Special Called Budget and Rate Workshop Minutes – Wednesday, April 4, 2018
For your consideration, please read the minutes from the Special Called Budget and Rate Workshop that was held on Wednesday, April 4, 2018.
Budget Workshop Minutes 4-4-18 with Attachments
To read the minutes, please open or download the pdf from the link above, or you may see more below.
Brunswick-Glynn County Joint Water and Sewer Commission
1703 Gloucester Street, Brunswick, GA 31520
Wednesday, April 4, 2018 at 1:00 PM
SPECIAL CALLED BUDGET AND RATE WORKSHOP MINUTES
PRESENT:
Donald M. Elliott, Chairman
Michael Browning, Vice-Chairman
Clifford Adams, Commissioner
Cornell L. Harvey, Commissioner
Steve Copeland, Commissioner
Tripp Stephens, Commissioner
Ben Turnipseed, Commissioner
ALSO PRESENT:
Jimmy Junkin, Executive Director
Charlie Dorminy, Legal Counsel
Andrew Burroughs, Deputy Executive Director
Todd Kline, Director of Engineering
Pam Crosby, Director of Procurement
John D. Donaghy, Director of Finance
Jay Sellers, Director of Administration
Kirk Young, Superintendent
Mark Ryals, Superintendent
Donnie Bankston, Superintendent
Derrick Simmons, Superintendent
Mark Hopkins, Superintendent
Tony Hairston, Raftelis Financial Consultants, Inc.
Joe Williams, Raftelis Financial Consultants, Inc.
Courtney Rogers, Davenport & Company
Doug Gebhardt, Davenport & Company
Chairman Elliott called the workshop to order at 1:05 PM.
Commissioner Turnipseed led the Invocation, and Chairman Elliot led the Pledge of Allegiance.
Chairman Elliott began the workshop by expressing his thanks to the staff for their hard work in preparing the budget draft. He also thanked Commissioner Turnipseed and Commissioner Copeland for their work in reviewing the staff budget documents and noted appreciation for the interest everyone has shown in preparing the budget. Chairman Elliott added that the review of the R & R budget may be delayed for another workshop due to the amount of information within that budget and the need for close review.
- FY2019 Budget Workshop Introduction Presentation – J. Junkin
Mr. Junkin presented the Budget Workshop Introduction to the Commissioners. He detailed some of the background information as to the efforts and process that senior staff and division heads went through in preparing the new draft of the FY 2019 Budget. He provided that the key budget objective was to hold total increases in expenditures to 3%, and staff was able to achieve a lower increase of only 1.99%. Mr. Junkin commented that the revenue budget was to increase at 3% overall, largely due to an anticipated revenue source having not materialized as it was previously budgeted for. He noted that the key rate structure objectives addressed during this process were affordability, equity and revenue stabilization; and he added that Raftelis would later be presenting an alternative rate structure which was developed that meets these objectives while providing other benefits. He then mentioned that in a regional water and sewer rate comparison, the Raftelis data indicates that JWSC remains among the lowest rates in this region, and also noted the primary causes of the water and sewer cost variations. Mr. Junkin listed various issues impacting the staff’s budgeting process in their attempt to reduce operating costs and increase capital reserves. He provided a summary of the proposed operating and maintenance expenses budget for the major divisions, which included the 2018 actual budget, the proposed 2019 budget, the $ of increase or decrease, and the % of increase or decrease for each division.
