Act 43: What Water & Sewer Systems Need to Know about the Impact on Multi-Family Billings

An amendment to the Pennsylvania Municipality Authorities Act allows the owner of a multi-family dwelling to request a billing adjustment every five years if the amount billed exceeds the usage by 30% or more.  This could have wide-ranging impacts for water and sewer authorities that serve multi-family dwellings.  Our vice president Russ McIntosh discusses all of the implications in two articles in The Authority, a magazine published by the Pennsylvania Municipal Authorities Association.  The first article analyzes the language of  Act 43 line-by-line to advise authorities on how to comply. (Link opens in new tab.) The second article answers some frequently asked questions about Act 43 such as:

Is Act 43 retroactive?

Does act 43 affect the way I calculate tapping fees?

For larger garden apartment communities, should each building’s water meter be considered individually or combined with other buildings in the same community?

Act 43 requires authorities to compare metered water consumption with “actual usage” billed. How do you make this comparison if you bill on a flat rate?

Visit the Pennsylvania Municipal Authorities Association website at the links above to read these articles, and reach out to us with any questions you may have.

Bumble Bee Hollow Residential Development

How Municipalities in the Wyoming Valley are Cutting Stormwater Management Costs by up to 90%

This article is an excerpt from the December 2017 issue of The Authority, a magazine produced the Pennsylvania Municipal Authorities Association (PMAA). Contact us if you’d like a copy of the entire article.

Justify your rates with asset management

Thirty-one municipalities in Luzerne County are piloting a regional approach to MS4 compliance that may revolutionize the way Pennsylvania responds to the growing challenges posed by stormwater.

They have signed cooperative agreements with the Wyoming Valley Sanitary Authority, which will serve as MS4 permit coordinator for the entire region. The following are just a few of the ways that partnership will save them money over the next 20 years:

 

Less paperwork.

Because the municipalities are submitting their permit requirements as part of a regional approach, the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) is allowing them to submit just one Cheasapeake Bay Pollution Reduction Plan (PRP) for the region and a single PRP for each impaired watershed (for a total of seven Pollution Reduction Plans).

If each municipality had chosen to work alone, the region would’ve submitted more than 100 Pollution Reduction Plans to DEP. When the cost of producing one Pollution Reduction Plan can be more than $20,000, the cost to produce more than 100 would simply have been out of reach for this region.

But, by working together, the municipalities reduce the amount of paperwork that must be produced to comply with state requirements.  Fewer plans cost less money, and that lower cost is then divided among the participating municipalities.  At the end of the day, each municipality’s share of the Pollution Reduction Plan preparation cost is just $3,000.

 

 

Fewer, more efficient construction projects

Submitting the Pollution Reduction Plan is just step 1 of the compliance process. Once the plan is accepted by DEP, municipalities must implement it, and that typically involves the construction of Best Management Practices (BMPs) that reduce the quantity and/or improve the quality of stormwater runoff.

The most expensive part of constructing BMPs is acquiring the land on which to build them. When municipalities work alone, they are limited to constructing their BMPs within their own borders, and most municipalities don’t have an abundance of publicly owned land available for BMP construction. If they partner with other municipalities on a regional approach, they can get credit for constructing BMPs anywhere within the watershed.  With that flexibility, communities can install projects that yield the greatest pollutant load reduction for the lowest cost.  This often means they can meet their goals with fewer construction projects.

According to our analysis, municipalities in the Wyoming Valley would’ve had to construct approximately 200 projects to meet the pollution reduction goals individually (at a cost of $69 million). As a group, the municipalities will only need to construct 65 projects to meet those goals (at a cost of just $12 million).  This will save the municipalities more than $50 million on the cost of implementing their Pollution Reduction Plans.

 

 

Lower O&M costs through economies of scale

There are a lot of fixed costs in managing stormwater.  When you spread those costs over a larger number of users, the cost to each user gets smaller.  A feasibility study conducted by WVSA’s engineer determined that, as a group, cooperating municipalities would save $274 million on operations, maintenance, and improvements over the next 20 years by working together on a regional approach to stormwater management.

 

 

Increased purchasing and borrowing power

Generally, you can negotiate lower unit costs for items when you buy them in larger quantities, so, for example, pipelines could be replaced or slip lined for a lower cost if the work was completed as part of a larger, regional project.

 

 

Increased access to government grants and loans

Funding agencies tend to favor entities that are cooperating regionally to streamline costs, and politicians tend to support projects benefitting a larger constituent base.  Therefore, funding applications submitted by a regional cooperative are more likely to be awarded a grant or loan than those submitted by individual municipalities. These funding awards can save a community significant sums of money versus funding a project out of its own revenues.

 

When municipalities save money like this, it stands to reason they can pass those savings on to residents and business owners. In a follow-up post next week, we’ll discuss how the regional partnership model being pioneered in the Wyoming Valley is benefitting taxpayers in the region.  In the final post of this series, we’ll discuss how regional cooperation prevents water pollution more effectively.


Jim Tomaine has more than 30 years of engineering experience. He holds a bachelor’s degree in civil engineering from The Pennsylvania State University and a master’s degree in business administration from Wilkes University. He is the executive director of the Wyoming Valley Sanitary Authority and has been at WVSA for twenty seven years.  Prior to the WVSA, Mr. Tomaine worked in the private sector as a design engineer. He currently holds his A-1 Wastewater Treatment Plant Operators Certification in Pennsylvania and is also a registered professional engineer.

Adrienne Vicari is the financial services practice area leader at Herbert, Rowland & Grubic, Inc. (HRG). In this role, she has helped the firm provide strategic financial planning and grant administration services to numerous municipal and municipal authority clients. She is also serving as project manager for several projects involving the creation of stormwater authorities or the addition of stormwater to the charter of existing authorities throughout Pennsylvania.

