,062 1240,000 $3,822,102 13,744,680 $5,289,825 19,111,927 14,139,964 6.10 0.0133 1990 15,641,751 1537,827 16,179,578 119,223,209 11,640,366 $240,000 $5,710,469 13,751,081 $9,040,906 114,751,375 $4,720,232 6.10 0.0133 1991 $5,676,367 1572,643 16,249,010 125,472,219 $1,747,268 $240,000 17,697,737 13,752,881 112,793,587 120,491,324 $5,264,109 6.10 0.0133 1992 $5,710,984 1605,276 16,316,259 131,788,478 $1,852,104 $240,000 19,789,641 13,749,869 116,543,456 126,333,297 $5,771,020 6.10 0.0133 1993 15,745,600 $635,691 46,381,291 138,169,769 $1,963,230 1240,000 111,993,071 13,742,906 120,286,362 132,279,433 $6,236,597 6.10 0.0133 1994 $5,780,216 1663,625 16,443,641 144,613,610 92,0111,024 $240,000 $14,314,096 13,755,037 $24,042,199 $30,356,295 16,631,511 6.10 0.0133 1995 $5,614,632 1887,320 $6,502,152 151,115,762 $2,205,8116 $240,000 $16,759,981 $3,718,550 127,780,749 144,540,710 $6,972,922 6.10 0.0133 Q, !, 1996 $5,949,449 1707,804 16,557,253 157,673,015 $2,338,239 $240,000 119,338,220 13,740,906 111,521,655 150,859,875 17,231,515 6.10 0.0133 1997 15,884,065 1723,320 $6,607,385 164,280,399 62,478,533 $240,000 $22,056,753 11,736,900 $35,258,555 151,315,308 17,398,982 6.10 0.0133 1998 15,918,681 1733,368 $6,652,049 $70,932,440 12,627,245 $240,000 124,923,999 13,750,475 $39,009,030 163,931,029 17,443,358 6.10 0.0133 1999 15,953,297 $736,030 16,609,328 177,621,776 12,784,BBO 12,951,973 1240,000 $240,000 $27,948,879 131,140,851 13,755,550 13,752,288 142,764,560 146,516,068 170,713,459 177,657,719 17,354,919 $7,123,989 6.10 6.10 0.0133 0.0133 2000 2001 15,987,913 $6,022,530 1730,724 1716,869 $6,718,638 $6,739,390 184,340,413 191,079,611 $3,129,091 1240,000 $34,509,942 13,740,900 $50,257,768 1114,767,110 66,739,540 6.10 0.0173 2002 16,057,146 1693,801 $6,750,947 197,830,758 $3,316,837 $3,515,847 $240,000 1240,000 138,066,779 $41,022,626 13,745,350 13,739,5118 $54,001,118 $57,742,706 192,069,897 499,565,332 16,165,234 15,386,448 6.10 6.10 0.0131 0.0133 2003 2004 18,091,762 17,512,432 1659,343 1612,616 $6,751,105 $0,145,048 $104,501,864 1112,726,912 $3,726,798 1240,000 145,789,423 $3,747,537 161,490,243 $107,219,666 15,770,432 7.50 0.0164 2005 $7,574,993 1635,655 $0,210,648 1120,937,560 $3,950,405 $240,000 $49,979,829 13,743,638 165,233,881 $115,213,710 $6,010,076 7.50 7.50 0.0164 0.0164 2006 17,617,554 1653,634 0,271,188 1129,208,748 14,1117,430 $4,438,675 $240,000 1240,000 $54,407,258 159,0115,934 13,751,819 13,746,087 $68,985,700 $72,731,787 $123,392,950 $131,017,721 $6,179,994 $6,082,170 7.50 0.0164 2007 2008 $7,660,115 17,702,676 1660,229 1654,359 60,320,344 $8,357,035 1137,529,091 1145,806,127 $4,704,996 1240,000 164,030,930 13,750,350 $76,482,137 1140,511,067 15,737,990 7.50 0.0164 2009 17,745,237 $631,708 18,378,945 1154,265,072 $4,9117,298 1240,000 1240,000 169,258,226 174,784,759 13,738,800 13,7511,750 $80,220,737 $B3,979,4B7 1149,478,963 1158,764,246 $5,130,309 15,024,398 7.50 8.30 0.0164 0.0181 2010 2011 18,618,496 $11,665,597 1597,252 1590,691 $9,215,749 $9,256,490 1163,480,821 1172,737,311 $5,286,534 $5,803,726 1240,000 $80,828,4115 13,759,012 187,738,299 $168,366,784 14,671,991 0.30 0.0191 2012 $0,712,690 14,328,561 113,041,259 1185,778,570 $5,939,949 $240,000 186,0011,434 13,739,500 191,477,799 1178,286,233 17,772,657 B.30 0.0101 r WASTE t- ifel FROM: RE: City of Iowa City MEMORANDUM DATE: May 22, 1986 City Council & City Manager Rosemary Vitosh, Acting Assistant i Wayne Burggraaff, Evensen Dodge, Inc. Financial Planning Process & G Recommendations After an extensive and thorough planning process, the Iowa City City Council made basic decisions on design and construction aspects of this project in September, 1985. Since that time, work has been proceeding on detailed plans and specifications, with construction scheduled to start in October, 1986. The financial planning process for this project has been proceeding during this same period of time. Attached is a schedule which indicates the events which have occurred since March, together with the remaining tentative time schedule. The total estimated construction cost for the project is $33,911,000. After adding to this amount funds required for a debt service reserve, capitalized interest, issuance costs and defeasance requirements for refunding a portion of the City's generalobligation deb $38 previously issued for sewer purposes, the total estimated In planning for the financing for this project, there were five areas which required careful review and consideration. These areas were: 1. Pending federal legislation effecting issuance of tax-exempt debt. 2. Current outstanding debt for the Wastewater System. 3. Security and revenue provisions for the new bond issue 4. Alternate financing mechanisms. 