Chairman Elliott opened the floor for Commissioners to ask any questions about the details as presented in Mr. Junkin’s presentation. Commissioner Turnipseed asked where the information, such as the 4.5% affordability criteria for water and sewer, for the median income for the City and County came from on the presentations. Mr. Junkin referred to the EPA’s website, advised that this was where that number was found, and added that for the vast majority of JWSC customers this number was below 4.5%. Commissioner Copeland provided two spreadsheets he had prepared for the Commissioners based on the proposed budget expenditure reports which were previously sent to the Commissioners for preview, and he explained the information the spreadsheets contained and how the expenditures were summarized by type and not by division. He then asked about the proposed increase in the pension budget as compared to previous. Mr. Donaghy advised that this was under budgeted for the past year. The result was that the budgeted number for FY2019 is more realistic, and there would not be a shortage. Commissioner Copeland also questioned the proposed 2019 budget for temporary services since it was much lower than what has already been spent during the current FY. This was partially explained by the call center personnel moving from a temporary basis to permanent, which resulted in this decrease being offset by an increase in the proposed budget for permanent salary personnel. There was additional discussion, for example on changing from contracting landscaping services and performing that service in-house for a cost savings of approximately $93,000 for the upcoming year. Commissioner Copeland asked about the purchased equipment repairs budgeted for FY2018 as compared to actual and noted the amount budgeted for FY2019. Andrew Burroughs explained that this year’s difference was due to the Dunbar Creek generator that threw a rod and had to be rebuilt as an emergency expense which caused the amount of actual to greatly exceed the budgeted amount. Commissioner Copeland then commented about infrastructure repairs as was budgeted for last year with the actual YTD being much less than budget, and questioned the new budgeted amount for FY2019. Mr. Donaghy referenced the manholes rehabilitated during the current year and explained how those monies were moved between budgeted line items. Commissioner Copeland inquired about “other rentals” and that for 2018 there was $350K budgeted, still have $349K of that left and yet budgeted more for next year. Mr. Donaghy advised that this budget is for capital leases on four vac-con trucks and ten by-pass pumps for lift stations, and explained that these are set up on semi-annual and quarterly payments so this money has not been paid yet. Commissioner Turnipseed asked if JWSC owned the equipment after paying the leases, and Pam Crosby confirmed they would be owned. There was much more detailed discussion between the Commissioners and staff regarding the various line items comparing and explaining previous budgets, drafted 2019 budgeted amount and YTD actual expenditures. Commissioner Stephens noted it may be beneficial to include an annualized column to more closely reflect how the actual expenditures are aligning with those projected. Commissioner Copeland inquired about the budgeted line item “maintenance contracts” and what was included in this line item. It was explained that this included various systems software maintenance, support and licensing fees and these are paid for in annual payments. It also maintenance for other items such as copiers. With the next budgeting process, Chairman Elliott asked for the software and software licensing to each have separate line items on the budget. Commissioner Copeland then inquired about the decrease in the budget for bio-solids disposal. There was continued discussion pertaining to specific line items such as bio-solids disposal, natural gas, headworks, small equipment, chemicals, etc., and questions answered regarding budget variations, actual expenditures and clarification of descriptions. Chairman Elliott questioned if the budgeted amount for Odor Control was enough to cover all the requirements for the various locations. Commissioner Turnipseed advised that the proposed budget for odor control should be increased. It was agreed to reduce the 2019 budgeted amount for oxygen from $500K to $450K, and to increase the 2019 budgeted amount for odor control from $300K to $350K. Commissioner Copeland then commented about the amounts used and budgeted for fuel and electricity, noted that the amount for electricity of $1.4M seemed high, and suggested that a bill audit should be done to ensure the bill reflects the amount being used, in addition to a meter audit to ensure that the meters are showing correct usage in the different locations. He also recommended to look at the rate structure from the power company to see what rate structures JWSC is on and perhaps discuss with the power company what can be done to reduce that cost. Commissioner Stephens suggested to also ensure that the power company is allowing the tax exemption on the billing. The budget for hurricane preparedness was discussed along with the rental of temporary generators for hurricane season. The discussion then included vehicles and equipment that is still to be purchased and/or replaced. Commissioner Copeland then moved on to the second spreadsheet he had prepared from the budget data as provided to the Commissioners, and he explained the contents and how the various account numbers were sorted by budgeted amount (size) from highest to lowest with the reasoning of looking at possibilities of reducing those items with the highest impact to the budget. Group health insurance was one of the items noted with an anticipated increase for 2019. Chairman Elliott commented that he would like for the October calendar to include a workshop and discussion on group health insurance and health plans, so that the Commission can work on this prior to the time for renewal in February 2019. He noted understanding that the rates are not available at that time, but he wants the Commission to fully understand the types of plans that are available in the market in order to make a good decision at renewal time. Commissioner Browning commented that it could be too early to do that at that time, and he understands there is a process and a reason for the timing, but is concerned about staff time