How Dauphin County Has Turned a Small Surplus Into Major Infrastructure Improvements

This article about the Dauphin County Infrastructure Bank is excerpted from the February 2018 issue of Pennsylvania County News magazine. It is provided courtesy of the County Commissioners Association of Pennsylvania (CCAP) and is reprinted here with their permission. This is in no way an endorsement by CCAP of the products or services offered by HRG.

What would you do with an extra $350,000 per year in your county Liquid Fuels budget?

It sounds like a nice problem to have, doesn’t it?

That’s exactly the challenge Dauphin County faced six years ago as its aggressive bridge management program reached a very important milestone: The last load-posted, structurally deficient bridge in the county’s inventory was fully programmed to be replaced.

This video tells the story of the last structurally deficient bridge in Dauphin County.  Once the county funded the replacement of this bridge, it had a surplus of Liquid Fuels money in its budget. They decided to use this surplus as seed money for an infrastructure bank that has funded more than a dozen roadway, traffic and bridge improvements throughout the county in just a few years. (Learn more about the county’s last structurally deficient bridge in this profile.)

For almost 30 years, the county had patiently and strategically planned the rehabilitation or replacement of 51 bridges. Close to 1/3 of its county-wide inventory had been structurally deficient at the time they embarked on this effort in 1984.

Now that hard work and determination was about to pay off. The county could drastically reduce its spending on bridge capital improvements by shifting from a replacement phase to a maintenance phase.

The county’s engineer, Herbert, Rowland & Grubic, Inc. (HRG), analyzed what investments would be necessary to proactively maintain the bridges and determined that the county would have an annual surplus of approximately $350,000 in Liquid Fuels funding beyond what was needed for maintenance expenses.

County commissioner Jeff Haste wanted to make sure the money was used wisely: “The county’s bridge management program had delivered tremendous value to our residents, drastically improving the safety and efficiency of our transportation system for drivers. We wanted to use this money to deliver even more value.”

Dauphin County Commissioners celebrate a ribbon cutting

County Commissioners Haste, Pries and Hartwick wanted to maximize the benefit of these surplus dollars for county residents. The infrastructure bank approach has allowed them to fund more than $11 million in improvements with an initial investment of $1 million.

Haste and his fellow commissioners, Mike Pries and George P. Hartwick, III, were thinking big, but regulatory requirements threatened to make the impact of this money small.

“Because of the forced distribution procedure associated with Liquid Fuels funding,” Haste explained, “the county had to come up with a use for this money or disburse it evenly to all 40 of our member municipalities.”

On average, each municipality would’ve received less than $10,000, which is too small a sum to do anything more significant that buy a little extra road salt for the winter.

Yet, even if the county used the entire $350,000 surplus itself, they wouldn’t be able to cover the cost of even one small capital improvement like a single-span bridge replacement (which typically costs between $500,000 to $1 million).

Haste, Pries and Hartwick wanted to have a larger impact, so they asked county staff to collaborate on a solution with the engineer who’d designed the successful bridge management program in the first place.

Together, they came up with an innovative program in which the county would use this annual Liquid Fuels surplus to dramatically reduce the cost of infrastructure improvements for local municipalities.

 

How the Dauphin County Infrastructure Bank Works

The Dauphin County Infrastructure Bank offers loans to municipalities (or private sector companies) to design and construct local roadway, bridge and traffic improvements – at unbeatably low interest rates. Municipalities can borrow money for as little as 0.5% interest.  (Private sector borrowers pay a 1% interest rate.)

As an added bonus, Dauphin County provides loan recipients with optional engineering design support. This is very beneficial to smaller municipalities who have never completed a large capital improvement project before and may not know how to navigate the complicated state and federal requirements these projects must meet.  An experienced consultant can save these municipalities from costly and time-consuming mistakes and re-work.

But, if $350,000 wasn’t enough money for the county to complete one major capital improvement project on its own, how can it use that money to fund multiple projects by its municipalities?

The power of partnerships.

Dauphin County multiplies the value of its $350,000 investment by combining it with additional funding from Pennsylvania’s state infrastructure bank.

Essentially, the county uses its Liquid Fuels surplus to make it more affordable for municipalities and private sector organizations to borrow money from the state by paying a portion of their interest. Interest on Pennsylvania Infrastructure Bank loans can vary, but it is currently 2.125% at the time this article is being written.

A municipality could borrow funds directly from the Pennsylvania Infrastructure Bank at an interest rate of just over 2%, or it could borrow from Dauphin County, and the county would pay approximately 75% of the interest expenses.

The following diagram shows exactly how the Dauphin County Infrastructure Bank funds its projects:

Diagram - How the Dauphin County Infrastructure Bank Works

It is a self-renewing process. As municipalities or private sector organizations repay their loan to the county infrastructure bank, the county repays PennDOT.  Once the debt is satisfied, the county has the ability to issue new loans to other municipalities or private sector companies.

For some municipalities, the cost savings provided by an infrastructure bank loan can be the difference between being able to move forward with a project at all or having to postpone it a few more years.

In the first three years of the infrastructure bank program, Dauphin County multiplied close to $1 million in Liquid Fuels funding into $11 million worth of improvements to the local transportation system: 7 bridges, one traffic signal, one streetscape, and one intersection improvement.

Middletown Streetscape

This streetscape project in Middletown Borough is one of the projects that has been funded by the Dauphin County Infrastructure Bank.  You can read more about the award-winning project and its potential economic benefit for the community in this article from The Authority.

