Thursday, January 3, 2008

PAWSD board approves 2008
budget, new rates

By Chuck McGuire
Staff Writer

On Dec. 11, the Pagosa Area Water and Sanitation District Board of Directors met and approved its final 2008 budget. As a result, water and wastewater rates will soon rise, while “availability-of-service” rates will likely climb, but are still subject to public scrutiny.

While the final budget varies little from a preliminary version reviewed in November, it does reveal significant increases in district income and operating expenses over the past few years. In fact, a review of the district’s three primary funds (General, Water Enterprise and Wastewater Enterprise) shows income rising at a slower pace than expenses. The question is, how do income and expenses compare with escalating costs for services to consumers?

When compared to the actual 2005 budget, the 2008 budget reflects the following increases in operating income and expenses among the three funds:

• General Fund, income up 62 percent, expenses up 78 percent.

• Water Enterprise Fund, income up 61 percent, expenses up 95 percent.

• Wastewater Enterprise Fund, income up 42 percent, expenses up 36 percent.

At a glance, the wastewater fund appears much brighter, but cash from a nearly $3 million revenue bond obtained in 2000 to cover wastewater capital improvements ran out at the end of 2007. Of course, revenue bond payments continue through 2015, forcing the district to build reserves for other planned and unforeseen capital improvement projects.

Comparing the same numbers in the 2008 budget to those in the actual 2006 budget, however, tells a slightly different story. Following, are the changes in operating income and expenses reflected among the same three funds:

• General Fund, income up 41 percent, expenses up 56 percent.

• Water Enterprise Fund, income up 35 percent, expenses up 39 percent.

• Wastewater Enterprise Fund, income up 9 percent, expenses up 21 percent.

Obviously, both comparisons show income failing to keep pace with expenses, but the 2006 comparison is particularly relevant when considering escalating costs to consumers. On Dec. 11, the district board also approved water and wastewater rate hikes, effective the May/June meter reading period. The increases mark the third time rates have gone up since May, 2006.

Following, are the new May/June 2008 water rates, how much they’ll increase over the current rates, and what percentage they’ll increase over early 2006 rates:

• $12 minimum service charge per month, per equivalent unit (single-family residence), $3 increase over current, 100-percent increase over early 2006.
• $4.20 per 1,000 gallons, up to 8,000 gallons, $1.50 increase over current, 100-percent increase over early 2006.

• $8 per 1,000 gallons, from 8,001 to 20,000 gallons, $2.85 increase over current, 88-percent increase over early 2006.

• $9.45 per 1,000 gallons, from 20,001 gallons and above, $3.35 increase over current, 82-percent increase over early 2006.

Under the new 2008 rate structure, a typical 8,000-gallon water bill will rise from $30.60 to $45.60, or approximately 50 percent over current rates and 100 percent over early 2006 rates.

The district board also approved a $3 per month rate hike for consumer wastewater services. Again, effective June 1, households will pay $23 a month, or 15 percent more than current rates and 31 percent more than in early 2006.

Where existing water or wastewater services are adjacent to undeveloped real property and readily available to its owners, the owners must pay a quarterly availability-of-service fee, until physically connecting to the systems. Such fees allow the district to cover existing debt service on the systems, until consumers connect and begin paying monthly use fees.

On Dec. 11, the district board gave preliminary approval to higher availability fees, under which landowners will pay $33.75 for water availability every three months, and $27.50 a quarter for wastewater availability. The water fee is an increase of $12, or 55 percent over the current rate, while the wastewater fee is $5.75, or 26-percent higher.

Before higher availability fees can become effective though, the district must accept public comment up to and during a public hearing, Jan. 15. Once finally approved, the new availability fees will be retroactive to Jan. 1.

While the PAWSD board adopted new water and wastewater fees in December, it will delay implementing them until the end of the winter pro rata billing period. The pro rata billing period is a five-month time frame from November through March, during which water bills are based on the district-wide average monthly use of 4,000 gallons per household, rather than actual meter readings. Heavy snow accumulations during those months typically impede access to most meters, making readings difficult, if not impossible, to obtain.

With meters typically read in April, billing adjustments are made, depending on the difference between pro rata and actual uses. In other words, those having used more than 20,000 gallons over the five-month period will see an additional charge (per 1,000 gallons) on their May statement, while those using less will receive a credit based on a similar rate.

As mentioned, the new rates will take effect in the May/June meter-reading period, and likely increases will appear on statements consumers receive in early July.

At a time when the cost of virtually everything is rising, wise water use can actually reduce monthly bills. Even with higher rates, when consumers consciously conserve, they typically pay less for drinking water. Following, are a few proven methods of reducing water waste:

• Inspect all pipes, faucets and toilets for leaks. Place a few drops of food coloring in the toilet tank and wait 15 minutes. If coloring appears in the bowl, there is a leak. Make necessary repairs immediately.