and trying to make some decisions too early. Mr. Junkin suggested that they could look at options and what other utilities are doing with their insurance and get some structural thoughts together. Commissioner Browning agreed with looking at what other utilities are doing. Commissioner Harvey questioned the budgeted increase in wages and asked if this was for positions planned to be filled during the year. Mr. Junkin indicated this was to cover the cost of the pay plan as it is set, including COLA raises, and the incremental raises as licenses are earned as included with the normal pay plan. He noted that no new staff positions are to be added in the next year. Commissioner Stephens indicated concern about the increase in wages and thought this was a large increase. Mr. Junkin provided that this included the four temporary positions that became full time and are now on the payroll (three in the call center and one backflow compliance coordinator). Stephens asked what the difference was between overtime and emergency overtime. Mr. Donaghy responded that emergency overtime does not have an amount budgeted to it, and the expenditure shown was the amount that was spent on Hurricane Irma overtime. Commissioner Stephens noted concerned about the increases in budget and that part may not be spent, for example the increases indicated for insurance. He believes that the budgeted amount should not be based on the maximum amount possible or worst case scenario, but should be more of what is actually expected to be spent based on historical data, especially when a rate increase is being considered or to be discussed. Commissioner Copeland commented about the trend he saw in the operating costs increasing and that the percentage associated with personnel is also rising. Commissioner Turnipseed inquired as to the JWSC keeping the salaries competitive, and comparable to that of other utilities. Mr. Junkin indicated that he would like to have another salary survey done, as the last study was done in about 2014, and JWSC does want to stay competitive especially being in an isolated market when it comes to getting people with skills and professional or technical backgrounds. Commissioner Stephens agreed that the salaries should be competitive, but budgeting should be based off actual projections rather than worst case scenario. Mr. Junkin added that this could be readdressed on the budget. Commissioner Harvey noted that the budgeted amount for the salaries should be broken down into more detail so they can see exactly what is being budgeted for. Commissioner Stephens commented that the group insurance for example should be prorated based off of existing conditions and not budgeted for a maximum amount. Mr. Junkin agreed that staff would look at the breakdown of the existing population of JWSC employees and recalculate the number to see what the change would be. Commissioner Stephens inquired about the reductions in the budget for various materials, fittings and meters, and Mr. Junkin advised that $300K had been budgeted in the Five Year R & R Plan for meter replacements and upgrades, and then he confirmed with the superintendents that they had budgeted appropriately for materials they needed for operations. Commissioner Turnipseed also questioned if there was enough budgeted for operations and infrastructure, and he noted that he would rather have the money in the budget to cover necessary operational expenses. Commissioner Stephens expressed his concern about the increases in overhead costs as compared to the reductions in the budget for operations and infrastructure repairs. Kirk Young indicated that for Systems Pumping and Maintenance there had been a shortage of personnel throughout the past year for various reasons, and that would explain part of the variances seen in those numbers. Commissioner Stephens noted his concern regarding high increases on the amount budgeted for postage, public education, advertising, education, and other overhead areas as compared to reductions in the budget for operations and infrastructure repairs. Commissioner Copeland added that perhaps the infrastructure budget is not being increased enough proportionately, for example as to personnel costs. Andrew Burroughs suggested that staff review the proposed budget draft, revise and reduce the numbers on overhead as have been discussed, and add those amounts of decrease back to the infrastructure budget. (Rotate that money from overhead to infrastructure without changing the bottom line on the budget.) Commissioner Stephens expressed concern about ensuring that rate payers’ monies are spent where actually needed such as on infrastructure. Chairman Elliott moved the discussion to the subject of revenues from the Combined Revenue Statement. Mr. Junkin commented that the rate structure and revenues as to be presented by Raftelis would incorporate the current rate structure with a 3% increase and also a second scenario with a proposed rate structure which would allow the accomplishment of items talked about earlier. Mr. Donaghy provided that for the miscellaneous revenue items on the report, those various fees were prorated through the end of the year by using what had been billed through March, to use as an estimate for the budget. He noted one item that did have a major impact on the rates was the Plan Review/Unsolicited Proposal Fees due to the 2018 budget for this having been set at $1M, and with the actual revenue coming in nowhere near that, the 2019 budget amount was set at $100K. Commissioner Stephens inquired about the 2016 and 2017 leak adjustments and pool fill adjustments, and he noted that there was nothing budgeted in the revenues to cover this loss for the coming year. Mr. Donaghy added that an amount can be placed in the budget for that. Chairman Elliott inquired if the revenue as Mr. Donaghy had projected was based upon the Raftelis rate proposal. Mr. Donaghy responded that the revenue budget was projected based on the current rate structure. Chairman Elliott then asked about the reduction in revenue from the tower rental. It was explained that this revenue comes from the space rental for the cell towers located on JWSC water tanks, and that as more options have become available to cell service providers there is less requirement for the rental of the water tower space for cell towers, therefore reducing the revenue from this source. Mr. Junkin then introduced the Rate Structure presentation by Raftelis.