“This is the kind of dramatic impact we were hoping to have,” says Pries, who oversees Dauphin County’s Community and Economic Development Department.

“The success of our bridge program and the creation of the Dauphin County Infrastructure Bank has allowed us to help residents without the need to raise property taxes. Unlike many other parts of the country, our residents don’t have to worry about crumbling bridges and road networks.”

Read more about the Dauphin County Infrastructure Bank, the benefits of implementing an infrastructure bank in your county, and other counties that are considering a program of their own in the February 2018 issue of Pennsylvania County News.

 

 


Brian Emberg, P.E.
Brian Emberg, P.E., is senior vice president and chief technical officer of Herbert, Rowland & Grubic, Inc. (HRG). He helped design Dauphin County’s bridge management system and worked with the county to develop the Dauphin County Infrastructure Bank. He has more than 30 years of experience designing roadways and bridges and is particularly skilled in creating unique funding solutions to help local governments accomplish their infrastructure goals with limited revenue.  You can contact Brian by phone at (717) 564-1121 or by email at bemberg@hrg-inc.com

Could infrastructure asset management improve your municipal bond performance?

Financial Reports

If you’re a frequent reader of our newsletter and postings, you know we believe strongly in the benefits of infrastructure asset management. (This is a sampling of our prior articles about infrastructure asset management.) By regularly assessing the condition of your infrastructure and proactively planning its maintenance and replacement, you can reap many benefits. Most importantly, you will increase the useful life of your infrastructure for a lower long-term cost than the typical reactive approach many governments and authorities take.

A recent article in Governing magazine gives another good reason why investing in asset management can be beneficial: it just might lower your cost of borrowing through bonds. In this article, Justin Marlowe discusses the benefit of using the modified approach for calculating the value of infrastructure required in annual GASB reports.  Under GASB standards, governments can either subtract a standard portion of their infrastructure’s value each year to account for depreciation (the traditional approach), or they can regularly assess the condition of the infrastructure, invest in maintenance to keep it in good condition, and then report the amount of money they have invested in maintenance (the modified approach).  Using the modified approach, the assets don’t have to depreciate in value like they would in the traditional approach.

Marlowe cites research he’s conducted that shows investors appear to prefer trading bonds from governments that use the modified approach:

“Governments that use the modified method trade at much narrower price ranges compared to bonds from governments that depreciate. In other words, when a government uses the modified approach, investors are much more likely to agree on how to price its bonds. For governments, this can ultimately translate into lower bond interest rates.”

(excerpted from “Selling Your Sewer’s Story – Financial statements can make the best case for public works investors”)

 

He goes on to state that very few governments at the state and local level actually use the modified approach, so with a lower supply, the demand for such investments would likely be stronger yet.

The truth is, you’re going to have to invest in maintenance and repair anyway. At HRG, we believe that, if you invest in an asset management program, you can take a proactive approach to determining what maintenance is needed and then plan and budget for it in advance. This means you can target your maintenance dollars where they’re needed most and make sure you have the funds available to do the work before infrastructure failure brings even greater costs to bear on your budget.

Justin Marlowe’s study adds a bonus benefit to this type of approach: you can cite those proactive investments in your financial statements to make your government bonds a more attractive investment to traders.

Every client need is different, and HRG would be happy to discuss asset management planning, capital improvement planning, budgeting and/or rate making options to fit the unique needs of your community. Contact us to discuss your community’s infrastructure and financial goals today: (717) 564-1121!


Adrienne M. VicariAdrienne Vicari, P.E., is the financial services practice area leader at Herbert, Rowland & Grubic, Inc., a civil engineering firm that serves local governments and authorities in Pennsylvania, Ohio, and West Virginia. Ms. Vicari has assisted numerous municipalities and water and sewer authorities with the creation of asset management programs that have created increased value and lowered costs for her clients.

 

 

Benefits of Utility Asset Management

As our water systems continue to age past their useful life and utilities face increasing budget pressures, the terms asset management and capital improvement planning have become buzzwords in the industry. However, as utility managers struggle to squeeze as much out of their budgets as possible, it is hard for many of them to justify the additional expense associated with developing and implementing an asset management program. Just like with any other purchase, they want to be sure the benefits outweigh the cost.  So what are the benefits of asset management and capital improvement planning?

Target your money with asset management

Target budget dollars where they’re needed most and eliminate wasteful spending.

An asset management and capital improvement program helps you identify exactly what maintenance and repair work is necessary without guesswork. Why allocate money toward cleaning out pipes selected at random, when you could target that money to the pipes that need it most (and use the savings to accomplish other system goals)?  Why replace pipes simply because of age when they may be in perfectly good condition?  Many factors besides age can cause the deterioration of infrastructure.

Photo by TheeErin. Published via a Creative Commons license.
water main break sinkhole

Minimize Risk

Knowing which infrastructure is most likely to fail (and correcting deficiencies before it does) can save you major expenses later in the form of property claims, water loss, etc. Knowing which failures would be the most catastrophic helps you target money toward their prevention as a first priority. With the budget limitations of municipal utility management, you might not be able to prevent every system failure, so it’s important to know which ones have the potential to cause the most financial damage and impact the most customers.  This way, you can focus your efforts on preventing those first.  If a failure does occur, a good asset management plan will include a proactive response plan, allowing you to respond quicker and more efficiently (thereby reducing damage and disruption).

Increase ROI with asset management

Maximize Returns

Asset management and capital improvement planning is all about proactively investing in measures to extend the life of your infrastructure.  These small investments can extend the life of an asset by several years.  Over time, the money you save delaying replacement will far surpass the money you spent to maintain the asset, and your customers will have enjoyed better, more consistent service for this lower cost.

