HomeMy WebLinkAboutSelectmen's Ad Hoc Water and Sewer Rate Study Committee Final Report -6-03-2005Final Report of the
Selectmen's Ad Hoc Water and Sewer Rate Study Committee
Town of Lexington, MA
Volume I
3 June 2005
Executive Summary / Introduction
Prompted by citizen questions regarding the fairness, appropriate inclusion of costs and increasing
charges of the water and sewer rates, the Board of Selectmen formed the Ad Hoc Water and Sewer
Rate Study Committee (Committee) in January 2004. The Committee was tasked with making a
comprehensive review of and advising the Selectmen on the methodology, structuring and policies
used in setting the water and sewer rates. The full text of the Board's charge appears at the end of
this Executive Summary.
The members of this Committee were well - qualified to take on this difficult and complex
assignment. Their skills and experience included: economics, utility management, engineering,
law, accounting, business, environmental protection and citizen advocacy. The Committee met
more than fifty times from January 2004 through the end of May 2005. Its members devoted a
significant amount of time between meetings to data collection and analysis. The Committee
appreciates the support of the many Town employees who assisted us and the thoughtful
contributions of the Selectmen liaisons.
As the Committee's examination progressed, a number of concerns were identified. These issues
were documented in the Committee's Interim Report on the Selectmen's Ad Hoc Water and Sewer
Rate Study Committee, 30 September 2004, a copy of which is attached (in Volume 2).
In its final report and recommendations, the Committee recognizes three broad themes:
1. Maintaining a safe, secure, well- maintained and well - financed water supply and
wastewater facility is a crucial service provided by the Town. Lexington's water and
sewer services are, by and large, operationally well - provided;
2. There are no clear, consistent or established policy guidelines for setting water and
sewer rates, as manifest in:
a. The steeply ascending rate block structure, which results in a significant
premium for larger families and other high - volume users and substantially
below -cost pricing for the lowest - volume users;
b. The inclusion of certain items in the water and sewer rate structure that may
more properly belong in the General Fund;
c. The inclusion of certain items in the water and sewer rate structure that are
duplicative, including deprecation, debt service and reserve deposits; and
d. The absence of a clear and consistent policy for financial reserves; and for
abatements and collection of overdue accounts;
11
3. There are problems in the Water and Sewer Enterprise Funds' (EF) financial
management, manifest in:
a. Incorrect bills;
b. Difficulty maintaining accurate usage, billing and collection records, utilizing the
current municipal software platform (MUNIS); and
c. The absence of clear, consistent and transparent accounting statements that
meaningfully and reliably report the financial status of the enterprise funds.
Clear, written policies should be adopted addressing the broad issues we have identified in order to
provide consistency and continuity in the rate - setting process and guidance to the staff. Central to
these policies should be the concept that the Water and Sewer operations should operate as a self -
sufficient, stand - alone, transparent accounting entity that is fully accountable to its ratepayers and
that neither subsidizes, nor is subsidized by, the General Fund.
The Committee unanimously makes two fundamental recommendations that are essential for the
implementation of all other recommendations described in this report:
Financial management of the EF should reflect sound business principles, with all costs
properly established and clearly accounted for utilizing Generally Accepted Accounting
Principles (GAAP), and
2. In order to provide that sound financial management on a day -to -day basis, and to
implement the rate - setting and financial accounting policies we are recommending, the
Town should appoint a qualified Business Manager for the EF who is directly accountable
for the financial operations of the EF and responsible for representing the interests of the EF
and its ratepayers in negotiations with other town departments for supporting services.
The Committee is aware that the Town's outside auditors are currently engaged in a special audit of
the Water and Sewer Enterprise Fund. This audit was commenced in late 2004 to determine the
reasons for certain billing irregularities and a significant drop in the level of the EF's cash reserves
as of the end of FY04. The Committee has decided not to delay the submission of this Final Report
until the completion of that special audit. However, the Committee believes that many of the
concerns and recommendations it has identified in this report — particularly its recommendation to
engage a Business Manager who can provide better accounting oversight and manage the financial
operations of the EF on a day -to -day basis — may parallel those of the town's auditors.
The Committee's itemized recommendations and detailed discussions are presented in the following
sections. The overarching goal in all the recommendations is to make the rate - setting system more
transparent, accountable, equitable and consistent. The Committee understands that some
recommendations may have to be phased -in to avoid General Fund budget disruptions. Phasing -in
is acceptable provided there is a commitment to and schedule for implementing changes.
iii
Selectmen's Charge to the Ad Hoc Water and Sewer Rate Study Committee:
Advising the Selectmen regarding the methodology, structuring and
assumptions made in determining the water and sewer rates. The Committee
shall consider the feasibility of continuing to appropriate funds through the
water and sewer enterprise accounts for in lieu of tax payments. In addition,
the Committee shall examine the inclining block rate system, its strengths and
weaknesses and consider the assumptions made to determine the
accountability in direct charges that are part of the rate setting process. The
Committee should consider the impact of any changes that would be
recommended.
IV
Table of Contents
Executive Summary / Introduction ................................................ .............................ii
Participants.............................................................................................................
..............................2
1.
Summary
....................................................................... ..............................3
1.1.
Introduction .......................................................................................... ..............................3
1.2.
Summary of recommendations ............................................................. ..............................3
1.2.1
Management recommendations ................................. ..............................3
1.2.2
Policy recommendations .......................................... ..............................4
1.3.
Implementation plan ............................................................................. ..............................5
1.3.1.
Review of the Final Report ............................................................ ..............................5
1.3.2.
Hiring the Business Manager ......................................................... ..............................5
1.3.3
Make Rate Policy Decisions .......................................................... ..............................6
1.3.4
Initial activities of the Business Manager ...................................... ..............................6
2.
Basis for recommendations .................................................. ..............................6
2.1.
Water and Sewer Enterprise Funds ...................................................... ..............................7
2.2.
Business Manager ................................................................................ ..............................7
2.2.1.
Qualifications and Financial Management Responsibilities for Business Manager
.... 7
2.2.2.
Consumer representation responsibilities ....................................... ..............................8
2.3.
Financial Reports .................................................................................. ..............................9
2.4
Rates .................................................................... .............................10
2.4.1
Statutory constraints on rates .................................... .............................11
2.4.2
Usage characteristics of water and sewer customers ......... .............................11
2.4.3
Background on block sizes ...................................... .............................12
2.4.4
Recommended number of blocks ............................... .............................13
2.4.5
Amount of revenue required ..................................... .............................13
2.4.6
Steepness of rates .................................................. .............................13
2.4.7
Dollar rates for the blocks ........................................ .............................14
2.4.8
Alternative rates ................................................... .............................17
2.4.9
Effects of other recommendations (FY06 illustration) ....... .............................19
2.5.
Indirects ............................................................................................. ...............................
22
2.6.
PILOTs ................................................................................................ .............................22
2.7.
Depreciation ........................................................................................ .............................24
2.8.
Capital and Debt .................................................................................. .............................25
2.9.
Reserves .............................................................................................. .............................25
2.10.
Billing Frequency ................................................................................ .............................26
2.11.
Billing and Accounting software ......................................................... .............................26
2.12.
Accounts Receivable and Liens .......................................................... .............................27
2.13.
Abatements and adjustments ............................................................... .............................27
2.14.
Direct Costs ......................................................................................... .............................28
3.
Appendix A - Individual Statements ...................................... .............................29
3.1
Lorraine Fournier ................................................................................ .............................29
3.2
Dave Laredo ........................................................................................ .............................30
3.3
Wade Tambor ...................................................................................... .............................33
3.4
Bruce Williams .................................................................................... .............................33
3.5
Loren Wood ......................................................................................... .............................36
4.
Appendix B - Sampe Financial Reports .................................. .............................38
5.
Appendix C - Financial Impacts ........................................... .............................44
6.
Appendix D - FY06 rate illustration methodolgy ........................ .............................45
1
Participants
The participants included nine Appointed Members (with voting powers) of the Selectmen's Ad
Hoc Water and Sewer Rate Study Committee, Liaisons to the Committee, Lexington Town Staff,
and Citizens. The Committee invited a number of guest presenters on various topics.
Water and Sewer Rate Study Committee, Appointed Members
1. John Bartenstein (resigned 30 June 2004, appointed to Appropriation, and as liaison)
2. Larry Belvin (resigned 30 August 2004)
3. Kathryn Benjamin
4. Paul Chernick
5. Dan Fenn (resigned 2004, appointed to Interim Town Manager Search Committee)
6. Lorraine Fournier
7. Ann Gilbert (appointed 27 September 2004)
8. David Laredo
9. Jim Osten
10. Wade Tambor (appointed 13 September 2004)
11. Bruce Williams (appointed 13 September 2004)
12. Loren Wood (Chairman)
Liaisons
Selectmen
Jeanne Krieger- until spring 2004
Selectmen
Richard Pagett- after spring 2004
Appropriation
Rick Eurich
Appropriation
John Bartenstein (following appointment to Appropriation)
Lexington Staff
Appropriation Committee, on financial issues
DPW, Director
William Hadley
DPW, Water /Sewer Supt.
Dennis Meehan
Finance Department
Michael DiPietro
Fin. Dept., W/S Rev. Off.
Rose Ducharme
Finance Department
Michael Young
Consultant to Town
Chris Woodcock
Guest Presenters
John Bartenstein
Attorney, on PILOTS
Norman Cohen
former Town Counsel, on enterprise fund legal issues
Peter Enrich
Attorney, on PILOTS
Jay Gonzales
Palmer and Dodge, Town's law firm, on enterprise legal issues
Alan Levine
Appropriation Committee, on financial issues
Tom Lindberg
MWRA, on MWRA issues
Leo Norton
MWRA, on MWRA issues
David Sheehan
formerly of Mass. Dept. of Revenue, on debt issues
2
1. Summary
1. 1. Introduction
This is Volume I of two volumes. Volume II is pending, and will be a compilation of various
documents, including the complete set of minutes, the Interim Report of 30 September 2004, the
document entitled PILOT Material for Selectmen, the PILOT memo prepared for the Selectmen by
Town Counsel, Palmer & Dodge, and detailed metered usage data that the Committee derived from
a MUNIS billing run.
1.2. Summary of recommendations
This Section contains the recommendations of the Water and Sewer Rate Study Committee
(WSRSC). Sections 1.2.1 and 1.2.2 contain concise statements of the recommendations, divided
into management and policy categories. Section 1.3 proposes an implementation plan for the
recommendations that the Selectmen choose to adopt. Section 2 discusses the recommendations in
more detail.
1.2.1. Management recommendations
The section and page numbers following the recommendations reference the more detailed
discussion of the recommendation later in this report.
Management: The Committee unanimously recommends that the Town obtain a water and sewer
Business Manager to manage the water and sewer Enterprise Funds (EF), increase efficiency, and
support the Selectmen's policy decisions. (2.2, page 7)
Financial reports: The Committee unanimously recommends that financial reports including a) an
Operating statement, b) a Cash flow statement, and c) an Assets & Liabilities statement, be prepared
at least quarterly using generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP). (2.3, page 9)
Indirects: The Committee unanimously recommends that the Business Manager represent the rate-
payers to determine the level of indirect costs, using quantifiable measures that are transparent.
(2.5, page 22)
Billing Frequency: The Committee unanimously recommends that the Business Manager develop a
plan for implementing quarterly billing. (2. 10, page 26)
Billiniz and Accountiniz software: The Committee unanimously recommends that the Business
Manager research and acquire utility- specific software for the EF financial operations including
report generation and billing and collection, and that those activities be supervised by the Business
Manager. (2.11, page 26)
Committee's future role: The Committee unanimously recommends that the Selectmen, by
appropriate appointments, make some members of this Committee available to assist the Selectmen
and Business Manager in interpreting and implementing the findings and recommendations herein.
3
1.2.2. Policy recommendations
Water usage is metered and charged for in hundreds of cubic feet (hcf) where one hcf equals 748
gallons. Sewer usage is also charged by the hcf, and is based on water usage. The recommended
rate structures are given below. Section 2.4 presents two alternative rate structures, but only for
comparison and informational purposes. The Committee only addressed rates for accounts that are
billed semi - annually (block rate, irrigation and municipal). Monthly accounts (Bedford, Hanscom
and the VA Hospital) are outside the scope of the Selectmen's charge to the Committee, and we
assume that they will continue to be handled as in the past.
Irrijzation rates: The Committee unanimously recommends that water used for irrigation or other
outdoor use on a second meter continue to be charged at a flat rate equal to the highest block rate.
This is the current policy. (2.4.7, page 15)
Municipal rates: The Committee, by 6:1, recommends that all municipal and school buildings pay
for water and sewer at a flat rate that is equal to the average cost, computed as described in Section
2.4. The FY04 rates ($1.10 for water and $1.74 for sewer) were far below the average rates of
$3.27 for water and $7.39 for sewer. The Committee's analysis indicates that the actual FY04
municipal charges were $139,637. The charges at the recommended rates would be $543,479.
