HL&P Commercial Rates

While HL&P raised residential rates across the board by 6% (including the monthly base charge), the commercial rates are presented as a 6% in each "class."
However, the monthly bills show a large variety of results.  The Cost of Study analysis reports small commercial (about 1,000 accounts) example changes of -26% to -7% (Lower rates).  For medium (120), increases of 7 to 12%; and Large Commercial (21) all at 7%, or so.   They failed to seriously consider suggestions from the public to correct the inequities.

However here are a few examples of specific accounts provided by HL&P.  NO large Commercial examples were provided (to protect the identity of the 21 users)

					OLD RATES					NEW RATES
	Monthly Usage kWH	Average demand kW	Peak demand kW	Monthly Base Charge	Energy - first 500 kWh	Energy -next 500 kWh	Energy - all addditional kWh	Total	Base Charge	Energy - first 10,000 kWh	Energy - all add'l kWh	Demand Charge per kW	Total	% change vs. current rate
med	840	1.17	64	$6.50	$74.60	$52.25	$(12.78)	$120.57	$15.20	$50.74		$640.00	$705.94	486%
med	960	1.33	49	$6.50	$74.60	$52.25	$(3.20)	$130.15	$15.20	$57.98		$490.00	$563.18	333%
small	454	0.63	1.15	$6.50	$74.60	$(4.81)	$(43.63)	$32.66	$8.00	$35.41		$10.24	$53.65	64%
small	433	0.60	4.62	$6.50	$74.60	$(7.00)	$(45.30)	$28.80	$8.00	$33.77		$41.12	$82.89	188%
small	1,120	1.56	3	$6.50	$74.60	$52.25	$9.59	$142.94	$8.00	$78.00	$5.52	$26.70	$118.22	-17%
small	974	1.35	4.95	$6.50	$74.60	$49.53	$(2.08)	$128.55	$8.00	$75.97		$44.06	$128.03	0%
small	1,260	1.75	3.96	$6.50	$74.60	$52.25	$20.77	$154.12	$8.00	$78.00	$11.96	$35.24	$133.20	-14%
small	2,923	4.06	2.27	$6.50	$74.60	$52.25	$153.65	$287.00	$8.00	$78.00	$88.46	$20.20	$194.66	-32%

The STEALTH $62 Million School Bond - YOUR TAX Increase

As the annual County Tax Notices did not include the effects of the proposed $62 MILLION School Building Bond, here is an example of what you can expect for your property TAX, if the bond appears on the ballot in November and passes.  (Update:the school board DID approve the bond to be voted on THIS year - through a mail-in ballot.)

Public Meeting Notice: "on August 18,2015, the Board of Education (the “Board”) of the Wasatch County School District, Utah (the“District”), adopted a resolution (the “Resolution”)"

It is uncertain at this time whether taxes will change in 2016 or 2017. (Update: if passed, taxes WILL increase next year.) 

Approval of this $62,000,000 proposed bond:

• Will increase your school tax bond (debt) burden by over 60%, and
• Will increase your total school taxes by about 15% (for 2/3 or your total property Tax)
• AND increase your TOTAL property tax bill by about 10%

If you would like to compute YOUR new taxes go to this link to determine your own increased TAX burden.

• Enter YOUR 2015 Property Value and taxes in the GREEN boxes 
• Enter YOUR School taxes in the YELLOW boxes for 2014 & 2015 
• This blog will reflect the most recent entry.

Also please note:

• After a “truth” in taxation hearing Summer 2016 – the new building operating tax would probably begin BEFORE new buildings are finished.  
• NO expenses appear to have been budgeted yet for modification of OLD pool area (= more $$$$)
• If the bond does NOT pass, the School District has 'promised' to implement better utilization of the existing schools - at a MUCH lower cost.

Heber Light Proposed Rate Increase

Update: The rate increase WAS approved at a postponed  August meeting on 2 Sept.  As a result of some data supplied it appears some commercial users may get increases of up to 400%, while others may get a reduction.  All residential users will get a 6% increase.   The rate increase will occur in  the next billing cycle.

