MEETING: RATE REVIEW COMMITTEE
DATE: April 26, 2005
DAY: Tuesday
TIME: 6:00 – 8:00 p.m.
PLACE: Metro Regional Center, Room 501 NOTE ROOM CHANGE
AGENDA
1. Call to Order (10 min) Rod Park
Consideration of minutes for the April 12 and April 19 meetings.*
(Note, the April 12 minutes were distributed at the April 20 meeting. Call Tom Chaimov if you need a copy.)
2. Finalizing the Rate Recommendation (1 hr. 45 min.) Rod Park
Topics:*
a) Recommendation on FY 2005-06 rates: Regional System Fee, transaction fee, tonnage charge.
b) Directions to staff on the “3rd Fee.”
c) Findings and other discussion the Committee wants to send to Council along with the recommendation.
d) Other, as identified by the Committee.
3. Wrap Up (5 min.) Rod Park
* Starred materials are attached or enclosed with this agenda.
Please contact Tom Chaimov at Metro with any questions at chaimovt@metro.dst.or.us or 503-797-1681.
Committee Members | Metro Staff |
Matt Korot, City of Gresham | Paul Matthews, Integrated Utilities Group | Michael Hoglund, SWR Director |
Mike Leichner, Pride Disposal | Mike Miller, Gresham Sanitary | Douglas Anderson, SWR Manager |
Ray Phelps, Allied | Michelle Poyourow, Public Power Council | Tom Chaimov, Senior SW Planner |
Councilor Rod Park, Chair | Karen Feher, Finance & Admin. |
DA:gbc
T:\Remfma\committees\RRC\FY 05-06\Mtg8 April 26\RRC042605aga.doc
Queue
Rate Review Committee
April 26, 2005
Attachment for Agenda Item 2
Background Information for “Finalizing the Rate Recommendation”
Rate Ordinance and Staff Report
• Ultimately, the Committee’s work is translated into a legislative package,
consisting of a rate ordinance and staff report.
• Draft versions are attached to familiarize you with the format.
• What to do with the drafts:
⮋ The Committee should change or confirm the boxed areas in the Rate Ordinance.
⮋ The recitals (“whereas” clauses) are findings in favor of the ordaining clause (which is to amend Metro Code to reflect the new rates). The Committee may wish to add/edit these.
⮋ Any additional analyses, arguments, comments or observations may go in the staff report.
Summary of the Rate Work
Last week, staff distributed budget allocations and rates based on the 1st draft numbers:
• Using the FY 2005-06 budget and tons applied to the current allocation model; and
• After adjusting allocations based on the policies adopted at the April 12 and 20 meetings.
These results are summarized in the following table:
1st Draft (Phased COS) | After Policy Reallocations |
Component | Budget Allocation | Unit Cost | Budget Allocation | Unit Cost |
“3rd Fee” | none | — | $120,582 | see pg. 2 |
Transaction Fee | $2,846,107 | $7.50 | $2,354,601 | $6.20 | ||||
Tonnage charge* | $26,056,398 | $46.10 | $24,552,204 | $43.44 | ||||
Regional System Fee | $19,291,447 | $14.87 | $20,580,349 | $15.86 | ||||
Metro excise tax | —— . —— | $8.33 | —— . —— | $8.33 | ||||
DEQ & host fees | —— . —— | $1.74 | —— . —— | $1.74 | ||||
Total from rates | $48,193,952 | $47,607,736** | ||||||
Metro tip fee | — | $71.04 | — | $69.37 |
* The proposed extra budget for fuel, which translates to about a dollar a ton, is not reflected in these numbers. ** The totals differ by $586,216 because reserves are used for a portion of debt service in the second scenario. |
Refer to the material emailed last week for comparison with current rates, and further analysis.
In the table above:
• Bold typeface indicates the numbers which RRC recommends.
• Regular typeface indicates numbers that are affected by RRC recommendations.
• Italic typeface indicates numbers that cannot be affected by the RRC.
What to do with these numbers:
• On the 26th, members should be prepared to recommend a set of rates; and
• Identify findings and arguments in favor of the recommendation.
• Staff will incorporate these in the rate ordinance and staff report per the RRC’s direction.
The “3rd Fee”
On Tuesday April 26, the Committee should provide further directions to staff on the “3rd Fee.”
• If the Committee recommends implementing the “3rd Fee” in FY 2005-06:
⮋ Provide further recommendations on design and implementation.
⮋ How should the revenue requirement be handled from September 1 until the rate is effective, given the high likelihood that the 3rd fee will not be in place at the same time as the other rates?
• If the Committee does not recommend implementing the “3rd Fee” in FY 2005-06:
⮋ Where should the revenue requirement be allocated for FY 2005-06?
⮋ What does the Committee recommend as to implemention in the longer run?
T:\Remfma\committees\RRC\FY 05-06\Mtg8 April 26\RRC042605aga.doc (Attachment to agenda)
Queue