Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout20.09.30 - Minutes, Environmental Management Adv. Cmt.ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT ADVISORY COMMITTEE – Sub-Committee MINUTES DATE: 09/30/2020 ATTENDING: Brock Shriver Randall Morin Lisa Reigh Sara Greaves Lacey Capshaw E. Duane Arch Terry Schlotterbeck Russ Weaver Austin Abraham Dave Mason Davina Yutzy Dennis Cumbie Lisa Horn Becky Beecroft Aline Novak I. CALL TO ORDER: Brock opened the meeting at 1706 hours. II. APPROVAL OF AGENDA: Brock moved to amend the agenda adding “Welcome New Member Mr. Arch.” Dennis seconded the agenda amendment. Dennis moved to approve the agenda, Dennis seconded. Agenda passed unanimously. III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Rebecca made a motion to approve the minutes. Lisa Reigh seconded. Minutes passed unanimously. IV. OLD BUSINESS: a. Introduction – E. Duane Arch – Appointed by Commissioner Baker b. Commissioner’s Request to Review Budget Shortfall for Water and Sewer: Brock advised that there were a lot of e-mails back and forth and he’s trying to streamline the information requests because every one of those requests translates to more work for Lacey, Jeremy, Sara, Davina, or whomever. Hoping to have a more orderly process for the future, just bring up items at the meetings for discussion and then by the end of the meeting we can have everyone on the same page and can figure out what we do and do not need for the future. i. Objectives: Reviewed Bylaw #3 in section C. 1. What are we tasked with achieving? What can we do about the constantly increasing water and sewer rates? EMAC voting members are ultimately tasked with gathering all of this information and voting on which way we’d like to recommend to the Commissioners at the end of this. With that being said, the Sub-Committee members are heavily relied upon to bring their various fields of expertise for the reason that each was appointed by the Commissioners. The information/recommendation that we will present will be from a neutral perspective and strictly from information we glean from these meetings. a. Response to memo requesting written definite statement of tasking: Received an e-mail response with the link from the YouTube video showing the meeting that this Sub- Committee was formed. i. Team to study solutions that will not require the County to increase water and sewer rates ii. Take a look at the current rate model and see if any adjustments can be made iii. Take a look at the current operations and see if anything cost savings can be found: It was agreed that it would be best to start with going over operational procedures/expenses. Russ Weaver would like to know metrics, so that we can get down to the cost drivers. Are we going to be able to drill down through funds? Sara and Jeremy advised that the budget is based on location and cost/time spent working at each plant. Collections fund isn’t broken down in that way. Russ wanted to know the metrics that are used to compare treatment plants. Jeremy explained each plant being different and unique in the way they’re run or treated due to differing equipment, technology, and processes. Russ wants to know in terms of cost per gallon for different locations. Brock advised that it may in fact be the case that we cannot come to any conclusion in the end, because of complexity, but we’d definitely like to explore as much as we can in this time. Russ advised he’s spent hours looking at the model and can’t understand it. Maybe our recommendation to Commissioners at the end of this is that we need to improve our accounting and modeling, if they want to come at this, we will see. May need a consultant type of person to come in. Sara advised she did a quick analysis of the 3 funds (Utility, Water, Sewer). When you remove the Utility Admin charges, you have a budget of approximately $13.5M. $7M of that is wages and benefits related, $2.6M is related to debt service for capital projects, $1M is related to supplies & chemical treatment, and $1M utilities. If you look at it from a broad perspective, wages and benefits and debt service are the most costly expenditures. The majority of the fund is fixed costs. We already have procurement procedures to secure the lowest cost for supplies and chemical treatment. Brock asked if it is useful to review water & sewer separately. Committee advised he’d like to review Sewer first, then water. Becky wanted to know the cost per unit for waste treatment in Washington County? Jeremy advised we’d have to break it down price per gallon for waste. That would give a benchmark of how much it would cost per gallon. Becky confirmed that she understood that each Washington County water customer, and each Washington County sewer customer pay the same rate, so in essence other areas are subsidizing the more expensive areas. Becky asked with the rates that are in place currently, are we anywhere near breaking-even. Sara advised that the sewer fund is not self-supporting, there’s approximately a $1.3M-$1.4M gap between revenues and expenditures. The model currently assumes a 3.5% increase for FY22, and even if the Commissioners were to approve that, we would still have approximately a $1M gap that year that would need to be funded somehow probably through a loan from the general fund. If we continue to increase the rates for a couple more years, the fund should be much closer to