A word to the wise, it may be very appropriate to carefully check your bills.  One user recently found his residential account had been billed in error for several YEARS
*************        *******************
Heber Power Board Members and Heber City Council

As this epistle is too detailed for presentation at the Public Hearing, I'm sending it to the decision makers (Board) in the hope that you will take it under consideration in your decision on the rate increase.

My two major concerns are raising residential rates and the possible reduction in larger commercial, that may not be offset by necessary Peak Power purchases. A minor concern is also the lack of time based rates and its affect on peak power.

At last year's Rate Increase hearing, Mr Pender talked about the concept of “Cost of Causation.” “means that those who cause the utility to incur its costs should be responsible for payment of such costs.” pg 4, COS Study

The imposition, or continuation, of a service charge further hurts those least able to pay bills – the low residential user. But that IS being addressed somewhat, relatively, with the new proposed rates.Removing it or reducing it, with a per kwhr adjustment, might be a better alternative to an increase.

The Board decision to increase impact fees from 40% to 60% was a step in the right direction, in my opinion. I believe last year 75% was recommended.

That does mean, however, that 40% (rather than 60%) of the 'caused' cost burden must be still be borne by the remaining current ratepayers. While this was a good decision, it appears that this proposed rate increase may further the inequitable burden on the residential ratepayer, rather than those who have benefited from the past lower impact fees.

Last year's rate increase presentation used 'examples' showing a standard 4.5% for all users. A closer look showed that not to be true. Smaller commercial faced a larger relative burden that larger commercial. That appears to have been corrected in this year's proposal. All small commercial seems to be getting a rate REDUCTION. This is probably a positive step, for the existing 1185 small businesses, who may have been beneficiaries of the lower impact fees of the past.

It appears that an original 4.5% residential increase has been increased to 6% for all nearly 10,000 users. This does seem strange to me as one of the avowed reasons for municipal (user owned) utilities is lower rates for the 'owners' (municipalities and their residents and taxpayers). The supposed advantage of lower impact fees was encouragement for

An Open Letter to the Wasatch School Board

(In case you missed it the Wasatch School Board will, in all likelihood, approve a bond election for $62 Million in new school buildings, here's a recent Email to the Board recommending an alternative, some editing done, links and highlighting done)

An Open Letter to the School Board

Dear School Board Members

I took the opportunity to listen to the School Board study session (July 7, 2015) on Year Round Education, the Provo principal, Rosemarie Smith gave a great presentation!!!  She pointed out the pros and cons and clearly stated the #1 reason for YRE was "enhanced learning."

++++(More in depth report here, (regrettably you need to scroll to July 9 to find it, amongst the other mainly pro building propaganda) from Melissa Campbell, WCSD Media Manager, with comments from others)+++   "Mrs. Smith recommended that at least one year before the switch (and preferably two) the district should:
1. create a committee of principals who would be involved in the switch to lay groundwork for the massive amount of planning
2. hold cottage meetings around the community to explain how the year round schedules would work and how it would affect families with students in the schools
3. meet with teachers
4. meet with district and then school based PTA groups
5. identify community members favorable to year round schools and help them be parent leaders in implementing
6. send out newsletters"   

The only previous Board discussion on this viable alternative was apparently about 5 minutes in a work minute, wherein a board member reportedly stated 'teachers and parents are not happy with year round education.'   (which effectively ended the discussion)

Professional Educator Smith, with her ten year YRE experience emphasized the need to “educate” the public on the value, and efficacy, of YRE. This has NOT been done in Wasatch County. Without that explanation, the lack of accurate information devolves into emotion and a reluctance to accept potentially advantageous, and positive, change.

She also went to great lengths discussing the scheduling flexibility and its acceptance by both parents and teachers. She further elaborated on the virtual elimination of time to get students “back on task” after the long summer vacation, which greatly enhance retention and learning. 

Within the last few years, WSD adopted education digitization with little public discussion, at an expense of millions of taxpayer dollars. That computerized system has the capability, and possible requirement, for a new evaluation of school structures, to allow even more student learning flexibility and learning possibilities. This may, in fact, reduce the need for brick and mortar as a few, or many, students may be able to use an alternative educational method through computers.

As the wasatch.edu website states you are only “contemplating a need for a bond?,” and you are now seeking “Citizen Input on Facilities Bond,” I would strongly encourage a deeper public discussion before attempting to pass a $62 million bond. YRE could greatly extend the time in which new buildings are truly “needed.” 

 

On a companion issue, I believe your survey results may be slightly awry. The survey report states "Results were weighted by age to align with population base" Checking the vote in those demographics suggest that would create a more favorable vote. 

But no weighting was done for 16% school employees (16%, what is the actual percentage of voters, maybe 5%), or geographic (unincorporated county accounts for 31 %, but the poll response appears nearer to 10%. The town of Daniel, where a new school is proposed, received half representation in the Survey. 

 

The choice is really quite simple:

• a new $62 million bond,
• with $850K in increased taxes for operations,
• Plus a large tax increase for debt payment and interest ($3-$4 million per year?),
  
• and the status quo, OR . . . . 
• "optimizing the use of existing buildings,"
• with a tax increase of 'only' $765K, and
• the “Enhanced Learning” reported by Rosemarie Smith,
• with vastly greater scheduling flexibility!!!

Yes, Wasatch County is growing, but remember the 2008 economic turn-down. A recurrence is not beyond a possibility.   More DEBT is NOT fiscal responsibility! 
A new mail-in off year election is not the time for experimentation with such an immense decision.

WSD Computerized Education Cost

The Wasatch School District was kind enough to respond to a GRAMA request from WTPA about expenditures for 'Digital Conversion Expenses" (aka known as 'computer oriented education').  

This post is merely a report on the financial aspects, and does not intend to comment on the viability and efficacy of this new pedagogy.    Hopefully the school district will soon report how effective digitization has been in increasing educational outcome.  In the meantime try this analysis , or here, or here, pros and cons,  and here 
 A grand total for 3 years of $5.7 Million already, PLUS at least $771,773 proposed 2016-7.  That corresponds to an average expenditure of about $1,000 per student or about $21,000 per teacher over the three year period.

Devices:	2013-14	2014-15	2015-16	Students	Avg cost	2016-17
Devices RMMS	$518,769			850	$610
Devices TIS	$273,158	$324		844	$324
Cases	$52,000	$61,000				??
Projectors	$42,000	$147,000	$344,000			??
Wireless upgrades	$75,000	$77,000	$79,000			??
Yearly Total	$960,927				$960,927
Devices WHS		$1,460,900		1664	$878
Yearly Total		$1,745,900			$1,745,900
Devices 3-4			$425,250	1200	$360
Teacher laptop upgrades			$177,600	270.62	$656	??
Yearly Total			$1,025,850	5710	$1,025,850
Device Repair & Upgrades						??
Digital curriculum:	2013-14	2014-15	2015-16	3 yr total	$3,732,677	2016-17
Core digital curriculum	$91,010	$257,009	$387,791	$735,810		$387,791
Supplemental digital curriculum	$45,445	$85,129	$119,854	$250,428		$119,854
Curriculum subtotal:	$136,455	$342,138	$507,645	$986,238		$507,645
Schoolnet IIS		$131,980		$131,980		$100,798
Supporting change of practice	$187,630	$262,980	$303,330	$753,940		$163,330
Planning/project management	$84,250	$97,250	$92,000	$273,500
Technical support	$10,500	$14,000	$17,500	$42,000
Negotiated savings		-$94,000	-$92,000	-$186,000
Total curriculum:	$418,835	$754,348	$828,475	$2,001,658		$771,773
	$1,379,762	$2,500,248	$1,854,325	2013-16:	$5,734,335
			per student		$1,004

NOTES: Figures have been realigned somewhat to make it easier to understand.  The top half seems to 'hardware' expenses, the bottom is curriculum costs.  Totals were added for the respective fiscal years yielding a grand total for 3 years of $5.7 Million.

• It is unclear whether the curriculum cost will continue as yearly expenditures. As most of the figures for 2015-6 are again presented for 2016-7,  we may assume a continuing annual expense.
• It is also unclear why no continuing hardware expense is shown for 2016-7 "??"
• As no enrollment figures (other than district totals were found at Wasatch.edu) the enrollment figures were found here for per student average 'cost.'  Avg cost for "Device 3-4" used half the listed total elementary enrollment.
• The teacher count was computed using the pupil per teacher ratio.

Much of this money was "found" money in property taxes which were received in excess of the original budget expectations. Some may opine that it is actually from the 50% Truth in Taxation increase of 2007, which has allowed, created, caused or precipitated much of the free spending philosophy of recent years. (Football Stadium, marble floors, sports facilities, etc.)

Activism - Get Involved!!

Happy 2015, two new members of the County Council have been sworn in.  Change may be ushered in with the frigid air.

Nearly 20 percent of Wasatch voters signed the recently submitted referendum petition to place the North Fields rezoning issue up to a vote.

A lawsuit opposing the rezone suggesting procedural irregularities, received a 'stay' on any action from the District Court judge.   A further hearing will be held soon.

Hopefully, this rezoning debacle will be corrected soon by the newly formed Council by simply repealing the whole idea.

However, in the meantime, it should be noted that the Planning Commission has a meeting scheduled for 15 Jan.  and there has been little or no notification of Commission vacancies on the county website.  All commission seats are four years, meaning two or three terms expired last week.

There is currently no notice given on the county website or any (?) action taken to fill the seats on what is, arguably, the most important appointed board in the County.

I would strongly urge MANY of you good citizens to submit your applications to Mike Davis, ASAP.  2015 is YOUR time to serve to "protect the health, welfare and safety of the community." through appropriate zoning. 

Shortly after the letter was sent a list of Board position WAS posted - SO SEND YOUR APPLICATION IN!!!

North Fields Rezone Petition Certified

The Citizens' Referendum petition to place the issue on the ballot has been certified by the Wasatch County Clerk.

"We have finished verifying  signatures from the,  Wasatch County North Fields/Ordinance 14-08 petition.    We counted a total of 2,220 signatures and of that 2,014 are valid registered voters in Wasatch County.

Signatures Needed         1,847                 Signatures Valid           2,014"

Petition signature collectors report they were very impressed by the positive response they received when explaining the issue to voters,   2014 signatures accounts for about 17% of all registered voters in the County.

One supporter said:   "I am so proud to call Heber home to and see what can be done by a persistent group of like-minded people."   

Another responded:  "Fantastic!!!  And 2014 is a perfect number!  A year of change, for the better!"

One more: "It just shows there are more and more people willing to stand up and fight for our leaders to follow the law!"

In addition, TWO lawsuits were filed over the issue - one resulting in a stay of any rezone action and the second questioning whether the  zone could be created AFTER assigned.

Hopefully the County Council will simply rescind the resolution and avoid further attorney and court expenses.

In the meantime, there are two open seats on the Planning Commission looking for volunteers

Pool is Drained; Public Safety Building not Supported

Local voters, aka Tapayers, in a reasonably good turnout vetoed the $24 M pool with a strong NO vote.  

Of the 49% who actually voted, 97% cast their vote on the issue and over 53% effectively said "We can't afford it!"

Number of Precincts	37
Precincts Reporting	37	100.00%
Times Counted	6241/12718	49.10%
Total Votes	6064	97%
For	2834	46.73%
Against	3230	53.27%

On another vote, which ended up as only a "straw poll," with a similar turnout 57% of Heber City voters registered the disapproval of the Public Safety Building saying they do NOT favor it by a 57% majority.  