Adding the full increase of $403,841 in a single year would probably cause too much disruption to
the Town budget. We therefore suggest a transition period of up to four years to phase in the
recommendation. At the fall 2005 rate - setting, the municipal rates for water and sewer should be
raised 25% of the way towards reaching the average costs, and by an additional 25% in each of the
next three years. To illustrate, had this been done for FY04, the rates would have been $1.64 for
water and $3.15 for sewer.
Residential and commercial rates: The Committee, by 7:1, recommends that the existing four -block
rate structure for residential, commercial and institutional use be reduced to three blocks. Assuming
semi - annual billing, we recommend blocks from 0 to 40 hcf, 41 to 80, and 81 and up. (If quarterly
billing is adopted, the block sizes should be divided by two.) (2.4.4, page 12)
The Committee agrees that the present block rates for water and sewer are too steep and, by a vote
of 6:2, recommends that the block rates be restructured as follows:
1. We recommend that the middle block be set at the projected average rate.
2. We recommend as a mid- to long -term objective (unless the water and sewer expenses
decline significantly) that the rate for the highest block be set not more than 20% over the
middle rate. Presently, the high rate is 53% above the middle rate.
3. To provide for a smooth transition to this objective, we recommend that the high rate remain
at $4.99 until that rate is not more than 20% above the middle rate (average rate). Thereafter
the high rate can be increased, but should never be set more than 20% above the middle rate.
(2.4.6, page 13)
4. Finally, we recommend that the lowest block be set at whatever level is necessary to achieve
the required revenue, after the middle block and the highest block have been set. This block
rate will be somewhat lower than the average cost.
in
Special Contracts: The Committee unanimously recommends that the Business Manager be
responsible for the periodic review and negotiation of rates charged to customers that are billed
monthly under special contracts (Hanscom, VA Hospital and Town of Bedford).
PILOTS: The Committee, by 6 to 2, recommends that the PILOTS (payments -in- lieu -of- taxes) be
phased out. (2.6, page 22)
Depreciation: The Committee, by 7 to 1, recommends that depreciation be excluded from the rate -
setting process. (2.7, page 24)
Capital and Debt: The Committee unanimously recommends that the Business Manager prepare
and follow (with the approval of the Selectmen) a long -term maintenance and capital improvement
plan and identify those projects that should be funded by borrowing. (Section 2.8, page 25)
Reserves: The Committee, by 7 to 1, recommends that operating reserves of about 5% of gross
yearly revenues be the yearly target. This would have been about $750,000 at the FY04 revenues.
(2.9, page 25)
Accounts Receivable and Liens: The Committee unanimously recommends that the Business
Manager establish and/or document policies for the collection of accounts receivable and the
imposition of liens, and submit it to the Selectmen for approval. Once the policies are established,
their enforcement should be supervised by the Business Manager. (2.12, page 27)
Abatements and adjustments: The Committee unanimously recommends that the Business
Manager, in consultation with the DPW personnel and the Selectmen, document current policies
and procedures or modifications and additions thereto, for making abatements and adjustments, and
that the customers be informed of said policies. (2.13, page 27)
1.3. Implementation plan
The Committee unanimously recommends that the implementation plan described below be
followed regarding our recommendations.
1.3.1. Review of the Final Report
This Final Report and the documents that the Committee will supply in Volume II (including the 30
September 2004 Interim Report) contain a great deal of information that supports our
recommendations. The Committee would be pleased to answer questions about this material in
person or in writing.
1.3.2. Hiring the Business Manager
The Committee has noted that the FY06 budget contains a "slot" for a person to take on the role that
we call "Business Manager ". The Committee suggests that the job description and other aspects of
the hiring process utilize the material in Section 2.2 herein, and that the position be filled promptly.
(2.2, page 7)
5
1.3.3 Make Rate Policy Decisions
The Committee recommends that the Selectmen expeditiously make those decisions that affect rate -
setting so they may be implemented in the FY06 rate - setting to occur in the fall of 2005. These
include deciding whether to adopt the Committee's recommendations on the:
• water and sewer block sizes,
• block rate principles,
• municipal rate,
• irrigation rate;
• phase -out of the PILOTS;
• exclusion of depreciation from the budget;
• reserve target;
• setting of indirect costs.
1.3.4 Initial activities of the Business Manager
Once the Business Manager is on board, we suggest that he /she:
• make a thorough study of this Final Report and its Volume II;
• assist the Selectmen in developing policies in the areas suggested herein;
• develop an understanding of the current EF accounting practices and procedures;
• develop formats for the financial reports we recommend;
• collaborate with the Selectmen and Town Manager to develop quantitative methods and
procedures to determine the indirect expenses;
• document the policies adopted by the Selectmen, and document all agreed upon procedures;
• investigate, in consultation with appropriate MIS personnel, financial and billing software
and computer platforms for the water and sewer EF uses;
• recommend the identified financial software and computer platform to the Selectmen and
Comptroller;
• supervise the procurement of the financial and billing software and computer platform,
installation, and training of users.
2. Basis for recommendations
The discussions in this section are in each case endorsed by at least a majority of the Committee.
Several Committee members have additional views on various topics. These views are presented in
Appendix A, Individual Statements. (page 29)
The recommendations and discussions that follow should guide the Business Manager, with the
approval of the Selectmen. The Committee understands that some recommendations will have to be
phased in to avoid General Fund budget disruptions. Phasing is acceptable provided there is a
commitment and schedule for completing the changes. In some cases, the Committee has
recommended a schedule.
no
2.1. Water and Sewer Enterprise Funds
Providing water is an essential service. It must not be jeopardized by inconsistent and unreliable
funding, such as can occur with limits on property tax rates and competing priorities for funding
Town services. Enterprise Funds (referred to as "EF' in this report) are popular accounting
mechanisms for municipalities. Enterprise Funds are not separate entities from the Town. They are
an accounting mechanism for certain services that are funded by user fees; with its independent
revenue source, an EF is not limited by Proposition 2 -1/2 constraints and does not compete directly
with other Town services funded by property tax revenues. Enterprise Funds also make it easier to
closely monitor and track costs and revenues. Town Meeting adopted the use of Enterprise Fund
accounting for Lexington's water and sewer services in 1987. Although EFs are not the only way to
accomplish the above purposes, the Committee fully supports their use.
2.2. Business Manager
The EF is about 11% of the Town's total expenditures. There is no one individual who is currently
responsible for overseeing financial management of the EF. The Director of the DPW and the
Director of Finance share the responsibility. Nor is there a separate water and sewer board to
monitor the rates and advocate for the consumers. That job is currently under the purview of the
Board of Selectmen, who must represent the interests of the Town as a whole while simultaneously
representing the interests of the consumers.
The Committee recommends that a new position of Business Manager be filled, that is responsible
to the Comptroller and the Selectmen for financial management of the EF, and represents the
interests of the ratepayers in negotiations with other Town departments and in front of the Board of
Selectmen acting in their capacity as the Lexington Water Board.
2.2.1. Qualifications and Financial Management Responsibilities for Business Manager
The Business Manager's ideal qualifications include education and/or experience in municipal
financial management and municipal utility management accounting. Knowledge of water and
sewer operations and general business practices would be a plus. Also, the new manager should
have the ability to interact cooperatively with other Town personnel. The Business Manager would:
1. prepare financial reports, including Operating, Cash Flow and Asset & Liability statements,
and present them to the Selectmen and to Town Meeting under Article 2
2. work with DPW personnel and prepare and present an annual business plan to the Selectmen
with comparative budget financial statements
3. work with the Comptroller to develop the methodology and amounts of all indirect
allocation of costs
4. work with DPW personnel to present recommendations and alternatives to the Selectmen for
changes in consumer rates
5. oversee billing and collection operations
6. work with the Comptroller and Director of Public Works in developing and implementing
long range capital financing plans
7. respond to financial inquiries from citizens.
7
The organizational chart in Figure 2.1 -1 shows the structure which the Committee believes is
necessary to achieve the balance of accountability and authority needed for the Business Manager to
be effective in the areas above. The solid lines represent lines of organization, and the dashed line
symbolizes the Committee's opinion of the Business Manager's responsibility as representative of
the rate payers in front of the Selectmen and their capacity as the Lexington Water Board.
Rate - setting
Figure 2.1 -1 Organizational Chart
Board of Selectmen
(Water Board)
Town Manager
Comptroller Finance DPW
Director
Water & Sewer Revenue Water &Sewer
Business Manager I Director Superintendent
Billing
2.2.2. Consumer representation responsibilities
Should there be differences in opinion on the amount of an indirect allocation in the EF budget, the
Business Manager shall be the representative of the rate - paying customers during the resolution by
the Selectmen. If the Business Manager believes that the resolution is not fair to the rate - paying
customers, he /she shall represent the customers during a final resolution made by Town Meeting in
accordance with the DOR publication: Enterprise Funds, MGL Chapter 44 s.53F -1/2, June 2002, in
the Frequently Asked Questions section, number 17.
"If, however, the enterprise still cannot agree with the community's financial officials
what figure should be used for indirect and allocated costs, the appropriate body to
resolve the matter is the city council or town meeting. Disagreements should be
brought to the Comptroller and/or the Selectmen, and, if necessary, to Town Meeting."
As a practical matter, the Committee believes it is desirable to resolve conflicts before the
Selectmen.
2.3. Financial Reports
The State statutes and DOR regulations covering the EF require that:
a) all revenues be credited to the EF
b) surpluses be kept within the EF
c) surpluses be used only for rate relief or EF capital purchases
The statutes also allow deficits to be made up from the Town's General Fund, but this has not been
necessary since the time Lexington adopted the EF.
Presently, the only financial report that the Committee has seen is a budget prepared as part of the
rate - setting process. This report seems to be lacking the detail and format necessary for the
Selectmen, Town Meeting, finance committees and citizens to understand the financing
requirements of the EF. This in turn makes it difficult to set EF policies, manage the EF, and
respond to citizen complaints. The Committee believes that the recommended reporting system will
correct these deficiencies and provide an ongoing, comprehensive financial picture of the EF.
The three financial reports the Committee believes are the minimum to properly manage the EF are:
• an operating statement, reporting the net income, which is either a surplus (profit) or a loss.
It is sometimes referred to as a P &L statement. It contains revenues, expenses, and net
income. For each item it shows the original budget projection made at the beginning of the
fiscal year and the actual result for the end of the year.
• an assets statement, reporting the financial condition of the EF by presenting assets and
liabilities.
• a cash flow statement, reporting on the factors which affect the generation of cash (net
income from the operating statement is not a measure of net cash). The report shows if the
cash needs of the EF are being met, and includes items such as accounts receivable,
inventories, cash from financing, principal repayments, etc.
Examples of formats for each of the recommended reports are shown in Appendix B. These reports
should be prepared at least quarterly, and comparisons and variances between planned performance
and actual performance should be discussed.
2.4. Rates
Rates are a function of the required revenue (i.e., the projected expense budget less the non -rate
revenues), and the projected usage of water and sewer services. The recommended rate - making
policies are illustrated using FY04 as an example. Enterprise Fund expense recommendations are
illustrated using the FY06 water and sewer budgets that appear in the 2006 Recommended Budget
(Blue Book) under programs 3700 and 3800. Rate design for the semi - annually billed accounts
involves making decisions on the following:
1. Block sizes (in hcf)
2. Number of blocks
3. Amount of the required revenue
4. Usage characteristics of the water and sewer customers
5. Steepness of the rates in successive blocks
6. Dollar rate charged in each block, in accordance with usage and the desired steepness, so as
to produce the required revenues
Z
In FY04, Lexington had the fourth highest rates of the 24 municipalities that obtain both water and
sewer from the MWRA. This is due in part to the fact that none of the other municipalities charge
PILOTS, and that Lexington may be more aggressive and comprehensive in assessing indirect costs
(i.e., costs transferred to the EF from other Town Departments.) Additionally, our rates are second
from the top in steepness. Neighboring families in Lexington may pay higher rates from one
another for a relatively slight increase in amount of water used. These and related issues prompted
the Board of Selectmen to form this committee and requested it to examine the inclining block rate
system currently in use. This Committee is well qualified to study rates with its collective talents,
education, and backgrounds in economics, utility management, engineering, law, accounting,
business, environmental protection and citizen advocacy.
This Section describes our analyses and recommendations made with inputs from DPW staff and
the Town's rate consultant. The dollar rates illustrated herein in Section 2.4.7 correspond to FY04
revenues and usages. This provides concreteness, and allows comparison to the actual FY04 rates.
The dollar amounts in Section 2.4.9 for FY06 depend on the FY06 projected budget and usages
experienced in FY05, and the extent to which our expense recommendations are adopted. The
illustration assumes all recommendations are adopted.
2.4.1. Statutory constraints on rates
The setting of municipal water and sewer rates is subject to three statutory constraints.
First, as a general rule, water and sewer rates must be "just and equitable." See M.G.L. c. 41, §
69B ( "the selectmen ... may regulate the use of the water and fix and collect just and equitable
prices and rates for the use thereof'); M.G.L. c. 83, § 16 (selectmen ... may from time to time
establish just and equitable annual charges for the use of common sewers "). This standard gives the
selectmen "considerable discretion in determining the methods of fixing prices or rates," and rates
will be upheld as long as they have some rational basis. See Henry B. Byors & Sons, Inc. v. Board
of Water Commissioners, 358 Mass. 354, 358 (1970); Morton v. Town of Hanover, 43 Mass. App.
Ct. 197, 205 (1997).
Second, descending block rate structures are prohibited. M.G.L. c. 40, § 39L ( "[n]o local body shall
charge for water or sewer services on a descending unit rate basis. ")
Finally, municipalities within the MWRA must charge for water utilizing an increasing block rate
with at least two rate blocks. M.G.L. c. 165, § 2B ( "All municipalities or water districts within the
jurisdiction of the Massachusetts Water Resources Authority ... shall institute water charges and
fees that incorporate a base rate for all users; provided, that said base rate shall be increased at an
increasing block rate to fairly reflect the resource demand and consumption of high volume users of
water "). There is no similar requirement for sewer charges.
2.4.2 Usage characteristics of water and sewer customers
Rates can only be effectively designed if past usage is known. The Committee agreed to work with
the actual usages and revenues in FY04. The usage in the Table 2.4.2 -1 below shows the actual use
by the Residential accounts in the spring 2004 billing period, determined by the Committee by
analysis of a MUNIS billing run for about 28 July 2004.
10
Table 2.4.2 -1 Spring FY04 residential customer usage data
From
To
#users
Pct.users
Cum. Pct.
users
HCF used
Pct. hcf
Revenue
Pct.
Revenue
Cum. Pct.
Revenue
1
5
123
1.4%
1.4%
297
0.1%
$2,106
0.1%
0.1%
6
10
298
3.3%
4.7%
2189
0.5%
$15,520
0.4%
0.5%
11
20
1048
11.6%
16.3%
16624
4.2%
$117,865
3.2%
3.7%
21
30
1603
17.7%
34.1%
43818
11.0%
$327,435
8.9%
12.5%
31
40
1905
21.0%
55.2%
68639
17.2%
$544,382
14.7%
27.3%
41
50
1528
16.9%
72.1%
77768
19.5%
$655,430
17.7%
45.0%
51
60
1050
11.6%
83.8%
56977
14.3%
$518,554
14.0%
59.1%
61
70
623
6.9%
90.7%
41090
10.3%
$392,004
10.6%
69.7%
71
80
299
3.3%
94.0%
22758
5.7%
$224,631
6.1%
75.8%
81
90
205
2.3%
96.3%
17179
4.3%
$178,608
4.8%
80.6%
91
100
107
1.2%
97.4%
10114
2.5%
$114,015
3.1%
83.7%
101
110
70
0.8%
98.2%
7264
1.8%
$86,320
2.3%
86.0%
111
120
33
0.4%
98.6%
3784
0.9%
$47,209
1.3%
87.3%
121
130
19
0.2%
98.8%
2363
0.6%
$30,521
0.8%
88.1%
131
140
16
0.2%
99.0%
2152
0.5%
$28,639
0.8%
88.9%
141
150
10
0.1%
99.1%
1437
0.4%
$19,566
0.5%
89.4%
151
160
8
0.1%
99.2%
2349
0.6%
$32,856
0.9%
90.3%
161
170
9
0.1%
99.3%
1486
0.4%
$21,102
0.6%
90.9%
171
180
7
0.1%
99.4%
1217
0.3%
$17,522
0.5%
91.4%
181
190
9
0.1%
99.5%
1647
0.4%
$24,019
0.7%
92.0%
191
200
3
0.0%
99.5%
585
0.1%
$8,659
0.2%
92.2%
200
100000
46
0.5%
100.0%
17458
4.4%
$286,569
7.8%
100.0%
9019
100.0%
399195
0
$3,693,530
• Fifty -five percent (55 %) of residential users are in the first two current blocks (0 -20 hcf and
21 -40 hcf). They generate about 27% of the EF's revenues. The Committee concluded that
the rates for these lower volume users should be increased to be more equitable.
• The next 39% of residential users are in the next block (41 -80 hcf). They generate about
49% of revenues. They are paying close to their fair share vis -a -vis average costs.
• The remaining 6% of residential users are in the top block. They generate about 24% of
revenues. These users currently are significantly subsidizing both lower volume users and
municipal users. The Committee believes that rates for these users should not be increased
until the other users are paying more of their fair share (i.e., those users now being
subsidized should be first to cover required rate increases until a better balance, based on
equity, is achieved).
Other categories of customers include:
• Those with separate meters for irrigation or other outdoor use who are charged at a flat rate
at a premium.
• Commercial/industrial users and public users (e.g. churches) who are charged the block rates.
• Municipal users (e.g. Town buildings and schools) who are charged at a heavily subsidized
flat rate. The Committee recommends gradually increasing the municipal flat rate up to the
average rate over a period of four years.
• There are approximately 315 customers from all categories using over 100 hcf per billing
cycle (excluding customers billed separately for irrigation). About 79 exceed 200 hcf per
cycle. The Committee recommends that, at some future time, the Business Manager should
review and determine their water use characteristics for operational and financial planning
purposes.
11
2.4.3 Background on block sizes
In 1999, the block sizes of 0 -20 hcf, 21 -40 hcf, 41 -80 hcf, and 81 hcf and up were proposed and
adopted. These sizes were designed assuming quarterly. big. But, they were applied to the
existing semi - annual billing structure. Changing the frequency of billing requires changing the
block sizes. For semi - annual billing, the block sizes should have been 0 -40 hcf, 41 -80 hcf, 81 -160
hcf, and 161 hcf and up.
The average Lexington family uses about 90 hcf /year, or 45 hcf /per half -year, or 22.5 hcf /quarter-
year. The proposed block sizes billed quarterly would have most families paying in the first rate
block. Using these block sizes for semi - annual billing has resulted in compressed, or much steeper
rates than intended, with many households paying at the second, if not the third block rate. One of
the other consequences of these misapplied block sizes is that the lowest volume users have
received a greater subsidy than was intended. While their bills will result in a significant percentage
increase with the new recommended rates, the actual dollar increases will be modest.
Table 2.4.3 -1 compares what the actual FY04 annual bills were with what they would have been, if
the four blocks been set as intended in 1999.
Table 2.4.3 -1 Comparison of Actual FY04 Water and Sewer Bills and
FY04 Bills Adjusted to Show the Intended Block Sizes
Use per
half year
Current
water /sewer
rates
Yearly bill
with current
block sizes
Rates for
intended
blocks
Yearly bill
with
"intended
Increase
(decrease)
Change in %
increase
(decrease)
5
$2.20/$4.89
$71
$2.47/$5.48
$80
$9
12.3%
10
$2.20/$4.89
$142
$2.47/$5.48
$159
$17
12.3%
20
$2.20/$4.89
$284
$2.47/$5.48
$318
$34
12.3%
30
$3.06/$6.05
$466
$2.47/$5.48
$478
1 $12
2.5%
40
$3.06/$6.05
$648
$2.47/$5.48
$637
($11)
(1.7 %)
50
$3.82/$8.14
$887
$3.43/$6.78
$841
($46)
(5.2 %)
60
$3.82/$8.14
$1,126
$3.43/$6.78
$1,045
($81)
(7.2 %)
70
$3.82/$8.14
$1,366
$3.43/$6.78
$1,250
($116)
(8.5 %)
80
$3.82/$8.14
$1,605
$3.43/$6.78
$1,454
($151)
(9.4 %)
90
$4.99/$13.13
$1,967
$4.28/$9.13
$1,723
($244)
(12.4 %)
100
$4.99/$13.13
$2,330
$4.28/$9.13
$1,990
($340)
(14.6 %)
2.4.4 Recommended number of blocks
The Committee considered one (corresponding to a flat rate), two, and three blocks. Working with
the goal of making the rates between the blocks less steep, it was understood that the range within
each block would be expanded, at least at the low end. Knowing that nearly 100% of households
use no more than 100 hcf/half -year and that 55% of households use not more than 40 hcf per half -
year we compromised on three blocks, with ranges from 0 -40 hcf, 41 -80 hcf and 81+ hcf.
12
2.4.5 Amount of revenue required
The Committee agreed to use the actual revenues collected from the block rate payers in FY04 as
the illustrative revenue requirement, namely $10,445,728. So, whatever the Committee was to
decide about the steepness of the rates in the agreed upon three blocks, the total revenues had to add
up to $10,445,728. The decision to use this value implies that the rates and usages for, and thus the
revenues from, other sources (irrigation, municipal accounts, Bedford, Hanscom, and the VA
Hospital) would be unchanged for the illustration.
2.4.6 Steepness of rates
Having agreed on the number and sizes of blocks, having assumed the revenue requirement, and
knowing the actual FY04 usage in each block, the Committee considered what policies or
guidelines to use in setting the steepness of the rates. The following considerations were identified
as influencing members' choices for the steepness of block rates in the FY04 illustration. They are
listed in alphabetical order:
• Conservation
• Costs to serve various user categories
• Equity to different user sizes (e.g., household size)
• Possible legal challenges to heavy municipal subsidies
• Seasonal usage
• Statutory requirements for rates
Committee members had different views on these considerations. Some members were more
concerned with conservation, while others were more concerned with equity. There was even
disagreement as to what "equity" means, and the degree to which steep rates encourage
conservation. Some members were concerned with legal aspects of flat rates, while others believed
there was no risk, noting that 14 of 24 communities that get water and sewer from the MWRA have
flat rates. Some members had a business viewpoint (which would tend toward flat or declining
block rates), while others were comfortable with inclining rates.
Using the following policy guidelines, the Committee established the dollar rates for the blocks as
discussed in the next section (2.4.7):
• three blocks should be used with an increasing rate per unit of use
• the rate for the middle block should be the average rate per hcf to provide water and sewer
service to all the block rate payers
• the block rates should not create steps that are overly steep
• therefore, the rate for the highest block should ultimately be not more than 20% over the
average
• the block structures and charges should be the same for all accounts except those with
special agreements (e.g. Bedford, Hanscom and the VA Hospital), the municipal accounts
and irrigation accounts.
13
2.4.7 Dollar rates for the blocks
Table 2.4.7 -1 shows the actual FY04 water and sewer rates.
Table 2.4.7 -1 Actual FY04 rates
Usage
range
hcf
Water
rate
Sewer
rate
Total
rate
0-20
$2.20
$4.89
$7.09
21-40
$3.06
$6.05
$9.11
41-80
$3.82
$8.14
$11.96
81 -up
$4.99
$13.13
$18.12
As stated in Section 2.4.5, the Committee agreed to use the $10,445,728 of actual FY04 revenues
collected from block rate payers as the basis for developing illustrative rates. The illustration
developed in this section shows what the rates would have been in FY04 if our rate
recommendations had been in effect in the fall of 2003 (i.e., the rate - setting time for FY04), and if
the revenue projections at that time happened to be the revenue that ended up being actually
collected.
The decision to base the illustration on the actual FY04 block rate revenues is consistent with the
following:
• Our recommendation to retain a flat irrigation rate of $4.99
• Our assumption that monthly (special agreement) accounts will continue with the current
policies (those accounts are outside the scope of the Selectmen's charge to us)
• The fact that the Committee developed the illustration before deciding on the
recommendation for the municipal rates
Had the illustration been made after deciding to recommend gradually increasing the municipal flat
rate up to the average block rate, then we would have used $10,344,768 as the required block rate
revenues. This is because the municipal recommendation would have resulted in increased
municipal revenues (by $100,960) and thus a reduction in the revenue required from the block rate
payers. The Committee felt that the effect was too small to justify the effort to recalculate the
illustration.
The block rate use and revenue is shown in Table 2.4.7 -2 below, where the values come from the
Committee's analysis of a MUNIS "billing run" which was provided to us on or about 28 July 2004.
Dividing the revenues by the usage results in average water and sewer rates for block rate accounts
of $3.27 and $7.39 respectively. These values are the rates for the middle block in our FY04
illustration.
14
Table 2.4.7 -2 FY04 block rate revenues for water and sewer, and average rate
Note: The values do not include abatements made after 30 June 2004. For this reason, and
perhaps others, the values are not necessarily what will appear in the audit report, which is
scheduled to be delivered prior to 30 June 2005.
Category
Block rate accounts.