Water sustainability

Promote Sustainability

Finding and detecting failures in the system like leaks can prevent water loss and the wasted energy consumed to treat water that never makes it to a customer.

Rating Five Golden Stars on Blackboard

Optimize Customer Service and Satisfaction

Proactively maintaining your assets ensures they function at peak performance for a longer period of time and are replaced before they fail. This means your customers receive top quality service without disruption and are happier for it. In addition, many asset management solutions include optional customer service applications that make it easier for customers to submit service requests and track them to completion.

 

Justify your rates with asset management

Justify Your Rates

Rate increases are never popular with customers, but they are easier for them to accept when they are backed up with clear data showing exactly what improvements are needed and why.

Attract funding with asset management

Access grants and loans

Competition for funding is fierce, and government agencies are under pressure to make sure the money they invest is used wisely. As a result, they’re more likely to award funds to utilities who have clear documentation of the project need, its benefits, and a plan for getting it built, operating it, and maintaining it at optimum levels over time.

Know your worth with asset management

Know your worth

Many utilities have been considering the option of leasing or selling their assets as a response to growing financial obligations in the public sector. A comprehensive asset management system provides documentation of the value of your assets, so you can ensure you are in a position to negotiate the best possible deal for you and your customers.  Potential investors will be more comfortable making a significant investment if they fully understand the value and the risks they’re assuming. (For more Insight into the utility leasing trend, see our article on calculating fair annual rental value.)

Every manager must take careful stock of his revenue and his expenses, but not all expenses are created alike. There is a difference between a cost and an investment, and asset management is clearly an investment in your utility’s future.  In essence, it helps you provide better service at a lower cost with reduced risk and improved financing options. How many investments can you make that provide that kind of return?

 

Duke Street Illustrates an Infrastructure Funding Solution


  • Dauphin County eliminated all of its load-posted, structurally deficient bridges with an ambitious approach to infrastructure funding.
  • Now the county is using the money it’s saved to fund a new infrastructure program benefiting its municipalities and private sector.
  • The program has already funded 10 projects worth $11 million with just a $1 million investment from the county.
  • Read on to learn more about Dauphin County’s innovative infrastructure funding solution.

Duke Street Bridge Under Construction

We begin this story in its final chapter, celebrating the construction of the Duke Street Bridge in Hummelstown Borough and South Hanover Township.

It’s a story that plays out all over America every day: a local government struggling to address aging, deteriorating infrastructure.

But Dauphin County’s story is different. With HRG’s help, they’ve found a solution to the infrastructure funding problem and are turning the page to a new, brighter future: a future they have the freedom to author themselves.

How did they get here? Asset management and capital improvement planning.

Ambitious Capital Improvement Program Eliminates Structurally Deficient Bridges

In 1984, 1/3 of Dauphin County’s bridges were structurally deficient. It’s the kind of problem many local governments – under tight budget constraints – might find insurmountable.  But Dauphin County knew that solving big problems is not done in one swift motion; it’s accomplished piece-by-piece.

Accordingly, HRG designed a long-term asset management and capital improvement planning program for them. It has several components:

  • Inspecting and assessing the condition of each county-owned bridge every two years.
  • Identifying the appropriate type and timing of maintenance, restoration or replacement measures.
  • Creating (and updating) a Bridge Improvement Plan that prioritizes these measures over a 10-year period. (Projects are ranked not just on the bridge’s structural condition but also its importance to the local transportation network [as determined by the amount of traffic it carries, whether it’s located on EMS or school bus routes, etc.])
  • Using this data to seek funding.
  • Leveraging this funding to complete projects over time, addressing the most urgent needs first and steadily whittling that list of structural deficiencies down to nothing.

By taking a proactive approach like this (vs a reactive approach that addresses bridges only after they’ve failed), Dauphin County extends the life of its bridges, maximizing their usefulness while minimizing their life cycle cost.

They also position themselves well for outside funding. A good capital improvement plan includes plenty of data about how many people rely on a piece of infrastructure and how they would be impacted if it were to fail or be taken out of service.  This information is very persuasive to funding agencies, who want to make sure their investment provides the biggest possible benefit to the community.

But agencies also want to be sure the money they invest will produce results: that the project will successfully transition from concept to construction. A well-designed capital improvement plan does just that. It shows you have identified exactly what is required to get a project built (including the timelines for permits and approvals) and that you know the full scope and cost of what you want to accomplish.  It also shows you have allocated money in advance to get the job done.

This level of detail reassures funding agencies that the money they invest will be used wisely and the project will be completed successfully. (See our article on Positioning Yourself for Grant Funding for more detail.)

In fact, funding agencies are increasingly requiring data like this in their application process, so a capital improvement plan is quickly transforming from a nice-to-have item into a necessary part of your infrastructure approach. (Our article on successfully applying for Pennsylvania Act 89 transportation funding explains this in more detail.)

Many pages have been written about Dauphin County’s success with this strategy over the years. (It has been featured in Pennsylvania County News and Road and Bridges magazine among others.)  In addition, the county has won several awards for projects accomplished using this approach: two Road and Bridge Safety Awards, a National Timber Bridge Award, and a historic preservation award from the PHMC.

But the successful completion of Duke Street in 2017 is not just an ending; it’s the beginning of a whole new story for Dauphin County. With no more load-posted, structurally deficient bridges to address, the county transitioned its focus from replacement to maintenance.  This has enabled county officials to create a new program for funding infrastructure, using a portion of the Liquid Fuels funds it used to need for bridge replacements.