5. Method of sale. PENDING FEDERAL LEGISLATION On December 17, 1985, the House of Representatives passed H.R. 3838 (the "Tax Reform Act"). Included in the Tax Reform Act are numerous provisions which restrict and, in some cases, pro- hibit the issuance of tcontainedxinpthisulegislati niciallwouldonshave an variety of Provisions adverse effect on the issuance of debt for this project. 9i/ —lk„ Earlier this year, a "Joint statement" was issued by Congressional leaders and the Secretary of the Treasury indi- cating that the effective date for any tax-exempt legislation to be passed this year could be expected to be September 1, 1986. More recently, the Senate Finance Committee has passed on its version of the Tax Reform Act, including provisions which would affect the issuance of tax-exempt debt. Therefore, in order to avoid problems associated with pending federal legislation on this subject, it is necessary for the City to issue bonds for the total amount required on this project in one issuance transaction. The sale and closing of the transac- tion must be planned to occur prior to September 1, 1986. OUTSTANDING DEBT The City currently has relatively small amounts of outstanding debt for the wastewater system. Part of this debt is in the form of sewer revenue bonds and part of it is in the form of general obligation bonds. User fees from the system are being used to make debt service payments in both instances. It is desirable to defease both of these current obligations for sewer purposes as part of the overall financing for the new improvements. Funds are currently available in the sewer fund to permit a cash defeasance of the outstanding revenue bonds. In the case of the outstanding general obligation bonds, an amount has been built into the issue size of the new issue which would permit creation of an escrow from which funds would be available for the annual abatement of that portion of the G.O. bond levy required for sewer purposes. The defeasance of the revenue bonds enables the City to adopt a new indenture resolution for the new bond issue, which will reflect current standard$ and requirements for the issuance of utility revenue debt. SECURITY AND REVENUE PROVISIONS Repayment of the debt to be issued for the wastewater system project will be repaid from user fees. Therefore, it is neces- sary that the user fees be increased prior to the time of the bond sale to provide assurance that funds will be available for debt service. The plan that we have been reviewing with Metcalf and Eddy provides for rate increases to be phased in over a three year period, at which time revenue is projected to be adequate to cover annual debt service payments for the remaining life of the bond issue. Future increases following this phase-in period would be dependent on the increased costs of operations for the system. C- 2 941 t- In addition to a commitment to increase rates for the system, it is also necessary to create a debt service reserve equivalent to the largest annual debt service payment. This reserve is created and exists for purposes of a backup in the event the revenue in any one year is not sufficient to make debt service payments. In addition to the debt service reserve, the proposed indenture resolution includes a covenant which requires rates to be set at a level which will generate revenues equal to 2.2% of the annual debt service payments. These covenants and others contained in the indenture resolution, together with the City's commitment to increase rates, are necessary to obtain the best possible rating from Moody's Investors Service and, ultimately, the sale of bonds at the lowest possible rate. FINANCING ALTERNATIVES The City's goals in this financing are to provide the funds needed to complete the project at the lowest interest cost within the constraints of the City's debt policies. The City considered a number of financing alternatives. The three best alternatives were: 1. A combination of current -interest general obligation and revenue bonds; 2. Current -interest revenue bonds; and 3. A combination of current -interest and zero-coupon revenue bonds. The advantages and disadvantages of each type of financing are discussed below. General Obligation/Revenue Bonds The advantage of using general obligation bonds to fund a portion of the costs of the project is that general obligation bonds carry interest rates lower than the other alternatives discussed in this report. This is true because these bonds are secured by a pledge .of the City's unlimited taxing powers, the strongest security available. (It should be emphasized that although the bonds would be general obligation bonds, debt service payments on the bonds would be- made with the sewer utility revenues). Iowa City's current general obligation bonds are rated Aaa by