MEETING: RATE REVIEW COMMITTEE
DATE: April 20, 2005
DAY: Wednesday
TIME: 5:30 – 7:30 p.m. NOTE TIME CHANGE
PLACE: Metro Regional Center, Room 370A
AGENDA
1. Call to Order (10 min) Rod Park
Consideration of minutes for the April 5 meeting;* distribution of draft minutes for the April 12 meeting.
Timeline for adoption and implementation of rates* (information only).
2. Finalizing the Rate Recommendation (60 min) Rod Park
Issues remaining from April 12:
• Finish any work on RRC’s allocation recommendations*: (a) Metro’s solid waste sustainability costs; (b) the incremental cost of serving public customers; and (c) inspection-related costs.
• Rate Predictability: Recommend options for managing the impact of the debt service on rates. Staff suggested two phasing options to avoid a sudden rate drop after July 1, 2009 when Metro’s bonds mature. Two options were distributed last week: (a) begin phasing-in the use of reserves to pay the debt service; and (b) begin a phased reallocation of debt service from the disposal charge to the RSF. The status quo—recovery of full debt service costs from rates—also remains an option.
3. Develop Findings (45 min) Rod Park
As a final step prior to recommending the FY 05-06 rates, the RRC may wish to develop findings supporting the committee’s recommended changes. The agency’s Rate Setting Criteria* are attached to provide a starting point for the discussion.
4. Wrap Up (5 min) Rod Park
Confirm the time and agenda for the next meeting.
* 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\Mtg7 Apr 20\RRC042005aga.doc
Queue
Attachment 1
Rate Review Committee Agenda
April 20, 2005
Timeline for Adoption and Implementation of FY 2005-06 Solid Waste Rates
April 26 RRC finalizes recommendation
April 28 Presentation to SWAC
May 2 (week of) RRC members' review of SWAC comments & draft legislative package
(via email)
May 11 File legislative package
May 19 1st reading of Rate Ordinance
June 2 2nd reading (and adoption) of Rate Ordinance
September 1 FY 2005-06 rates effective
(after 90 day referral period)
Attachment 2
Rate Review Committee Agenda
April 20, 2005
RRC Allocation Recommendations
(by vote, April 12, 2005)
What | From | To |
Metro’s sustainability costs | Disposal Charge | Regional System Fee |
Public customers—incremental cost | Transaction/disposal fees | Regional System Fee |
25% of inspection-related costs | Regional System Fee | “3rd Fee” |
Attachment 3
Rate Review Committee Agenda
April 20, 2005
Rate Setting Criteria
Adapted from Resolution #93-1824A
1. Consistency: Solid waste rate setting should be consistent with Metro’s agency-wide planning policies and objectives, including but not limited to the Solid Waste Management Plan.
2. Revenue Adequacy and Reliability: Rates should be sufficient to generate revenues that fund the costs of the solid waste system.
3. Equity: Charges to users of the waste management system should be directly related to services received. Charges to residents of the Metro service district who may not be direct users of the disposal system should be related to other benefits received.
4. Waste Reduction: The rate structure should encourage waste reduction, reuse, and recycling.
5. Affordability: Rate setting should consider the customers’ ability to pay, e.g., the cost of living for residential customers and the cost of doing business for commercial customers.
6. Implementation and Administration: Rate setting should balance the relative cost and effort of implementing and administering the rates with financial and policy goals. Rates should be enforceable.
7. Credit Rating Impacts: The rate structure should not negatively impact Metro’s credit rating.
8. Authority to Implement: Metro should ensure that it has the legal ability to implement the rate structure; or, if such authority is not already held, evaluate the relative difficulty of obtaining the authority.
9. Predictability: Metro rate adjustments should be predictable and orderly to allow local governments, haulers, and rate payers to perform effective planning.
T:\Remfma\committees\RRC\FY 05-06\Mtg7 Apr 20\RRC042005aga.doc
Queue