Savings Are Used to Encourage Economic Growth With a New Infrastructure Funding Program for Municipalities and the Private Sector

The Dauphin County Infrastructure Bank combines this Liquid Fuels funding with additional money from PennDOT’s Pennsylvania Infrastructure Bank to offer loans to county municipalities, businesses, and non-profits at unbeatably low interest rates (as low as 0.5%) for the construction of roads and bridges under their jurisdiction. Over the past three years, the county has turned a $1 million investment into 10 projects worth $11 million.

DCIB has funded 10 projects worth $11 million

Again, Dauphin County has its eye on the long view, using its funds to promote economic development throughout its municipalities.

As their example illustrates, the solution to funding our infrastructure is not a short story; it’s a novel with many chapters and a carefully planned arc. In fact, it’s a story that never ends – with the construction of Duke Street serving as the beginning of a new chapter: the Dauphin County Infrastructure Bank.  This program will, in turn, fund many new stories with new characters: municipalities and private developers rewriting the future of their communities one roadway or bridge at a time.

Are you ready to become the author of your  community’s future?

 

UPDATE: Dauphin County celebrated a ribbon-cutting for the completed bridge in the spring of 2017.  Learn more about the bridge in the video below


Brian Emberg, P.E.Brian Emberg, P.E., has more than 30 years of experience and has designed hundreds of infrastructure projects. His understanding of project management and keen sense of business practices has lead him to his current position as Senior Vice President and Chief Technical Officer at HRG. He is responsible for the management and oversight of the firm’s technical service groups, sales and marketing, client management, and the maintenance and execution of quality management plans.

Effective Utility Management Starts With These Strategic Planning Tips

Strategic Planning Whiteboard

This article was originally published in the June 2016 issue of  Keystone Water Quality Manager. It is reprinted here with their permission.

We’re all familiar with the phrase “If you don’t know where you’re going, any road will get you there.” This is paraphrased from an exchange between Alice and Cheshire Cat in Lewis Carroll’s Alice in Wonderland. Like Alice, you know you need to get “somewhere” because changing regulations, increasing costs, aging infrastructure and customer growth affect the way you provide your service. Each year as operators, managers, and board members, you’re forced to establish budgets, adopt rates and policies, and make recommendations that have long-lasting effects. You may use the best information available at the time but can’t be sure that you’re adequately prepared for what’s just around the corner.

Strategic planning is a tool that helps to identify where you need to go and the best road to get there by exploring the fundamental values and principles that support your utility’s policy and operating decisions. Properly done, it looks at all aspects of the utility’s operations in order to see if they reflect the needs of your customers, ensure regulatory compliance, and generate sufficient financial resources to be sustainable. This is not just a financial plan focused on replacing existing facilities or acquiring new ones, but a comprehensive look at the factors that will drive both short and long-term events and an identification of strategies to address them.

There are five basic elements in a strategic plan:

  1.  Vision
  2. Mission Statement
  3. Critical Success Factors
  4. Strategies and Actions to Meet Objectives
  5. Prioritization and Implementation Schedule

However, there can be as many additional elements as the utility feels is necessary to properly address the needs of all its stakeholders: its users, employees, and the community at large. Some of these elements may take a long time to complete, while others can be accomplished relatively quickly. For some, a good deal of data will be needed, while others will simply reflect widely accepted industry practices and preferences. The plan could take a month or a year to complete, depending on the level of detail believed to be required. However, one of the benefits of the planning process will be simply identifying the stakeholders and discussing the elements of the plan with them. The ability to identify areas of consensus and concern is a hugely important and valuable outcome of the plan.

Getting Ready for Strategic Planning

Before you can begin the process, there are some preparatory activities that should be completed:

Authorization
The first task in strategic planning is obtaining the authorization to move forward with the process at all. It is important to involve all of the decision-makers in the strategic planning process, and discussing the scope of the plan and its benefits is one of the best ways to achieve “buy-in” for the entire process. Without buy-in, it will be difficult to fully implement the resulting plan.

Identification of Stakeholders
Another important step is to make sure the process considers all relevant points of view. This may seem easy, but, when you actually begin to list them, the number of people and organizations relying on your utility to be well-managed and provide affordable, high quality service is probably greater than you think. While some seem obvious, consider the following examples:
• Current users
• Employees
• Regulatory agencies, including PA DEP and US EPA
• Municipal government, conservation districts and planning agencies
• The Chamber of Commerce or local economic development agency
• Future users, including land owners and developers

This is not intended to be a complete list, only a guide, and not every group will require the same level of involvement in the strategic planning process, but understanding how each group might be impacted is important.

Planning Your TimetableDetermination of the Plan’s Time Frame
Strategic plans are generally long-term, usually five years, but a different time horizon may be more useful if you are aware of some specific event likely to occur just beyond the five-year planning period. If a significant expansion of the utility appears likely, five years may not be long enough.

Organization
How will the strategic plan be organized? Who will guide the process? Is it to be done by an outside professional or internal staff? What is the schedule? What will the final plan look like, and how will it be disseminated? Does it need some type of formal adoption or approval? If so, by whom?

Determining the “Vision”

In essence, visioning asks the question: What will the organization look like in the future? Visioning will supply the context for the other elements of the strategic plan. For a wastewater utility, the visioning process may actually be one of the most involved elements of the plan since this is where you try to get a peek at what’s around the corner. Unlike some businesses where visioning is a projection of some blend of marketing prowess, economic predictions and industry trends, each utility is unique because the factors that drive future events will impact it differently.

The task is made a bit easier if you divide visioning into an external scan and an internal scan. Although they may be related in many ways, the external scan looks at:Financial Reports

  • potential changes in the regulatory environment,
  • community growth and development,
  • changes in demographics,
  • future interest rates,
  • future construction costs,
  • the overall level of economic activity.