Moody's Investors Service, Inc., the highest rating given by Moody's. The City has earned this outstanding rating because of its finan- cial and economic strength; relatively small amounts of outstand- ing debt; and because of its debt policy which stresses rapid repayment of its debt. There are two primary disadvantages to using general obligation bonds for the project. It would use a portion of the City's debt capacity which would otherwise be available for other projects, some of which would be funded only with general obligation bonds. It could also jeopardize the City's general obligation Aaa credit rating because it would significantly increase the City's general obligation debt and cause the City to deviate somewhat from its policy of rapid debt repayment. C -3 g�/ -I =1'.z Zero Coupon/Current-Interest Revenue Bonds The primary advantage to using zero coupon bonds is that it would defer payment of interest until the later years of the bond issue. This would enable the City to moderate the rate increase required immediately. The disadvantage of zero coupon bonds is that they carry a higher yield than current -interest bonds and thus the total interest cost of the issue would be greater than for the other alternatives. It would also be more difficult to market and secure a good rating for an issue with a large zero coupon component. Current -Interest Revenue Bonds With revenue bonds only the revenues of the sewer utility are pledged to support the bond issue. This in perhaps the fairest financing method since all operating and capital costs of the system are paid for by the users of the system. Because this security is not as strong as a general obligation pledge, a debt service coverage requirement (for example 1.10%) may be neces- sary. This would require the City to establish rates which would produce net revenues at least 1.10 times debt service require- ments. One feature of Iowa law which enhances the security of sewer revenue bonds is the fact that sewer fees are a direct lien on property. Our recommendation is that the City use the current -interest revenue bond alternative. Although the total interest cost for such an issue would be slightly higher than for the general obligation revenue bond combination, the difference in favor of the general obligation combination is not great enough to offset the disadvantages associated with using general obligation bonds to finance the project. Both the current -interest revenue bond and general obligation revenue bond alternatives would produce significantly lower interest costs than the zero-coupon alternative. METHOD OF SALE Iowa law permits the sale of issues larger than $15,000,000 through negotiation rather than the usual method of a competitive public sale. Therefore, it is necessary to decide which is the preferable method for selling the bonds to finance the project. A competitive sale is generally used for the sale of municipal bond issues because it most frequently elicits the best bid for the issue. By giving any interested bidder the opportunity to participate in a sale, the bidder who has the greatest demand for the issue, and hence will submit the bid producing the smallest net interest cost, is most likely to purchase the issue. There are, however, certain situation when a negotiated sale is most advantageous for the issuer. This is the case when certain fea- tures of the issue require an aggressive, well -organized market- ing effort to sell the bonds to their ultimate purchasers. This requires a longer, more extensive commitment by the underwriter to insure the widest distribution of the bonds. C - 4 9i/ _A1 Some of the features of an issue which may make negotiation the better method of sale are: 1. Complexity. Issues with unusual and complex structures are frequently negotiated. 2. Novelty. Issues for new or unusual purposes or of a type with which the markets are not familiar may have to be negotiated. 3. Unusual or weak security features. Issues where security is weak, or where the supporting revenue stream is uncertain, are generally negotiated. 4. The need for unusual flexibility in timing, sizing, and structuring the issue for sale. If important elements of an issue must be adjusted or revised shortly before it is sold, the normal legal process required for a competitive sale may prevent the optimum features from being incorporated in the issue's structure. We recommend that the bonds be sold competitively. Although the issue will be large (an estimated $38,950,000), issues this large and even much larger are frequently sold on a competitive rather than a negotiated basis. In all other respects this issue is of a type with which the market is very familiar. It is not a new or particularly complex type of issue. It carries standard security features, and the rating should be high enough to attract good bids. Therefore, we believe that in this case, com- petitive market forces will produce the beat bid for the issue and that a negotiated sale is not in the best interest of the City. SUKKARY In summary, after a thorough review of all considerations and extensive consultation with members of the City staff and .attorneys and other consultants retained by the City, we recommend that: 1. The bonds to finance the wastewater improvements be current -interest revenue bonds; and • 2. that the bonds be sold through a competitive public sale. 5 !