Water hcf
Water bills
Block rate, W &S
962,970
$3,125,618
Block rate, water only
55,649
$200,833
Water totals
1,018,619
$3,326,451
Average water rate
$3.27 (a rounded value)
1 $18.12
Category
Block rate accounts
Sewer hcf
Sewer bills
Block rate, W &S
962,970
$7,119,277
Average sewer rate
$7.39 (a rounded value)
For a number of years irrigation has been charged at the highest water block rate. Although some
residents may think this is unfair, the actual cost of providing irrigation is more complex than one
might think initially. Some think it a relatively unnecessary use, so conservation considerations
might suggest charging a high rate to discourage excessive use. Therefore, we decided to leave the
irrigation rate at $4.99. It seemed reasonable to retain the tie between the irrigation rate and the
highest water rate, so we decided for the FY04 illustration to make the highest water rate $4.99 and,
for consistency, the highest sewer rate was kept at the FY04 value $13.13.
The decision to retain the water and sewer high block rates was conditional on the increase in the
amount of revenue that was required to balance the expenses, which in turn required an increase in
the average rate (i.e., the middle rate). If the middle rate rises and the high rate stays the same, then
the low rate must necessarily rise. Thus the desired reduction in steepness is achieved.
On the other hand, if there is a decrease in the amount of revenue that is required to balance the
expenses, the middle rate falls. In this case we recommend retaining the low rate. If the middle rate
falls and the low rate stays the same, then the high rate must necessarily fall. Thus the desired
reduction in steepness is achieved.
The rate in our FY04 illustration for the lowest block, 0 -40 hcf, must then be $2.68 for water and
$5.53 for sewer in order to generate the required revenue. The dollar values are summarized in
table 2.4.7 -3 below.
Table 2.4.7 -3 Illustrative FY04 rates
Usage
range
hcf
Water
rate
Sewer
rate
Total
rate
0-40
$2.68
$5.53
$8.21
41-80
$3.27
$7.39
$10.66
81 -up
1 $4.99
1 $13.13
1 $18.12
15
The next two tables show that the required revenue is generated for water and sewer.
Table 2.4.7 -4 Water revenue from recommended rates
Usage
range
hcf
Water
hcf used
in range
Water
rate
Revenue
in range
0-40
644,506
$2.68
$1,724,507
41-80
153,611
$3.27
$501,639
81 -up
220,502
$4.99
$1,100,305
Totals
1,018,619
$3,326,451
Table 2.4.7 -5 Sewer revenue from recommended rates
Usage
range
hcf
Sewer
hcf used
in range
Sewer
rate
Revenue
in range
0-40
616,912
$5.53
$3,411,651
41-80
145,742
$7.39
$1,077,477
81 -up
200,316
$13.13
$2,630,149
Totals
962,970
$7,119,277
Table 2.4.7 -6 Water + sewer revenue from recommended rates
Water revenues
$3,326,451
Sewer revenues
$7,119,277
TOTAL REVENUE
$10,445,728
2.4.8 Alternative rates
For comparison purposes, two other illustrative rates considered by the Committee are shown as
follows, along with the current rates and the recommended rates. They all generate the required
amount of revenue. We are not recommending any of these alternatives but have included them
only for illustrative purpose. To reiterate, we recommend the rate - setting principles used to develop
the illustrated FY04 rates. Figures 2.4.8 -1 and 2.4.8 -2 are graphs of the FY04 actual rates and the
recommended rates, in which the dotted lines represent the average steepness. The recommended
rates are 66% as steep as the FY04 rates, and the steepness will decline in succeeding years.
Figures 2.4.8 -3 and 2.4.8 -4 are a two -block rate, and a flat rate at $3.27 for water and $7.39 for
sewer. The two -block water rates are $2.85 and $4.99, and the sewer rates are $6.05 and $13.13.
In Figures 2.4.8 -1 to 2.4.8 -4, the horizontal axes are hcf of use, and the vertical axes are the rate in
dollars. The thin line is the sewer rate and the heavy line is the water rate. The dashed lines
represent the steepness of the rates. [The reader should disregard the labels shown in the gray
borders. They are codes that were used to generate the figures.]
16
Figure 2.4.8 -1 Actual FY 04 rates
1 FY04
16
14
13
12
11
10
9
8
7
6
6
4
3
2
1
0
0
120 160 200 240
Figure 2.4.8 -3 A two block rate
16 42 at 100
16
14
13
12
11
10
9
8
7
6
4
3
2
o■
0 40 80 120 160 200 240
Figure 2.4.8 -2 Illustrative FY04 rates
16
2 40- 0ave,> 0$4.99
16
14
13
12
11
10
9
8
7
6
6
4
3
2
1
0
0
16
16
14
13
12
11
10
9
8
7
6
6
4
3
2
1
0
0
40 80 120 160 200 240
Figure 2.4.8 -4 Flat rates
Flat
40 80 120 160 200 240
Figure 2.4.8 -5 plots the differences between the FY04 semi - annual bills and bills at the FY04
illustrative, and two -block and flat rates, all versus semi - annual usage over the range 1 hcf to 1,000
hcf. The same data is shown in table form in Table 2.4.8 -1 after the graph. The table's left hand
section shows the bills, and the right hand section the differences from the FY04 bills.
17
0
w
Figure 2.4.8 -5 Comparison of rates
$1,000 Bill is higher above the horizontal axis
$100 , _ o - - glat
10 i 100 1,
Recommended
-$100 F
Bill is lower below the horizontal axis` - - - - - Two blocks- -
- $1,000 �a
[$10'0 '00 hcf per 6 mos 10 Flat
Table 2.4.8 -1 Bills, and differences, for FY04, recommended, 2 blocks, and flat
Use
in
6
mos.
(hcf)
Semi -
annual water
plus sewer
bills
Differences
from FY04
bills
FY04
Recom-
mended
Two
blocks
Flat
Recom-
mended
Two
blocks
Flat
5
$35
$41
$45
$53
$6
$9
$18
10
$71
$82
$89
$107
$11
$18
$36
15
$106
$123
$134
$160
$17
$27
$54
20
$142
$164
$178
$213
$22
$37
$71
30
$233
$246
$268
$320
$13
$35
$87
50
$444
$435
$446
$533
($9)
$2
$89
80
$802
$755
$714
$853
($48)
($89)
$50
125
$1,618
$1,570
$1,345
$1,333
($48)
($273)
($285)
200
$2,977
$2,929
$2,704
$2,132
($48)
($273)
($845)
315
$5,061
$5,013
$4,788
$3,358
($48)
($273)
($1,703)
500
$8,413
$8,365
$8,140
$5,330
($48)
($273)
($3,083)
790
$13,668
$13,620
$13,395
$8,421
($48)
($273)
($5,246)
1000
$17,473
$17,425
$17,200
$10,660
($48)
($273)
($6,813)
18
2.4.9 Effects of other recommendations (FY06 illustration)
Some of our other recommendations have the effect of reducing water and sewer block rates, as
follows:
• Increasing the municipal rate increases the revenues paid into the EF by the Town, and thus
reduces the revenue required from block rate payers and irrigation users.
• Reducing the PILOT expenses and eliminating rate - setting depreciation reduces the total
revenue required.
While the increase in the municipal rate and reduction in the PILOTs will increase pressure on the
Town budget, we believe they are necessary in the interest of transparency and equity. If our
recommendations are applied to the EF budgets shown in the Fiscal Year 2006, Recommended
Budget (Blue Book) the effects are summarized below.
1. The PILOTS (currently $500,000 for water and $250,000 for sewer) would be reduced by
one -third in the first year.
2. We assume that the $1,025,000 ($500,000 for water and $525,000 for sewer) of requested
FY06 rate - setting depreciation (a non -cash "expense ") would be eliminated.
3. Our recommendation to increase the municipal rate will increase FY06 revenues. (Our
recommendation, had it been in effect in FY04, would have increased water revenues by
$26,732 and sewer revenues by $74,228.)
4. We assume that the added direct cost of the Business Manager will be offset by a reduction
in the indirects.
5. The MWRA expenses will rise, but by less than the above reductions in revenue
requirements.
6. Therefore, there may be a net reduction in the water and the sewer expenses.
The average rate should be determined differently than in Section 2.4.7. In that section, the average
was determined without considering irrigation and municipal use. This was because the
determination was made before we decided upon the irrigation and municipal rate
recommendations. The correct method is to divide the revenue required from the block rate payers,
irrigation users and municipal users by the total use by said users. As in Section 2.4.6, the middle
rate is set to the average rate, which may decline in FY06 if our recommendations are adopted
As explained in Section 2.4.7, if the middle rate declines, we recommend retaining the low rate at
the previous year's value. The high rate is then whatever is required to generate the total required
revenue. The illustration in Table 2.4.9 -1 below is based solely on the current (FY05) to -be-
retained low block rates, the FY04 usage, the FY05 (estimated) non -rate revenues and charges to
the monthly accounts, the Blue Book expenses, and our recommended reductions in expenses. It
also presumes that the DOR will certify reserves as of 30 June 2005 that are at, or above, about
$350,000 for water and $400,000 for sewer.
Table 2.4.9 -1 shows the FY06 rates that the methodology would produce before, and after, the
recommended expense reductions. The details of how they were determined are in Appendix D.
19
f able 1.4.9 -1 Adjusted rates, consic
FY06 illustration rates, before
recommended expense reductions
Usage
range
hcf
Water
rate
Sewer
rate
Total
rate
0-40
$2.66
$5.76
$8.42
41-80
$3.47
$7.52
$10.99
81 - up
$4.99
$13.77
$18.76
all recommendations
FY06 illustration rates, after
recommended expense reductions
Usage
range
hcf
Water
rate
Sewer
rate
Total
rate
0-40
$2.20
$5.13
$7.33
41-80
$2.93
$6.91
$9.84
81 -up
$4.28
$13.14
$17.42
The municipal water rate would be $1.56 and the sewer rate $3.10.
Table 2.4.9 -2 below compares the FY04 water plus sewer semi - annual bills, for various semi-
annual uses, against bills computed with the FY06 post- expense- reduction illustration. Since the
FY05 water rates did not change, and the sewer rate increase was only 5% in FY05, the comparison
reflects the change between FY05 actuals and our FY06 illustration fairly well.
Table 2.4.9 -2 Semi - annual bills for the FY06 illustration. compared to FY04
Use in
6 mos.
(hcf)
FY04 semi-
annual water
plus sewer bill
FY06
illustration,
after expense
reductions
FY06 - FY04
Increase
(decrease)
Change
in %
(decrease)
5
$35.45
$36.65
$1.20
3.4%
10
$70.90
$73.30
$2.40
3.4%
15
$106.35
$109.95
$3.60
3.4%
20
$141.80
$146.60
$4.80
3.4%
30
$233
$220
($13)
(5.6 %)
50
$444
$392
($52)
(11.7 %)
80
$802
$687
($116)
(14.4 %)
125
$1,618
$1,471
($147)
(9.1 %)
200
$2,977
$2,777
($200)
(6.7 %)
315
$5,061
$4,781
($280)
(5.5 %)
500
$8,413
$8,003
($410)
(4.9 %)
790
$13,668
$13,055
($613)
(4.5 %)
1000
$17,473
$16,713
($760)
(4.3%)
20
Figures 2.4.9 -1 to 2.4.9 -4 show FY04 and FY05 actual rates, and FY06 illustrations for before and
after the expense reductions. The horizontal axes are hcf of use, and the vertical axes are the rate in
dollars. The thin line is the sewer rate and the heavy line is the water rate.
16
16
14
13
12
11
10
9
8
7
6
6
4
3
2
1
0
0
Figure 2.4.9 -1
1 FY04,actual
Actual FY 04 rates
16
16
14
13
12
11
10
9
8
7
6
6
4
3
2
1
0
0
40 80 120 160 200 240
Figure 2.4.9 -3 FY06 illustration
before expense reductions
FY06,pre- reductions
40 80 120 160 200 240
16
16
14
13
12
11
10
9
8
7
6
6
4
3
2
0
Figure 2.4.9 -2 Actual FY 05 rates
Figure 2.4.9 -4 FY06 illustration,
after expense reductions
16 4 FY06,postreductions
16
14
13
12
11
10
9
8
7
6
6
4
3
2
0'
0 40 80 120 160 200 240
In summary, the Committee believes that the FY06 post- expense- reduction illustration
accomplishes the goals of flattening the rates, increasing moderately the municipal rate, and
eliminating and/or phasing out certain expenses the Committee feels are not appropriate. The rates
in FY07 and beyond would continue to flatten out if the recommended methodology were applied in
succeeding years. As stated in Section 1.2.2, the Committee recommends that the eventual high rate
be not more than 20% above the middle rate (average rate).
21
2.5 Indirects
The present water and sewer rate - setting budgets include "indirect costs," which are the transfer of
costs from Town departments, such as administration, and billing and collection, to the EF for
services provided to the EF.
The Committee has found that these indirects lack transparency and accountability and some may
be over - estimated. This results in lack of faith among the consumers in the fairness and
appropriateness of the rates and may result in unnecessarily high rates.
The allocation of these costs must be accurate and justifiable, using careful measures or judgments
of the time devoted to the EF, plus a cost factor that includes overhead (e.g. rent, utilities, etc.).
They must be made "using clearly established formulas to prorate the expense among departments"
as specified by the Massachusetts Department of Revenue Division of Local Services in "Enterprise
Funds, MGL Chapter 44 s.53F -1/2," June 2002, page 5.
As stated above in 2.2.1, the Business Manager would be responsible for working with appropriate
Town staff to develop the methodology and amounts of all indirect and allocated costs. The
Committee recommends unanimously that the Business Manager represent the rate payers to
determine the level of indirect costs.
2.6 PILOTS
Since the 1990s, Lexington's water and sewer enterprise funds have made payments in lieu of taxes
(PILOTS) to the Town's General Fund. A PILOT charge of $500,000 was added to the water rates
beginning in 1992. This was done apparently to replace a loss in revenue of the same amount when
the Town of Bedford, which had previously purchased water from the Town of Lexington at a price
higher than cost, joined the MWRA and became entitled to purchase water from Lexington
essentially at cost. A PILOT charge of $250,000 was added to the sewer rates beginning in 1997,
apparently to close a budget gap of that amount in the General Fund that year. Because the decision
was controversial the Selectmen appointed a committee to review PILOTS in 1998. Their report
offered a split opinion on whether or not to keep PILOTS. When the issue was raised again at the
1999 Town Meeting, an amendment to review PILOTs was defeated.
PILOTs are perceived by many as an inappropriately used device to raise additional revenue for the
Town's General Fund without following the procedure of an over -ride vote for levying taxes over
the Proposition 2 -1/2 limit. Further, the legality of PILOTS is not clear, which exposes the Town to
the risk of a law suit and the risk that the Town could lose the law suit.
A majority of the Committee believes that PILOTS are not in the spirit of enterprise funds. They
offer the principle that the EF is self - sufficient, totally separate from the General Fund. They are
cognizant of the enterprise fund's enabling statute's requirement that "If during a fiscal year the
enterprise produces a surplus, such surplus shall be kept in [the enterprise's] reserve fund and used
for [enterprise capital expenditures, or reduction of user charges]." This separateness increases and
improves the transparency of the management of the EF. To the majority, the PILOT seems a
contrivance designed to create a surplus of $750,000, which is then paid into the Town's General
Fund.
22
The legality of enterprise fund PILOTS has never been ruled upon by a court. The Committee made
extensive efforts to understand the legal issues. Lawyers on both sides of the issue submitted
written material and (separately) attended Committee meetings to engage in discussions at the
Committee's invitations. The Committee had a discussion with a member of Town Counsel's law
firm, Palmer and Dodge (P &D). The Committee asked the Selectmen to have Town Counsel
provide a written legal opinion. This request was accompanied by a 51 -page document of PILOT -
related material compiled by the Committee from various sources. The Committee appreciates that
the Selectmen voted to make the request to Palmer and Dodge. The resulting Memorandum from
P &D will be included in Volume II. Much of the Memorandum is an analysis of the Emerson case,
which discusses the difference between fees (which are allowed for covering the cost of a particular
service, voluntarily subscribed to) and taxes (which are mandatory but must be based on some
statutory authority and be computed on property value).
P &D concluded that the Emerson case does apply to PILOTs, and that the charges would pass
muster as a valid fee, as opposed to an illegal tax, only if they could be characterized as a legitimate
cost of providing water and sewer services. It then suggested "two possible legal rationales that
would support a conclusion that the PILOT portions of the Town's water and sewer user fees are
attributable to costs of providing the water and sewer services and consequently are legally
permissible." Opinion at page 7.
The first possible rationale was that the enterprise fund statute itself, "as interpreted and
implemented by DOR," could be viewed to confer implied authority to charge a PILOT by virtue of
its provision that "the books and records of the enterprise shall be maintained in accordance with
generally accepted accounting principles." In support, P &D pointed to the DOR's Enterprise Fund
Manual, which mentions GAAP as a possible basis for charging PILOTs,I and to the DOR's
approval of the Town's tax rate with knowledge that PILOT payments had been included in the
Town's local receipts. P &D observed, however, that "given the absence of express statutory
authority and the fact that the Enterprise Funds are not legally separate entities from the Town, there
is some legal risk in relying on such authority as the sole legal basis for charging" PILOTS.
Opinion at page 10.
As an alternative rationale, P &D then suggested that "[t]he only way, however, to be certain that a
court would uphold the amounts charged by the Town as PILOTS would be if such amounts were
tied to actual indirect costs of the water and sewer systems" that were not otherwise accounted for.
Opinion at page 12. As we have already established that our EF is aggressive and comprehensive in
identifying and paying indirect costs to the Town for services related to the EF, it does not seem that
this rationale would justify the PILOT payments.
We reproduce below the last paragraph of the MEMORANDUM to the Board of Selectmen from
P &D, dated March 25, 2005, Re: PILOTS Charged to Town of Lexington's Water and Sewer
Funds:
CONCLUSION
"There is no case law which directly addresses the legality of the Town's charging PILOTS
to the Enterprise Funds and collecting such charges through water and sewer user fees. For
1 The Enterprise Fund Manual also states, however: "Notwithstanding the foregoing, it must be noted that from a legal
point of view, it is not at all clear to what extent a court would consider such a payment to be part of the actual cost of
providing the service, and therefore an appropriate component of the enterprise fund's fee structure." Manual at 24.
23
the reasons described above, we believe that a court could conclude that the Town has
implicit statutory authority to charge water and sewer PILOTS to the Enterprise Funds and,
therefore, that the PILOTS constitute legitimate costs of the Town's water and sewer
systems which may be recovered from the users of the systems. There are certain factors
which could, however, lead a court to reach the opposite conclusion. One way in which the
Town could mitigate (but not eliminate) the risk that a court would not uphold the PILOTS
would be to calculate the PILOT amounts in the manner prescribed by DOR (i.e. based on
the amount of property taxes the water and sewer systems would pay if privately owned and
subject to taxation.) The only way, however, to be certain that a court would uphold the
amounts charges by the Town as PILOTS would be if such amounts were tied to actual
indirect costs of the water and sewer systems."
A minority of the Committee believes that the PILOTS are appropriate. Some members think the
words "actual indirect costs" includes costs of services that are available to the public as a whole
(such as fire protection, libraries, and schools, which are not included in our indirect cost
allocations), in addition to costs that are actually incurred by the Town (such as for preparing
engineering drawings for the installation of water pipes), and as such, it would be legally
permissible to make PILOTS.
One member cites footnote 16 of the Emerson decision. "Proprietary fees do not implicate the
taxation power if based on fair recompense for the public monies expended for initial construction
and for adequate maintenance" of the facilities used. "Opinion of the Justices, 250 Mass. 591, 597
(1924). " The cited Opinion says:
"If and so far as such tolls or rentals are based on fair recompense for the
public moneys expended for initial construction and for adequate
maintenance, they do not involve the power of taxation. They rest on the
rights of the Commonwealth as proprietor of the instrumentalities used. As a
sovereign power the Commonwealth may do as it will with its own, provided
its action can be said to be in the public interest and not violative of
constitutional guarantees."
If the Selectmen decide to continue PILOTS, a methodology must be established for calculating on
an objective basis the amount of the payment. The Committee strongly recommends that PILOTS
should be phased out.
2.7 Depreciation
Depreciation is a non -cash expense, providing a mechanism for cost recovery over the life of an
asset. For the EF, these costs are recovered through the inclusion of debt service or cash capital in
the rate - setting process.
Municipal and other government organizations, including Lexington, estimate annual depreciation
as part of their fixed assets accounting computations. As far as the Town's water and sewer system
is concerned, the annual depreciation value is used to compute the "book value" of the physical
facilities comprising these systems.
The Town's past rate setting cycles have used the annual depreciation value of the water and sewer
systems as the basis for the expense item designated as "depreciation reserves." It appears that this
24
way of cost accounting has resulted in an additional reserve account, that is, a reserve in addition to
the operational reserve account (see section 2.9).
The Committee recommends that depreciation, or depreciation reserves, should not be part of the
rate setting process.
2.8 Capital and Debt
A capital expenditure is "an addition to the value of fixed assets ". For an EF, large maintenance
and repair projects can be considered capital expenditures.
Using borrowed funds to finance routine maintenance and minor improvements can add an
unnecessary interest cost to the EF and raises rates more than if paid for directly. On the other
hand, major water and sewer system maintenance, expansion and updating can be too expensive to
recover in the current rates.
While the Committee believes that rates should reflect the actual cost of services, we further believe
that the cost of large capital projects should be borne by both current and future users. We
recommend that the Business Manager, with the DPW staff, develop a long -term maintenance and
capital improvement plan and identify those projects that should be funded by borrowing.
2.9 Reserves
The EF includes an operating reserve account financed through income from rates and charges. The
Committee believes that the policy of including this account should be continued, because such an
account provides cash for unexpected events, including:
1. a reduction in revenue due to lower usage
2. an increase in accounts receivable
3. emergency system repairs
4. mid -year changes in the MWRA assessment
The Committee believes the reserves are too high, due to a number of practices which we
recommend be discontinued:
• Reserves should not be maintained to "smooth out" rate increases (although reserves may be
used to offset a MWRA increase which is effective before a rate increase can be
implemented). It is the consensus of the Committee that consumer rates should reflect the
actual cost of EF services.
• Reserves should not be set to fund large capital projects, since these are more appropriately
funded with debt (see section 2.7 on Capital and Debt).
• Reserves should not be maintained to account for depreciation (see section 2.7).
The Committee recommends that EF operating reserves be kept to a minimum. With reasonably
accurate forecasts, a reserve of 5% of revenue (about $750,000 for FY04) should be the target.
25
2.10 Billing Frequency
Presently, water and sewer block rate, irrigation, and municipal account charges are billed semi-
annually. The Committee believes these bills (averaging over $400 every six months for
households) are high enough to constitute a hardship on some residents. Billing quarterly and
offering services such as "level" billing and automatic bill paying would address this problem and
provide a number of advantages:
1. For consumers:
a. make payments easier
b. discover and correct leaks and other use problems sooner
c. more easily see the benefit of conserving
d. improve convenience
2. For the EF:
a. reduce receivables (and the amount of working capital needed)
b. reduce consumer credits
c. improve the perception that the EF is a well run business
There will be additional costs to achieve these advantages, but the benefits should outweigh the
costs. Changing billing frequency and services is a complex project, and must be planned and
implemented concurrently with rate changes.
2.11 Billing and Accounting software
Several years ago the Town changed its financial accounting software and operating system to the
MUNIS system. While a considerable amount of the EF's indirect payments go to the Comptroller,
Revenue and MIS departments to use and support MUNIS, the Committee is of the understanding
that MUNIS was not designed for utility applications and is less than satisfactory for financial
monitoring and reporting for the EF. As a recent example, the Town retained outside auditors to
investigate the large amount of accounts receivable for FY04, and they have been unable to obtain
the necessary information from the MUNIS system for over five months.
Further, any new billing system should include data such as customer usage that is necessary for
rate - setting but is not organized in MUNIS in any one data base, which makes this rate - setting much
more difficult to perform. We recommend that customer account history records be maintained for
at least 5 years. Good billing systems include information such as:
• meter readings,
• the last and first readings when the meter is changed,
• the usage in the billing periods (difference in successive readings),
• the corresponding billed amount (water and sewer separately),
• any "automatic" adjustment, and
• any adjustments /abatements which were applied for and granted or denied, along with the
date and reason for each, and which bill it is in reference to,
• the date the bill was sent,
• the date and amount of payment,
• interest paid on late remittances,
26
• amounts received through the Assessor when the account is liened
• the address of the service,
• its assessor's map and lot numbers (or other designation used by the assessor's records),
• the name of the current and previous holders of the account,
• the number of occupants in the served building, and
• the number of housing units in the served building.
The Committee recommends that it be a high priority for the Business Manager to investigate
whether the EF should continue to use the MUNIS system for financial monitoring, reporting and
billing or use another system that is better suited for utility operations. Many commercial financial
and billing systems are available that are specifically designed for utility applications.
2.12 Accounts Receivable and Liens
The Committee has found that collection of overdue accounts has not been diligently pursued in the
past several years. The management of accounts receivable is critical to cash flow and reserves. A
high rate of past -due water and sewer bills unfairly raises the costs for all users.
The Committee unanimously recommends that the Business Manager, in consultation with the
Comptroller and DPW personnel, document the Town's policy for collecting accounts receivable
(AR) and imposing liens. If necessary, a new policy should be prepared for the Selectmen's
approval. Once the policy is defined and/or established, the Business Manager should monitor its
enforcement.
2.13 Abatements and adjustments
Abatements are refunds or credits made to water and sewer accounts when customers request a
review of their bill. Adjustments are credits made before the bill is mailed, based on prior
information, such as an account qualifying for a need -based discount. Each request is handled on
an individual basis, and action is taken if investigation by the water department indicates the
complaint or request is valid.
The DPW grants abatements and makes adjustments to bills for several reasons, including:
a) meter reading errors;
b) computer errors causing mistakes in billing;
c) overuse caused by faulty plumbing fixtures (the adjustment is usually close to the repair
cost, based upon the presentation of a receipt);
d) increased water use caused by running water to prevent freezing of a shallow underground
supply pipe into the residence; and
e) assistance provision to needy households based upon proof that they are receiving a discount
from another major utility such as NStar.
The first two reasons for abatements are billing adjustments rather than discounts to bills. These
abatements should not be understood as lost revenue, as the abated amounts are charges that were
billed in error. The other three reasons do result in reduced revenues for services provided.
27
From discussion with DPW personnel, indications are that any abatements granted are based upon
logical methods they have developed in- house. However, the DPW management agrees that there
is some confusion as to the policy and how and when it is applied.
Documented policies and oversight by the Business Manager will make application of this policy
more consistent, leading to better and more equitable customer service.
2.14 Direct Costs
Direct costs are those incurred by the water and sewer department for salaries, material and
equipment, debt service, etc. The Business Manager's compensation will be a new direct cost, but
the Committee is confident that this direct cost will be more than offset by improved efficiencies
and reductions in indirect costs when the Business Manager performs some of the tasks previously
performed by other Town departments.
NM
Appendix A - Individual Statements
The recommendations in this report and the discussions of them have been endorsed for inclusion in
the report by the whole Committee. This Appendix contains additional contributions made by
individual members on topics they wish to bring to the Selectmen's attention and/or for further
consideration by the Board.
3.1 Lorraine Fournier
The escalating block rate is the most unfair charge of the enterprise fund. Those with small families
stay within the first or second block while larger families, who consume significantly larger
amounts of water, are escalated into the higher block rates. Why should a larger family pay a higher
than average rate for water?
As a member of the committee I'm concerned that the large households have a proportionally
greater need for water, and that there is no evidence that they are not as conservation minded as
smaller households. Therefore, I believe that the present, very steep rate structure is unfair to large
families.
Reasons for two block rate are as follows;
It is estimated that each member of a household uses between 15 to 20 hcf's per semi - annual billing
which would make it impossible for families with four or more members to fall at 40 hcf's or
below.
The lower block users are being subsidized by the higher block users. If the selectmen adopt the
three block rate design, it may be years before the gap between the rates are fair and balanced so
that all residents are charged the same for water.
I recommend a two block structure with the change at 100 hcf's per six month period, or
alternatively at 50 hcf's if quarterly billing is adopted. If the cutoff is at 100 hcf s it will cover most
families.
If the higher block rate is 10% above the lower rate then the statutes requiring increasing block rate
would be satisfied.
There are 15 communities that have a flat rate in which all residents in these communities are
charged the same and 10 communities that have a flat rate with a base charge. That's 25
communities that are served by MWRA that have a flat charge.
The same amount of revenue can be collected regardless of the number of blocks or steepness in
rates.
There are also 39 communities that have quarterly billing. Quarterly billing would increase cash
flow and would also make it easier for residents.
With the three block design 55% of all residents will remain at 40 hcf's or below while the 45% will
be above the 40 hcf's and be charged a higher than average rate.
I believe there is no reason why the unfair rates cannot be changed in FY06. I understand that the
low users will have to pay more and this will not affect the total amount of revenue collected.
29
3.2 David Laredo
A. Introduction
This Individual Statement is presented as per the procedure established by Loren Wood, Chairman
of the Ad Hoc Water and Sewer Rate Study Committee to allow Committee members to submit
individual statements in the Final Report. This Statement presents a dissenting opinion pertinent to
the Report's recommendations for Block Rates and Payment in Leu of Taxes (PILOT). The writer
also presents some brief comments regarding the recommendations for Reserve accounts and
Indirect costs.
It is well to note that the dissenting opinions presented below represent a distinct minority view on
the Committee. The writer believes that these remarks should be considered in the context of the
entire report, and not be construed alone as reasons to disregard the Committee's recommendations.
Further discussion is presented below.
A. Personal Opinion Regarding the Committee's Recommendation on Block Rates
The Committee's recommendation regarding the block rates is stated in this Report's sub - section of
1.2.2, and discussed in detail Section 2.4. The Committee spent many hours discussing these
recommendations. The wealth of information presented in Section 2.4 provides evidence to the
complexity of the discussion and analyses which were necessary as the basis for such
recommendations.
Based upon the writer's long held belief that rate studies are economic studies, and as such should
be prepared based on cost of service principles, the writer respectfully disagrees with the
recommended charges per rate block and the formula it prescribes for the future allocation of these
charges.
The Committee's discussions regarding block sizes and rates per block were long and detailed and
sometimes arduous. A large portion of the wide ranging discussions included cost of service
principles, many combinations of blocks and charges, application of rates equal to average costs and
many other points. These issues are well documented in Section 2.4. The final recommendation
seems to the writer as a compromise which includes preserving the Committees' long standing
belief that the rates be simplified to three blocks with the charges per block less steep than the
existing (see the Interim Report discussion on this matter).
The writer believes however, that the Committee's final recommendation for rates per block makes
it out to be one which does not resemble a rate that is based upon cost of service principles. Further,
the formula recommended for future block rates is basically unfair, as it allocates all future year's
cost increases to the middle block, rather than allocating the costs to all user groups. Thus, the
Town could have a very difficult time defending the recommended rates if they are subjected to the
scrutiny of the Mass. DOR.
As such, the BoS should consider this opinion in terms of the Committee's total work effort and the
wealth of information presented in Section 2.4. (A most significant part of this presentation is data
in spreadsheet format and billing analyses- provided through literally hundreds of hours of work -
by the Committee's Chairman, Loren Wood. The BoS should also recognize the availability of the
analyses spreadsheet provided for the Committee's use by member Paul Chernick.)
ta
B. Personal Opinion Regarding the Committee's Recommendation on Payment in Lieu of
Taxes (PILOT)
In the writer's opinion, the PILOT issue has been the most contentious the Committee had to deal
with. This should be obvious from the text of this report and of the Interim Report as well, and it is
the only issue for which the Committee has sought a legal opinion from the Town' Counsel. (See
Palmer and Dodge Memorandum in Appendix XXXX or in Volume 2)
The writer believes that the Committee's opposition to the PILOT is, as stated in Section 2.5 — "To
the majority, the PILOT seems a contrivance designed to create a surplus of $750,000, which is then
given over to the Town's General Fund..." Further, based upon discussions in and outside the
Committee, and the Committee's Interim Report the writer believes that the strong sentiment
against the PILOT is due to the feeling that the charge, initiated in 1992, is a device to make up for
the revenue loss due to the Town of Bedford being lost as a water supply customer, while at the
same time providing a convenient way for the Town to supplement the General Fund outside the
limits imposed by "Prop. 21 /z ".
These strong sentiments appear to be very well known in all levels of the Town's Governance.
Further, the writer believes that some of the opposition to the PILOT charges may have increased
over the last several years due to the Town's lack of action in providing a clear justification for this
policy.
The writer's position on the PILOT issue is admittedly biased by his over 40 plus years of
engineering and utility management experience, including the last 25 or so primarily spent in the
utility and municipal /public finance arena. This experience has led the writer to believe water and
sewer utilities should be financially self sufficient and the charges they impose be based upon the
budget pegged to providing the highest quality of service the utilities can provide. These charges
must be tempered by fairness to its customers, and they must be set using well documented cost
accounts and be in conformance to law and policy limitations of the jurisdiction served by the
utility.
Municipal governments — the owners of these systems - must guarantee these conditions to insure
high quality services and as such, is a joint provider of the services, but carries the final
responsibility for provision of these services. Thus, it is the writer's opinion that if the municipality
believes it is necessary, it can impose a charge for its own benefit, to be paid through the utility's
revenue collected from charges.
The Town's PILOT charge, in the writer's opinion, fits the criteria described above. Further, the
concept of PILOTS is well established for non - taxpaying entities, including special quasi —
governmental agencies and jurisdictions established to provide water supply and wastewater
services.
The writer's opinion on the legitimacy of the Town's PILOT charge was bolstered by the Palmer
and Dodge Memo on the subject. This Memo is far from definitive, but does indicate to the writer
that the Town's action to impose the PILOT was within the Town's statutory authority and is thus
not illegal. The writer recognizes, as the P &D Memo goes on to say, because there is no case law on
the subject, the Town runs the risk of having the courts rule otherwise.
31
Based upon the above the writer feels the Town is well within its rights to include a PILOT as part
of the costs to be recovered by the water supply and wastewater charges. The PILOT charge that
carries the least risk, according to the P &D Memo, is a charge calculated in the manner prescribed
by the Mass Department of Revenue. This calculation would base the charge on the amount of
property taxes the water and sewer systems would pay if privately owned. The "property" in this
case would be the book value of the fixed assets of the water supply and sewer systems. This value
is calculated annually as part of the Town's fixed assets accounting activities. In addition to the risk
mitigation, calculating the PILOT in this manner represents treating the EF as a private business
entity, albeit one which is limited in the manner it computes its charges.
Again, it is important for the BoS to recognize this opinion on PILOTs represents a distinct
minority view in the Committee. Further, the concept of the town basing the level of the PILOT
charge as described above, (as identified by the P &D Memo as carrying the least risk) was
discussed by the Committee and soundly rejected in a formal vote
C. Comments Regarding the Committee's Recommendation on Indirect Costs and
Reserves
The Committee's recommendations regarding Indirect Costs and Reserves are presented in Sections
1.2 and are further discussed in Sections 2.5 and 2.9.
The recommendations on Indirect Costs are straight forward and easy to understand. In effect the
recommendation states that the manner in which these cost allocations are made is difficult to
understand and it is recommended that the Business Manager be given the responsibility to
determine and document a logical and transparent methodology for the allocations of Indirect Costs.
The writer is in complete agreement with the recommendation. The system users and town citizens
have the absolute right to be adequately informed as to the basis of these costs and how they are
allocated.
The Committee's recommendation for the new Business Manager to prepare this methodology is
sound. The methodology should be based upon accepted cost accounting principles, and there are
many references illustrating how these allocations can be applied to public sector agencies.
The logic and "straight forwardness" of the Committee's objective in making the recommendation
may be a bit muddled by the discussion of Section 2.5 which dictates in minute detail how the
process should be carried out and problems resolved. Most of the discussion does little more than
quote State regulations and little to advance the recommendation.
Thus the writer presents these remarks with the hope of reinforcing the logic of the recommendation
to make clear the advantages of its acceptance by the BoS.
The recommendation on limiting the Reserve accounts also is straight forward, and the writer
believes it is a sound recommendation. Fairly budgeted reserve accounts provide a strong measure
of flexibility in the EFs and limiting this flexibility may not be prudent. Thus, the recommended
value of 5 per cent must be understood as a target level. This value therefore is not absolute and can
be varied to accommodate changing operational needs, and as such should not affect the EF's
budgeting flexibility.
32
3.3 Wade Tambor
Shortly after joining the Rate Study Committee in September 2004, I listed my first impressions.
With minor changes, the following summarize those observations:
1. The Water /Sewer Enterprise fund should be run like a business entity. (As someone observed,
"every tub should sit on its own bottom "). Its revenues, derived from ratepayers, should be used
only to recover the costs of operating and sustaining the Enterprise.
2. To insure public trust, its billing to "customers" should be fair, transparent and be consistent
with good business /accounting practices. (Current accounting, supported by MUNIS, is in
disarray).
3. It appears the Water /Sewer Enterprise fund has evolved in ways that support some objectives
inconsistent with good business practices. For example, it has been used to divert funds to
general revenue by:
• including difficult to quantify Indirect Charges from other departments,
• accumulating funds for capital replacement that exceed supportable levels, particularly when
capital expenditures are bonded,
• subsidizing other Town Departments' water usage
It should not be used for "back door" tax increases under the umbrella of user fees.
4. PILOTS (Payments In Lieu of Taxes) appear to be borderline illegal and should be eliminated or
phased out.
5. The rate blocks are questionable, particularly when the lower tier does not always cover MWRA
charges. This creates a subsidy for lower level users. At the very least, full MWRA charges
should be included in all rate tiers. Also, school and municipal water charges should at least
cover the MWRA charges plus other direct costs.
6. The Committee needs to not only provide the data and analyses to help the Selectmen reach a
decision; it needs to make specific recommendations that are clear and actionable.
7. It is recognized that changes likely will have to be phased to avoid budget disruptions for the
Town. This phasing should be acceptable to the community if a clear and fair outcome is
articulated and a schedule for the changes is presented in advance. Citizens will be reasonable
when given the facts.