(Increased economic activity in nearby communities should also be considered since it may impact your service area.)

The internal scan will focus more on:

  • the needs of existing users and employees,
  • service improvements,
  • transparency,
  • facilities,
  • finances,
  • rates,
  • operating policies,
  • organizational structure.

These are but a few of the areas that need to be considered in some detail.

The visioning process is almost as diverse as the elements themselves. Clearly, information from outside the utility is necessary. This may include individual interviews with consultants, suppliers and community leaders. Telephone calls, questionnaires, online surveys, and specific messages printed on bill inserts can also solicit feedback from targeted stakeholders. Regardless of how it’s done, the result should be a clear and concise statement that reflects the major trends that are likely to drive the future direction of your utility. But, before you can get too specific, you should develop the broad organizational goals. This is best done with a mission statement.

Drafting a Mission StatementDrafting Your “Mission Statement”

I know the idea that you can somehow cram the entire essence of an organization into a couple of tightly worded sentences seems impossible. Some mission statements will run on for several paragraphs, but do they really provide more information about the philosophy or principles that govern the utility’s operations? Usually not. Instead, the discipline of packing an organization’s values into a few words may actually provide a better understanding of its goals. Here is an illustration of a short but insightful mission statement for a wastewater utility, courtesy of the Lancaster Area Sewer Authority:

“To provide quality service and apply technology to process wastewater so as to protect and enhance the environment and health and well-being of the community at a reasonable cost.”

The mission statement should not simply be a collection of carefully chosen words that project an image that isn’t consistent with the utility’s values; rather, creating the mission statement should foster a deeper understanding and commitment to those values. This, in turn, provides the benchmarks that measure success.

business-servicesIdentifying “Critical Success Factors”

The visioning process should identify the broad goals and major initiatives that need to be incorporated into the strategic plan. It is not important to determine their feasibility at this point; detailed examination of alternatives will be done later. Simply decide if they are consistent with the mission statement and are not mutually exclusive. Some likely success factors might include:

  • Achieving greater transparency.
  • Building up operating and capital reserve accounts.
  • Having all professional employees become certified in their specialty.
  • Exploring alternative billing and payment procedures.
  • Creating or reviewing emergency response procedures.
  • Reviewing or increasing use of technology to achieve greater efficiency.
  • Expanding facilities to accommodate expected population increases.
  • Developing an action plan should demographic changes result in reduced flows.

These are only illustrations; the vision and mission statements will help dictate the critical success factors that should be included in your plan. The key here is to keep the success factors general in nature but focused on specific identifiable outcomes. Another important consideration is quantifying what it means to be successful and the metrics for measurement.

From the above illustration, achieving greater transparency is a success factor, but what exactly does that mean? What is it that should be more transparent, and what are the limits of what is made publically available? Can it measured by the number of visits to your website, or does it mean the creation of a website? Is it measured by a fewer number of requests for specific information or telephone inquiries? How about the development of a newsletter? Is that something that most customers believe would be useful based on data collected during the visioning process?

Some critical success factors may not be determined directly. In the example above, data may not have been collected on customer’s preferences during the visioning process. In that case, the success factor of achieving greater transparency will need to be defined by some other precedent activity to measure the benefits of transparency, or it may be determined that transparency is simply a virtue for its own sake whose benefits may not be immediately measurable. In that instance, the precedent activity may be to look at industry practice and see how your current practices can be improved.

If you are getting the idea that developing the critical success factors is a time-consuming process that requires a lot of effort in order to be done correctly, you’re right. This is often the work of several individuals and should involve a team approach at least to direct the work. Care should be taken to assign responsibility for completing an assignment to someone who is involved in the overall planning effort. If not, they may not understand the actual goal and may simply complete a task.

Developing critical success factors, defining them, and providing metrics for measurement is at the very heart of the strategic planning effort. While strategies and actions will provide the “to-do list” and ultimately become the basis for the final report, they will be driven first by the critical success factors you’ve defined.

Developing “Strategies and Actions”

This step is where the plan is actually created. Critical success factors identify the areas where some action seems warranted; they take our broad goals and further define the “somewhere” we want to go. The next step is determining how to get there.

negotiating_at_the_deskAgain, using the transparency example, probably everyone will agree that organizational transparency is desirable, but someone might disagree with the type of information that is made available or with the level of training that may be necessary to organize and screen information. Cost is always a consideration when implementing changes.

Because there are generally many facets to each critical success factor, it is important to have several individuals involved in formulating the strategy for evaluation and implementation. This is often accomplished by group meetings, where each critical success factor is discussed. Questions will likely arise that cannot be answered without some further investigation, so tasks must be delegated to a smaller group or an individual for follow-up. In fact, most of the early efforts will be directed to developing the process to obtain the necessary information and assigning someone to gather and analyze it. The analysis is essential so that the success factor can be implemented in a way that achieves its intended purpose. It also provides documentation for any critical success factors that cannot be implemented.

Once the strategy for implementation is determined, specific detailed actions for implementation should be prepared. One of the most important decisions in this stage of the process is timing. You want to think about the best time to launch a new initiative or modify or eliminate an existing one.

Another important task is to identify someone to champion the implementation. Maybe there is one lead person or several depending on the type and number of tasks. If achieving the critical success factor requires technology changes, someone involved with maintaining that technology should be involved in the implementation. This may seem obvious, but sometimes third parties are retained for implementation, resulting in a loss of buy-in from those who will be responsible for making it all work.
schedule

Prioritizing Tasks and Designing an Implementation Schedule

Even though this article opened with a reference to a fairy tale, there should be no fantasy about implementation. It’s just as much work as each of the other elements — maybe more, since there are now clear ideas on how each goal is to be achieved and, of course, the devil is always in the details. Regardless of how thorough the analysis was, complications can be expected. Another frustration usually is that it takes longer to accomplish than originally believed.

In order to avoid this, one of the first steps to implementation is to determine the schedule. Unless there are very few and straightforward critical success factors, some effort needs to be expended in prioritizing each success factor for each of the broad goals identified in the vision. Often, once the strategic plan is formalized, a sense of urgency to implement its objectives is inevitable. This is understandable since the reason for the plan is generally to improve the utility’s operations, so why would you want to delay?

For one thing, it’s important to remember that the plan itself looks at a five-year time period, so that not all benefits will be immediately available. Also, events are constantly changing, so some of the fundamental assumptions that went into the plan may change. This may not affect the plan, but the implementation schedule should allow time for monitoring external changes nonetheless.

Another important consideration is the time staff has available to implement the plan. While the plan is being implemented, all other work must continue. Even if some of the heavy lifting is assigned to others, the utility’s staff needs to be involved at each step if they are expected to achieve the plan’s goals and provide necessary feedback.

microphoneCommunicating the Plan with Your Stakeholders

Okay: you have the vision, you’ve determined the critical success factors, you’ve developed strategies for implementation, and you’ve created the implementation schedule. You have assigned staff to implement the various strategies in order to monitor progress and make sure that each strategy achieves its desired goal. One question remains: What does the final plan look like? Is it a printed document, a slide presentation published on your website, or an internal spreadsheet that serves as a checklist for monitoring implementation?

Like all the other aspects of the plan, the process that rolls out the plan is determined by the goals of the strategic plan itself. If the plan is centered on internal improvements, then employee meetings with handouts may be the most effective means of communicating the plan’s objectives and the strategies designed to implement them. If there are elements of the plan that are service-related – that impact your customers or the community at large – more formal printed materials may need to be prepared. Meetings with important relevant stakeholders may also be useful, especially if there are some financial impacts associated with the plan that they are expected to share.

The only thing that’s constant is change. Absent a crystal ball, tarot cards, or an Ouija board, a well-thought-out strategic plan is the best means of seeing the future. Even if it misses the mark, knowing why it missed and what parts of the utility may be affected is an important benefit that makes the exercise worthwhile. At the very least, developing the plan will require policy-makers, managers and staff to consider each other’s points of view and understand how the customers and community view your utility.

Act 73 Compliance: Calculating Fair Annual Rental Value for Water Systems

by: Russ McIntosh

Financial Reports

 

This article was published by Pennsylvania Municipal Authorities Association in the August 2015 issue of their magazine, The Authority.

Does your authority lease facilities from its incorporating municipality? If so, your lease payments should be carefully documented and calculated to ensure you are in compliance with Act 73, or a potential legal challenge could result.

Background

Passed in 2012, Act 73 added Section 5612 (a.1) to the Municipal Authorities Act, restricting the use of authority funds for

“any purpose other than a service or project directly related to the mission or purpose of the authority as set forth in the articles of incorporation or in the resolution or ordinance establishing the authority…”

Some authorities are obligated to make lease payments to the municipality that owns the facilities they use to provide service. While payments for the use of facilities operated by the authority to provide its services would seem to satisfy the “mission or purpose” requirement, deciding on the amount of that payment could be problematic. If the fee is too high – beyond a fair market value – rate payers could argue that the excess funds are not being used for a purpose directly related to the authority’s mission. And under Act 73, they could make that argument in court:

“A ratepayer to an authority shall have a cause of action in the court of common pleas where the authority is located to seek the return of money expended in violation of paragraph  (1) from the recipient.”

Operating authorities that lease their facilities are not as common as straight operating or leaseback authorities. Although there have been no legal challenges to date, other recent changes in the act that allow for stormwater authorities may expand the applicability of the Act 73 amendments.

Act 68 of 2013 added Section 5607 (a) 18 to the act and extends the power of authorities to allow for:

“Storm water planning, management and implementation as defined in the articles of incorporation by the governing body. Authorities, existing as of the effective date of this paragraph, already operating storm water controls as part of a combined sewer system, sanitary sewer system or flood control project may continue to operate those projects.”

This may generate a need for more authorities to lease their facilities since the majority of storm water facilities are owned by the municipalities who remain responsible for compliance with their Municipal Separate Storm Sewer Systems (MS4s) permit. Authorities have the ability to impose fees and charges for storm water service, which may provide a convenient vehicle for funding these systems with user charges instead of general fund tax revenues without having to actually transfer ownership of the facilities. Authorities may also be useful in establishing drainage basinwide charges without having to seek regulatory approval.

Fair Annual Rental Value Calculation in Practice: Reading Area Water Authority

Recently HRG was selected by the Center for Excellence at Albright College to perform a study for the Reading Area Water Authority (RAWA). The work required HRG to calculate the fair annual rental value of the water facilities RAWA leases from the City of Reading. The calculation was needed in order to make sure that the payments required under RAWA’s lease with the city met the requirements of the Municipal Authorities Act as amended by Act 73 of 2012.

The mission of the Center for Excellence in Local Government at Albright College is “to maintain and enhance the quality of life in Berks County by assisting municipal leaders in meeting the changing needs of their communities.” RAWA is an operating authority that serves a population of approximately 150,000 in the city and portions of the surrounding municipalities. It delivers approximately 15 million gallons of water each day and has an annual budget of $27,000,000. It leases facilities from the city, and lease payments to the city represent about one-third of its annual budget.