// r PRELIMINARY FINANCING SCHEDULE WASTEWATER SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS IOWA CITY, IOWA Date Event March 25, 1986: Meeting of City Staff and Evensen Dodge to review financing alternatives; pend- ing federal legislation; and financing schedule options March 26 -April 4, 1986: Evensen Dodge prepares preliminary analysis of general obligation/revenue bond financing alternatives April 7, 1986: Meeting of City Staff, Bond Counsel, Metcalf i Eddy and Evensen Dodge to dis- cuss preliminary financing analysis, financing schedule and Waste Water System Rate Study April 7, 1986: Meeting of City Staff, Bond Counsel and Evensen Dodge with City Council to brief Council on proposed financing schedule and arrangements April 7 -May 5, 1986: Rate Study to be prepared by Metcalf & Eddy April 7-30, 1986: Detailed Analysis of general obliga- tion/revenue financing program C-6 9// I 4, � 1 0 Date April 23 -May 9, 1986: _Al. Event Evensen Dodge reviews proposed finan- cing program with Moody's Investors Service April 29, 1986: Meeting of City Staff, Metcalf & Eddy and Evensen Dodge to review preliminary rate study conclusions and recommen- dations May 14, 1986: Meeting of Finance Director, Bond Counsel and Evanson Dodge to review draft of revenue bond indenture resolution May 20, 1986: City Council sets date of hearing on rate adjustments for June 3, 1986 May 22, 1986: Metcalf & Eddy rate study submitted to City Council May 22, 1986: Preliminary financing recommendations from Finance Directors and Evanson Dodge submitted to the City Council May 27, 19861 Informal Council discussion of rate study and financing program 9i/ t� Date Event June 3, 1986: City Council hearing on rate adjustments; first reading on rate ordi- nance June 3, 1986: City Council sets June 17 for hearing on issuance of bonds. June 9, 1986: Construction cost estimate submitted to City Staff for final bond sizing pur- poses June 12, 1986: Presale Analysis prepared by Evensen Dodge and submitted to City Staff June 17, 1986: City Council gives second and third reading consideration to rate ordinance June 17, 1986: City Council holds hearing on issuance of bonds and authorizes bond sale for July 22, 1986 June 26L_1986: Meeting of City representatives and Evensen Dodge with Hoodyis Investors service in New York C-8 9i/ 0 Date Event July 1, 1986: Rate adjustments become effective July 22, 1986: Bond sale and City Council confirmation action August 22, 1986: Closing of Bond issue; City receives and invests funds Aug. -Sept., 1986: Construction bidding process Oct., 1986 -Oct., 1988: Construction t - I o, City of Iowa City MEMORANDUM DATE: May 23, 1986 TO: City Council FROM: Acting City Manager RE: Material in Friday's Packet Informal agendas and meeting schedule. qo 9 Agenda for special meeting of May 27, 1986. 9/ i Information on water and sewer systems. Memorandum from the Fire Chief regarding Iowa City insurance classification. /Z Memorandum from the City Attorney regarding review of bidding procedure used in purchase of microcomputer. Article: Sewers runneth over 9/S� I Calendar for June 1986. 9/S —,A; City of Iowa City MEMORANDUM DATE! May 23, 1986 TO: City Council FROM: Acting City Manager RE: Informal Agendas and Meeting Schedule MEMORIAL DAY - CITY OFFICES CLOSED 6:30 - 7:30 P.M. Council Chambers 6:30 P.M. - Special Council Meeting - Separate agenda posted 6:40 P.M. - Discuss water/sewer rates 7:10 P.M. - Council time, Council committee reports NO INFORMAL COUNCIL MEETING 7:00 P.M. - Informal Council Meeting - Council Chambers luesda 7:00 P.M. - Review zoning matters 7:15 P.M. - Council agenda, Council time, Council committee reports 7:30 P.M. - Regular Council Meeting - Council Chambers PENDING LIST Leasing of Airport Land for Commercial Use Newspaper Vending Machines Stormwater Management Ordinance Review Economic Development Revolving Loan Fund Mesquakie Park Development Mesquakie Park Name Change Appointments to Board of Library Trustees Resources Conservation Commission, and Mayor's Youth Employment Board - June 17, 1986. 