• Install low-volume toilets and showerheads, or place a one-quart (or liter) plastic container in the toilet tank to reduce the amount of water used with each flush. To anchor the bottle, fill it partially with sand or small stones.

• Turn off the tap while shaving or brushing teeth, and take shorter showers.

• Load the washing machine and automatic dishwasher to capacity before use.

• Place a pitcher of drinking water in the refrigerator to avoid running the tap.

• Landscape with low-water plants and rock gardens to reduce groomed lawn areas.

• Instead of the hose, use a broom to clean sidewalks or the driveway.

• If the local car wash recycles water, wash the car there. If not, use soap, water and a bucket, and attach a shut-off nozzle to the hose for a quick final rinse.

For additional information regarding water conservation, including booklets and brochures, or to offer input on proposed availability-of-service rate increases, district residents should attend the upcoming monthly PAWSD meeting at 7 p.m., Jan. 15, at 100 Lyn Ave. The PAWSD phone number is 731-2691, and its Web site is www.pawsd.org. Those wishing to comment, may also submit thoughts in writing or by e-mail.

chuck@pagosasun.com


Oklahoma teen dies in ski accident

By Thea Skinner
Staff Writer

A skiing accident at Wolf Creek Ski Area Friday, Dec. 28, claimed the life of an Oklahoma teenager.

According to Mineral County Sheriff Fred Hosselkus, Mitchell Frank Maltsberger, 15, of Oolagan, Okla., died after hitting a tree at the area.

Hosselkus reported the accident occurred at approximately 12:20 p.m.

“(Usually) the accidents on that mountain are not that serious, but sometimes they happen,” said the sheriff.

“Wolf Creek rescue personnel were on the scene within minutes,” said Mineral County Coroner Charles Downing. “The young man was skiing with family and friends, but I do not believe his parents were on the scene.

“Results from the autopsy are not in,” Downing said Monday. “The man ran into a tree and the trauma caused the death.”

thea@pagosasun.com


County seeks to fill void

By James Robinson
Staff Writer

Since former Archuleta County Administrator Bob Campbell’s unexpected resignation Dec. 18, county staff and elected officials have scrambled to fill the void, and a Wednesday work session laid out a basic interim management plan while the county searches for Campbell’s replacement.

According to Archuleta County Commissioner and Board Chair Bob Moomaw, a management committee made up of key department heads and Archuleta County Clerk and Recorder June Madrid, agreed to make Moomaw the primary contact for department heads and the press. The management team will meet weekly.

“Department heads wanted a ‘go-to’ person,” Moomaw said.

Moomaw added that his appointment wasn’t universally agreed upon, and that other options were discussed.

Moomaw said the group considered the pros and cons of hiring an interim county administrator, using another county official such as Archuleta County Undersheriff John Weiss, or perhaps Rich Lindblad of the Citizen’s Financial Advisory Task Force.

Moomaw said the group agreed that hiring an interim administrator would take too much time, add extra costs, and the individual would face a steep learning curve — all for the very short term. Moomaw said consensus indicated that efforts and dollars would be better spent on finding a long-term replacement for Campbell and, in the meantime, Moomaw will serve as Campbell’s temporary surrogate and a liaison between elected officials and department heads.

“We’ll give this a try and reevaluate in a couple weeks,” Moomaw said.

In the meantime, Moomaw added, “The hiring is on as fast a track as we can get it.”

Moomaw said the county will likely use an executive search firm to locate candidates, which Moomaw said requires formal board action and the “request for proposals (RFP)” process.

Moomaw said the board will formally launch the search during its Jan. 8 meeting.

Once initiated, Moomaw anticipated needing three to six months to complete the search, including finalists undergoing a comprehensive battery of interviews.

“The days of hiring like we did in the past ... I’d rather have no one, than the wrong one,” Moomaw said.

Moomaw said service levels will remain the same, county departments will continue to run as they did prior to Campbell’s resignation and the board will hold the line on the 2008 budget.

“We don’t anticipate any major changes in county organization. We’re in a holding pattern until we hire a new administrator. We have good, qualified department heads that are anxious and willing to step into the vacuum caused by Mr. Campbell’s departure,” Moomaw said.

Although Moomaw said Campbell’s resignation was unforeseen, he explained that now may be an appropriate time for a leadership transition.

“We finished 2008 in the black; the county has a balanced budget and there is a new opportunity for leadership,” Moomaw said.

james@pagosasun.com


NEWS

COUNTY

County crisis FAQ:

What impact will the property tax freeze
have on county finances?
What is the audit completion timetable?