As someone jumped the gun and put the issue on the ballot before the petition signatures were collected, the vote was not supposed to be tabulated and is not a valid legal rejection of t he proposal.

Hopefully, the City leaders will take this under advisement, but they've already approved the contract to build the project at over $7 Million.   

Only 7% of those who voted, did not weigh in on the issue. But 57% who did cast a ballot said NO, thanks.  (Many are going to be surprised that their vote was meaningless!!!)

HEBER CITY PROP	Total
Number of Precincts	14
Precincts Reporting	14	100.00%
Times Counted	2615/5352	48.90%
Total Votes	2431	93%
Yes	1043	42.90%
No	1388	57.10%

Parks and Rec SSD Pool operations

 Now that we know, according to Kimberly Gilboy, (MBA) in her paid Wave advertorial recently  that the "estimates of M&O costs were developed by the County's planning team. . ." 
    
Would that be the same Parks and Rec SSD "planners" who have not been able to provide a profit and loss statement for the Event Center???    I believe Parks and Rec Special Service District will be responsible for the pool oversight and operation.   If the costs of operating the Event Center are difficult to obtain, will an aquatic center be any more transparent??

+++++++++++++++++++++++
Below is a query sent 21 May 2014 (NO response received, but I did subsequently find out that the information that should be posted on transparent.utah.gov for the SSD is posted with Wasatch County's report - although they are supposedly separate legal entities.) 

$238,005.54 HLP GM Severance

Recently the General Manager of Heber Power retired. Thanks to a GRAMA request by a Heber 

resident, ratepayers are now able to read the pertinent "Early Retirement Severance Agreement."   

To entice the GM to leave earlier than his requested Mar 2015 departure, he was able to cash in 

unused vacation (11.5 days or $8,286),  sick leave (57.38 days or $41,339), which appears to be 

normal HLP policy.  

Note that HLP gave 8 sick days per year, for many years until it was 'returned' to 12 days last 

year, for the 36 employees.  There is now nearly $1 Million in UNFUNDED accrued benefits.

That total accrual of $49,623.06 was accumulated in his 7-8 years of employment with HLP.

He was also awarded $150,000 in "severance" pay, $30,000 donation to his retirement fund 

AND $4,780.08 for in-lieu-of health insurance payment.   Provisions were made to allow him to 

"use" up his 551 hrs of "2014 vacation and sick leave allotment to extend his retirement date 

(for retirement pay purposes) until November - thereby increasing his retirement pay by over 3%.

 
 


   

   

   
rate
   
amount
  

   
Vacation, sick hours
   
551
   
$90.06
   
$49,623.06
  

   
Paid Holidays
   
5
   
$90.06
   
$3,602.40
  

   
In-lieu of insurance
   

   
$1,593.36
   
$4,780.08
  

   
Consultant services
   

   

   
$0.00
  

   
Severance
   

   

   
$150,000.00
  

   
401K
   

   

   
$30,000.00
  

   

   

   
TOTAL
   
$238,005.54
  


As there are 5 paid holidays during that extra period before officially 

retiring, he will be paid an additional $3,602.40 for not working on those 

days, while on vacation.

What will Mr. Stewart, the now retired HLP GM, be required to do? Nothing!  

Is a New Heber City Justice Court NEEDED?

At the recent Public Hearing for the proposed Heber City Public Safety building, some officials reportedly indicated 'that the county justice court is already heavily used and that city cases must wait too long in many cases.'   

That's possibly true and within a 'few' years that may likely be true.

