Laserfiche WebLink
nV <br />DISPOSITION <br />REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION <br />STAFF REPORT <br />AGENDA SESSION DATE <br />October 4, 1993 <br />Item Description: Consideration of Street Light Utility Rates <br />Adntinistrntors Review/Recommendation:,•�"�; *� <br />No comments to supplement this report <br />Comments attached. ___. , <br />Esplanation!Suntmnry 4mnch supplement sheets as necessnq.l <br />SEUHAHL <br />Agenda Section: __ 3-- <br />Report Number: 93_637WS <br />lit•pnrt Date ___9-10=93 __ <br />At the September 27, 1993, Regular City Council meeting, Ordinance No. 528, <br />an ordinance that would repeal the sunset portion of the Street Light <br />Utility, was adopted by the Council. As is annually the case with <br />municipal utilities, it is time to reexamine the rate structure to <br />determine if the rates are set at a level that is fair and reasonable yet <br />enables the City to operate this Utility in a financially sound manner. <br />Presented to you for your consideration are several options pertaining to <br />the Street Light Utility's rate structure. There are five scenarios <br />included that offer a range of possible rates. with each scenario, the <br />rates decrease at a 8-9% average to help visualize the impact that <br />decreasing revenues would have on the Street Light Utility's fund balance. <br />Also, the expenses in each scenario are constant but show inflation <br />increases from one year to the next for 5 years. The electricity account <br />reflects a 5% rate increase each year and the installations, maintenance <br />and administration accounts reflect a 3% increase each year. <br />In all of the scenarios, the revenue remains the same for 1992 and 1993 <br />because the rates were set for those two years. It is the years 1994-98 <br />that are being considered. For example, Scenario #1 examines the impact <br />of no change in the existing rates. If the expenses are accurate (the % <br />increases are only guesses), the Utility will start using fund balance to <br />finance the Street Light Utility operations by 1997. Scenario #2 proposes <br />a 9% decrease in revenues compared to the existing rates and reveals that <br />fund balance begins to be used in 1994 to help balance the Street Light <br />Utility budget. Scenario #3 reduces revenues another 9% and shows that <br />fund balance is also being used to balance this budget in 1994, but using <br />more fund balance to do so than Scenario #2. Scenario #4 decreases <br />revenues another 9% and spends down fund balance even faster. Scenario #5 <br />cuts the existing rates in half and decreases the fund balance by $30,000 <br />in one year. <br />In'.commuiDA•p1ON. Tim Cruikshank, Asst. to City Admin. <br />