By James Robinson
Staff Writer

Often, the questions prompted by the county’s financial crisis are shared by many readers. The SUN’s county crisis FAQ page provides a forum for readers to ask their questions, and to receive an answer, if one is available.

Because the county has not yet submitted its 2006 government audit, the state froze Archuleta County’s property taxes Dec. 10, 2007. When did you first learn of the freeze? Second, what impact will the freeze have on county finances? And third, because lifting the freeze requires completion of the 2006 government audit, what is the audit completion timetable?

Archuleta County Finance Director Don Warn responded.

Warn said Archuleta County Treasurer Lois Baker provided him, and former Archuleta County Administrator Bob Campbell, notification of the freeze during a core financial team meeting Dec. 11.

The core financial team is comprised of key staff and department heads who have met regularly throughout the financial crisis to monitor the county’s progress and to troubleshoot as issues arise.

Warn said a revenue freeze of any kind is never good, however, due to the timing of this particular freeze, the county should be able to weather the sanction.

Warn explained that December and January marked the months where property tax collections are thinnest.

And second, Warn said, “We have already anticipated and planned for it. We did not include property tax collections for December and January in forecasting for cash flows.”

Warn added that March and June are typically the two strongest months for property tax collections, and the 2006 government audit should be finished well in advance of spring collections.

According to Warn, recent conversations with auditors from Wall, Smith, Bateman & Associates indicate the firm should finish the 2006 government audit by Jan. 31.

Once the state receives and approves the audit, the freeze will be lifted.

If you have a question that hasn’t been fully answered, or addressed, send it to james@pagosasun.com.


TOWN

Town continues work on land use and development codes

By Thea Skinner
Staff Writer

The Pagosa Springs Town Council continued work to change components of the 2007 Downtown Master Plan at a Wednesday, Dec. 19 work session.

Council members modified and removed language in Chapter Six, Design Guidelines, and the meeting prompted discussions concerning the progress of the Land Use and Development Code (LUDC) and the town’s Comprehensive Plan.

On pages 6-13, under East Village (that part of the document dealing with the east end of the downtown area), the plan states: “The conversion of residential structures to commercial uses has increased the need for on site parking.” Council removed the following sentence: “Ensure streetscapes continuity by eliminating curb cuts along the highway.”

On the topic of a need for parking, town Planning Director Tamra Allen said a parking facility may be added on Hot Springs Boulevard in the future, which will update the Vehicular Circulation and Parking Framework map in the master plan.

Language on pages 6-20, under the Building Heights section, was placed into the LUDC document: “Buildings should range between one and three stories in height. Building heights for residentially zoned areas should not exceed two stories.”

The master and comprehensive plans are “vision” and advisory documents, intended to provide a foundation for the creation of specific regulations. The LUDC contains the regulations that serve as guides for builders and developers — and those regulations are being shaped as town council considers public and developer input. The prospect for more dialogue and involvement in the communication process was entertained at the meeting.

Some in attendance at the meeting, and LUDC Advisory Committee members, urged council to expedite progress of the plans with the intent of not carrying out the same conversations in five or 10 years. The LUDC Advisory Committee was formed in February 2007.

Members include volunteers from the development community, engineers and architects and appointees from the Historic Preservation Society, town planning commission, and town council.

The discussion touched on the council better utilizing the committee’s contributions, to include the addition of several members to the committee who have economic backgrounds. Such members would further diversify the input the town council receives.

LUDC Advisory Committee members apprised council members of their desire to be involved in the communication process in three phases of planning, referred to as “modular” in the LUDC document
Module 1 changes to the plan are being discussed by town planning staff and Clarion Associates, a national land-use and real estate consulting firm.

Council members directed the town planning department to provide the committee with the draft changes.

Increased involvement of committee members may allow the town to forgo hiring outside consultants.

“It would be extremely costly when, really, you are the consultants,” said councilwoman Angela Atkinson addressing the public and committee members.

John Hundley of Bootjack Management Company, and a member of the LUDC Advisory Committee, voiced an ongoing concern to council members, indicating that work on the codes and plans remain.

“Our company is telling you that the zones in the comprehensive plan documents do not work,” Hundley said.

Council member and LUDC member John Middendorf explored Hundley’s interpretation.

“If the comprehensive plan is indeed broken, we are giving developers an impossible task,” said Middendorf. “My suggestion is that we should be more proactive than reactive,” Middendorf said. “The LUDC has to reflect the comprehensive plan. I think the comprehensive plan is where we need to focus our efforts.”

He also advocated an approval process similar to an environmental assessment process, in which a 30-day public comment period is provided “between each modular stage.”