Approach and Methodology

While a few systems have been leased to third parties such as the Allentown wastewater system to the Lehigh County Authority and the Borough of Middletown’s water and wastewater systems to United Water of PA, these leases have an entirely different objective and a structure that provides an up-front, lump-sum payment for a fixed term. There is no reliable public market that determines the “fair annual rental value” of a utility system and no single formula for determining this value. Instead, fair annual value calculations must consider:

  • The value of the assets employed in rendering the service
  • The existing financial structure of the utility
  • Market interest rates
  • Opportunity cost

A lease payment that represents the fair rental value of the system, the amount that a willing lessee would be willing to pay a willing lessor on an annual basis, needs to consider a variety of factors.

These factors include:

  • Asset base
  • Outstanding debt
  • Necessary reinvestments
  • Return on investment
  • Cash flow

In the case of Reading, the city owns the facilities and made significant investments in the water system over time in order to comply with regulatory mandates and protect the public health and safety of those who purchase water from RAWA. From the city’s point of view, the fair annual rental value should be based on the value of the assets and a reasonable rate of return consistent with their risk. It should also consider likely future events, such as the need to make additional investments to keep facilities updated and to accommodate the future growth. Such calculations are made independent of the actual revenue being generated by those assets.

From RAWA’s point of view, the fair annual rental value needed to reflect the system’s cash flow or user rates would need to be increased. RAWA’s mission is to charge users reasonable and uniform rates consistent with the level of service provided. Rates and charges are RAWA’s only source of income and must generate sufficient funds each year to pay all the expenses of the system, including operation and maintenance expenses, debt service, the annual rental payment to the city, and necessary capital investments.

Balancing both points of view, our analysis considered the current net book values of the water system’s assets and also considered the current replacement value of those assets. Other assets such as water rights were considered in the calculation where appropriate. Assets were looked at in total and adjusted for investments in facilities financed by RAWA bonds. Appropriate rates of return were calculated and applied.

We also considered the projected cash flow from operations using current rates adjusted for cash needed for reinvestment in capital assets. Future rate increases, the impact of customer growth and regulatory, environmental, and safety compliance were important factors in determining future cash flows. We selected a five year period, 2015 through 2019, in order to measure the sensitivity of the annual fair rental value of these factors on water rates.

Using Multiple Calculation Methods to Determine Fair Annual Rental Values

HRG used multiple methodologies in order to blend the desire of the lessor (the city) to obtain the highest rent possible with that of the lessee (RAWA) to provide service at reasonable and uniform rates while meeting all financial obligations. In this way, we tried to approximate the amount that a willing lessee would be willing to pay a willing lessor.

  • Book Value Method: HRG evaluated the net asset values as the basis for calculating the fair annual rental, then applied rates of return commonly allowed in regulated utility cases for similar municipally owned water utilities. Typically, the PUC distinguishes between capital provided through debt financing and capital provided by investors when considering the overall return on investment that can be included in the rates. Various utility specific factors are considered, and expert testimony may be required when determining the rates of return allowed.
  • Replacement Value Method: Our analysis also considered replacement cost as a basis for calculating the fair rental value of the system. Replacement value, in this instance, is used to approximate the opportunity cost associated with holding an asset that has appreciated in value. It is important to note that in order to actually realize the benefit of the appreciated asset values, it would be necessary to convert those values into cash or other assets. Accordingly, our approach did not simply apply the rate of return on equity to the equity value created through use of replacement cost; rather, net equity was determined and a composite rate applied.
  • Cash Flow Method: Like our other approaches, this method has its limitations, since available cash flow measures the difference between revenues received and expenses paid, including necessary reinvestments in the system included in the current budget or future debt service. It is sensitive to changes in the rates charged for services, general price level changes and any imbedded operating inefficiency. In order to compensate for the limitations in the cash flow approach outlined above, we obtained water rate information from surrounding water systems and systems serving metropolitan areas similar to Reading in order to measure RAWA’s ability to increase rates to meet current and future lease rental costs.

Each method represents a valid approach for a particular purpose. Investors in investor-owned utilities are compensated for their investment in two ways: the rate of return allowed and collected through the utility’s rate structure (which is often paid out as a cash dividend) and the change in the value of their shares of stock. This is not true for municipally owned utilities where there is no capital stock or dividends. There is no ability to “sell” the equity created by an increase in the utility’s economic value without impacting the ratepayers.

Applying return on the current replacement cost method allows for the introduction of the increased economic value into the calculation. And, as can be seen in the table below, the values are higher even after calculating the return on the net realizable value. However, it is our belief that the cash flow method, while not perfect, provides the best overall measure of the current economic value on which to base the annual fair rental value of the water system.

Our use of multiple calculations provided a range of fair annual rental values. This was especially useful when looking at these calculations for a multi-year period.

Calculating Fair Annual Rental Value

Based on our analysis, we concluded that the annual fair rental value for the water system is $9,275,000 per year. This value represents the projected annual average cash flow value of the system yielding an average rate of return on the net book value of the city’s investment in net assets of 6.83% or 3.03% on net replacement book value. The return on net book value of 6.83% is within the rate of return range for investor-owned public water utilities. The lower rate of return calculated using replacement values is consistent with market rates for safe investments in today’s economic environment such as 20-year US Treasury Bonds.

Conclusion

While our study addressed the specific needs of RAWA and the city, each utility system is different. The passage of Act 68 authorizing stormwater authorities will likely involve transfer or lease of existing, municipality-owned stormwater facilities to an authority. Given the language of the Act 73 amendment, some due diligence would seem to be warranted when payments are being made by an authority to a municipality. Not all annual fair rental value calculations will require the use of multiple methods. However, in order to avoid a potential legal challenge, proactive authorities should examine their lease payments to ensure they are in compliance with the law.