01,010 G r � City of Iowa City MEMORANDUM Date: May 23, 1986 To: The Honorable Mayor and City Council From: Larry Donner, Fire Chief �X_ Re: Iowa City Insurance Classification Periodically the Insurance Services Office (ISO) surveys our community to establish an insurance classification rating. This insurance classifica- tion is one of several elements used in developing fire insurance rates for property within the city. ISO ratings are expressed on a relative scale of 1 to 10, with 1 being the best rating and 10 representing no fire protection. Iowa City, last rated in 1975, is a Class 4. The ISO will be in Iowa City for a week beginning June 2 to evaluate our fire defenses. In addition to fire department operations, they will study water supply and distribution I will let you know if we'experience any change in insurance classifica- tion. bdw4/1 =1'L, r City of Iowa City MEMORANDUM Date: May 20, 1986 To: Mayor Ambrisco and City Councilmembers From: Terrence L. Timmins, City Attorney Re: Review of Bidding Procedure Used in Purchase of Microcomputer Introduction: As requested by the City Council, Acting Finance Director Kevin O'Malley prepared a memo outlining the procedure used in the City's recent acquisition of microcomputer hardware and software. Also at the Council's request, I have completed a review of that procedure as outlined in Mr. O'Malley's memo, and will herein offer my comments on it. Background: Chapters 23 and 384 of the Iowa Code both contain provisions requiring cities to competitively bid the construction of public improvements. However, the Code contains no provisions regulating the purchase by cities of goods or equipment. Consequently, the purchase of goods and equipment is a matter that is left to the discretion of local governmental units. Most cities of the size of Iowa City have centralized the purchasing process and regulate it internally in one way or another. Some cities have adopted an ordinance regulating the purchase of goods and equipment, while other cities regulate the process somewhat less formally by adopting a purchasing polity or pur- chase manual by resolution. The City of Iowa City has both a Purchasing Manual and a resolution pertain- ing to purchasing. The most current resolution, Resolution No. 85-366 adopted on December 17, 1985, governs purchases and contracts made by the City Manager or under the Manager's authority. The Resolution covers pur- chases of goods, supplies, equipment and materials in any amount as long as the purchase is budgeted, and also covers contracts for public improvements and for the provision of services that are budgeted as long as they do not exceed $25,000. The Purchasing Manual generally governs purchases and con- tracts made by the City Manager or by administrative staff within the limits established by the Resolution No. 85-366. Purchases of goods, supplies, materials and equipment that aren't budgeted, and contracts for public im- provements or services that aren't budgeted or that are over $25,000, have to come to the City Council for approval. It is against this backdrop that the propriety of the microcomputer purchase must be judged. Since the purchase of microcomputers was budgeted in the City Manager's budget, it was a purchase that the City Manager was authorized to make without City Council involvement, and subject only to the constraints and requirements established by the Purchasing Manual. The question then becomes whether or not the purchase was handled as per the constraints and requirements set forth in the Purchasing Manual. 9�3 -Al r Although the purchase of microcomputers did involve a competitive bid situa- tion, the purchase did depart from the norm somewhat. In most equipment purchases, the spec is written and put out to all dealers handling the equip- ment being sought. In this instance, because of the complexity of the equip- ment and its adaptation to use by the City, the decision was made by the City Manager to pre -evaluate and re -select the microcomputer hardware before actually goingng outbids. s a resu of that process, it was determine7 that IBM computers would best meet the City's needs, would be easiest to adapt to use simultaneous) by six departments, and would be the most reli- able and stable —productin the long run. Based on that reasoning, the deci- sion was made to "sole source bid" the IBM microcomputer hardware and to seek bids only from the three IBM dealers in the immediate area. The low bid for the IBM microcomputer hardware was accepted. This practice, sometimes known as "spec bidding" or "sole source bidding," is generally accepted and is legally defensible where special factors exist which make a particular specification or a particular brand name product most useful to the purchasing entity, and where competitor products lack the necessary