- Water and Sewer Rate Structure Presentation – Tony Hairston, Raftelis Financial Consultants, Inc.
Tony Hairston gave a presentation regarding the Rate Structure. He provided the timeline of the process from November 2017 to July 1, 2018. He recognized Joe Williams as the technical lead working with staff on the recommendation. Mr. Hairston then presented the rate overview which included the three key pricing objectives of affordability, equity and revenue stability. He noted that the discussion will include the rates as currently structured with a 3% increase, and then the proposed rate structure. Out of the total water accounts from FY2017, 87% are residential, 10% are small commercial (10 REUs or less), 1% are large commercial (more than 10 REUs), and 2% are irrigation. Mr. Hairston then presented a chart indicating the breakdown of residential water bill distribution (from FY 2017), and noted that the largest range of customers 53% used 3,000 gallons per month or less, while those using 9,000 gallons or more per month equaled only 10% of the water bill distribution. Five representative groups of customers were addressed: low use residential (2,000 gallons), average use residential (5,000 gallons), small restaurant (5REUs; 40,000 gallons), large chain restaurant (34REUs; 100,000 gallons), and master metered multi-family (124 REUs; 328,000 gallons). He then provided a sample average monthly bill amount for each of the five representative groups of customers based on the current rates, and showed a comparison chart of these same current average bills versus what these bills would be with a 3% rate increase. The next portion of the presentation addressed the proposed rate structure for FY2019, which requires the recommended revisions to the Operational Agreement. Mr. Hairston explained that with the proposed rate structure the minimum bill is the same for the city and county (all considered one service area), 2,000 gallons of water is included in the minimum bill, there is a uniform commercial water usage rate, the residential sewer billing caps at 10,000 gallons (provides allowance for water used for irrigation), and there is an increased fixed charge revenue recovery. He clarified that by the 2,000 gallons being included in the proposed base rate minimum bill the increased fixed charge revenue recovery is increased from 28% to 46% which helps the bond rating, helps with the budgeting process, reduces susceptibility to fluctuations in flow, and makes the minimum bill more equitable between full time residents and seasonal residents (helps pay for the fixed costs of infrastructure being readily available). A sample proposed minimum $37.00 monthly bill that included 2,000 gallons of water usage was provided, and it was noted that 40.5% of the current customer water bills are for 2,000 gallons or less usage. The affordability of water and wastewater bills at 2,000 gallons for various household incomes was presented on a chart, which indicated that for the median income household range indicated, the minimum bill would only be equal to 1% of that household income. Mr. Hairston also noted from the chart that for the low end of household incomes (less than $10K annually) the proposed minimum water bill is still only at 4.4% of that household income meeting the EPA threshold for affordability. Next, the proposed water and sewer rates were provided for the various levels of usage amounts, with the city and county having equal rates. A comparison chart was provided that showed how JWSC residential water and sewer bills, at the current rate structure and the proposed rate structure, compared with various neighboring utilities for 2,000 and 5,000 gallon consumption amounts. For illustration purposes, Mr. Hairston then discussed what the existing monthly bill as compared to the proposed monthly bill would be for each of the five representative groups of customers identified earlier in the presentation, and indicated the percent of increase or decrease between the two bills for each group. The largest increase noted was for the seasonal residential group. He concluded the presentation with a summary of the benefits of the proposed rate structure and noted those as being revenue stability, equity, easy to explain, conservation, adaptability, favorable comparison to other utilities, and affordability. There was general discussion pertaining to the presentation such as REUs, calculations, sewer charges, comparisons, populations, tiered charges, types of customers, etc. Commissioner Stephens clarified that on the Residential Water Bill Distribution chart (see pg. 6 of presentation) that the numbers on the Y-axis represented the number of bills for each category, and Mr. Hairston confirmed it did for a 12 month period. There was some additional discussion pertaining to the rounding of gallons used for billing purposes. Mr. Burroughs explained that the billing depends on when the dial rolls over the thousand mark on the meter, for example, how many times the dial rolls over in a month determines the billing amount for that particular month. Mr. Donaghy added that the last three (3) digits of the “read” are truncated. If a meter does not roll over the “thousand” mark on the dial in any one month, there is no usage charged for that month, however if that same meter rolls over the “thousand” mark twice during the next month then a usage is charged for 2,000 gallons for that month’s bill. Commissioner Turnipseed asked how the REU charge was determined for water and sewer. Mr. Hairston replied that it was based off of a portion of the debt and some of the “readiness to serve” costs. Commissioner Stephens readdressed the chart for Residential Water Bill Distribution, and noted his concern for the large number of households within the City that appear to use less than 1,000 gallons and less than 2,000 gallons per month will see a large increase in their monthly bill based off of the proposed rate. He commented that he believes this is the wrong population to receive a large percentage of increase in their bill. While noting that he does understand the point is to place some of the fixed costs of the system on the seasonal residents, he expressed that there has to be a way not