After over eight (8) months of working with the Committee, I believe my early impressions remain
valid.
3.4 Bruce Williams
Consumer Rates for Water and Sewer Services
A. Pricing Policy
1. Pricing should be consistent with the Enterprise's objectives
a. Prices must cover, but not exceed, MWRA costs, and the Enterprise's
operating costs.
b. Pricing policies should be easily understood and fair to all consumers.
33
2, Pricing should encourage conservation.
3. Pricing must be consistent with two State regulations which require that:
a. "no local body shall charge for water and sewer services on a descending rate
basis ", and,
b. "all municipalities .... shall institute water charges and fees that incorporate a base rate for all
users, provided that said base rate shall be increased at an increasing block rate to fairly reflect the
resource demand and consumption of high volume users of water."
This regulation applies only to water charges. It is a strange regulation since it does not address how
a rate structure is to "fairly reflect" demand and consumption. It also refers to "high volume users"
without any reference to how these are defined.
B. Defects of Block Pricing.
1. Increasing block prices produce inequities: The largest number of consumers pay less than
costs, while the few high volume users' pay more than costs. In effect, a relatively few
consumers are subsidizing all others.
2. High prices for "high volume" users has been justified as a conservation incentive. However,
only about 10% of total water use is by "high volume" consumers (those over 200 HCF per year).
Therefore, if conservation is a primary objective, the highest prices should apply to those "non high
volume" consumers who use 90% of the water.
C. Water and Sewer Costs
These costs have two parts:
1. MWRA costs: Equals total volume used times the MWRA rates,
2. Operating costs: Equals the cost of maintaining and operating the Enterprise's system
(including meter reading, billing, accounting, etc.). Because these costs don't vary with year to year
volume fluctuations they are essentially a fixed cost.
D. The Optimum Pricing Policy ( "Keep It Simple ")
1. One rate for water, plus a special irrigation rate, and one rate for sewer service. These rates
would apply to all consumers.
2. Except for the irrigation rate, the water and sewer rates would be set to equal the unit cost
(MWRA and Operating) of the service.
E. Advantages of the Policy are numerous
Pricing is easy to justify:
a. Costs = price
b. About half of the cost (price) is for MWRA charges
34
The reason for a price increase is simple: When costs rise, prices rise by the
same amount
2. All consumers pay the same price regardless of type, or consumption. Special pricing deals
will disappear.
3. Every consumer will pay the full cost per unit of service. No consumer will have to subsidize
some other consumer. (Increasing block rates mean some pay less than costs and others pay more).
4. The incentive to conserve will apply to those who use 90% of all the service (up to 180 HCF
per year), instead being focused on the 10% as is the case with present pricing. There will also be a
premium price to encourage conservation of non - essential irrigation use.
F. Pricing Recommendations
1. Regulatory issues
If water rates are set to recover all costs, but not to exceed costs, then increasing rates will result in
rates for some consumers that are less than cost and others who will pay rates that exceed costs. To
"fairly reflect" water "resource demand ", the below cost rates should not apply to those who
consume most of the water (i.e. 180 HCF per year).
2. To comply with the literal wording of the regulation and minimize conflict with its apparent
intent:
a. For sewer service, one rate equal to cost, for all consumers.
b. For water service, three rates:
(1) Irrigation rate which is at least 50% above actual cost, regardless of amount consumed
(2) Two water rates: The first for 1 -100 HCF at cost. A second rate for 100+ at 5% over
cost
3. Lexington municipal and Bedford rates should at least equal average MWRA charges.
Hanscom and VA Hospital pricing should be the same as all other consumers.
G. How to Phase -In the Recommended Pricing
1. The recommended pricing would result in a large increase for some consumers, and a
decrease for others. Making the changes in one year would probably produce confusion and
complaints from citizens.
2. Therefore, it is desirable to phase -in any major change in pricing structure.
3. One phase -in approach is to apply MWRA and operating cost increases only to the existing
rates which are now less than cost (see Blocks 1 and 2). Those rates which exceed costs would not
be increased.
Similarly, if operating costs are reduced by the elimination of PILOTS, a reduction of "indirects"
and other costs, Block 4 and 3 rates could be reduced.
35
4. At some point, when the Block 1 has been eliminated, and differences in Block 2, 3 and 4
rates are small, the recommended structure could be implemented without being disrupting.
3.5 Loren Wood
The following does not mean I disagree with the Committee's report. I voted in favor of all of the
recommendations. I did not ask for a vote on some of my ideas. I recognize that the EF finances
and rates are extremely complicated and need to take into account many goals, some of which are
mutually exclusive. Reasonable people can come to different conclusions.
The ability of the EF to non - transparently charge fees has, incrementally over time, resulted, in my
opinion, in fees that exceed costs. The excess goes to the General Fund (which has come to rely on
this revenue). This is against the intent of EF legislation, and subject to legal challenge. Exhibit A
in this regard is the PILOTS, which are clearly illegal in my layman's (but assiduously researched)
view. The indirect charges are probably overestimated in every area, especially Revenue,
Comptroller and MIS. The amount in the latter areas ($360,348 in FY04) suggests very inefficient
operations and/or very much of an over assessment. I believe the Business Manager with a PC and
appropriate commercial software could do everything except collections and the legal work
associated with bond issuance.
Increasing block rates are "required" by vague and practically meaningless legislation, probably as
a conservation incentive. Water demand is quite price- inelastic, so increasing block rates have little
effect on consumption, in my opinion. The main conservation incentive is that the more water used,
the higher the bill. The current blocks are unfair to those with greater needs for water, such as large
families. When the Town went from nine blocks to four, the block widths were recommended
assuming quarterly billing. Because semi - annual billing was adopted, the blocks are much too
narrow (0 -20 hcf, 21 -40, 41 -80, 81 up). A reasonable and easily defended approach is to simply
make the blocks be what was originally intended (0 -40 hcf, 41 -80, 80 -160, 160 up).
The municipal users (town offices, schools, etc.) are charged a below -cost flat rate. This means that
residential, commercial and other users are paying some of the municipal and school water costs.
This is essentially a tax, and subject to legal challenge. I think municipal uses should pay block
rates. I also think the irrigation should have its own block rates, instead of being flat. Both should
have to live with the inclining rate situation that the residential, commercial, and institutional
domestic water users must.
Itemization of property taxes is a valuable asset to many households, despite limitations due to the
phase -out of deductions and the Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT). Very many households are not
affected by these limitations. Water and sewer fees are not deductible. Prior to the adoption of the
EF, many water and sewer operating and debt costs were included in the tax rate. The Interim
Report (Table 2.1 -1), shows that of the $14,809,348 in FY04 projected expenses, the PILOTS
($750,000), Indirects ($1,586,197), Town debt ($1,478,938) and MWRA debt ($4,589,314 in a
separate communication from the DPW), total $8,404,449.
In my opinion these should be on the tax rate. That is how we pay for roads, school buildings, and
other infrastructure and operations that benefit every household. Water for fire protection is an
important use of EF infrastructure. Disputes over the Indirects would disappear if they weere on the
tax rate. (The citizens can still monitor the efficiency with which such services are provided.)
9M
Residents pay for most other infrastructure and operations in proportion to their property's value,
and this should apply to the EF. The Selectmen can, without a referendum, put EF debt (including
the MWRA's) on a Proposition 2 1/2 Debt Exclusion. Thus, there is no risk that the EF would be
starved for capital. The Cycle 9 (i.e., billed monthly) rate policies should remain as is, to generate
$1,905,948 (Table 2.1 -3 of the Interim Report). The in -town rates would then need to generate
$4,498,951. The hcf's of use in FY04 would produce that revenue with the following block rates
(including for municipal), and special block rates for irrigation
0 - 40 hcf
41-80
81-160
161 up
Water block rates $1.00
$1.39
$1.74
$2.27
Sewer block rates $2.22
$2.75
$3.70
$5.97
Irrigation block rates $1.32
$1.83
$2.28
$2.98
As the Table below shows, high users in small houses would benefit (case A), while low users in
large houses would come out behind (case Q. Average households come out even (case B). For
example, A uses 70 hcf per half year and would pay $859 less for water and sewer. A's house value
is $350K, and would see a property tax increase of $375, but since its deductible, the effective
increase is $270. Therefore, A's costs are reduced by $859 and increased by $270, a net benefit of a
reduction of $589 in yearly expenses, which is seen in italics in the last column.
An Operating Override of $8,404,449 would be required. I think the citizens would support it if
there was a guarantee that the PILOTS, Indirects, debt payments, etc. would never again be put into
the EF fees. The guarantee would probably have to be in the form of a bylaw. Not being a lawyer,
I don't know how such a bylaw should be worded. The reason they would support it, in my
opinion, is because a large number of households would be paying for water and sewer operations
(but not for the MWRA cost of the water and waste water disposal) with before -tax dollars.
37
Bill
if
$8M
Effec
of
If $8M
-
Half
EF
Change
FY04
of EF
Saved if
tive
A, B, C's
year
put
in bill:
Resid.
put on
deduct-
tax
net
water
FY04
on
() is a
Property
tax rate:
taxes
Tax
ible
incre
change:
use
yearly
taxes
decreas
value in
$10.47
$11.54
increas
@28%
ase in
0 = bene-
(hcf)
bill $
$
e $
$1,OOOs
in $
in $
e in $
in $
$
fit in $
C 10
142
64
(77)
250
2618
2886
268
75
193
30
466
193
(272)
A 350
3665
4040
375
105
270
A ($589)
B 40
648
258
(390)
400
4188
4617
429
120
309
60
1126
423
(703)
B 500
5235
5771
536
150
386
B ($4)
A 70
1366
506
(859)
550
5759
6348
589
165
424
140
3779
1241
(2538)
C 900
9424
10388
965
270
694
C $617
An Operating Override of $8,404,449 would be required. I think the citizens would support it if
there was a guarantee that the PILOTS, Indirects, debt payments, etc. would never again be put into
the EF fees. The guarantee would probably have to be in the form of a bylaw. Not being a lawyer,
I don't know how such a bylaw should be worded. The reason they would support it, in my
opinion, is because a large number of households would be paying for water and sewer operations
(but not for the MWRA cost of the water and waste water disposal) with before -tax dollars.