or desired features offered by the "sole source." Product fea- tures, service availability, reliability, and company stability are all factors that can justify resort to a spec bid or a sole source bid. Obvi- ously, justification for "sole source bidding" has to be made on a case-by-case basis, preferably against the backdrop of some general criteria, standards, or guidelines. The Purchasing Manual in its present form does not describe a "spec bid" or "sole source bid" process, nor does it set forth any criteria, standards, or guidelines for determining when such a purchasing process should be used. The General Conditions and Instructions to Bidders, which are appended to the Purchasing Manual and which usually accompany each invitation for bids put out by the City, does make a reference to "Trade Names" at paragraph 20 thereof. It therein provides as follows: 20. TRADE NAMES. In case where an item is identified in Invitation to Bid by a manufacturer's name, trade name, catalog number, or reference, or its approved equal, it is understood that the bidder pro- poses to furnish the item so identified by the City unless a proposed equal is definitely indicated therein by the bidder. The reference to the above catalog number is intended to be descriptive but not restrictive and only to indicate to the prospective bidder articles that will be satisfactory. Bids on another make and catalog number will be considered, provided each bidder clearly states on the face of his proposal exactly what he proposed to furnish, and forwards with his bid, de- scriptive matter which will clearly indicate the character of the article covered by his bid. Part of it could be interpreted to allow spec or sole source bidding, while part of its seems to indicate that a bidder can in any event substitute an equivalent product. The General Conditions and Instructions to Bidders were 9V-5 _41 not, however, included in the invitation for bids put out to the three IBM microcomputer bidders. Those bid documents specified IBM microcomputers and did not provide for substitution of an equivalent product. Since the Council's intent regarding spec or sole source bidding is obscured by the language of the Purchasing Manual, it is difficult for me to opine whether or not the City administration followed the letter and intent of the manual in the purchase of the microcomputers. However, the sole source purchasing process and its justification was in this instance carefully reviewed and approved by the City Purchasing Agent, the Finance Director, and the City Manager. In my opinion, the justification advanced for use of a sole source bid process would in this case be legally defensible. My only recommendation is that when the Purchase Manual is updated, it provide for the use of spec or sole source bidding, and that it set forth some general criteria, standards or guidelines for use in determining when such a bidding proc ed ur bj2/1 01 r � Ij�ESS-CITIZEN Va. 143. No. 143 OUR VIEW Sewers runneth over Iowa Citlems who wondered why the city needs a better waste water treatment operation were up to their ankles in answers last weekend. The rainstorm that inundated the area dumped almost 6 Inches of water into the city's streets and sewage system. And the waste water operation simply wasn't able to hold it. Water backed up — into basements and playrooms and dens and bedrooms. It's not uncommon. In fact, it's been happening for years. Almost every time it rains, the waste water treatment plan is strained beyond capacity. The structure, built in 1935, can't thoroughly treat the 9 million gallons of sewage that flow through it every day. When it rains, the volume of liquid Increases, and the plant just can't handle it. In addition, many sewers in older neighborhoods are too small to handle the vol- ume of sewage that flows through them on dry days, and Iowa Citians have a mess on their hands every time it rains. Simply put, it means that when there are too many gallons of sewage and water in the system, improperly treated waste water rumneth over. last weekend, the samd scenario that has occurred time and time again was repeated — once again. Only this time, the rain made the problem a lot more visible to a lot more people. We know those people with still -soggy basements won't be convinced that the inconvenience and expense to residents is not the worst part of the problem. For years, the rain and the overloaded system have posed an environmental problem. When the system can't adequately process the volume of waste flowing into It, It simply dumps the City has Intermthe ittently violated r. standthe ards set by tast several he Environ- mental Protection Agency. There even was a federal warning of a fine, until the EPA lowered its standards