where revenues and expenses align. But, if we have to a pay back a loan from general fund or elsewhere, that portion is not in the model, so any surplus would first have to go to paying that back. Russ advised we’ve been on the wrong side of this since back in 1992. Jeremy advised that some things they’ve been trying to look at some alternatives for Sharpburg specifically. Not replacing their plant, but looking into perhaps, supplementing with wells as being an option. That would drastically reduce the costs for Sharpsburg. Jeremy advised he can get the cost per gallon for water plants and wastewater plants by the next meeting. Jeremy advised that would be strictly operational, not debt service incorporated into these numbers. Russ wanted to know how the debt service is allocated. It was stated that it corresponds with the fund that it was utilized for. Russ asked about the current debt service and asked if that was tied to Conococheague’s ENR upgrade. Sara reminded of the grant funded amount covered for Conococheague’s upgrade. V. New Business a. Outstanding information requests Price per gallon document, Jeremy and staff will gather this information. Information from the WCSD to the County. The original agreements that created Concocheague WwTP under WCSD and any assumptions and planning documents of when it came over to the County in 1992. Then documentation later on in 2008- 2009 when it was said that we no longer have to transfer funds from the general fund. Economic plans around Cascade and other things that never happened. Russ voiced concern that the debt service is a big cost driver and it’s a County responsibility, and not a user responsibility. BNR upgrade was done prior to the ENR upgrade. Two upgrades to the Conococheague WwTP in the last 20 years. Lisa Reigh had requested the appropriation totals. The appropriations account is used when one fund is transferring cash to another fund. In this case, the Utility fund would be transferring cash to the Capital Utility fund, Water fund to Capital Water fund, and Sewer fund to Capital Sewer fund. Sara had sent the Capital Budget Book (link was sent previously), which gave detailed information on projects that those appropriations went to. Most projects included vehicles, equipment, or other items that are necessary for operatings but cannot utilize bond funding. Terry Schlotterbeck had said that the holding jobs, doesn’t think it saves too much money for the County. Time and a half and double time on the weekends, hurts morale and productivity. Had spoken with previous Director about interviewing people, then placing folks on a list for future job postings. Advised that was a Human Resources process that would have to be modified. Asked about overtime being paid out on weekends compared to during the week. Sara & Jeremy advised that will take a considerable amount of time to gather that information as it would have to be every single pay period for every single employee to obtain that information. Jeremy addressed Terry’s concerns about positions on hold, three of those positions were filled. Still a couple of positions on hold, currently in a holding pattern so we can assess where we are. Overtime wages from FY17-FY19 - Utility, Water, and Sewer funds: Overtime FY17 $150,000 FY18 $140,000 FY19 $160,000, just to give everyone an idea of the last 3 years of overtime. Terry advised back in the Lynn Palmer days, they used to log their mileage and charge that to each location they visited. Small things like that could add up. b. Other materials/speakers, etc that would be useful Austin asked what percent funded is the County’s pension fund. Sara advised approximately 52%. Since the OPEB account is over 100% funded, the county commissioners authorized what would have previously been utilized for that fund to be transferred into the pension fund to increase the funded ratio. Austin asked what percent personnel cost increases are in the model for the out years. Sara advised 3.5%, which consists of a 2.5% step increase and a 1% COLA estimate. Austin asked about operators if they are cross trained for the same areas, referencing Antietam and Sharpsburg. Jeremy advised there are different certifications necessary for different plants. He advised it’s challenging as there are some issues with having incentives to offer employees to be cross trained and for them to obtain different certifications. What percent of the Sharpsburg WTP’s capacity is being utilized? Jeremy advised that it’s by daily allocation that we can use that we cannot go over for Water. Wastewater plants go by capacity. Sharpsburg WTP - Antietam WwTP – once we start reaching 80% of design flow, we have to start looking at upgrading the plant. c. Schedule Moving Forward: Every two-weeks on the 2nd and 4th Wednesdays for the duration. Brock moves that the next meeting be October 14, 2020. Becky seconded the motion. The following for October 28, 2020 via ZOOM (as previously scheduled). VI. AGENDA FOR NEXT MEETING: Break down into operational discussion of sewer, water, may decide to table water depending on how long we discuss sewer. Will discuss some of the cost savings implemented or in the process of being implemented by DWQ. VII. ADJOURNMENT Becky moved to adjourn; Lisa Horn seconded. Meeting adjourned at 1842 hours. The next meeting will be held October 14, 2020 at 5:00 pm. The location of this meeting will be via Zoom.