37
4 Appendix B - Sample Financial Reports
Example: W &S Asset/Liability
Budget FY04
Current Assets
Cash & cash equivalents
(see "Cash at end of 2004 ")
$800
Account receivable
$1,800
Inventory supplies & mat
$75
Prepaid items
25
Total Current Assets
$2,700
Other Assets
Liens - Total
$310
less liens collected
($120)
Liens outstanding
$190
Current Liabilities
Current maturity of debt
$150
Accounts payable
$190
Accrued expenses
$50
Total Current Liabilities
$390
Ratio: CA /CL
6.9
Long term Debt
$1,390
TOTAL LIABILITIES
51,7
MEMO:
Account receivable - total
$1,800
Aging (days)
50
Example: W &S Cash Flow Budget FY 04
Actual
$thousa
nd
Cash flow from operations
Net income (see Op Budget)
$1,000
Decrease (Increase) in current assets
Accounts receivables
($400)
Advances & prepaid items
($50)
Increase (decrease) in current assets
Accounts payable
$70
Accrued expenses
50
CASH PROVIDED (USED) BY
OPERATIONS
$670
Cash from financing activities
Proceeds from long term debt
$0
Principle repayments of long term debt
($150)
CASH (USED) BY FINANCING
ACTIVITIES
($150)
NET INCREASE (DECREASE) IN CASH
$520
CASH AT BEGINNING OF PERIOD
$280
CASH AT END OF PERIOD ( "Cash
Reserves ")
$800
39
Example: FY04 W &S Operating Statement
FY 04
Budget
Revenue
$( 000)
Residential
$7,700
" - "Irrigation"
$1,000
Less Credits ( "Abatements ")
800
Net Residential
$7,900
Industrial/Commercial/
$2,200
Public
$1,400
Municipal
$50
Hanscom
$1,000
VA Hospital
$200
Bedford
$750
Sub tot - Rev from users
$13,500
State Rate Relief
$50
Bedford "Fixed"
$50
Misc. other revenue
$100
Total revenue
$13,700
Cost of revenue
MWRA charges
$8,200
Wages & OT
$850
System Maint
$700
Supplies & materials
$150
Utilities
$100
Equipment
$100
Allocated expenses "Indirects" [1]
a,.200
Total Cost of Revenue
$11,300
GROSS MARGIN - $
$2,400
" " - %
18%
Operating Expense - G &A
General ( "Indirect ") [2]
$250
" Contractual services
$150
Admin ( "indirect ") [3]
$150
Total
550
Operating Income
$1,850
%
14%
Other income /(expense)
Interest on Reserves (earned)
$50
Interest on Debt (paid) [4]
($150)
PILOT payment
6L501
Sub tot
($850)
M
41
Net Income
$1,000
% of Revenue
7%
Notes:
[ 1 ] Engineering, highway, road machinery,
building maintenance, cost of benefits
[2] Revenue Dept, Assessor, MIS
[3] Selectmen, Town mngr, Controller
[4] Interest paid on debt is an expense
41
Format W &S Op State vs FY04 Rate
Seting Budget
FY 04
FY 04
Budget
Rate Setting
Budget **
Revenue
$( 000)
$( 000)
Residential
$7,720
Data from Interim Report
9/13/04
" - "Irrigation"
$1,000
Table 5.2, page 22
Less Credits
( "Abatements ")
($800)
Net Residential
$7,920
Industrial /Commercial/
$2,200
Public
$1,400
Municipal
$60
Hanscom
$1,000
VA Hospital
$200
Bedford
$720
Sub tot - Rev from users
$13,500
State Rate Relief
$50
$49
"Reserve Withdrawal" (rate
relief)
$475
"Reserve Withdrawal (rate
relief)
Bedford "Fixed"
$50
$43
Bedford "Fixed"
Misc. other revenue
$100
$92
Penalties, Interest, meter chg.,
Misc
$659
"Subtotal Other"
Total revenue
$13,700
$14,151
"REVENUE REQUIRED
FROM RATES"
Cost of revenue
MWRA charges
$8,200
$8,106
MWRA charges
Wages & OT
$850
$806
Wages +OT +Other
System Maint
$700
$660
Listed as "Capital from
Revenue"
Supplies & materials
$150
$148
Supplies & materials
Utilities
$100
$94
Utilities
Equipment
$100
$96
Equipment
Allocated expenses
"Indirects" [1]
$1,200
$1,586
"Indirect Cost"
$125
Contractual services
$1,479
"Existing Debt - P &I"
$960
"Depreciation"
$0
"Reserve Deposits"
$750
PILOT
Total COR
$11,300
$14,810
GRAND TOTAL COSTS
GROSS MARGIN - $
$2,400
" " - %
18%
Information on reserves
42
43
($524)
FY04 Reserve Deposits (Draw
Down)
Operating Expense - G &A
$777
FY03 Reserve Deposits (Draw
Down)
($1,300)
Change: FY04 -FY03
General ( "Indirect ") [2]
$250
Part pf allocated
" Contractual services
$150
Admin ( "indirect ") [3]
$150
Part of allocated
Total
$550
Operating Income
$1,850
" " - %
14%
Other income /(expense)
Interest on Reserves (earned)
No data
Interest on Debt (paid)
($120)
Only interest
PILOT payment
750
Sub tot
($870)
Net Income
$980
% of Revenue
7%
Notes:
[1] Engineering, highway, road machinery, building maintenance, benifits
[2] Revenue Dept, Assessor, MIS (estimated amount)
[3] Selectmen, Town mngr, Controller (estimated amount)
[4] Interest paid on debt must be deducted from this (estimated amount)
43
Appendix C - Financial Impacts
The Selectmen have options to transfer all or part of some components of the water and sewer fee to
the property tax. Since the transfer would be dollar for dollar there would be no net change in
revenue to the Town. The effect on individual customers would depend on their usage and on their
property's assessment. To first order, an average residential user in an average assessed house will
see little or no net change. The increase in the property tax will match the decrease in water and
sewer fees.
The residential tax rate, and the commercial, industrial, personal property (CIP) tax rate are both
proportional to the tax levy that is required by the budget adopted by Town Meeting. The water and
sewer block rates, and the irrigation rate, are proportional to the amount that must be raised from
individual users (i.e., excluding Hanscom, the VA Hospital, and the Town of Bedford) in order to
balance the EF budget.
If the Town derived $1,000,000 less from the EF, and made it up by a $1,000,000 increase in the tax
levy, then the respective rates would change by minus 8.2% and plus 1.2% respectively (using
FY04 as an example).
The total increase in property taxes for all single family properties would be $767,481. The total
residential domestic and irrigation fees would decrease by $701,375. The net is a total increase of
$66,106, but this is offset for eligible households by the deductibility of their portion of the
$767,481. Assuming 9000 single family households, the average family that can itemize would see
a net decrease in total outflow of $14 per year per $1,000,000 that is transferred from water and
sewer fees to the property tax.
In the maximum transfer case, all EF costs except the water and sewer product charges by the
MWRA would be put on the tax levy. (The portion of the MWRA charge that is for debt service is
eligible for transfer to the property tax.) This was about the situation before the EF was adopted.
(The Committee has been unable to ascertain the exact situation that existed before the EF was
adopted.) The maximum transfer would be about $8,000,000, saving the average single family
household $112 per year. The total savings would be $112 times 9000, which is $1,008,000 per
year. This is enough (at 4.5% interest for 20 years) to finance a bond of about $14 million dollars,
almost enough to build two new elementary schools (assuming the state pays half of the total cost).
Formal representations of the above material appear below:
CIP_rate = Tax—levy * CIP factor / Total value
Resid —rate = Tax—levy * ( 1 - CIP factor * CIP value / Total value) / Resid._value
Tax rev = Resid rate * Resid. value + CIP rate * CIP value
EF blk rev. = blk rate 1 * use —1 + blk rate 2 * use —2 + etc.
The effect of a $1,000,000 transfer from fees to property taxes is:
The CIP rate, and the Resid._rate, increase by a factor of: ($82,109,041 + $1,000,000 ) / $82,109,041 = 1.01218
The blk_rate_l, and the others, decrease by a factor of: ($12,233,728 - $1,000,000) / $12,233,728 = 0.91826
..
6 Appendix D - FY06 rate illustration methodology
Table D -1 below shows the budgets for FY04 (actual expended) and FY06 (requested) as in the
Blue Book, and FY06 as recommended by the Committee (WSRSC).
Table D -1
ELI
FY04 Actual
Water
FY06
Requested
Water
FY06
WSRSC
Water
FY04 Actual
Sewer
FY06
Requested
Sewer
FY06
WSRSC
Sewer
Regular wages
$444,214
$437,135
$437,135
$151,846
$172,649
$172,649
Other Compensation
$8,150
$9,250
$9,250
$2,050
$2,850
$2,850
Overtime
$111,724
$115,076
$115,076
$79,133
$50,000
$50,000
Contractual (PILOT)
$500,000
$500,000
$333,500
$250,000
$250,000
$166,750
Contractual (Other)
$170,858
$144,493
$144,493
$76,642
$88,739
$88,739
MWRA
$3,205,847
$3,842,793
$3,842,793
$4,805,835
$5,324,581
$5,324,581
Utilities
$8,640
$4,550
$4,550
$79,124
$102,000
$102,000
Supplies and Material
$62,280
$87,571
$87,571
$17,148
$55,133
$55,133
Equipment
$0
$75,856
$75,856
$0
$5,000
$5,000
Depreciation
$486,915
$500,000
$0
$522,271
$525,000
$0
Long -Term Debt - Principal
$190,396
$185,396
$185,396
$1,168,178
$240,000
$240,000
Long -Term Debt - Interest
$51,025
$68,500
$68,500
$69,338
$35,951
$35,951
Sub -total
$5,240,049
$5,970,620
$5,304,120
$7,221,565
$6,851,903
$6,243,653
Indirect Costs
$837,128
$837,128
$837,128
$749,069
$749,069
$749,069
Total
$6,077,177
$6,807,748
$6,141,248
$7,970,634
$7,600,972
$6,992,722
Penalties and Interest
$14,755
$14,755
$14,755
$29,273
$29,273
$29,273
Misc. Dept. Revenue
$11,100
$11,100
$11,100
$9,827
$9,827
$9,827
New Meter Charge
$27,000
$27,000
$27,000
$0
$0
$0
Bedford Fixed
$42,632
$42,632
$42,632
$0
$0
$0
Sewer Relief (state funded)
$0
$0
$0
$49,000
$0
$0
Reserve Withdrawal
$0
$0
$0
$475,000
$0
$0
Total of non -rate revenues
$95,487
$95,487
$95,487
$563,100
$39,100
$39,100
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
Rev. req'd from user charges
$5,981,690
$6,712,261
$6,045,761
$7,407,534
$7,561,872
$6,953,622
Billed Monthly
$2,012,792
$2,412,699
$2,412,699
$25,998
$28,804
$28,804
Billed Semi - annually
$4,253,348
$4,299,562
$3,633,062
$7,192,062
$7,533,068
$6,924,818
Profit (Loss) UNAUDITED
$284,450
($46,214)
$0
($189,474)
$11,405
$0
ELI
Table D -2 below shows the calculation of the FY06 illustration rates, based on the Blue Book
budget, and then after the expense reductions recommended by the Committee.
Table D -2
.R
FY06
Requested
Water
FY06
WSRSC
Water
FY06
Requested
Sewer
FY06
WSRSC
Sewer
Revenue req'd from user charges
$6,712,261
$6,045,761
$7,561,872
$6,953,622
Billed Monthly (Bedford, etc.)
$2,412,699
$2,412,699
$28,804
$28,804
Rev req from blocks, irrig & muni
$4,299,562
$3,633,062
$7,533,068
$6,924,818
Use in the low block (ul)
644,506
644,506
616,912
616,912
Use in the middle block (um)
153,611
153,611
145,742
145,742
Use in the high block (uh)
220,502
220,502
200,316
200,316
Use for irrigation (ui)
175,361
175,361
0
0
Use by municipal users (ut)
45,283
45,283
38,831
38,831
Total usage (US)
1,239,263
1,239,263
1,001,801
1,001,801
Previous municipal rate (assumed)
$1.10
$1.10
$1.83
$1.83
Municipal transition fraction (q)
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
Rev req from blocks, irrig & muni
$4,299,562
$3,633,062
$7,533,068
$6,924,818
Retain: 1 = high rate OR -1 = low
rate (see para. below)
1
(1)
1
(1)
Usage (US)
1,239,263
1,239,263
1,001,801
1,001,801
Average rate (rave or rm)
$3.47
$2.93
$7.52
$6.91
High rate (rh) OR Low rate (rl)
$4.99
$2.20
$13.77
$5.13
Municipal rate (rt)
$1.69
$1.56
$3.25
$3.10
CALCULATION
rave * US
$4,299,562
$3,633,062
$7,533,068
$6,924,818
rave * um
($532,946)
($450,331)
($1,095,911)
($1,007,422)
rave * ut * q
($39,277)
($33,188)
($72,998)
($67,104)
rh * (uh + ui)
($1,975,356)
$0
($2,758,351)
$0
rl * ul
$0
($1,417,913)
$0
($3,164,759)
prev_mun_ rate * ut * gcomp
($37,358)
($37,358)
($53,208)
($53,208)
summation
$1,714,625
$1,694,271
$3,552,600
$2,632,325
uh + ui OR ul
644,506
395,863
616,912
200,316
rl OR rh
$2.66
$4.28
$5.76
$13.14
RATIOS
rm/rl
1.30
1.33
1.31
1.35
rh/rm
1.44
1.46
1.83
1.90
CHECK THE RESULTS
rl * ul
$1,714,625
$1,417,913
$3,552,600
$3,164,759
rm * um
$532,946
$450,331
$1,095,911
$1,007,422
rh * uh
$1,100,305
$943,736
$2,758,351
$2,632,325
rh * ui
$875,051
$750,535
$0
$0
rt * ut
$76,635
$70,547
$126,206
$120,312
Total revenues
$4,299,562
$3,633,062
$7,533,068
$6,924,818
.R
The Municipal transition fraction (q) is how much the municipal rate should move towards reaching
the average rate. In the first year, it should move 25% (0.25) of the way, as described in Section
1.2.2. The "qcomp" is one minus q (i.e., 0.75). The revenue required from the rates is the budget
minus the non -rate revenue minus the revenue from the accounts that are billed monthly (Bedford,
etc.). The requirement is either more than, OR less than, the previous year's requirement. The
average rate is the requirement divided by the total usage. The calculation takes the required
revenue (which is identical to the average rate times the total usage) and subtracts the revenues from
the middle rate, the high (OR the low) rate, and from the municipal rate (represented by two parts
which together equal the new municipal rate times the municipal use). The result is then divided by
the low (OR high plus irrigation) usage, to produce the low (OR high) rate.
The usages are from the Committee's analysis of a M1 NIS billing run on or about 28 July 2004.
The non -rate revenues are taken from the Interim Report, and carried forward from FY04 on. The
"Billed Monthly" revenues are from FY04, and increased by the percentage that the MWRA
assessments increased. The municipal water rate for FY05 was assumed to be the same as the FY04
rate, and the sewer rate for FY05 was assumed to be 5% more than the FY04 rate (i.e., the
percentage the sewer block rates increased).
This methodology continuously flattens the rate (i.e., the low and high move towards the average)
in successive years. At some point, when the rates are considered flat enough, then the rates
thereafter would be increased (or decreased) in each block by the percentage that the required
revenues changes.
47