and Iowa City got off the hook. The city council has been bantering around plans for a new or renovated waste water treatment plant that could treat the volume of waste the city now generates — and'handle it even when it rains. Completion of the plan must be a priority. Of course, it's going to be expensive, most likely to the tune of tens of millions of dollars'— most of which will be paid by residents. But frankly, there's no choice. The investment is critical and inevitable. Besides, at an average cost of $9 every two months, sewage service has been a steal. Even three -times that much would be a reasonable price to pay for consistently adequate service and the prospect of living without smelly water filling up the base- ment every time there's a heavy downpour. �,� -I ,.�. Mlahm.alfebinA.r !'d')a.� xr Lori, soNea LIn6 Carlen Nobe" t. 0"',Mewpinp editor fdilarrel fop. fdnor /roduchon D.reaer Jo -ph C. Code Curelelpn Direclor Michael t, taeYar Mary Iaha film Controller Adnreanp Dlrecror OUR VIEW Sewers runneth over Iowa Citlems who wondered why the city needs a better waste water treatment operation were up to their ankles in answers last weekend. The rainstorm that inundated the area dumped almost 6 Inches of water into the city's streets and sewage system. And the waste water operation simply wasn't able to hold it. Water backed up — into basements and playrooms and dens and bedrooms. It's not uncommon. In fact, it's been happening for years. Almost every time it rains, the waste water treatment plan is strained beyond capacity. The structure, built in 1935, can't thoroughly treat the 9 million gallons of sewage that flow through it every day. When it rains, the volume of liquid Increases, and the plant just can't handle it. In addition, many sewers in older neighborhoods are too small to handle the vol- ume of sewage that flows through them on dry days, and Iowa Citians have a mess on their hands every time it rains. Simply put, it means that when there are too many gallons of sewage and water in the system, improperly treated waste water rumneth over. last weekend, the samd scenario that has occurred time and time again was repeated — once again. Only this time, the rain made the problem a lot more visible to a lot more people. We know those people with still -soggy basements won't be convinced that the inconvenience and expense to residents is not the worst part of the problem. For years, the rain and the overloaded system have posed an environmental problem. When the system can't adequately process the volume of waste flowing into It, It simply dumps the City has Intermthe ittently violated r. standthe ards set by tast several he Environ- mental Protection Agency. There even was a federal warning of a fine, until the EPA lowered its standards and Iowa City got off the hook. The city council has been bantering around plans for a new or renovated waste water treatment plant that could treat the volume of waste the city now generates — and'handle it even when it rains. Completion of the plan must be a priority. Of course, it's going to be expensive, most likely to the tune of tens of millions of dollars'— most of which will be paid by residents. But frankly, there's no choice. The investment is critical and inevitable. Besides, at an average cost of $9 every two months, sewage service has been a steal. Even three -times that much would be a reasonable price to pay for consistently adequate service and the prospect of living without smelly water filling up the base- ment every time there's a heavy downpour. �,� -I r- N 2 t� M T W TH 8AM-Magistrate 3 10AM-Staff Meeting 8AM-Ma lstrate Court (Chambers) (Conf Room) g our, (Chambers) 7PM-Informal Council (Chamber 7:30PM-Formal P&Z 7:30PM-Riverfront (Chambers) 7:30PM-Informal (Chambers) 7(ChambCouncil Comm (Public Lib) P&Z (Sr. Center) /o 8:30AM-Housing !/ LOAM -Staff Mtg /z AM -Magistrate Appeals Board (Conf Room) 8AM-Magistrate Court (Chambers) (Public Library) 3PM-Senior Center Court (Chambers) 9AM-Housing Comm 4Comm (Senior oftr) (Public Librarvl 3:30PM-Co ittee Adjustment (Chamb gn CMmun}ty Ne 7PM-Pa ks & Rec `PJ ubic Library Corton Rec Center) 4F1 -Urban Epyiron 7:30PM-Historic 7:30PM-Airport Cor 8AM-Magistrate Court (Chambers) ivaM-Start Meetin (Conf Room) 8AM-Ma i trr�ate¢ Cour ZChambers 7PM-Informal 7:30PM-Council Council (Conf Rm (Chambers) 4pM-Design Review p 7(Chambers)al P62 7:30PM-Informal Committee P&Z (Sr. Center) (Public Library) 29 2q As- �'6 SAM -Magistrate Court (Chambers) LOAM -Staff Meeting (Conf Room) 8AM-Magistrate Court (Chambers) 7PM-Human Rights 4PM-Library Board Conon (Senior Ctr (Public Library) SAM -Magistrate Court (Chambers) 7PM-Informal Council (Chamber 1:30PM-Informal P&Z (Sr. Center) F M - A.P.A. Room) V