Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Utilities Finance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council hears auditor’s clean opinion as debate over water bills and recycling rises
Summary
Auditors issued a clean, unmodified opinion on the city’s 2023 CAFR; council members debated enterprise fund balances, an upcoming utility rate increase, and whether to continue curbside recycling (estimated savings of about $5/month). One councilmember urged delaying rate increases given a reported $41.1 million water/sewer fund balance.
The council received the city’s 2023 Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (CAFR) from independent auditors Mullen & Jenkins. Senior manager Lucas Hand presented an unmodified (clean) audit opinion for the financial statements and single audit, described one compliance finding related to timing of financial statement preparation and commended the finance staff for progress toward getting current statements prepared.
"We are issuing a clean and unmodified opinion," Hand told the council, and highlighted cash and investments of approximately $117 million in cash and $41 million in investments across the city and noted the water and sewer enterprise produced about $4.4 million in operating income for the year.
The audit presentation preceded an extended council discussion about utility billing and proposed changes to the Waste Pro contract that would modestly reduce customer bills. Councilmember Ella Holmes Hines criticized proposed rate increases given what she cited in the meeting packet as a $41.1 million balance in the water and sewer clearing account and argued the city should find alternatives to raising rates because many seniors on fixed incomes are struggling with monthly water bills. "Senior citizens have a $60 water bill for 0 usage," Hines said, arguing that small monthly increases are significant for vulnerable residents.
Other councilmembers and staff replied that removing curbside recycling would save only about $5.21 per month (other figures discussed included an 88¢ monthly equivalent cited in packet scenarios) and warned about the contractual complications of changing service mid‑contract. "To remove the recycling would only save $5.21 a month," Councilmember Ron Roland said, noting the service frequency and contract terms.
The council did not adopt any immediate change to recycling service at the meeting; members urged staff to bring more detailed analyses of enterprise fund balances, projected budgets, and contract termination implications ahead of the October 1 rate adjustments.
Next steps: finance staff and utility management were asked to provide more detailed fund accounting and scenario analyses for council review during upcoming budget discussions; the CAFR was received and spread on the minutes by unanimous vote.