to take those households that are barely making it and using small amounts of water and increase their bills by that same percentage as seasonal residents. There was some further discussion pertaining to commercial usage and rates and residential usage and rates, as well as seasonal and low usage full time residential usage and rates. Mr. Hairston noted that while the proposed rate structure was an attempt to unify the rates between the City and County, it could be looked at from a seasonal approach with separate rate structures and would need to be looked at through the billing system and how that would work. Commissioner Browning noted that from the comparisons with other utilities it does appear that the proposed rates would be overall fair, and that he does agree with the seasonal residents paying a minimum rate no matter how long they are here, but that the question seems to be what is a fair rate for everybody? Commissioner Stephens referred to the chart on page 18 of the presentation and again noted his concern about the bills increasing for low usage households in the city and small churches and restaurants who are not the ones we are intending to make the increase on, while the other representative groups appear to be receiving a decrease in their bill. Mr. Hairston offered the suggestion to drill down and look at the 1,000 gallons or less users to identify who those are and take a closer look at that population. Commissioner Turnipseed questioned why not increase the usage rate by 3% and use the same rate structure as is currently used. Mr. Hairston noted that there would have to be a larger increase in the usage rate for a net 3% increase, and the fixed amount of revenue received would actually go down instead of up. Commissioner Stephens referred to the debt service and noted that the City users pay $5.07 debt service fee while the County users pay a $9.55 debt service fee, and while this is trying to be evened out across the board it is putting that much more back on the same users who we shouldn’t be. The increases from the past few years were noted. Chairman Elliott then reminded the Commission that the rates for this organization were artificially low in 2013 and the infrastructure to support this organization was not there; they came from the governments, and they lost services and had to rebuild those services. He added, that the rates did go up, but that was needed growth, and this proposal is more in line with the consumer price index of what the cost of peoples’ salaries are, what the cost of materials are, and he noted that a 3% increase was pretty conservative compared to what others are doing. Commissioner Turnipseed commented that he understood that, but questioned whether they should not raise the rates by 3% by having a net 3% increase for everybody in the whole system and do it in such a way that the Operational Agreement does not require a change. Regarding the recommended Operational Agreement changes, Chairman Elliott provided that they were trying to eliminate the debt service charges that would be there in the future, and if they want to really go back and do it right, they would go back to districts and have a City district, and for all the money that needs to be put into Academy Creek the City district will get that debt service, and we do not want to do that, not while trying to help the lower economic spectrum that exists there. He continued to say that the sooner that we transition this such that as an organization we have a simpler rate structure for both, the better. He noted understanding about those Commissioner Stephens was concerned about, but added that at some point we are going to have to look at the rate structure so that we operate as one utility and everything is done that way. Commissioner Turnipseed asked if the debt currently being paid for in the bills is based on the original debt from when JWSC system was formed, and cannot be changed based on the new debt that we have incurred. Chairman Elliott replied that it was based on the original debt, and that the way the Operational Agreement reads it cannot be changed. Commissioner Harvey asked when that City debt would be finished and Chairman Elliott advised it would be the year 2023. He added that the debt service fee is currently lower for the City now because the City did not bring in as much debt to the organization as the County did. Commissioner Harvey indicated understanding of the community being brought together and the organization running the way it should be to retire the debt, but noted his concern for those low end customers, and also commented that a decision has to be made to go one way or the other. Chairman Elliott commented that more information may be needed at this point. Commissioner Turnipseed added that he believed capping the sewer bill at 10,000 gallons may not be good. Mr. Junkin suggested that staff will go back and look at the various levels of what could be done with the cap on sewer, look at a phased approach to the fixed bond end and look at phasing it in over the next 3 to 5 years, and to get to a point where we have greater affordability for all categories of customers that are actually users, not including zero users, but to find affordability while achieving equity. Mr. Hairston commented that a blend could be looked at of the minimum bill being a bit lower but higher on the usage, which does sacrifice some of the revenue stability but it may work by phasing it in. Mr. Junkin added to also make it where the lower bracket of usage, not the zero users, are in a better situation, and that this may become a multi-year strategy as opposed to trying to fix it all at once. Chairman Elliott also suggested they might want to look at having the old County debt separately identified so that old County debt gets paid off in 2035, and the whole blending would occur at that period, and carry the City up to when the City debt is paid in 2023 so those people have lower bills, and the County would still be paying what their debt is. There was some additional discussion regarding the rates and changes. Chairman Elliott requested to be provided the numbers for the 2019 budget using the rate structure under the Operational Agreement.
