Committee members on Jan. 8 raised a technical but consequential issue: the utility financial policy's reserve definition appears to differ from the inputs used in the rate-calculation spreadsheet.

One member walked through the policy language and the schedule used in the rate calculation and said the policy's phrase "cash and investments" excludes items the rate table counts, such as customer receivables and amounts due from other governments. "We're using cash and investments and balances due from our customers and then due from other governments," the member said, noting that the calculation yields about $34,000,000 in the referenced fund.

Committee members agreed this disconnect could cause rates to fluctuate differently if similar federal or state grants were not present. The group discussed possible fixes, including broadening the policy language to use a current-assets less current-liabilities approach or otherwise aligning terms so the policy and rate-calculation produce the same outcome. Members suggested involving the rate consultant (Stantec) and the city's finance director (Mr. Vincensi/Vicensi identified in packet) for a technical review.

The UPC asked staff to arrange a short call with the rate consultant and the finance director, produce a proposed, intentionally generic policy amendment to close the gap, and return recommendations to the committee; no policy change was adopted at Jan. 8.

The committee emphasized that the UPC can request city books and records and retain consultants under its charter if a deeper audit or review is needed.