But the actual current schedule does not seem to demonstrate that. Here's an analysis of the schedules (obviously from an "outside" view)from the Utah Court Calendar 

• Currently, Heber Justice Court operates Thursday and Friday only
• Wasatch Justice averages a bit over 3 days a week
• The District Court is NOT close to fully scheduled
• Cases schedules two weeks out are only 20% of current schedules ( in other words, there generally does not appear to be a long wait.)
• Wasatch County has about  40 cases per week, 
• Most cases are Traffic, 50-60% (?)
•  
• Heber appears to average 80 cases a week and is only scheduled 8 days a month
• A large number of cases are traffic - 80% (?) 

• (raising speed limit on Center St and other locales where it would be safe to do would probably decrease case numbers by 10% )

•  Is Heber Justice more efficient?  

Does that few days justify $2 Million in new construction which is proposed for a quarter(?) of the building?   If, when a new Heber office are built, could not the Council chamber be also used as a court - as it is now?

    Can the courts also not be used more efficiently?   Saturdays, more hours per day?  It might be cheaper, and more efficient, to hire more people.   Has an analysis been done to determine that?

Raw Data:

Heber City TAX INCREASE - 31%

With an upcoming "Truth" in Taxation Hearing coming up on August 12 for a 31% increase in Heber City property taxes, due to the proposed $7.5 Million Public Safety building, here a few comparative costs for 'similar' recent buildings in the US.

			Sq Ft	Cost	Population	$/sqft	$/person
MN	Princeton	2012	22,540	$2,050,000	4,674	$91.00	$439.00
NH	Bow	2013	30,000	$7,700,000	7,519	$257.00	$1,024.00	Bond Failed
VT	Hinesburg	2013	3,500	$1,055,200	4,340	$301.00	$243.00
UT	WSU	2014	10,086	$2,500,000	25,000	$248.00	$100.00
MA	Wayland		30,000	$5,800,000	13,000	$193.00	$446.00
MN	Bayport	2013	20,000	$5,000,000	3,605	$250.00	$1,387.00
MN	Waseca	2013	26,000	$2,300,000	9,434	$88.00	$244.00	Remodeled Store
	average		20,304	$3,772,171	9,653	$204.00	$555.00
UT	Heber		22,000	$7,700,000	12,260	$350.00	$628.00
			8%	104%	27%	72%	13%	% higher than avg

• WSU is Weber State U.  and the population is student enrollment.
• Notice the the people of Dow, NH killed the bond vote. (req'd 2/3).  At least one other was were voted on, but Heber did not offer that option.
• Some were combined Fire and Police
• Heber proposal is twice the average in cost, 72% higher per sq.ft. and 13% higher per capita
• Notice Waseca was a remodeled Store, but I guess we can't say anything now about a remodeled school
• People also need to remember that in 2011 Heber passed a resolution to "Study" Public Safety - and failed to even initiate the study.  (see the previous post)

Addendum: Pleasant Grove Utah, Vote failed by over 2 to 1 margin, cut cost and trying again.

UT	Pleasant Gr	2013	??	$19,000,000
UT	Pleasant Gr	2014	49286	$14,980,505	35,000	$304.00	$428.00
	HC comp			95%	185%	13%	32%
			change	-21%

Addendum 2: Kaysville, UT     Vote Failed  57% to 43% in 2010, ignoring vote 2014

UT	Kaysville	2010		$4,500,000				Lost 57%
UT	Kaysville	2014	20,000	$5,500,000	27,000	$275.00	$204.00
	HC comp			-29%	120%	-21%	-68%

Disclaimer: I am not necessarily opposed to a new facility, merely the cost, size and adding the Justice Court, which could be handled IN, or BY, the Wasatch County Court facility.     PERHAPS, half the size/cost MIGHT be appropriate. 

For more info and details, check these links:

Heber City Public Safety Building recent History

The cost for the City to provide for the public safety of the Citizens of Heber amounts to 43% of our total budget. This is money well spent, but as a member of the council, I have deep concerns regarding how we will continue to find funding for the increasing cost of public safety.   Alan McDonald 29 May 2013

Heber City Council Meeting excerpts:

  30 Apr 2011  Councilman McDonald said the Police Department was 40% of budget. He suggested the City was still staffing the Police Department as if the population of Heber was 6,000. He suggested the City had to allocate more money to fund that Department or consolidate with Wasatch County--fund it and staff it like it should be or let it go. 

21 July 2011  Resolution 2011-07 – A Resolution to Complete two studies for a Five- and Ten-Year Public Safety Service Plan: Councilman McDonald moved to approve Resolution 2011-07 and appoint part of the Council to participate in that study. He said he did not think there had ever been a study of this kind done before.

Mayor Releases HL&P Board Members

Yesterday in a brief letter, Heber Mayor Alan McDonald dismissed two members from the Heber Power Board of Directors.

Why?   Apparently because he COULD!  

Here's the letter dated 21 May 2014 sent to Heber City Council members Heidi Franco and Kelleen Potter

No explanation, no 'thanks' for your service, just you're gone!  The two board members were appointed TO the Board only a few months ago.

After the three new Council members took their elected positions in January.  The meeting of 16 Jan began some of the controversy of HL&P Board appointments: (incumbent members felt the need to remain on the board, Mayor McDonald disagreed)    "Mayor McDonald indicated he spoke with Blaine Stewart who felt new members would adjust fine. Also, the Heber Light and Power Board bylaws indicated that the Mayor didn’t need the consent of the Council in order to assign other Council members to the board. Council Member Rowland asked to seek clarification on that section of the bylaws. Mayor McDonald read from the bylaws. Mark Smedley stated that language would hinge on

No HL&P Rate Increase - (for now)

In a split decision, the Board of Directors for Heber Power decided NOT to approve the proposed 4.5% increase in electricity rates.

Starting the discussion leading to the 3-3 defeat of the motion, Chair Alan McDonald, Mayor of Heber, made an impassioned plea to crowded board room for passage as necessary to continued operation of the public utility.  He also made pointed comments towards his two appointees for releasing information for 'political' purpose.  He had been very quiet for most of the meeting up to that point.   A substantial number of ratepayers were in attendance.

Unsure of his meaning, Heidi Franco and Kelleen Potter, of the Heber City Council, replied they were simply looking out for the ratepayers, the ultimate owners of the utility.  Both indicated they have been frustrated in their attempts to gather financial and operating information, they felt was necessary to fulfill their duties.

They have called for managerial and operating changes to rectify some recent problems with fraud and bad publicity which had lowered the company's credit rating and had led to distrust in management capabilities.

 Earlier in the meeting, they had questioned the issuance of bonus payments to management and excessive pay and benefits and called for what they felt were needed corrections.

Midway Mayor, Colleen Bonner, called for passage of the increase and emphasized they were a new board and were work hard to make changes and patience while they worked though the problems.  County Council Chair, Jay Price agreed with the need for an increase.

Bob Kowallis, Charleston Mayor, became the swing vote decision maker, by declaring, 'the proof is in the pudding,' and he needed to see more action before approving any more revenue.   He further called for a budget and expense review in the near future.  That idea was accepted to be discussed in the next meeting.

The mechanics of the propose rated increase, which has raised some questions was not discussed.   Mr McDonald stated they had the required Public Hearing a month ago and everyone had enough time to review it.   The WTPA (Wasatch Taxpayers) held a meeting on Tuesday to discuss the rate increase, more information from that meeting here

An earlier financial report by the new CFO, Bart Miller, indicated that costs were rising and power cost were out of their ability to control as were current wages and benefits.   In answer to questions, he stated that, yes, bonuses had been or were being paid.  He said they were doing their best to control costs.   Kowallis said, it doesn't take to many 10's to make 100's and there was room for reductions.

The first hour or so of the meeting was spent on bond explanations, with a lot of questions, mainly from Franco on interest rates, debt philosophy and bond costs.  The bond expert from GKB explained that the decisions were made by the board, and a budget 'cap' on payments had been made of $700K per year requiring longer terms for the debt but judicious management and save a lot of money, despite costs and the longer terms.  

That conclusion seemed to be questioned by some and opinions were expressed that debt should be paid off as soon as possible.  The bond team responded that might be difficult because of the characteristics of municipal bonds in general and the specific particulars of the bonds themselves,

A discussion was also held on the effects of the lower bond rating, ranging from 'it's not really that important' to 'it will raise interest rates for future loans.'   Later in the meeting it was mentioned that more bonding may be required in the near future,

Impact Fees Could Raise Hundreds of Thousands

As Heber Light and Power considers increasing rates on the smaller rate payers, they should FIRST consider raising Impact Fees.

Hired consultant ($20K ?) Pender's Cost of Service study report explained that part of any rate determination was to consider 'Cost Causation.'  Impact fees are designed to do exactly that - recover some of the the cost associated with new development, either commercial or residential.

The current Impact Fee rate collected by HL&P  is reportedly 41% of  the maximum allowable.  A simple raise to 60% would garner $230K, 100% would have yielded $700K.  These rates have been in effect since at least 2006, during some of the largest growth period.  This could be considered the cause of the current shortfall AND debt incurred,

If the cost of new infrastructure is not collected from the developments which are causing it, the remaining costs must be borne by current ratepayers.

Is that 'fair and equitable'? - another determining factor for rate calculation.

"For (HL&P) infrastructure projects beginning in 2012 through 2015 amounting to $6,959,000, only $3,542,000 is eligible for impact fees.  Of this eligible figure only about 41% is being recovered in impact fees. This is the same percent impact fee recovery for new businesses, subdivisions etc."

That means only $1.45M will be collected, increasing to 60% would raise $700K, to 100% = $2Million over 3 year. Why should current rate payers be subsidizing new developments????

A brief Impact Fee overview for the first five months of 2014 can be seen here.

New School Budget and Public Hearing

Addendum 6/13  Board member responses added - My thanks for the prompt answers 

Since the passage in 2007 of a near 50% local property tax increase, the Wasatch School District has been flush with cash.

Budgets have increased FAR more than student enrollment for over ten years.  FY 2015 is no exception, with enrollment projected up by 3%, expenditures are proposed up by 5.5% over the original FY 2014 budget.

Last year (2013) WSD collected nearly 7% more than budgeted.   The solution - amend the 2014 budget to spend it.   Proposed increase almost 9%  (resulting in a $9 Million increase from FY 2013 to 2014.)

The money is still there - no tax decrease even remotely considered.  Some may remember the REQUESTED TAX CUT by the Taxpayers' Association because of excessive reserves.

There will be a Public Hearing on the budget next Tuesday.  A "complete" budget, highlighted for anomalies and inconsistencies, with percentage changes,  is available here.

Raise some questions and comments for the hearing.  In the past, very few answers are ever given to public budget queries, here are a few that might be proposed:

District officials indicate wage and benefits are 95% of the general fund and 65 % of the entire budget, a closer look raises some questions, a few random observations:

In this FY 2015 Budget, it appears all of the state retirement budget items have increased by about 24%.    Is that a requirement due to the recent study on the optimistic growth factor that had been assumed?   If so, is this a one-time correction or a continuing cost factor?  Can anything locally be done to ameliorate this extra expense?    Any time the state retirement increases, we are by state statute required to pay that increase for all eligible employees in the district.  The state used to fund that program, but hasn't funded the increase for several years.

Under the category "District Administration," the total salary has remained about the same, but retirement, Social Security and group insurance DROPPED drastically 2014 to 2014 (amended) and for 2015.    The district administrative decrease was a result in the new reporting procedures because of the new software by the Utah Public Education FInancial System.

Benefits for " Elementary PE Specialists" seem to be twice as high as other positions.  We only apply the benefits toward the Elementary PE Specialists wages, but that section also includes the wages paid for stipends. . .  .

"Group insurance" seem to be somewhat inconsistent in