- Rate Structure Workshop Presentation – Courtney Rogers, Davenport & Company
Courtney Rogers provided additional commentary for consideration when changing the rate structure to one that is fixed and noted that as they have discussed in the past, people are using less water and as more is put onto the volumetric dollars are being lost, but yet there are still the fixed costs remaining to be covered. He added that JWSC does have a unique issue with seasonality, but also there are authorities around the country dealing with people using less water. He also provided a chart from the AWWA that showed annualized rate increases nationally from 2004 to 2014 and indicated that water rates increased 5.5% and wastewater rates increased 6.1% with the CPI has been 2.4%, and he noted this tells us that running a utility is quite expensive. He then displayed a line graph of rate trends in survey years, and noted in some years where there were double digit increases nationally. Mr. Rogers continued with the Davenport & Company presentation for the Rate Structure Workshop. He gave a background overview and provided that Davenport was asked to discuss how the revised rate structure would be viewed by the credit markets. He noted that as part of that presentation he would recap the results of the Commission’s Series 2017 bond issuance, provide an overview of current market conditions, review key characteristics that constitute a highly regarded credit worthy utility system, discuss comparatives with peer utility systems, review the Commission’s financial trends, and review the Commission’s currently outstanding debt. In recapping the results of the bond refunding Mr. Rogers recalled that this allowed the Reserve Fund to be freed up which has been helpful in funding some of the projects, which overtime will equal about $3.8M. He provided some of the history and as to where the interest rates were expected to be at where they ended up being in reality. He then noted the BGJWSC current credit ratings with S&P, Moody’s and Fitch, and discussed the goals and importance of the credit ratings for future borrowing and interest rates, etc. Also mentioned were the four key areas the rating agencies look at which are operations, finance, debt, and management. Mr. Rogers then noted that the last time Moody’s had reviewed BGJWSC was June 2010, and that in December 2014 Moody’s revised its rating methodology. He provided that the sub-factors now looked at by Moody’s are asset condition, service area wealth, system size, annual debt service coverage, days cash on hand, debt to operating revenues, rate management, regulatory compliance and capital planning, rate covenant and debt service reserve requirement. He then explained the commentary from Moody’s report for BGJWSC from June 2010 which included: adequate security provisions, continued economic expansion of service area anticipated, system treatment capacity provides health margins above current demand, financial operations remain stable, debt service coverage expected to strengthen, and average but manageable debt levels. Mr. Rogers then reviewed Standard & Poor’s revenue bond methodology and explained that in January 2016, S&P revised its water and sewer rating methodology and provided the details of those ratings and that the last time S&P rated BGJWSC was December 2013. The historical debt service coverage was then reviewed for the years of 2012 to 2017, along with a 2017 debt service coverage comparison of JWSC with other authorities. He provided a chart indicating the days cash on hand for the years of 2012 to 2017, along with a 2017 days cash on hand comparison of JWSC with other authorities with an explanation of how JWSC has some Board restricted funds and the effect of those on the comparison. Debt to revenue and debt outstanding were two additional comparison’s provided for JWSC and other authorities. Lastly, Mr. Rogers provided a chart displaying the total debt outstanding along with some final observation notes for BGJWSC’s standing with the rating agencies.
Mr. Junkin said staff would reconvene with Tony Hairston and Joe Williams from Raftelis, gather more data, try to work out some other possibilities and look at deeper details that were raised today on the expense side, and compare what’s ahead with the schedule to see if there is time to manipulate the revised rate structure and see what can be done and what the impacts may be.
Chairman Elliott asked if there was another work session needed. Mr. Junkin advised it would depend the timing of reviewing the revisions and receiving feedback from the Commission, but there would be another workshop.
There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 5:01 pm