November 1, 2010 MinutesCITY OF DENTON CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
November 1, 2010
After determining that a quorum was present, the City Council convened in a Work Session on
Monday, November 1, 2010 at 11:30 a.m. in the Council Work Session Room at City Hall.
PRESENT: Council Member King, Council Member Heggins, Council Member Gregory,
Council Member Engelbrecht, Mayor Burroughs, Council Member Watts, and
Mayor Pro Tem Kamp.
ABSENT: None.
Receive a report, hold a discussion, and give staff direction on proposed revisions to the
credit and collection policies for City of Denton utility customers.
Ethan Cox, Customer Service Manager, stated that during a May 2008 management review,
Navigant Consulting characterized the City's utility bad debt policy as "high, especially for a
utility this size". Uncollectible debt to billed revenue had grown to 0.57% for FY 08-09, with
68% residential and commercial debt increasing by 331%. Challenges with the current process
included (1) inconsistent credit screening, and (2) collection timeline and inadequate deposit
coverage which led to bad debt.
Mayor Burroughs asked if the bad debt was based on annuals.
Cox replied correct.
Mayor Burroughs asked how long that bad debt was carried and what was the total bad debt.
Cox stated that the city did not forgive the debt. He would have to provide Council with the
amount of the total bad debt.
Council Member Watts asked if the bad debt amount was carried forward each year.
Cox stated that it was not carried forward.
Bryan Langley, Chief Financial Officer, stated that the amount of bad debt was still carried on
the books as money still owed but it was written off the financial statement.
Cox continued with the challenges of the current processes: (3) customer treatment was the same
despite credit and payment history, (4) lack of clear guidelines lead to inconsistent decision
making, and (5) ordinance and business practices were not aligned.
Revenue collection strategy - in July 2009 Customer Service partnered with Navigant to create a
collection strategy that treated customers based on credit risk, encouraged prompt payment and
reduced uncollectible bad debt.
New Customer and Credit Issuance - the current process included (1) all new customers were
charged a deposit, (2) the deposit was waived with either a cosigner or a letter of good standing,
(3) credit screening was not being used to assess risk so that customers with good credit paid
unnecessary deposits and received interest when refunded. Adequate deposits were not secured
for high risk customers. The current deposit was $125 for residential customers and $300 for
commercial customers.
City of Denton City Council Minutes
November 1, 2010
Page 2
The proposed process performed a credit inquiry, utilized a tiered deposit stricture based on
credit score, accepted a cosigner or letter of good standing for residential customers with Fair or
Insufficient credit and irrevocable letter of credit would be accepted in lieu of a deposit for
commercial customers. Cox reviewed the current collection timeline noting that challenges
included delaying non-pay disconnects contributed to a longer wait for revenue and minimum
deposits left 60-75 days without deposit coverage. The current system billed in arrears.
The proposed customer credit rating would rank customers according to their payment history in
the utility billing system. Negative credit events added points to the customer's score. Each
event followed the customer for one year. The number of points accrued would rank the
customer on the credit rating scale. The proposed collection timeline had a difference in Day 38.
Customers with a "C" rating or lower would be disconnected 7 days sooner which would result
in an 11-20% reduction in annual bad debt. That would be coupled with 1/6th deposit leaving
only 8-23 days outside of coverage.
Council Member Watts asked if a customer was disconnected, what would the minimum be to
get service back on.
Cox stated that today the customer would have to pay the past due amount. The customer could
also have payment arrangements over a number of months. Payment arrangements were also
included in the proposed ordinance and would be considered on a case by case basis.
Council Member Watts stated that to go from a disconnect at Day 45 to Day 38 translated into an
11-20% reduction in bad debt that was substantial. Most of the people disconnecting would not
have new service connects.
Council Member King felt this was a better deposit management plus a shorter cut-off date.
Cox stated that a large number of customers did not have adequate deposit coverage.
Mayor Burroughs asked if someone knew he was going to gone for a period of time, could he
prepay a minimal amount for service to continue.
Cox stated yes plus another action was automatic draft. Customers could also have the budget
billing service which was used by people who travelled a lot.
Cox continued with timeline concerns. There was a need to create a shorter collection cycle for
customers that could not pay deposits. Customers would use 45-60 days of service before
disconnection. There was also the need to reduce the timeline's forbearance period as meter
reading, billing and disconnection was performed by cycle. Further changes would require
additional headcount or technology. These suggestions had a set of standards for each type of
customers. Right now there were 25 cycles which corresponded to different portions of the city.
