Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout102-Minutes.pdf1 MINUTES SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION OCTOBER 26, 2009 SIEMANS ENERGY/WATER EFFICIENCY STUDY & BUDGET POLICIES REVIEW PRESENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: Mayor Page, Jill Hunter, Howard Miller, Vice Mayor Kathleen King ABSENT: Susie Nagpal (Excused absence) STAFF: Dave Anderson, City Manager John Cherbone, Public Works Director Ann Sullivan, City Clerk Crystal Morrow, Administrative Analyst II Siemens Representatives: Kelly Ferguson, Rylan Ortiz, Rolando Toledo, Alex Ramos, Bala Jayaraman, and HydroPoint Data Systems representative Ben Slick AGENDA ITEM 1 – Presentation of Siemens Clean Energy Project Preliminary Study Results. On March 4, 2009 Kelly Ferguson presented a slide show on the Siemens Energy Management Program. At that meeting Council signed a memorandum of understanding allowing Siemens to conduct a free preliminary study of the City’s energy and water use. The purpose of this Study Session is for Siemens to present the results of that study. Ms. Ferguson stated the study indicated the City’s annual utility spending is $400K with 55% going towards water, 5% going towards gas, and 40% going towards electricity. She noted that while the City has already carried out a number of energy saving projects there are two areas – water consumption and energy use that could be improved to help reduce operating costs for the City. Siemens identified potential areas for energy efficiency improvement measures: o PC Power Management o HVAC Upgrades o Building Envelopes o Solar Thermal o Window Film o Plug Load Controller o Thermal Storage o Solar Water Heating o Cool Roofs Ms. Ferguson noted the Siemens Energy Management Program uses energy performance contracting, which is a financing mechanism that allows client organizations to carry out “clean” energy projects without an upfront investment. She added energy performance contracting can be used for energy 2 efficiency, water saving, renewable energy projects and more; and the initial project costs would be financed by Siemens, who is then repaid through savings that result from the project. She added Siemens would help provide a financing solution so that much of the energy services program is self-funding; and Siemens’ proposals guarantee energy, water, and operational savings so there is no risk to the City in accomplishing the facility improvements. The proposed project options included: OPTION 1: Lighting upgrades, PC power management, irrigation controls, streetlight upgrades at a cost of $1 million with a 10-year payback. OPTION 2: HVAC upgrades at a cost of $1.4 million with a 20-year payback. OPTION 3: HVAC upgrades and library photovoltaic system at a cost of $4.2 million with a 30-year payback. Discussion took place regarding areas of recommended cost saving improvements: Street Lights and Park Lighting: Ms. Ferguson noted the current technology options are Induction Lighting, a form of fluorescent lighting, or LED – with payback comparable to the LED option, but at a lower cost per fixture. Councilmember Hunter noted the City does not have many street lights. Ms. Ferguson acknowledged there are a limited number of Lighting and Landscape Districts with street lights that may be in need of an upgrade; this could be discussed in a more detailed study with the Public Works Director. City Manager Dave Anderson stated the City has 455 lights; the City owns 182 and PGE owns the rest. Library Solar Heating: Ms. Ferguson stated the potential facility improvement measures at the Saratoga library would be solar photovoltaic with capital contribution offsets – 30% of consumption; long payback; has limited roof space for solar panels. The parking lot could be reconfigured to accommodate solar panels, but it would increase the cost. Ms. Ferguson noted Siemens would like to look at the city hall complex overall to see what the potential is for the installation of solar energy at a more affordable cost, thus continuing Saratoga’s statement that they are a sustainable City. Councilmember Hunter noted that solar equipment is changing all the time and is getting smaller as technology develops with solar panels continuing to become more efficient. Ms. Ferguson responded that may be true on a larger scale as opposed to a smaller scale and the solar panels are becoming more efficient. She added they have been receiving lower equipment pricing from local solar companies and accompanied by the faster payback terms; this has allowed them to create a package that has a more reasonable payback period. She added, in terms of capital expenditure, the City could reduce their overall cash flow by taking advantage of the solar rebates that are available from the state. 3 Ms. Ferguson also noted there would be some capital expenditure for the street lighting. Discussion took place regarding the “Overview of Refined Options” as noted in the handout and Councilmember Miller inquired about the cost range - $1.4 million – being the same for Option 2 and Option 3. Vice Mayor King commented about the actual cost savings; noting that for each dollar spent, we would save a dollar over the next 10 years and with interest we wouldn’t see any savings until after 10 years and questioned if Siemens could guarantee that there wouldn’t be any change in technology during that time. Councilmember Miller noted that this program provides the City with an option to fund all the recommended improvements without utilizing City funds. Ms. Ferguson stated that once the City decides on which project they would be interested in implementing, Siemens would help with financing options; adding Siemens does not provide financing and the City is not obligated until financing is secured. Councilmember Hunter noted that her concern focused more on the water consumption costs than on electricity costs, especially if water rates will be increasing by 30%. Vice Mayor King agreed with Councilmember Hunter that our priority should be on water efficiency since that is 55% of our annual utility costs, noting that there was no clear data in the proposal on how Siemens could implement a program to help the City be more water efficient. Ms. Ferguson responded that would be the next step – a Detailed Study at the cost of $50,000. This phase would first require a “Letter of Intent” to move forward with the Detailed Study. She noted that if the City decided to move forward with the Letter of Intent, the $50,000 Detailed Study cost would be rolled into project financing and would not be a direct cost to the City, unless the City decided not to move forward after Siemens met the City’s detailed project criteria. Siemens representative Bala Jayaraman, added that they believe there is an energy savings project that will meet the criteria for the City, and the Letter of Intent ensures that Siemens will put in writing what the criteria is and that they will meet the criteria that the City has defined in the Letter of Intent. Councilmember Miller expressed his concern regarding the accuracy of a Detailed Study to acquire meaningful baseline data on the newly completed North Campus and Kevin Moran Park facilities, and Congress Springs Park. In addition, he asked what establishes acceptable criteria for the Letter of Intent. Mr. Jayaraman replied that it would include items such as financial criteria in terms of how much payback the City would want, capital expenditure contributed by the City, interest rates, payback period, and is the project financeable. He added a 10-year payback period would be a recommended criteria; adding they would not recommend a payback period to be the same number of years as the life expectancy of the equipment. 4 Mr. Jayaraman stated that since the risk Siemens takes is based on the performance, they would ensure that the baseline the City is currently working on is correct and the only way they can do that is to measure it. Mayor Page noted that staff should include in the Letter of Intent the cost incurred by the City to complete the recent facility improvements and that cost should be included in the payback criteria. Vice Mayor King suggested staff provide data on which energy efficient equipment they have already installed in the last 3 years and the projected cost efficiency percentages they expect to see from those installations before any equipment is changed. She also indicated she would like additional understanding and reference verifications before moving on to the next step. City Manager Dave Anderson made an observation that if Siemens performs the Detailed Study, it should develop cost efficiency data on equipment that has already been installed. Council could establish the criteria, noting Council has indicated in the preceding discussion they would like: Ø 10 or 15 year payback period. Ø 25% savings on electricity and water. Ø 15 to 20% longer useful life than the payback. In addition, City Manager Anderson noted that with those parameters, Siemens would have to conduct research to indicate whether or not they could meet those parameters to attain Council’s goals. City Manager Anderson summarized the alternative directions: Ø Staff should provide a report on what they have already done in the past three years and what they can continue to do to be more energy efficient. Ø Council would develop criteria for Siemens to conduct a detailed study. They would then determine whether or not they could meet the criteria. Vice Mayor King noted Council could give direction to proceed with both recommendations. Councilmember Miller stated he would like to know more about what the valid criteria options are. Councilmember Hunter noted that a Councilmember was absent and this Councilmember had expressed concerns at the first Siemens’ presentation and noted that she wanted more research conducted before moving forward. Mayor Page noted that is what this study session is providing – the process to look at the energy efficient options that are available before moving forward. Siemens representative Bala Jayaraman stated that they would provide Letter of Intent criteria that they have been presented with over the last several years from other cities in order to help staff and Council determine the criteria they would like to present in their Letter of Intent. Council and staff was in agreement with Mr. Jayaraman’s suggestion and noted that after they received that compiled sample criteria from Siemens, another Council Study Session could be scheduled to go over that data and determine the criteria that would be best for the City of Saratoga. 5 DIRECTION TO STAFF: · Schedule a future study session to go over criteria that will be provided by Siemens and at that Study Session Council will establish the criteria they would like staff to present in a Letter of Intent, if Council decides to move forward. Council concluded discussion on Agenda Item 1. AGENDA ITEM 2 – Budget Policies. Finance Director Mary Furey presented the staff report. Director Furey noted that as of the October 13, 2009 Cost Recovery Study Session, Council direction affirmed the Recreation Department’s stated cost recovery goal of approximately 65%, in alignment with recovery obtained by other surveyed Recreation Departments. In addition, Council did not establish a cost recovery rate for the Community Development Department as it was determined there was not enough consistent financial information to make a valid decision. Council did, however, establish a fund balance policy for the Development Reserve which allows for the utilization of up to one-third of the fund balance reserve to offset revenue shortfalls. This new policy is to include direction that Community Development Department excess revenues over expenditures would be allocated into the Development fund balance reserve in order to build the reserve up in more profitable years, for use in years in which revenues drop below expenses. This mechanism is intended to mitigate the economic impacts of revenue peaks and valleys that occur with development activities over multiple year cycles. Ms. Furey noted that there are budget policies and budget practices and wouldn’t recommend incorporating all the “practices” into the budget document. She added due to council changes and changes in general, budget policies are an on-going process. Ms. Furey also pointed out the budget document itself is a budget policy statement and when council adopts the budget it’s an operations plan, – a financial plan, a policy document and a communications document, and that is why narrative is included; it helps to explain the what, why, and how, rather than just focusing on numbers. Director Furey added that typically most budget policies are not set up for one year, they are usually ongoing. Vice Mayor King inquired about the 65% cost recovery policy for the Recreation Department. Director Furey stated the 65% cost recovery policy for the Recreation Department was noted in the summary narrative of the last fiscal year operating budget that was adopted by Council. She added the budget policies Council adopted as part of the overall Financial Policies Statements and Cost Recovery Study Session will be incorporated into the next fiscal year budget. Councilmember Miller inquired if the minimum fund balance reserve of at least 20% is the same as the operating reserve balance that was adopted July 1, 1999. Director Furey stated it was not; it came about as a result of a recent credit agency rating of the city – that having a policy stating an overall fund balance reserve of 20% of operating expenditures in the General Fund for working capital cash balance is viewed favorably by the rating agencies. 6 Vice Mayor King recommended staff clarify that statement by re-wording the policy to say “over all General Fund reserve” so that the statement wouldn’t be questioned in the future. DIRECTION TO STAFF: · Re-word statement regarding “minimum fund balance reserve” to say “over all General Fund reserves” so that the statement wouldn’t be questioned in the future. Councilmember Miller inquired about the minimum annual funding goal of $1,000,000 for CIP Streets/Pavement Management program and how this fits in the road budget City Manager Anderson stated the City receives about $600K in gas tax which has to be spent on road maintenance. Staff realized that in order to maintain our pavement management index we would need at least $1,000,000; adding that this has been a long term goal of the city to do this. The City Council made a commitment to establish $1,000,000 in funding to maintain our pavement management index by supplementing the $600,000 that we receive from the state initially with the TEA funding, which was subsequently replaced with funding from the road impact fee. Councilmember Miller asked how much of the TEA money is used to supplement the million dollar fund. Mr. Anderson stated the road impact fees were used and no TEA dollars were used at this point. Vice Mayor King asked if the state has taken away the gas tax revenues during the last couple of years. Director Furey noted the state has not. Councilmember Miller questioned if the statement regarding ‘The $300,000 of designated TEA proceeds previously transferred to the CIP Streets/Pavement Management program was reverted back to the General Fund effective with the FY 2008/09 budget’ needed to remain in that summary statement. Director Furey noted that it no longer needed to be included. Vice Mayor King inquired if the CIP Streets/Pavement Management program was originally set at $1.2 million. Director Cherbone stated the road impact study goal was estimated at $1.4 million to stay at a PCI of 72; however the funding goal is set at $1 million minimum. Mr. Anderson added the state and the federal governments provide supplemental funding on a fairly regular basis through the grant and supplement city revenues to assist the City in achieving this goal. Vice Mayor King recommended the summary should state that in order to stay at 72 PCI the Streets/Pavement Management program requires $1.4 million funding and the policy is to spend at least $1 million in local funds each year. Mr. Anderson noted that staff could seek grants or federal monies for the remaining portion. 7 Vice Mayor King noted the funding history that was used to fund the CIP Streets/Pavement Management program was originally with VTA grants and when that money was no longer available we tried to implement a Utility Tax and that didn’t pass, so we agreed to supplement the fund with TEA money and currently the Vehicle Impact Fee is used to fund that program. Director Cherbone acknowledged that the city did receive money from Measure B, which no longer exists, and now from Prop 42. Mr. Anderson noted there have been three structural funding sources for the CIP Streets/Pavement Management program and that should be noted in the summary wording. Councilmember Miller added that history should be included in the summary as well. DIRECTION TO STAFF: · Remove the last sentence from the seventh bullet in the Appropriations and Budgetary Control summary of the Financial Policy Statements, ‘The $300,000 of designated TEA proceeds previously transferred to the CIP Streets/Pavement Management program was reverted back to the General Fund effective with the FY 2008/09 budget’. · The summary in the Appropriations and Budgetary Control section should include wording that states “In order to stay at PCI of 72, the CIP Streets/Pavement Management program requires $1.4 million. The policy is to spend at least $1 million. Councilmember Miller asked for clarification on the allocation of the $100,000 TEA dollars for facility improvements. Director Furey noted that money goes towards major capital improvements for facilities such as HVAC systems and minor improvements such as re-keying door locks. Mr. Anderson added we were behind on funding of capital equipment for facilities and as a result Council dedicated a revenue source to that program. Facilities Supervisor Thomas Scott implemented a 5-year program to bring facilities up to par, noting staff is currently half way through the facility updates. Vice Mayor King noted that originally TEA funds were used mostly for pro-active capital uses such as roads and the Sheriff’s contract and now it is mostly being used for staff through the General Fund. Mr. Anderson noted that TEA dollars really aren’t for staff and proceeded to distribute a handout depicting TEA funding allocations: o Additional hours for Sheriff’s patrol, o Additional street maintenance, o Additional Facility maintenance, o Funding for the Saratogan, o Funding for street sweeping in the Village, o Spot color for medians, o Addition of Administrative Analyst position to support reactivating commissions, 8 o Convert two temporary positions to benefitted positions (maintenance/technical) Councilmember Miller stated that basically half the TEA money is being spent on Council priorities and the other half goes to the General Fund. Director Furey and City Manager Anderson noted the General Fund does support everything else, including the Sheriff’s contract, staff, etc. Councilmember Miller asked if the TEA Funding Allocation list that was distributed represents Council policy. Director Furey noted staff hasn’t been directed differently and City Manager Anderson added that staff continues to fund the expenditures that Council set forth as on-going expenditures from this source in 2007/08. Director Furey noted Council would have to direct staff to discontinue specific expenditures – such as the publication of the Saratogan – if that is what Council desired. Vice Mayor King stated the issue is the $385,000 that is going into the General Fund in order to cover the operational costs of the City. Director Furey noted the Sheriff’s contract alone had increased $500,000 in the last three years. Vice Mayor King stated property taxes would increase over the years and would help offset those increases; the number of employees could be reduced over the years as some areas will become more automated. Mr. Anderson stated the problem is that external costs continue to increase and the property tax rate is decreasing and at some point those factors will be problematic and will require a significant decrease in services. City Manager Anderson proceeded to distribute a handout depicting Public Safety Costs for Law Enforcement Contracts for FY 2006/07, 2007/08, 2008/09 and 2009/10; including data reflecting the percentage increase for the Sheriff’s contract for those years; and a hand out depicting actual employee salaries and benefits for FY 2007/08, estimated employee salaries and benefits for FY 2008/09; and adopted employee salaries and benefits for FY 2009/10. City Manager Anderson noted that in the past, the annual increase for the Sheriff’s Office contracts were at seven, eight, and nine percent and as a result the contract cities met and informed the Sheriff’s Department that the cities were contemplating creating their own law enforcement department unless the Sheriff’s Department agreed to a new agreement. The contract cities collectively negotiated a new agreement with the Sheriff’s Department that included price caps, and that is why their contract is limited to four or five percent. Council discussed the Sheriff’s budget and the services provided by the Sheriff’s department and noted they were pleased with the services that were provided. 9 Councilmember Miller stated he agreed that the level of funding for the Sheriff’s Office is great and the level of service is great, however he questioned the fact that the funding for the Sheriff’s Department is a quarter of the annual budget and yet nothing is noted about that in the budget summary. City Manager Anderson concurred with Councilmember Miller and stated that the Sheriff’s contract is the largest expenditure for the city and there is nothing noted about it; adding that there must be some policy or criteria that could be noted in the summary. Vice Mayor King noted that since the contract is limited to a specific percentage increase each year, why not include that in the budget summary. City Manager Anderson noted staff would look at the Sheriff’s Contract to see if there are any policies that could be noted in the budget summary. DIRECTION TO STAFF: · Review Sheriff’s contract for specified policy requirements that could be noted in the budget summary. Council proceeded to discuss the CIP policies. They noted $50,000 has been set aside for sidewalks; $50,000 for storm drains; and $300,000 for hillside reserves. They also discussed whether or not to implement a policy regarding the Discretionary Fund. Director Furey noted the Discretionary Fund use is a practice item – not a policy item. City Manager Dave Anderson added Council could establish goals for the Hillside Reserve Fund and staff would start building on those goals by adding specific amounts as directed by Council each budget cycle. Council decided to establish a goal of $1 million dollars in the Hillside Reserves to be funded at $100,000 per year for the next 10 years. Council discussed the Traffic Safety Program projects and how to fund those projects. Council also discussed funding building replacement and land acquisition. DIRECTION TO STAFF: · Build the Hillside Reserve Fund to one million dollars at $100,000 a year for the next 10 years. · Note in the next fiscal year budget summary (narrative): Ø It is Council Practice to establish CIP annual funding of $50,000 for sidewalks, $50,000 for storm drains, and to build a $1 million hillside reserve fund – to be funded at a $100K a year for the next 10 years. Ø Traffic Safety projects will be handled in the CIP on an “as needed basis” for Council prioritization. · Establish a Property/Facility Acquisition Replacement Reserve. This fund is intended to build capital for future property acquisition and future facility replacement. · Include in budget policy that future councils pursue remaining TEA funds. 10 Director Furey noted the GFOA will be changing the rules on Fund Balance Reserves and this sinking fund practice may have to be addressed in the next budget cycle. Vice Mayor King also expressed an interest in developing a retrospective ten-year trend on revenue and costs. City Manager Dave Anderson noted that we already have retrospective data for the past several years and it is continually being refined. In addition, Director Furey is working on a five-year prospective trend. Director Furey noted that past finance directors had completely different funds and accounting practices and those practices don’t exist any longer. Councilmember Miller added that with Director Furey’s efforts, much of the revenue and cost trend has already been established for the past five to seven years – such as employee data. Vice Mayor King stated she would like the five-year trend data with a goal of ten years included in the budget policies. Councilmember Miller clarified the retrospective and prospective trend data request stating it would be a five year goal with ten years of trend data. Director Furey noted she will keep accumulating it over the next five years. There being no additional business Mayor Page adjourned the Study Session at 9:05. Respectfully submitted, Ann Sullivan, CMC City Clerk