This was important as meter reading was done manually. The recommendation right now was
only for Day 38.
Council Member Gregory asked about the expense for adding a cycle.
Cox stated that he would need to double resources each time a cycle was added.
City of Denton City Council Minutes
November 1, 2010
Page 3
Council Member Gregory asked for the administrative costs for adding cycles before this item
was on an agenda.
Council Member Watts asked if an individual could not pay the deposit, could it be split out on a
bill.
Cox stated that the current process was to include it in the billing cycle. There was a need to
change the process to have at least a portion of the deposit up front if not all of it. A first bill
tended to be overwhelming with 45-60 days of service plus a deposit amount included.
Mayor Burroughs asked about a person with no history and poor credit with not enough money
for a full deposit, what would be the deposit.
Cox stated that with the proposed system, a new customer would enter as an "A" rating. If that
person were a high risk, he would start with high risk deposit.
Council Member Heggins asked about the Plus One funds helping with the costs.
Cox stated that Plus One did not cover deposits and were subject to customer's situations.
Council discussed various scenarios of types of customers, situations with deposits, and amounts
of deposits.
Cox stated that commercial due dates were too aggressive with late payment penalties not
adequate. An average 7,227 accounts were late each month. In September 2010, 95% were repeat
offenders. He suggested increasing the late fee from $10 to $20.
Council Member Watts stated that he was concerned about the past due fee for commercial and
felt it was not high enough.
Cox stated that most of the past due amounts were for residential accounts as opposed to
commercial customers.
Mayor Burroughs suggested looking at the possibility of having a one shot where a customer did
not get a late fee but got a warning. They would have one opportunity to not get a late fee then
would receive an increased late fee to a higher amount.
Cox stated that they did not look at a free pass but that several notices that were sent out in
addition to the late fee notice. The customer also received a call at Day 25. He continued with
the refunding of deposits. The current process was that a deposit would be refunded when the
customer paid twelve billings without disconnection for non-payment, meter tampering, or more
than two delinquencies. The proposed process allowed residential customers with an "A" rating
though twelve billings to qualify for a deposit refund. Commercial customers would only be
refunded a deposit when an Irrevocable Letter Credit was provided.
Council Member Gregory stated that with no implementation phase, what happened if a
customer could not or would not pay the deposit.
City of Denton City Council Minutes
November 1, 2010
Page 4
Cox stated that the deposit was the first item on the bill to pay. If a customer elected not to pay
that amount, the service would eventually be disconnected for late payment. If a customer were
struggling to pay a bill, there were charitable organizations which would be an option and
payments arrangements were another option.
Council Member Heggins asked about non-paying customers and if those accounts were given to
collection agencies.
Cox stated that those accounts were sent to collections at 130 days and the collection agency
received a portion of the collection.
Council Member Watts did not understand the rational of paying interest on deposits and
questioned the rate of interest and why deposits would not be required for some customers.
Cox stated that it would be a show of good faith for some customers and would encourage
behavior they wanted to see. Interest was paid under the provisions of the Texas Utility Code
which required the payment of interest on deposits.
Requesting Additional deposits - the current process was that additional deposits could be
requested if service was terminated for non-payment, tampering with the city's meter was found,
the customer was paying off a previously uncollectible balance, an irrevocable letter of credit
had expired, or if a customer had an unacceptable credit rating and no cosigner. Challenges of
additional deposits were "unacceptable credit rating" and additional deposit amounts were not
clearly defined. The proposed process required a deposit for customers with a "D" to "F" credit
rating in the utility billing system.
Implementation - all customer credit ratings would be reset to "A". Deposit refunds to "A"
customers would only occur after 12 consecutive months of good payment history. When a credit
rating dipped to "D" or below, a deposit of 1/6th the average annual billing would be requested.
Council Member King asked about waiving the credit card fee in 2011.
Langley stated he would like to implement that by June of next year.
The summary was to change the ordinance and processes to implement regular credit checks and
ratings, have deposit decisions based on customer credit/risk, adjust the collection timeline based
on customer risk, request additional deposits based on credit rating, and refund excess deposits
based on credit rating.
With no further business, the meeting was adjourned.
MARK A. BURROUGHS JENNIFER WALTERS
MAYOR CITY SECRETARY
CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS