HomeMy WebLinkAbout2016-03-02 Utilities Advisory Commission Agenda Packet
NOTICE IS POSTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 54954.2(a) OR 54956
I. ROLL CALL
II. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
Members of the public are invited to address the Commission on any subject not on the agenda. A reasonable
time restriction may be imposed at the discretion of the Chair. State law generally precludes the UAC from
discussing or acting upon any topic initially presented during oral communication.
III. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES
Approval of the Minutes of the Utilities Advisory Commission Meeting held on February 3, 2016
IV. AGENDA REVIEW AND REVISIONS
V. REPORTS FROM COMMISSIONER MEETINGS/EVENTS
VI. DIRECTOR OF UTILITIES REPORT
VII. COMMISSIONER COMMENTS
VIII. UNFINISHED BUSINESS
None.
IX. NEW BUSINESS
1. Staff Recommendation that the Utilities Advisory Commission Recommend that the City Action
Council Adopt: (1) a Resolution Approving the Fiscal Year 2017 Wastewater Collection
Financial Plan; and (2) a Resolution Increasing Wastewater Rates by Amending Rate Schedules
S-1 (Residential Wastewater Collection and Disposal), S-2 (Commercial Wastewater Collection
and Disposal), S-6 (Restaurant Wastewater Collection and Disposal) and S-7 (Commercial
Wastewater Collection and Disposal – Industrial Discharger)
2. Selection of Potential Topic(s) for Discussion at Future UAC Meeting Action
3. Staff Recommendation that the Utilities Advisory Commission Recommend that the City Action
Council Adopt: (1) a Resolution Approving the Fiscal Year 2017 Water Utility Financial Plan;
and (2) a Resolution Increasing Water Rates by Amending Rate Schedules W-1 (General
Residential Water Service), W-2 (Water Service from Fire Hydrants), W-3 (Fire Service Connections),
W-4 (Residential Master-Metered and General Non-Residential Water Service), and
W-7 (Non-Residential Irrigation Water Service)
4. Update and Discussion on Impacts of Statewide Drought on Water and Discussion
Hydroelectric Supplies
X. NEXT SCHEDULED MEETING: April 6, 2016
XI. INFORMATION REPORTS A complete list of informational reports provided to the UAC can be viewed at
http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/boards/uac/reports.asp?code=CAPALO_8 and at City Hall, 3rd Floor, Utilities
Administration office. Information reports cannot be discussed during UAC meetings, in compliance with Govt.
Code Section 54954.2(a)(2
UTILITIES ADVISORY COMMISSION
WEDNESDAY, MARCH 2, 2016 – 7:00 P.M.
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
Palo Alto City Hall – 250 Hamilton Avenue
REVISED
Chairman: Jonathan Foster Vice Chair: James F. Cook: Commissioners: Arne Ballantine, Michael Danaher, Steve Eglash, Garth Hall, and Judith Schwartz Council Liaison: Gregory Scharff
Utilities Advisory Commission Minutes Approved on: Page 1 of 10
UTILITIES ADVISORY COMMISSION MEETING
MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 3, 2016
CALL TO ORDER
Chair Foster called to order at 7:00 p.m. the meeting of the Utilities Advisory Commission
(UAC).
Present: Chair Foster, Vice Chair Cook, and Commissioners Ballantine, Danaher, Eglash, Hall,
and Schwartz
Absent: Council Liaison Scharff
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
None.
APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES
Chair Foster moved to approve the minutes from the January 13, 2016 UAC meeting as
presented and Commissioner Schwartz seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously
(7-0) with Chair Foster, Vice Chair Cook, and Commissioners Ballantine, Danaher, Eglash, Hall,
and Schwartz voting yes.
AGENDA REVIEW AND REVISIONS
Chair Foster changed the order of the agenda items to accommodate staff schedules so that the
New Business Item #1 (Update on Ongoing Preparation of a Sustainability/Climate Action Plan
to Update and Replace the City’s 2007 Climate Protection Plan ) was moved up to just before
the Reports from Commission meetings and events.
NEW BUSINESS
ITEM 1: DISCUSSION: Update on Ongoing Preparation of a Sustainability/Climate Action Plan
(S/CAP) to Update and Replace the City’s 2007 Climate Protection Plan
Chief Sustainability Officer Gil Friend provided a summary of the discussions at the January 24
Sustainability summit and the January 25 Council study session. He showed that ongoing
actions will reduce GHG emissions, but new activities are needed to meet the large reductions
that the state is contemplating. He showed a “waterfall” chart showing the different actions
that would need to be taken to reduce emissions by 80%. The largest piece is replacement of
gasoline-fueled vehicles with electric vehicles. He said that the analysis that supports these
results will be part of the final report. He discussed the key actions that would be required
under areas including mobility (transportation), energy, and water. For energy, electrification
for building and water heating are key options. He said that rapid, short-cycle experimentation
DRAFT
Utilities Advisory Commission Minutes Approved on: Page 2 of 10
and bundled services could be very effective. For water, capture of rainfall, reuse of water,
onsite water treatment and usage are key actions. Energy initiatives include microgrids, smart
grid initiatives, local renewable deployment, and the need to hedge against potential long-term
changes in hydroelectric supplies. Rapid, innovative, and agile prototyping and deployment is
essential to effective change.
Commissioner Schwartz noted that she attended the summit and found it helpful, but that the
audience was largely those generally support these sustainability programs. She said that many
enthusiastic suggestions were made, but that some of them defied the laws of physics. She
said that we need to add a note of caution and that realistic assumptions are needed in
addition to aspirational goals that are useful as rallying cries. She said that a reality check is
needed for many of the ideas.
Commissioner Ballantine asked if zero carbon heating may be a better goa l rather than
electrification. For example, solar hot water heating could be a very good solution, especially in
a power outage. He noted that the waterfall chart showed that heating is a large part of the gas
usage and that could be replaced with solar h eat. He added that microgrids may not be the best
way for heating. He said that resiliency is very important as well.
Commissioner Danaher noted that building codes to increase building energy use efficiency
should be central to planning, not just electrification. He said that the options should be rank
ordered to show the best way to get the reductions. He noted that using offsets for the gas
portfolio is also an option to reduce GHG emissions.
Vice Chair Cook stated that transportation is by far the biggest part of the City’s remaining GHG
emissions and noted that this is the most difficult piece to address. Friend said that commutes
are a large problem for people so transportation solutions could be very supportive if they help
to address commute convenience at the same time.
Commissioner Schwartz asked why the City’s goals need to be so much more aggressive than
the state’s, especially since the state is so far ahead of the rest of the county. She said that
more realistic goals may result in more communities being able to follow the City’s lead. Friend
said that the goals don’t need to be more aggressive, but if the aggressive solutions are
practical, economical and provide improved services, we may want to do them.
Chair Foster said that the solutions are not easy to find. He said that Palo Alto is well positioned
to try to make this effort.
Commissioner Hall said that realistic steps that can be easily communicated may get more
support, especially if those steps can be seen by the community. For example, replacing the
City’s fleet with electric vehicles is one action that is doable and visible to the community. If
there are three or four things that can have prices attached to them that can be done in the
utility environment, it would be good to focus on them, especially since creating cross subsidies
is an issue for the utility funds.
Utilities Advisory Commission Minutes Approved on: Page 3 of 10
Vice Chair Cook said that having electric vehicle (EV) charging widely available is an effective
way to get people to convert to EVs. Commissioner Schwartz added that carpool lanes were
very effective at converting vehicle stock to hybrids or EVs. Friend agreed that the incentives
don’t always have to be monetary to influence behavior.
Chair Foster asked if EV chargers were expected to increase revenue for the City or to
encourage the use of EVs. He asked if the idea to charge fees to park is it to discourage driving
downtown, or to collect revenue for the City. Friend said that it is to shift habits and change
the incentive structure that free parking provides currently that effectively encourage solo car
driving.
Commissioner Eglash asked how climate adaptation figures into the equation. He noted that
rising sea levels and flooding could be issues of concern to the community. Friend said that
adaptation—as well as mitigation—must be addressed. He said that sea level rise is the primary
issue, but that rising temperatures will result in higher utility usage as well as higher crime
rates. He said that certain key facilities such as the sewage treatment plant are at risk of higher
sea levels. He said that the S/CAP needs to be broad and comprehensive in its thinking with
identification of specific steps that make sense and that point the City in a positive direction.
Commissioner Eglash said that adaptation is very important since sea level rise will create
financial strain for the City and there doesn’t seem to be enough attention paid to the topic.
Friend noted that the city council is planning a study session on sea level rise in the near future.
REPORTS FROM COMMISSION MEETING/EVENTS
Commissioner Schwartz attended the all hands meeting for Eugene Water and Electric Board
and noted that employees need to be on board with CPAU’s plans. She also attended an
advanced metering infrastructure (AMI) conference in Orange County and noted that utilities
that haven’t yet installed AMI equipment can leap frog ahead since new technologies continue
to be developed. Finally, she reported that she will soon be testifying at an En Banc hearing of
the California Public Utility Commission regarding using time-of-use (TOU) rates as the default
rate.
UTILITIES DIRECTOR REPORT
1. Palo Alto CLEAN Program Applications
The City expects to soon receive its second application for a project under the Palo Alto CLEAN
Program, a feed-in tariff program to purchase locally generated renewable electricity within
City boundaries at a price of 16.5 ¢ per kilowatt hour for solar PV generation. On January 25,
Council signed a lease agreement with Komuna Energy that will develop 1.3 megawatts (MW)
of solar carport structures atop four City-owned parking structures and sell the energy and
output to the City. The City received its very first application to the program on January 8 for a
113 kW solar carport installation at the Unitarian Universalist Church of Palo Alto for a 25-year
contract term. When both applications have been received and processed, approximately half
of the total 3 MW program capacity will remain.
2. Water Use Reduction
On May 5, 2015, the State Water Resources Control Board adopted an emergency conservation
regulation that required Palo Alto to reduce water use by 24% from June 1, 2015 through the
Utilities Advisory Commission Minutes Approved on: Page 4 of 10
end of February 2016 compared to usage in 2013. On February 2, 2016, the State Water Board
extended the May 2015 Emergency Regulation so that the 24% water use reduction mandate is
in effect until the end of October 2016 for Palo Alto. The City of Palo Alto’s emergency water
use resolution adopted by Council automatically extends, coincident with the State’s action, the
water use restrictions currently in place.
3. Communications
Emergency Operations for Super Bowl 50: Utilities communications staff is providing
assistance to the City’s Office of Emergency Services and public safety personnel for Super Bowl
50 at Levi’s Stadium in the Santa Clara. Officials expect up to two million extra people to visit
the San Francisco Bay Area to participate in events related to the game or attend the game
itself. The City has activated the Palo Alto Emergency Operations Center (EOC) to monitor
activities and support lead agencies – the City of Santa Clara’s EOC and City of Sunnyvale, which
is operating the regional Joint Information Center. If interested in receiving traffic and safety
alerts, you can text SB50 to 888777.
El Nino Preparations: In addition to EOC activities for the Super Bowl, the City has focused on
emergency response plans for predicted winter storms, El Nino-type rain events and flooding.
Utilities has been coordinating with the City’s Office of Emergency Services, neighboring cities,
police and emergency personnel, Santa Clara Valley Water District, Caltrans and San
Francisquito Creek JPA to share mutual aid resources in the event of a flood or other natural
disaster incident. Regional agency public information officers have been collaborating on public
messaging.
Programmatic Outreach Campaigns: The beginning of 2016 provided an ideal opportunity for
CPAU to launch a robust marketing campaign in support of efficiency and renewable energy
programs that can assist customers in greening their homes and lessen their carbon footprint.
Using utility bill inserts, bill messaging, e-newsletter mailings, videos, social media, news
releases and website promotion, CPAU is encouraging participation in the Home Efficiency
Genie audit, PaloAltoGreen Gas carbon offsets program and Georgetown University Energy
Prize Competition. The recent promotion has been effective at driving up program enrollment,
which should help Palo Alto continue its savings for competition for the Georgetown Prize.
COMMISSIONER COMMENTS
None.
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
None.
NEW BUSINESS
ITEM 1: DISCUSSION: Update on Ongoing Preparation of a Sustainability/Climate Action Plan
(S/CAP) to Update and Replace the City’s 2007 Climate Protection Plan
(See discussion above after “Agenda Review and Revisions”.)
Utilities Advisory Commission Minutes Approved on: Page 5 of 10
ITEM 2. DISCUSSION: Discussion of Pilot Approach for Commissioner-Initiated Placement of
Items on Utilities Advisory Committee Agendas, Distribution of Informational Materials
Interim Utilities Director Ed Shikada stated that the written report describes some ideas for
how to bring topics forward for discussion.
Public comment
Herb Borock said that distribution of information can be achieved through the commissioner
comments portion of the agenda, or can information can be distributed in the packet. He said
that the UAC should focus on what its duties are. The role of the commission is to review and
recommend policy issues. The role is not to ask staff to provide a forum for UAC discus sions on
informational issues. He said that Council sets priorities and the UAC does not establish st aff’s
work plan or priorities.
Chair Foster stated that the UAC is tasked with advising the Council on Utilities matters, but the
commission does not set the agenda. This creates a problem when the commission desires to
discuss a particular topic since it must be put on the agenda to be discussed, but the Utility
Director, not the commission, sets the UAC agenda. So it has become impossible to talk about
topics that the commission wants to talk about with all these Catch 22’s.
Vice Chair Cook said that he agreed with the Chair. Commissioner Schwartz added that the
commissioners are respectful of staff time and are not trying to add work for staff.
Commissioner Hall noted that in his experience at the SCVWD with committees that advise the
board, the committees may wander a bit. If the committee prepares a paper on a topic for the
board, then the board can direct the committee to work on (or not) the topic proposed. He
said that there needs to be a way that the commission can check in with the Co uncil before
spending time on certain activities.
Commissioner Eglash noted that the UAC is well respected and impactful and that the Council
relies on the UAC due to the technical nature of the Utilities business and that fact that the
Council has so much on its plate to become experts in utilities issues. He said that the
commission has changed over time from focusing on the facts to offering opinions. He said that
this may not be the right direction for the commission. This change in focus may make the
commission’s advice more dependent on the individuals on the commission, rather than the
facts being presented.
Chair Foster responded that the Council values the UAC’s advice and that he believes that the
Council would like the UAC to be more proactive, rather than being reactive. He asked if a topic
is raised and there is agreement among at least two commissioners that it should be agendized
at the next meeting—unless the Director says that staff time is unavailable or if the next
meeting’s agenda is too full. An alternative is that if two commissioners develop a
commissioner memo, it can be sent to the Council.
Commissioner Danaher thanked Interim Director Shikada for taking the UAC’s input into
consideration.
Utilities Advisory Commission Minutes Approved on: Page 6 of 10
Commissioner Schwartz said that we are at an inflection point in the utility industry and that, if
the commission is only reacting to items brought forward by staff, they doing a disservice to the
Council.
Commissioner Hall said that it would be good to check in with the Council to ensure that it
wants the Commission to proceed. He is concerned that the Commission not veer away from
what the Council may desire.
Commissioner Eglash agreed with Commissioner Schwartz that the utility is changing and noted
that the Council is also more interested in utility topic s.
Interim Director Shikada said that public engagement is important to him and noted that there
are many venues for that including the annual meeting with Council, the development of
informational reports as well as informal communications with Council.
ITEM 3. ACTION: Selection of Potential Topic(s) for Discussion at Future UAC Meeting
None.
ACTION:
None.
ITEM 4. DISCUSSION: Preliminary Financial Forecasts and Rate Changes for Electric, Gas,
Wastewater Collection and Water Utilities
Assistant Director Jane Ratchye stated that this presentation is the annual initial review of the
long-term cost drivers for each fund to give the UAC and the community an idea of the rate
adjustments that are projected to be needed this year and the next several years. She said that
the rate increases projected this year are slightly higher than projected last year and that much
of that change can be attributed to the impacts of the drought. Ratchye cautioned that these
projections are preliminary and things will change before they are finalized.
Ratchye reviewed that financial reserves that are managed for the Utilities funds and stated
that the description and purpose of each reserve is described in detail in the Reserve
Management Practices that are part of the long-term Financial Plans that are adopted by
Council. As part of the annual preparation of the financial plans, staff conducts a risk
assessment to determine the financial impact of a 10% loss of sales combined with an
unexpected additional Capital Improvement Program (CIP) expense. This risk assessment level
is generally slightly below the minimum level of the Operations Reserve for each fund.
Communications Manager Catherine Elvert explain ed that there is a comprehensive
communications plan that includes reaching out to all stakeholders and communicating the
value of the utility services as well as the reasons for the rate increases. She noted that many
channels will be used for the communications.
Commissioner Hall asked how the drought impacts the wastewater and gas funds. Ratchye
replied that the gas revenues have declined somewhat due to people reducing water use—
including the use of hot water. Wastewater costs have increased as the concentration of
Utilities Advisory Commission Minutes Approved on: Page 7 of 10
constituents in the City sewage has increased due to the drought. In addition, some of the
wastewater revenue is based on water usage for commercial customers and that revenue has
declined while costs are fixed.
Commissioner Danaher noted that the rate increases will result in an increase of $600 over two
years for the average customers, which is not insignificant. He asked if we know th e impact on
low use customers. Ratchye responded that the Financial Plan will contain the impact on
customers using different levels, but that this information isn’t available at this time. He asked
if there are assistance programs for low income residents. Ratchye said that the City does offer
financial assistance for electric and gas funds.
Electric Fund
Acting Rates Manager Eric Keniston said that a 10% electric rate increase is required for Fiscal
Year (FY) 2017. He said that additional information received since the preliminary projections
were developed indicate that an even higher—possibly 12%—rate increase may be required.
He said that a rate increase of 8% is projected for FY 2018. The last electric rate increase was
implemented in July 2009 and the new cost of service analysis (COSA) is pointing to a higher
increase for residential customers than for non-residential customers.
Keniston said that the primary driver for the cost increases are the drought over the last several
years, which has used up most of the available reserves, and the increasing cost of renewable
energy contracts coming on line over the forecast period as well as increasing transmission
costs. The forecast calls for completing drawing down the Supply Rate Stabilization Reserve and
Hydro Stabilization Reserve by FY 2018. With the preliminary rate projections, the supply
Operations Reserve is near the minimum level for the next several years and the Distribution
Operations Reserve is between the target and the minimum levels in FY 2017. Keniston stated
that this year’s rate increase projections of 10% and 9% for FY 2017 and F Y 2018 are higher
than last year’s financial projections, which included rate increases of 6% per year for FY 2017
and FY 2018. The reason for the change is the ongoing drought conditions that have severely
limited the availability of hydroelectric resources.
Keniston said that the uncertainties for the electric fund include how long the drought will last
and CIP costs. In addition, the Electric Special Projects Reserve may be tapped for a second
transmission line and smart grid projects.
The commissioners had no questions.
Gas Fund
Keniston said that a 7% gas rate increase is planned for FY 2017 following by increases of 5%
per year for the following several years. He said that transportation costs from PG&E are
expected to double and CIP costs have increased. He noted that revenues have not covered
costs in FY 2016 and that costs are expected to remain above revenues until FY 2021 by
drawing down remaining funds in the Rate Stabilization Reserve by FY 2018. The Operations
Reserve is expected to be at the target level for this fund throughout the forecast period.
Keniston noted that the 7% rate increase for FY 2017 is exactly what was predicted last year.
However, last year rate increases of 4% per year were anticipated in FY 2018 though FY 2020
Utilities Advisory Commission Minutes Approved on: Page 8 of 10
instead of the 5% per year increases projected this year. Keniston noted that the Gas fund
faces uncertainties including the extent to which sales volumes fall due to electrification. In
addition, the cost for compliance with the cap-and-trade program are unclear after 2020.
Commissioner Schwartz asked if we have a take or pay contract for gas. Keniston replied that
the City purchases all gas in the short-term markets and that gas commodity costs are passed
on to the customers every month.
Commissioner Hall noted that it will be a communications challenge to explain the actual gas
rate adjustment since commodity cost changes may make the actual rate increase seen by
customers higher or lower than the stated rate change.
Wastewater Collection Fund
Keniston said that wastewater collection (sewer) rates are expected to increase by 9% in FY
2017 and 10% per year in FY 2018 and FY 2019. He said that updated projections for
wastewater treatment costs and operations costs are higher than projected last year. Ke niston
noted that after a reprieve in FY 2014 when CIP costs fell so that staff could catch up with
projects in the queue, revenues have not covered costs for several years. He said that the
Operations Reserve was at the target level in FY 2016, but is projected to fall to just above the
minimum level—but above the risk assessment level—by FY 2018. Keniston said that the 9%
rate adjustment for FY 2017 is the same as what was predicted last year. However, the rate
increases for FY 2018 and 2019 are higher than last year’s projections of 9% per year.
Commissioner Schwartz said that she heard a news report on the issue regarding concentration
of the constituents in sewage noting that this is not just an issue for Palo Alto, but many
communities are dealing with the same issue and increased costs associated with sewage
treatment.
Commissioner Hall asked when the treatment plant upgrade costs hit the sewer rates. He
noted the need to be clear in communicating with the public about the ongoing cost increases.
Commissioner Eglash asked if the additional chemicals are part of treatmen t costs, or
operational costs. He asked if the capital costs were for the treatment plant. Keniston explained
that the operational and capital costs are for the Utilities wastewater collection system and the
treatment cost category includes all costs that Utilities pays for treatment to the Regional
Water Quality Control Plant (RWQCP). The treatment costs at the RWQCP do include capital
and operating and maintenance costs for the operating the treatment plant.
Commissioner Ballantine warned against tying the rate increase to the drought too much since
other costs are also driving up the rates. Ratchye clarified that the difference between this year
and last year’s rate adjustment is due to the drought, but the larger reason for the increases is
due to the increasing treatment costs.
Commissioner Hall left meeting at the conclusion of the discussion of the Wastewater
Collection Fund.
Utilities Advisory Commission Minutes Approved on: Page 9 of 10
Water Fund
Keniston stated that a 9% per year water rate increase is projected for FY 2017, FY 2018 and FY
2019. He indicated that staff plans to propose a small change to the rate struc ture by
separating out the commodity portion of the rate similar to what is done with gas rates. This
will enable the wholesale water rate from the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission (SFPUC)
to pass through to customers. For FY 2017, there is no expected increase to the distribution
components of the rate so that the entire rate increase is driven by increases in the cost of the
water from the SFPUC. Keniston remarked that the final wholesale rate is not known until quite
late in the rate development process—often as late as June—so separating the commodity part
out will make for more ratemaking certainty. Keniston expects that the drought surcharge
currently in place will need to continue.
Keniston said that water revenues were less than costs for FY 2015 and are expected to be
lower than costs until FY 2019. This has resulted in the drawdown of available reserves
including the Rate Stabilization Reserve and the Operations Reserve. Although the Operations
Reserve is expected to be above the target level in FY 2016 and FY 2017, it is expected to dip
below the target level until FY 2023.
Keniston noted that the 9% per year rate increases for FY 2017 through FY 2019 are slightly
higher than the 8% per year increases projected in last year’s financial plan. He said that the
major reason for that is the higher cost for SFPUC water and continuing lowered sales volumes.
Keniston indicated that the uncertainties for the Water Fund include CIP costs, the extent to
which sales volumes increase after the drought is over, seismic rehabilitation work that may be
required in the foothills pipeline used to access some of the City’s stored water and other
impending costs that are forecast for the SFPUC’s regional water system.
Commissioner Schwartz said that the water costs more, not that it costs the same since
customers are using less. She noted that this concept is difficult to explain, but that it is
important for the overall communication plan.
Commissioner Eglash asked if staff has any indication of what the changes to the water rates
will be and whether there would be a change to rate structure itself. Ratchye said that staff will
rely on the cost of service study completed last year, which is compliant with the cost of service
requirements of Proposition 218, and that a major adjustment to the rate structure or the
tiered rates is not anticipated. She said that the actual rate proposals for both water and
wastewater collection will be presented next month with the long-term financial plans for both
funds.
Overall
Keniston restated the overall preliminary rate projections for all funds for FY 2017: 10% electric
rate increase, 7% gas rate increase, 9% wastewater collection rate increase, and 9% water rate
increase. He said that with refuse rates increasing in FY 2017 by 9% and storm drain fees rising
by 2-3%, the overall FY 2017 bill increase for the median resident is about $23.25 per month.
Keniston stated that the UAC and the Finance Committee will review the Water and
Wastewater Collection Financial Plans and proposed rates for implementation on July 1, 2017 in
March and April, respectively. The Proposition 218 notification process for the water and
Utilities Advisory Commission Minutes Approved on: Page 10 of 10
wastewater rate changes will be sent to customers in April. The Gas and Electric Financial Plans
and proposed rate adjustments will be reviewed by the UAC and Finance Committee in April
and May, respectively. Council will consider the rate proposals and Financial Plans with the
budget process in June.
Commissioner Eglash asked what the rate adjustments would be in FY 2017 if all the reserves
were limited to the minimum levels. Keniston noted that the gas rate increase could come
down a bit since there is some room in the gas reserves, but he hasn’t done that analysis yet .
Commissioner Eglash said that he sees a bit of wiggle room in gas and wastewater funds and,
since it is a large impact, it would be best to know the minimum rate increases required. He
said that the UAC may not support such a plan as that, but that having the information ab out
those limits would be helpful. He added that it would be helpful to know the rate trajectory if
all the financial reserves for each fund were to be at the target levels, too. This will provide
context and more information when the UAC is faced with making recommendations on rate
increases at its next two meetings.
Vice Chair Cook said that no one likes rate increases, but we want to maintain reliable and safe
utility services. He said that the City needs to balance rate increases with running the utility
well.
ITEM 5. DISCUSSION: Update and Discussion on Impacts of Statewide Drought on Water and
Hydroelectric Supplies
Assistant Director Ratchye provided an update on the ongoing drought. She said that the City is
exceeding its state mandate for water use reduction for the compliance period, but that the
State Water Board has extended the compliance period to the end of October 2016, rather than
the end of February 2016. She said that, although it has been rainin g lately in the state, it is only
halfway through the water year so the Board felt it was prudent to extend the compliance
period. The Board said it would revisit the water supply situation in May and, if conditions
warrant, may consider terminating the mandatory compliance period for water use reduction.
Ratchye stated that the impact of the drought on the electric utility, which normally gets about
half its supplies from hydroelectric resources is an increase in costs for FY 2016 costs by over
$10 million.
Meeting adjourned at 9:35 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Marites Ward
City of Palo Alto Utilities
Page 1 of 5
1
MEMORANDUM
TO: UTILITIES ADVISORY COMMISSION
FROM: UTILITIES DEPARTMENT
DATE: March 2, 2016
SUBJECT: Staff Recommendation that the Utilities Advisory Commission Recommend
that the City Council Adopt: (1) a Resolution Approving the Fiscal Year 2017
Wastewater Collection Financial Plan; and (2) a Resolution Increasing
Wastewater Rates by Amending Rate Schedules S-1 (Residential Wastewater
Collection and Disposal), S-2 (Commercial Wastewater Collection and Disposal),
S-6 (Restaurant Wastewater Collection and Disposal) and S-7 (Commercial
Wastewater Collection and Disposal – Industrial Discharger)
RECCOMENDATION
Staff requests that the Utilities Advisory Commission (UAC) recommend that the Council:
1. Adopt a resolution (Attachment A) approving the fiscal year (FY) 2017 Wastewater
Collection Financial Plan (Attachment B); and
2. Adopt a resolution (Attachment C) increasing wastewater rates by amending Rate
Schedules S-1 (Residential Wastewater Collection and Disposal), S-2 (Commercial
Wastewater Collection and Disposal), S-6 (Restaurant Wastewater Collection and
Disposal) and S-7 (Commercial Wastewater Collection and Disposal – Industrial
Discharger) (Attachment D).
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The FY 2017 Wastewater Collection Utility Financial Plan includes projections of the utility’s
costs and revenues through FY 2026. Costs are projected to rise substantially for the next
several years due primarily to increasing treatment costs. As a result, staff projects the need
for a 9% wastewater rate increase in FY 2017 and rate increases ranging from 6% to 10%
through FY 2021. Rates for FY 2022 and beyond are projected to increase by 4%.
BACKGROUND
Every year staff presents the UAC with Financial Plans for its Electric, Gas, Water, and
Wastewater Collection Utilities and recommends any rate adjustments required to maintain
their financial health. These Financial Plans include a comprehensive overview of the utility’s
operations, both retrospective and prospective, and are intended to be a reference for UAC and
Page 2 of 5
Council members as they review the budget and staff’s rate recommendations. Each Financial
Plan also contains a set of Reserves Management Practices describing the reserves for each
utility and the management practices for those reserves.
The UAC reviewed preliminary financial forecasts at its February 3, 2016 meeting.
DISCUSSION
Staff’s annual assessment of the financial position of the City’s wastewater collection utility is
completed to ensure adequate revenue to fund operations, in compliance with the cost of
service requirements set forth in the California Constitution (Proposition 218). This includes
making long-term projections of market conditions, the physical condition of the system, and
other factors that could affect utility costs, and setting rates adequate to recover these costs.
The current rate proposals are also based on the methodology described in the 2011
Wastewater Collection Utility cost of Service and Rate Study completed by Utility Financial
Solutions (Staff Report 1399).
Proposed Actions for FY 2016
1. Increase to $3.95 million the Transfer from the Rate Stabilization Reserve to the
Operations Reserve ($2 million was proposed in the FY2016 Financial Plan).
Proposed Actions for FY 2017
1. Transfer the remaining $394,000 from the Rate Stabilization Reserve to the Operations
Reserve.
These proposed actions are described in more detail in the FY 2017 Wastewater Collection
Financial Plan (Attachment B). These transfers will enable staff to maintain Operations Reserve
levels while spreading the required rate increases for the wastewater collection utility over
several years.
In addition, staff proposes to adjust wastewater rates as shown in Table 1 below, effective July
1, 2016. The adjustments will increase the system average rate by roughly 9%. These rate
changes are included in the amended rate schedules provided as Attachment D.
Page 3 of 5
Table 1: Current and Proposed Wastewater Collection Charges
Current
(7/1/2015)
Proposed
(7/1/2016)
Change
$/mo. %
Monthly Service and Minimum Charges ($/month)
S-1 (Residential) Service charge $31.95 $34.83 $2.88 9%
S-2 (Commercial),
S-6 (Restaurant)
Minimum 31.95 34.83 $2.88 9%
Quantity Rates
S-1 (Residential) $/CCF N/A N/A - -
S-2 (Commercial) $/CCF 6.16 6.71 0.55 9%
S-6 (Restaurant) $/CCF 9.52 10.38 0.86 9%
S-7 (Industrial) $/CCF 2.83 3.08 0.25 9%
(1) Monthly charges for S-1 are fixed monthly charges, and those for S-2 and S-6 are
minimum monthly charges.
(2) Currently there are no customers on the S7 rate schedule, however, CPAU continues
to maintain it in case there is a need for the rate schedule in the future.
FY 2017 Financial Plan’s Projected Rate Adjustments for the Next Five Fiscal Years
Table 2 shows the projected rate adjustments included in the Wastewater Collection Utility
Financial Plans and their impact on a residential wastewater bill.
Table 2: Projected Rate Adjustments and Residential Bill Impact, FY 2017 to FY 2021
FY 2017 FY 2018 FY 2019 FY 2020 FY 2021
Wastewater Utility 9% 10% 9% 7% 6%
Estimated Bill Impact for
Residential Customers ($/mo) $2.88 $3.48 $3.45 $2.92 $2.68
The main drivers for the increase in the Wastewater Collection Utility’s costs (and therefore
rates) over the next several years are the costs for wastewater treatment, which are projected
to go up by 6% to 7% per year as the Regional Water Quality Control Plant makes several
upgrades to their facilities, as well as capital improvement costs for the wastewater collection
system. Operating and CIP costs are projected to rise roughly 2%-4% annually.
There is uncertainty related to capital costs for the Wastewater Collection Utility in coming
years. Wastewater main replacement costs have risen substantially in recent years, and it is
possible higher CIP expenditures will be required in the future. Staff plans to perform an
updated master plan for the wastewater collection system, and expects better information
about future main replacement costs when that plan is completed. Staff does not anticipate
this study to commence until sometime in 2016.
Page 4 of 5
Wastewater Bill Comparison with Surrounding Cities
The annual sewer bill for a Palo Alto resident is $383 under current rates, 32% lower than the
average neighboring community. Table 3 shows the monthly sewer bills for residential
customers compared to what they would be in surrounding communities.
Table 3: Residential Monthly Sewer Bill Comparison (based on rates as of February 1, 2016)
Palo Alto
Neighboring Communities Neighboring
Community
Average
Menlo
Park
Redwood
City
Mountain
View Los Altos
Santa
Clara Hayward
31.95 81.08 74.95 28.80 32.01 37.94 28.93 47.29
If the proposed wastewater rate change is adopted by Council, and assuming other agencies do
not change their sewer rates, Palo Alto would be 26% lower than the average neighboring
community. Staff has no information at this time as to whether or when the surrounding
communities are planning wastewater rate changes.
Changes from Prior Financial Forecasts
Staff has projected wastewater rate increases for FY 2017 through FY 2019 for several years.
Table 4 compares current rate projections to those projected in the last two year’s Financial
Plans. As shown, the FY 2017 rate projections are the same as projected last year. In the FY
2015 Financial Plan, the rate increase projections were lower than current projections, but the
FY 2017 projections reflect current information available regarding the cost of capital
improvements at the Regional Water Quality Control Plant.
Table 4: Projected Wastewater Rate Trajectory for FY 2017 to FY 2026
Projection FY
2017
FY
2018
FY
2019
FY
2020
FY
2021
FY
2022
FY
2023
FY
2024
FY
2025
FY
2026
Current
(FY 2017 Financial Plan) 9% 10% 9% 7% 6% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4%
Last year
(FY 2016 Financial Plan) 9% 9% 9% 6% 6% N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Two years ago
(FY 2015 Financial Plan) 7% 7% 7% N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
NEXT STEPS
The Finance Committee will consider the recommended wastewater rate changes on April 19.
Assuming the Finance Committee supports the proposed rate adjustments , notification of the
potential rate increases will be sent to customers as required by Article XIIID of the State
Constitution (added by Proposition 218). The proposed Financial Plans and amended rate
schedules will be considered by the City Council with the FY 2017 budget, at which time the
public hearing required by Article XIIID of the State Constitution will be held .
RESOURCE IMPACT
Normal year revenues for the Wastewater Collection Utility are projected to increase by
roughly 9% ($1.45 million) in FY 2017 as a result of the proposed rate increases. See the FY 2017
Wastewater Collection Utility Financial Plan (Attachment B) for a more comprehensive
overview of projected cost and revenue changes for the next five years.
POLICY IMPLICATIONS
The proposed water rate adjustments are consistent with Council-adopted Reserve
Management Practices that are part of the Financial Plans and are developed using a cost of
service study and methodology that is consistent with the cost of service requirements of
Proposition 218.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The UAC's review and recommendation to Council on the proposed FY 2017 Wastewater
Collection Financial Plan and rate adjustments do not meet the definition of a project, pursuant
to Section 21065 of the California Environmental Quality Act, thus no environmental review is
required.
ATTACHMENTS
A. Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Approving the FY 2017 Wastewater
Collection Utility Financial Plan
B. Proposed FY 2017 Wastewater Collection Utility Financial Plan
C. Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Increasing Wastewater Rates and
Adopting a Wastewater Collection Rate Increase and Amending Rate Schedules S-1, S-2,
S-6 and S-7
D. Amended Rate Schedules S-1, S-2, S-6 and S-7
PREPARED BY:
REVIEWED BY:
APPROVED BY:
c~.lf< ERIC KENISTON, Acting Rates Manager
~Q~t Director, Resource Management
EDSHIKADA
Interim Director of Utilities
Page 5 of 5
Attachment A
* NOT YET APPROVED *
6053686
Resolution No. _________
Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Approving the
FY 2016 Wastewater Utility Financial Plan
R E C I T A L S
A. Each year the City of Palo Alto (“City”) assesses the financial position of its
utilities with the goal of ensuring adequate revenue to fund operations. This includes making
long-term projections of market conditions, the physical condition of the system, and other
factors that could affect utility costs, and setting rates adequate to recover these costs. It does
this with the goal of providing safe, reliable, and sustainable utility services at competitive
rates. The City adopts Financial Plans to summarize these projections.
B. The City uses reserves to protect against contingencies and to manage other
aspects of its operations, and regularly assesses the adequacy of these reserves and the
management practices governing their operation. The status of utility reserves and their
management practices are included in Reserves Management Practices attached to and made a
part of the Financial Plans.
The Council of the City of Palo Alto does hereby RESOLVE as follows:
SECTION 1. The Council hereby approves the FY 2017 Wastewater Utility Financial
Plan.
SECTION 2. The Council hereby approves the transfer of $3.95 million in FY 2016 from
the Rate Stabilization Reserve to the Operations Reserve, as described in the FY 2017
Wastewater Utility Financial Plan approved via this resolution.
SECTION 3. The Council finds that the adoption of this resolution does not meet the
California Environmental Quality Act’s definition of a project under Public Resources Code
Section 21065, and therefore, no environmental assessment is required.
INTRODUCED AND PASSED:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTENTIONS:
ATTEST:
Attachment A
* NOT YET APPROVED *
6053686
___________________________ ___________________________
City Clerk Mayor
APPROVED AS TO FORM: APPROVED:
___________________________ ___________________________
Senior Deputy City Attorney City Manager
___________________________
Director of Utilities
___________________________
Director of Administrative Services
FY 2017 WASTEWATER
COLLECTION UTILITY
FINANCIAL PLAN
FY 2017 TO FY 2026
ATTACHMENT B
WASTEWATER COLLECTION UTILITY FINANCIAL PLAN
F e b r u a r y 2 0 1 6 2 | P a g e
FY 2017 WASTEWATER COLLECTIO N
UTILITY FINANCIAL PLAN
FY 2017 TO FY 2026
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section 1: Definitions and Abbreviations................................................................................ 4
Section 2: Executive Summary and Recommendations ........................................................... 4
Section 2A: Overview of Financial Position .................................................................................. 4
Section 2B: Summary of Proposed Actions .................................................................................. 5
Section 3: Detail of FY 2017 Rate and Reserves Proposals ....................................................... 5
Section 3A: Rate Design ............................................................................................................... 5
Section 3B: Current and Proposed Rates ..................................................................................... 6
Section 3C: Bill Impact of Proposed Rate Changes ...................................................................... 7
Section 3D: Proposed Reserve Transfers ..................................................................................... 7
Section 4: Utility Overview .................................................................................................... 7
Section 4A: Wastewater Utility History ....................................................................................... 7
Section 4B: customer base ........................................................................................................... 8
Section 4C: Collection System ...................................................................................................... 9
Section 4D: Cost Structure and Revenue Sources ........................................................................ 9
Section 4E: Reserves Structure ................................................................................................... 10
Section 4F: Competitiveness ...................................................................................................... 11
Section 5: Utility Financial Projections ................................................................................. 11
Section 5A: FY 2011 to FY 2015 Cost and Revenue Trends ........................................................ 11
Section 5B: FY 2015 Results ....................................................................................................... 12
Section 5C: FY 2016 Projections ................................................................................................. 13
Section 5D: FY 2017 – FY 2026 Projections ................................................................................ 13
Section 5E: Risk Assessment and Reserves Adequacy ............................................................... 14
WASTEWATER COLLECTION UTILITY FINANCIAL PLAN
F e b r u a r y 2 0 1 6 3 | P a g e
Section 5F: Alternate Scenarios ................................................................................................. 16
Section 5G: Long-Term Outlook ................................................................................................. 18
Section 6: Details and Assumptions ..................................................................................... 18
Section 6A: Wastewater Treatment Costs ................................................................................. 18
Section 6B: Operations .............................................................................................................. 18
Section 6C: Capital Improvement Program (CIP) ....................................................................... 19
Section 6D: Debt Service ............................................................................................................ 21
Section 6E: Other Revenues ....................................................................................................... 22
Section 7: Communications Plan .......................................................................................... 22
Appendices ......................................................................................................................... 23
Appendix A: Wastewater Collection Financial Forecast Detail .................................................. 24
Appendix B: Wastewater Collection Utility Capital Improvement Program (CIP) Detail .......... 25
Appendix C: Wastewater Collection Utility Reserves Management Practices .......................... 26
Appendix D: Sample of Wastewater Collection Outreach Materials......................................... 29
WASTEWATER COLLECTION UTILITY FINANCIAL PLAN
F e b r u a r y 2 0 1 6 4 | P a g e
SECTION 1 : DEFINITIONS AND ABBR EVIATIONS
CCF The standard unit of measurement for water delivered to water customers, equal to
one hundred cubic feet, or roughly 748 gallons. When water usage is used to assess
wastewater charges for commercial customers, it is measured in CCF.
CIP Capital Improvement Program
CPAU City of Palo Alto Utilities Department
FOG Fats, oils, and grease. When flushed into the sewer system, these materials
accumulate in parts of the sewer system and create blockages.
O&M Operations and Maintenance
RWQCP Regional Water Quality Control Plant, the wastewater treatment plant owned and
operated by the City of Palo Alto that serves Palo Alto and several surrounding
communities.
UAC Utilities Advisory Commission
SECTION 2 : EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS
This document presents a Financial Plan for the City of Palo Alto’s Wastewater Collection Utility
for the next ten years. It provides revenues to cover the costs of operating the utility safely
over that time while adequately investing for the future. It also addresses the financial risks
facing the utility over the short term and long term, and includes measures to mitigate and
manage those risks.
SECTION 2 A: OVERVIEW OF FINANCIAL POSITION
Overall costs in the Wastewater Collection Utility are expected to rise by about 5% per year
from fiscal year (FY) 2016 to FY 2026. The primary driver is wastewater treatment costs, which
are projected to rise by 7% in FY 2017 and 6% per year thereafter, with other costs rising at
roughly 3% to 4% per year. The costs for the Wastewater Collection Utility are shown in Table 1
below.
Table 1: Expenses for FY 2015 to FY 2026
Expenses
($000)
FY
2015
(act.)
FY
2016
FY
2017
FY
2018
FY
2019
FY
2020
FY
2021
FY
2022
FY
2023
FY
2024
FY
2025
FY
2026
Treatment
Costs 8,589 9,012 9,855 10,446 11,073 11,737 12,442 13,188 13,980 14,818 15,707 16,650
Operations 3,684 6,044 6,261 6,466 6,670 6,881 7,097 7,320 7,795 7,904 8,150 8,404
Capital
Projects 4,067 4,985 4,852 4,996 5,144 5,297 5,455 5,617 5,784 5,955 6,132 6,315
TOTAL 16,340 20,041 20,968 21,908 22,887 23,916 24,993 26,125 27,558 28,678 29,990 31,368
Expenses continue to be higher than revenues, and the Rate Stabilization Reserve has been
drawn down in lieu of having larger rate increases. To ensure that revenues cover these rising
costs and reserves remain healthy, the financial plan includes the rate trajectory shown in Table
WASTEWATER COLLECTION UTILITY FINANCIAL PLAN
F e b r u a r y 2 0 1 6 5 | P a g e
2. The table also shows rate projections from last year’s Financial Plan. Note that the rate
increase for FY 2017 is the same as projected in the FY 2016 Financial Plan.
Table 2: Projected Wastewater Collection Rate Trajectory for FY 2017 to FY 2026
FY
2017
FY
2018
FY
2019
FY
2020
FY
2021
FY
2022
FY
2023
FY
2024
FY
2025
FY
2026
Current Plan 9% 10% 9% 7% 6% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4%
FY 2016 Plan 9% 9% 9% 6% 6% N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
The FY 2016 Financial Plan projected that reserves would fall nearly to the minimum reserve
levels. However, as costs are increasing faster than projected last year, higher rate increases are
required to keep pace.
The Wastewater Collection Utility’s Rate Stabilization Reserve is being used to spread the
projected cost increases over several years. The FY 2016 Financial Plan proposed a $2 million
transfer from the Rate Stabilization Reserve, but staff recommends increasing this to $3.95
million. This Financial Plan projects that the Rate Stabilization Reserve will be exhausted by FY
2017.
Table 3: Transfers To/(From) Reserves for FY 2016 to FY 2026 ($000)
Reserve FY 2016 FY 2017 FY 2018 to FY 2026
Rate Stabilization (3,950) (342) -
Operations 3,950 342 -
SECTION 2 B : SUMMARY OF PROPOSE D ACTIONS
Staff proposes the following actions for the Wastewater Collection Utility in FY 2016:
1. Transfer $3.95 million from the Rate Stabilization Reserve to the Operations Reserve.
See Section 3D: Proposed Reserve Transfers for more details.
Staff proposes the following actions for the Wastewater Collection Utility in FY 2017:
1. Increase the Wastewater Collection rates as shown in Section 3B: Current and Proposed
Rates. The changes are projected to increase average system revenues by 9% effective
July 1, 2016.
2. Transfer $342,000 from the Rate Stabilization Reserve to the Operations Reserve. See
Section 3D: Proposed Reserve Transfers for more details.
SECTION 3 : DETAIL OF FY 2017 RATE AND RESERVES PR OPOSALS
SECTION 3 A : RATE DESIGN
The Wastewater Collection Utility’s rates are evaluated and implemented in compliance with
the cost of service requirements and procedural rules set forth in the California Co nstitution
(Proposition 218). Current rates were structured based on staff’s annual assessment of the
wastewater utility’s financial position, as well as the methodology from the January 2011
WASTEWATER COLLECTION UTILITY FINANCIAL PLAN
F e b r u a r y 2 0 1 6 6 | P a g e
Wastewater Collection Utility Cost of Service & Rate Study completed by Utility Financial
Solutions (Staff Report 1399). Staff plans to review and update this cost of service study in 2 to
3 years, unless any major changes occur to the utility’s operations or customer base that would
necessitate an earlier study. Before conducting any new cost of service study, staff will review
current rates and the scope of the study with the Utilities Advisory Commission (UAC) and
Council to determine the City’s policy priorities.
SECTION 3 B : CURRENT AND PROPOS ED RATES
The current rates were adopted July 1, 2015, when the City increased sewer rates by 9%.
CPAU’s sewer rates for commercial customers are based on the previous winter’s water use.
This closely approximates non-irrigation water consumption, which represents actual sewer use.
CPAU has three sewer rate schedules: one for residents (S-1), one for commercial customers
(S-2), and a special schedule for restaurants (S-6), which discharge higher than average amounts
of grease and oil and, therefore, have a greater impact on the sewer system. Residential
customers are billed a monthly service charge, while commercial customers are billed based on
their dry month water usage (January through March). Restaurant customers are billed monthly
based on water usage. CPAU also maintains a rate schedule for industrial dischargers (S-7), but
there are currently no customers required to be on this rate schedule.
Table 4, below, summarizes the current and proposed rates for all customer classes.
Comparisons with neighboring communities are discussed in Section 4F: Competitiveness.
Table 4: Sewer Rates (Current and Proposed)
Current
(7/1/2015)
Proposed
(7/1/2016)
Change
$/mo. %
Monthly Service and Minimum Charges ($/month)
S-1 (Residential) Service charge $31.95 $34.83 $2.88 9%
S-2 (Commercial),
S-6 (Restaurant)
Minimum $31.95 $34.83 $2.88 9%
Quantity Rates: based on winter water usage (average for January - March bill
period)
S-2 (Commercial) $/CCF 6.16 6.71 0.55 9%
S-6 (Restaurant) $/CCF 9.52 10.38 0.86 9%
S-7 (Industrial) $/CCF 2.83 3.08 0.25 9%
WASTEWATER COLLECTION UTILITY FINANCIAL PLAN
F e b r u a r y 2 0 1 6 7 | P a g e
SECTION 3 C : BILL IMPACT OF PRO POSED RATE CHANGES
Table 5 below shows the impact of the proposed July 1, 2016 rate changes.
Table 5: Impact of Proposed Sewer Changes
Current
(7/1/2015)
Proposed
(7/1/2016)
Change
$/mo. %
Residential $ 31.95 $ 34.83 $ 2.88 9%
General Commercial (14 CCF) 86.24 93.94 7.70 9%
Restaurant (56 CCF) 533.12 581.28 48.16 9%
SECTION 3 D : PROPOSED RESERVE TRA NSFERS
In the FY 2016 Financial Plan, several transfers between reserves were approved. Funds related
to CIP’s in the Reappropriations Reserve were transferred to the CIP reserve, to comply with
updated accounting practices. Staff also proposed a $2 million transfer from the Rate
Stabilization Reserve to the Operations Reserve.
In this FY 2017 Financial Plan, staff recommends an additional $1.95 million transfer from the
Rate Stabilization Reserve in FY 2016. This will leave a small amount, $342,000, to transfer in FY
2017, which will result in a zero balance in the Rate Stabilization Reserve at the end of FY 2017.
These transfers are included in the financial projections in this Financial Plan, and will enable
CPAU to maintain adequate Operations Reserve levels while moderating the pace of increase in
Wastewater Collection rates. The impact of these transfers on reserves levels can be seen in
Appendix A: Wastewater Collection Financial Forecast Detail.
SECTION 4 : UTILITY OVERVIEW
This section provides an overview of the utility and its operations. It is intended as general
background information and to help readers better understand the forecasts in later sections.
SECTION 4 A : WASTEWATER UTILITY HISTORY
The Wastewater Utility commenced operation in 1899 to serve Palo Alto and Stanford. In its
first three decades the system grew to 60 miles of sewers. Raw sewage was discharged into
Mayfield Slough at the edge of the Bay. In the 1930s, at the behest of the State Department of
Health, Palo Alto built the South Bay’s first wastewater treatment plant. At that time the sewer
system served 20,500 Stanford and Palo Alto residents and a cannery. The plant was upgraded
twice in the 1940s and 1950s to increase capacity.1 At the same time, the postwar population
and industrial boom in the 1950s required rapid expansion of the sewer system. In the first half
of the 1960s Palo Alto’s area doubled, as did wastewater flows, overwhelming the capacity of
several of the utility’s “trunk lines,” which are the largest diameter main sewer lines carrying
wastewater to the treatment plant. This prompted the City, in 1965, to perform the first of its
1 Long Range Facilities Plan for the Regional Water Quality Control Plant, August 2012, Carollo Engineers, pp 2-1
through 2-2
WASTEWATER COLLECTION UTILITY FINANCIAL PLAN
F e b r u a r y 2 0 1 6 8 | P a g e
sewer master plans to identify needed capacity improvements. At that point the Wastewater
Utility’s system comprised more than 150 miles of sewer mains.2
In 1968 the City signed agreements with the Cities of Mountain View and Los Altos t o build a
new regional treatment plant, the RWQCP, which is still in operation today. Since 1940 the City
had been providing treatment services to the East Palo Alto Sanitary District through an existing
agreement, and was also serving Stanford University by transporting wastewater across the
City’s sewer system to the treatment plant. Both of these organizations became partners in the
RWQCP as well. At the same time the Town of Los Altos Hills became the sixth partner as it
signed an agreement with the City to connect the Town’s sewer system to the City’s sewer
system to carry wastewater to the new RWQCP. The current agreements for the RWQCP
extend through 2035.3
In the 1980s the City directed increased attention to the condition of its sewer system ,
performing a series of studies of groundwater inflow and infiltration into the system. The study
found high rates of infiltration, estimating that as much as 40% of the water going to the
RWQCP from Palo Alto’s system was groundwater and stormwater rather than wastewater.4 In
some parts of Palo Alto the land surface had subsided due to groundwater pumping by the
water utility, and though that practice had ceased many years earlier as the water utility
switched to the Hetch Hetchy Regional Water System, parts of the city had already subsided
two to five feet. This subsidence had damaged several parts of the sewer collection system,
leading to reduced slopes for sewer mains that caused reductions in capacity. In response to
these studies the City commenced an accelerated sewer system rehabilitation program.5 At
that point the sewer system comprised over 190 miles of mains.6
A Master Plan study in 1988 recommended a variety of capacity expansions, and in the 1990s
the City completed about half of them. However, a 2004 Master Plan update found that the
accelerated sewer rehabilitation plan started in the early 1990s had substantially reduced
infiltration, easing the capacity problems that had led the to the recommended capacity
increases in the 1988 study. Several of the outstanding projects were canceled and replaced
with a different set of projects.7 At the same time the City updated its hydraulic model and
developed greater capacity to do system planning in house.
SECTION 4 B : CUSTOMER BASE
The City of Palo Alto’s Wastewater Collection Utility provides sewer service to the residents and
businesses of Palo Alto. It is distinct from the Wastewater Treatment Utility, which provides
treatment services for surrounding communities in addition to Palo Alto. Nearly 23,300
customers are connected to the sewer system, approximately 21,450 (92%) of which are
residential and 1,850 (8%) of which are non-residential. Residential customers pay a flat fee for
2 Wastewater Collection and Storm Drainage, 1965, Brown and Caldwell Consulting Engineers, pp 4, 6-7, 143
3 Long Range Facilities Plan for the Regional Water Quality Control Plant, August 2012, Carollo Engineers, pg 2-2
4 Wastewater Collection System Master Plan – Capacity Assessment, January 2004, MWH Americas, Inc., pg ES-2
5 CMR 183:90, Infrastructure Review and Update, March 1, 1990
6 Master Plan of the Wastewater Collection System, December 1988, Camp Dresser & McKee, Inc., pg 1-2
7 Wastewater Collection System Master Plan – Capacity Assessment, January 2004, MWH Americas, Inc., pg ES-3
WASTEWATER COLLECTION UTILITY FINANCIAL PLAN
F e b r u a r y 2 0 1 6 9 | P a g e
service. Non-residential customers are billed for sewer service based on their metered winter
water usage. There is little variability in revenues for this utility.
SEC TION 4 C : COLLECTION SYSTEM
The Wastewater Collection Utility delivers all the wastewater it collects to the Regional Water
Quality Control Plant (RWQCP) operated by the City of Palo Alto under a partnership agreement
with several surrounding communities. Palo Alto is responsible for 37% to 40% of the
wastewater sent to the RWQCP. The cost of running the RWQCP is contained in the
Wastewater Treatment Utility and is not described in detail in this Financial Plan, but since
these costs are a major driver of CPAU’s sewer rates, there is some discussion of future trends
in treatment costs in Section 6A: Wastewater Treatment Costs. Treatment costs make up
nearly half of the Wastewater Collection Utility’s expenses as shown in Table 1 above.
To collect wastewater from its customers and deliver it to the RWQCP, CPAU owns roughly
18,100 sewer laterals (which collect wastewater from customers’ plumbing systems) and 217
miles of sewer mains (which transport the waste to the treatment plant). These laterals and
mains, along with the associated manholes and cleanouts, represent the vast majority of
infrastructure used to collect wastewater in Palo Alto. CPAU conducts a sewer rehabilitation
and replacement program to replace mains over time as they deteriorate or to increase
capacity. For more discussion of this program, see Section 6C: Capital Improvement Program
(CIP). CIP expense accounts for roughly a quarter of the utility’s expenditures.
In addition to its CIP, CPAU performs various maintenance activities on the sewer system.
These include inspecting and repairing sewer laterals, responding to sewer overflows, regularly
cleaning sections of the system heavily impacted by fats, oils, and grease (FOG), and building
and replacing sewer laterals for new or redeveloped buildings. The utility also shares the costs
of other operational activities (such as customer service, billing, equipment maintenance, and
street restoration) with the City’s other utilities. These maintenance and operations expenses ,
as well as associated administration, debt service, rent, and other costs, make up another
quarter of the utility’s expenses.
SECTION 4 D : COST STRUCTURE AND REVENUE SOURCES
In FY 2015, treatment costs represented nearly half of the Wastewater Collection Utility’s costs
(53%), followed by Operations (25%) and Capital costs (22%). These expenditures are shown in
Figure 1. The utility’s revenue in FY 2015, shown in Figure 2, came primarily from sewer charges
(86%), with the remainder coming mainly from capacity and connection fees and other sources
(14%).
WASTEWATER COLLECTION UTILITY FINANCIAL PLAN
F e b r u a r y 2 0 1 6 10 | P a g e
Figure 1: Cost Structure (FY 2015) Figure 2: Revenue Structure (FY 2015)
SECTION 4 E : RESERVES STRUCTURE
CPAU maintains six reserves for its Wastewater Collection Utility to manage various types of
contingencies. These are summarized below, but see Appendix C: Wastewater Collection Utility
Reserves Management Practices for more detailed definitions and guidelines for reserve
management:
Reserve for Commitments: A reserve equal to the utility’s outstanding contract
liabilities for the current fiscal year. Most City funds, including the General Fund, have a
Commitments Reserve.
Reserve for Reappropriations: A reserve for funds dedicated to projects reappropriated
by the City Council, nearly all of which are capital projects. Most City funds, including
the General Fund, have a Reappropriations Reserve.
Capital Improvement Program (CIP) Reserve: The CIP reserve can be used to
accumulate funds for future expenditure on CIP projects and is anticipated to be empty
unless a major one-time CIP expenditure is expected in future years. It also acts as a
contingency reserve for the CIP. This type of reserve is used in other utility funds
(Electric, Gas, and Water) as well.
Rate Stabilization Reserve: This reserve is intended to be empty unless one or more
large rate increases are anticipated in the forecast period. In that case, funds can be
accumulated to spread the impact of those future rate increases across multiple years.
This type of reserve is used in other utility funds (Electric, Gas, and Water) as well.
Operations Reserve: This is the primary contingency reserve for the Wastewater
Collection Utility, and is used to manage yearly variances from budget for operational
costs. This type of reserve is used in other utility funds (Electric, Gas, and Water) as well.
Unassigned Reserve: This reserve is for any funds not assigned to the other reserves
and is normally empty.
WASTEWATER COLLECTION UTILITY FINANCIAL PLAN
F e b r u a r y 2 0 1 6 11 | P a g e
SECTION 4 F : COMPETITIVENESS
Table 6 shows the monthly sewer bills for residential customers compared to what they would
be in surrounding communities. The annual sewer bill for a Palo Alto customer is $383 under
current rates, 32% lower than the average neighboring community. Palo Alto has the third
lowest bill of the group.
Table 6: Residential Monthly Sewer Bill Comparison
Palo Alto
Neighboring Communities Neighboring
Community
Average
Menlo
Park
Redwood
City
Mountain
View Los Altos
Santa
Clara Hayward
31.95 81.08 74.95 28.80 32.01 37.94 28.93 47.29
Based on rates as of February 2016
If the proposed rate change discussed in Section 3B: Current and Proposed Rates is adopted by
Council, and assuming other agencies do not change their sewer rates, Palo Alto would be 26%
lower than the average neighboring community and retain the third lowest bill.
Table 7 compares the sewer bills for two classes of commercial customers to what they would
be under surrounding communities’ rate schedules. Note that other communities often have
specific rates for industrial customers that discharge high intensity wastewater, such as food
processors or chemical or electronics manufacturers, but Palo Alto does not currently have any
customers that require these special rates. Palo Alto is less competitive with surrounding cities
with regards to commercial sewer rates, but is not the most expensive jurisdiction.
Table 7: Commercial Monthly Sewer Bill Comparison
Palo Alto
Neighboring Communities Neighboring
Community
Average
Menlo
Park
Redwood
City
Mountain
View Los Altos
Santa
Clara Hayward
General
Commercial
$86.24 $125.58 $74.95 $52.78 $44.82 $60.06 $61.18 $69.90
Restaurant $533.12 $626.08 $686.78 $412.16 $121.68 $537.60 $463.12 $474.57
Based on rates as of February 2016
SECTION 5 : UTILITY FINANCIAL PROJECTIONS
SECTION 5 A : FY 2011 TO FY 2015 COST AND REVENUE TRE NDS
Figure 3 shows the Wastewater Collection Utility’s actual expenses and revenues for the past
five years and projections through FY 2026. For FY 2011 through FY 2015, Operations costs
grew at about the pace of inflation, at around 2% per year. Capital Investment expenses
actually saw a slight contraction over this period, but this was partially due to backlogged
projects necessitating a short term lowering of CIP budgets. Treatment costs during this time
rose by 4% annually on average.
WASTEWATER COLLECTION UTILITY FINANCIAL PLAN
F e b r u a r y 2 0 1 6 12 | P a g e
Since the revenue for this utility is very stable, revenue changes closely follow rate changes. The
other large revenue item of note is the continued connection and capacity fees from new
construction. These fees have grown dramatically since FY 2010, and it is uncertain when this
trend may dampen.
Figure 3: Wastewater Collection Utility Expenses, Revenues and Rate Changes
Actual Costs through FY 2015 and Projections through FY 2026
SECTION 5 B : FY 2015 RESULTS
Forecast sources of funds for FY 2015 were higher than projected by $137,000, but expenses
related to Administration and Customer Service activities came in well below expected budget.
Total FY 2015 expenses were $16.15 million compared to projections of $18.64 million in the FY
2016 Financial Plan. Table 8 summarizes the variances from forecast.
WASTEWATER COLLECTION UTILITY FINANCIAL PLAN
F e b r u a r y 2 0 1 6 13 | P a g e
Table 8: FY 2015, Actual Results vs. Financial Plan Forecast
Net Cost/
(Benefit)
Type of
change
Admin and customer service costs lower than projected (1,985,000) Cost savings
Connection, capacity fees and other revenues were
higher than forecasted
(489,000) Revenue increase
Sales revenues lower than forecast 352,000 Revenue decrease
Operations, capital and other cost savings (502,000) Cost savings
Net Cost / (Benefit) of Variances ($2,625,000)
SECTION 5 C: FY 2016 PROJECTIONS
There are no notable changes from the FY 2016 budget identified at this time.
SECTION 5 D: FY 2017 – FY 2026 PROJECTIONS
Staff has prepared a forecast of costs and revenues through FY 2026. As shown in Figure 3
above (and, in more detail, in Appendix A: Wastewater Collection Financial Forecast Detail), the
Wastewater Collection Utility’s total costs are projected to increase by roughly 4.4% per year on
average for FY 2016 through FY 2026. The majority of this increase is borne by projected
treatment cost increases. The treatment plant itself is facing the need for major upgrades in
coming years, both due to age of equipment and constantly changing environmental
regulations. While the costs of the plant are shared among member agencies, Palo Alto is still
expected to see average cost increases of 6.3% per year over the forecast horizon.
Revenues are shown by the red line in Figure 3, and what is notable here is that costs have
been generally higher than revenue. While some relief was experienced during times of lower
CIP expenditures, this trend of under-collection continues into the future, resulting in a rapid
reduction of reserves. A path of 9% and 10% annual rate increases in the near term, decreasing
to more inflationary increases in outer years, is required to keep reserves from dropping too
low. Figure 4 below shows the relative drop in reserves, only showing slowing replenishment
after the projected 10% increase in FY 2018.
WASTEWATER COLLECTION UTILITY FINANCIAL PLAN
F e b r u a r y 2 0 1 6 14 | P a g e
Figure 4: Wastewater Collection Reserves Projections
SECTION 5 E : RISK ASSESSMENT AND RESERVES ADEQUACY
The Wastewater Collection Utility currently has one contingency reserve, the Operations
Reserve, and this Financial Plan maintains reserves within the approved guideline levels
throughout the forecast period, as shown in Figure 5 below. Reserve levels also exceed the
short term risk assessment for the utility.
WASTEWATER COLLECTION UTILITY FINANCIAL PLAN
F e b r u a r y 2 0 1 6 15 | P a g e
Figure 5: Operations Reserve Adequacy
Staff performs an annual assessment of risks for the Wastewater Collection Utility. For this
evaluation, staff estimates the revenue shortfall due to:
1.the maximum observed budget-to-actual variance in one year during the past five years;
2.an increase of 10% in system improvement CIP expenditures for the year; and
3.an increase of 10% in treatment costs.
Table 9 summarizes the risk assessment calculation for the Wastewater Collection Utility
through FY 2021. The Operations Reserve is projected to be adequate to manage these levels
of risk over the entire forecast period.
Table 9: Wastewater Collection Risk Assessment
FY 2017 FY 2018 FY 2019 FY 2020 FY 2021
Total Revenue ($000) 17,505 19,249 20,989 22,474 23,832
Max. Historical Budget-to-Actual variance 3% 3% 3% 3% 3%
Budget-to-Actual Risk ($000) 525 577 630 674 715
System Rehabilitation CIP Budget ($000) 4,458 4,590 4,726 4,867 5,011
CIP Contingency @10% ($000) 446 459 473 487 501
Treatment Budget ($000) 9,855 10,446 11,073 11,737 12,442
Treatment Cost Contingency @10% ($000) 986 1,045 1,107 1,174 1,244
Total risk assessment value ($000) 1,957 2,081 2,210 2,335 2,460
Projected Operations Reserve Level ($000) 3,386 2,837 3,048 3,780 4,793
WASTEWATER COLLECTION UTILITY FINANCIAL PLAN
F e b r u a r y 2 0 1 6 16 | P a g e
SECTION 5 F: ALTERNATE SCENARIOS
At its February 2016 meeting, the UAC suggested that staff prepare two alternate scenarios for
rate increases. The first (“Target”) scenario keeps the Operations Reserve at or near the Target
level during the forecast period. The second (“Minimum”) scenario tries to mitigate rate
increases and get as near to the minimum reserve level as possible for five years before moving
to Target level. Rate trajectories for both alternate scenarios as well as the proposed rate
adjustments are shown in Table 10 below.
Staff also modeled a scenario with no wastewater rate increase in FY 2017. This scenario
decreases the Operations Reserve to the Risk Assessment value, and requires a 25% in FY 2018
to keep reserves at that value for one more year, before net revenue growth starts.
Table 10: Projected Wastewater Rate Trajectory for FY 2017 to FY 2026
FY
2017
FY
2018
FY
2019
FY
2020
FY
2021
FY
2022
FY
2023
FY
2024
FY
2025
FY
2026
Proposed 9% 10% 9% 7% 6% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4%
Target 16% 9% 4% 4% 5% 5% 4% 6% 4% 4%
Minimum 5% 19% 4% 4% 6% 6% 6% 6% 5% 4%
The Target scenario, represented in Figure 6 below, requires a 16% rate increase (larger than
the proposed 9% increase) in FY 2017, but reduces the rate increase slightly in FY 2018. The
Minimum scenario, represented in Figure 7 below, allows a lower rate increase in FY 2017, but
requires a significant rate increase (19%) in FY 2018.
Staff recommends a 9% wastewater rate increase in FY 2017 to smooth the rate increases over
the next two years while keeping the Wastewater Collection Operations Reserve at healthy
levels.
WASTEWATER COLLECTION UTILITY FINANCIAL PLAN
F e b r u a r y 2 0 1 6 17 | P a g e
Figure 6: Operations Reserve at Target Level
Figure 7: Operations Reserve at Minimum for FY 2017 through FY 2021
WASTEWATER COLLECTION UTILITY FINANCIAL PLAN
F e b r u a r y 2 0 1 6 18 | P a g e
SECTION 5 G : LONG -TERM OUTLOOK
In the longer term (5 to 35 years) the primary factor that could lead to increased costs for the
Wastewater Collection Utility are major upgrades at the RWQCP, a share of which will be
allocated to the utility as part of treatment costs. These upgrades includes replacement or
rehabilitation of the parts of the facility that pump raw sewage to the main treatment works
(the headworks), separate out primary sludge (the primary settling tank), process sludge (the
bio-solids facility), and treat wastewater (the fixed film reactors). Upgrades to the laboratories
and operational buildings are planned as well. In addition, the 72 -inch regional trunk sewer line
flowing into the plant needs to be evaluated and rehabilitated.
SECTION 6 : DETAILS AND ASSUMP TIO NS
SECTION 6 A : WASTEWATER TREATMENT COSTS
Treatment expenses represent the Wastewater Collection Utility’s share of the costs of
operating the RWQCP. Per the partnership agreements between Palo Alto and its partner
agencies, these charges are assessed based on a formula that takes into account the total
amount of wastewater delivered, the amount of organic material in it, its ammonia content,
and the total suspended solids it is carrying. The Wastewater Collection Utility’s assessed share
of the RWQCP’s revenue requirement fluctuates in the 38% to 40% range. Mountain View is
the other large agency served by the RWQCP (39% of the revenue requirement for FY 2014)
with the smaller agencies (Stanford, Los Altos, East Palo Alto, and Los Altos Hills) making up the
remainder of the flow to the treatment plant.
Due to the ongoing drought and reduced wastewater flows to the plant, concentrations of
chemicals and solids have increased. The amount of chemicals needed to counteract and treat
this more concentrated wastewater increases and the cost of those chemicals has gone up in
recent years. Therefore, FY 2017 treatment costs are projected to increase by 7%, while over
the forecast horizon in general treatment costs are expected to rise by 6% per year. The longer
term cost increases are primarily due to increased CIP spending by the RWQCP.
Based on detailed project cost projections provide d by RWQCP staff, treatment costs are likely
to continue to increase by roughly 5% per year through at least 2030. Two of Palo Alto’s
comparison cities, Mountain View and Los Altos, are partners in the RWQCP and will see similar
increases, but other comparison agencies may not.
SECTION 6 B : OPERATIONS
Operations costs include the Customer Service, Distribution Operations, Engineering, and
Allocated Charges categories in Appendix A: Wastewater Collection Financial Forecast Detail.
Debt service, rent, and transfers are also included in this category. Customer Service costs are
primarily related to the call center and collections on delinquent accounts. The Distribution
Operations category includes preventative and corrective maintenance on sewer mains and
laterals, investigation of sewer overflows, regular cleaning of heavily impacted sections of the
sewer system, and services shared with other utilities (such as street restoration and
WASTEWATER COLLECTION UTILITY FINANCIAL PLAN
F e b r u a r y 2 0 1 6 19 | P a g e
equipment maintenance). Allocated Charges include the costs of accounting, purchasing, legal,
and other administrative functions provided by the City’s General Fund staff, as well as shared
communications services and Utilities Department administrative overhead and billing system
maintenance costs.
Operations costs are projected to increase by 3% per year, on average, over the forecast period.
Underlying these projections are salary and benefit, consumer price index, and other cost
projections used in the City’s long-range financial forecast.
SECTION 6 C : CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM (CIP)
The Wastewater Collection Utility’s CIP consists of the following programs:
The Sewer System Replacement/Rehabilitation Program, under which the Wastewater
Collection Utility replaces aging sewer mains.
Customer Connections, which covers the cost when the Wastewater Collection Utility
installs new services or upgrades existing services at a customer’s request in response
to development or redevelopment. CPAU charges a fee to these customers to cover
the cost of these projects.
Ongoing Projects, which covers the cost of replacing degraded manholes and sewer
laterals, as well as the cost of capitalized tools and equipment.
The Sewer System Replacement and Rehabilitation Program funds the replacement of
deteriorating sewer mains and projects to increase capacity in various parts of the sewer
system. The sewer system consists of over 217 miles of mains, and CPAU uses a variety of tools
to establish which sections are in need of replacement. Maintenance statistics (such as records
of the location and number of sewer overflows on the system) and videotape of sewer mains
during regular cleaning can reveal areas with large amounts of deteriorating pipe. CPAU uses a
scoring system to prioritize which mains to replace first, and coordinates with the Public Works
street maintenance program to avoid cutting into newly repaved streets. A major goal of the
program is to minimize groundwater and rainwater infiltration. As mains deteriorate they
begin to allow groundwater and rainwater to infiltrate the system. Some level of infiltration is
expected on any sewer system, but if there is too much, the combined flow of wastewater and
groundwater/rainwater can overwhelm the capacity of various parts of the sewer system.
Reducing infiltration can reduce the need to expand the system to accommodate increased
flow. To achieve this goal, deteriorating mains are either repaired with a plastic lining or
replaced. CPAU replaces or repairs approximately 25,000 feet of main per year, or 2.5% of the
system.
The CIP program also funds sewer capacity improvements. CPAU uses a hydraulic model, data
from various flow meters on the system, and land u se data to identify sections of the system
that are being overloaded. When sewer mains are operating at or above their capacity on a
regular basis it will increase the likelihood of sewer overflows. CPAU also does occasional
comprehensive master planning studies to identify necessary capacity improvements. The most
recent study, in 2004, identified eight projects, three of which have been completed. The
WASTEWATER COLLECTION UTILITY FINANCIAL PLAN
F e b r u a r y 2 0 1 6 20 | P a g e
remaining four projects are low priority projects and will be scheduled and planned as the need
arises.
Over the last few years, main replacement costs have been increasing for Wastewater as well
as the Gas and Water utilities. The replacement cost per linear foot has increased by between
25 and 50% in some cases. Several factors may be contributing to this. Economic recovery in
the Bay Area, as well as a greater focus on infrastructure improvement by many municipal
agencies and utilities could be creating high demand for contractors in this field. There may be
ongoing greater costs for newer, more leak resistant pipe materials. Should these trends prove
to be less than short-term phenomena, wastewater main replacement budgets may need to be
increased by $1.5 to $1.7 million more per year to maintain the current pace of replacement.
Since the last master plan study was updated over a decade ago, and due to these escalating
costs, staff is considering a new wastewater collection system master plan study, tentatively
planned for 2016, to evaluate the current state of the sewer system and determine the optimal
rate of main replacement in future years. The process may reveal a need for a higher or lower
replacement, or possibly target areas for more urgent focus. In the case that prices remain high
and the updated plan shows a need for similar rates of replacement that CPAU had previously
planned, CIP costs will rise.
Customer Connections costs are projected to increase steadily by around 3% each year through
the end of the forecast period. Ongoing projects are seeing a temporary surge in FY 2016 but
are expected to drop by $200,000 in FY 2017, then resume a path of cost increases similar to
Customer Connections. Actual expenses for these projects fluctuate annually depending on
how many defective laterals and manholes are discovered during routine maintenance, as well
as how much development and redevelopment is going on that prompts the replacement or
upgrade of sewer laterals. It is worth noting that property owners pay a fee for sewer lateral
replacement or expansion during redevelopment , so when the number of projects increases, so
does fee revenue.
Projected CIP spending is displayed in Table 11 for the 5-year financial forecast period.
Table 11: Projected CIP Spending
Aside from Customer Connections, the CIP plan for FY 2017 to FY 2021 is funded by sewer rates
and capacity fees. The details of the plan are shown in Appendix B: Wastewater Collection
Utility Capital Improvement Program (CIP) Detail.
WASTEWATER COLLECTION UTILITY FINANCIAL PLAN
F e b r u a r y 2 0 1 6 21 | P a g e
SECTION 6 D: DEBT SERVICE
The Wastewater Collection Utility currently pays its share of one bond issuance, the 1999 Utility
Revenue Bonds, Series A, which is due to be retired in 2024. This $17.7 million issuance
refinanced various earlier Storm Drain, Wastewater Treatment, and Wastewater Collection
Utility bond issuances. The Wastewater Collection Utility’s share of the issuance was roughly
$1.9 million. This amount represented the second refinancing of the remaining principal of a
1990 bond issuance which itself was a refinancing of a 1985 issuance that financed a variety of
improvements to the sewer system. The cost of debt service for the Wastewater Collection
Utility’s share of this bond issuance for the financial forecast period is roughly $128,000 per
year as shown in Table 12 below.
Table 12: Wastewater Collection Utility Debt Service ($000)
FY
2017
FY
2018
FY
2019
FY
2020
FY
2021
FY
2022
1999 Utility Revenue Bonds, Series A 128 128 128 128 128 128
The 1999 Utility Revenue Bonds include two covenants stating that 1) the Wastewater
Collection Utility will maintain a debt coverage ratio of 125% of debt service, and 2) that the
City will maintain “Available Reserves”8 equal to five times the annual debt service. The current
financial plan maintains compliance with both covenants throughout the forecast period.
Compliance with covenant one is shown below in Table 13, below. Due to the small size of the
annual debt service payment for these bonds, the Wastewater Collection Utility’s Operations
Reserve alone more than satisfies the second covenant at more than 30 times annual debt
service throughout the forecast period.
Table 13: Debt Service Coverage Ratio ($000)
FY 2017 FY 2018 FY 2019 FY 2020 FY 2021 FY 2022
Revenues 19,565 21,359 23,099 24,647 26,007 27,026
Expenses (Excl. CIP
and Debt Service) (16,388) (17,184) (18,015) (18,891) (19,810) (20,779)
Net Revenues 3,177 4,175 5,084 5,756 6,197 6,247
Debt Service 128 128 128 128 128 128
Coverage Ratio 2482% 3262% 3972% 4497% 4841% 4880%
The Wastewater Collection Utility’s reserves (but not its net revenues) are also considered
security for the Storm Drain and Wastewater Treatment Utilities’ shares of the debt service on
the 1999 bonds. Throughout the term of the bonds there remains a small risk that the
Wastewater Collection Utility’s reserves could be called upon to make a debt service payment
on behalf of one of those utilities if it cannot meet its debt service obligations. Staff does not
foresee this occurring based on the current financial condition of those utilities. If the
Wastewater Collection Utility’s reserves were used this way, any amounts advanced would
have to be repaid by the borrowing utility.
8 Available Reserves as defined in the 1999 Utility Revenue Bonds included reserves for the Water, Wastewater
Treatment, Wastewater Collection, Refuse, Storm Drain, Electric, and Gas Utilities
WASTEWATER COLLECTION UTILITY FINANCIAL PLAN
F e b r u a r y 2 0 1 6 22 | P a g e
One other bond series is secured by the net revenues (but not the reserves) of the Wastewater
Collection Utility. The 1995 Series A Utility Revenue Bonds issued for the Storm Drain utility
was secured by the net revenues of the City’s “Enterprise,” which was defined as the City’s
water, gas, wastewater, storm drain, and electric utilities, and are senior to the 1999 bonds
referenced above. Debt service payments of roughly $680,000 per year are made on the 1995
Series A bonds by the City’s Storm Drain Utility, and staff does not currently foresee any risk of
that utility being unable to make payment.
SECTION 6 E: OTHER REVENUES
The utility has seen substantial increases in connection and capacity fee revenues in recent
years, offsetting the need for increased sales revenue in the past, and these are assumed to
continue, albeit slightly reduced from current levels. Income from interest and transfers in are
projected to remain steady through the forecast horizon.
SECTION 7 : COMMUNICATION S PLAN
The FY 2017 Wastewater Collection Utility communications strategy covers three primary areas:
rates, operations and infrastructure, and safety. Communication about wastewater rate
adjustments will highlight the important infrastructure and operations upgrades that are
occurring at the Regional Water Quality Control Plant to improve wastewater collection utility
services. To keep customers apprised of the status and accomplishments of CIP projects, a
network of project web pages are maintained and updated as needed. Traffic is driven to the
website via ads in publications, newspaper inserts, social media and email blasts.
An important communications topic for the wastewater utility is avoiding sewer back-ups due
to FOG (fats, oil and grease) and trash being dumped down drains and toilets. Safety topics are
emphasized year-round. Staff continues its outreach goal of educating customers about the
utility’s gas-sewer line cross-bore inspection program, including the importance of calling
Utilities first when there is a sewer back-up.
Promotional activity about wastewater utility maintenance and safety operations includes use
of bill inserts, ads in local print publications, website pages, email blasts and social
media. While print materials and website pages feature prominently, CPAU is increasing the
outreach emphasis on use of direct mail, social media and digital advertising including videos
and short commercials on the local television channels. Staff is also attending more community
safety/emergency preparation events and neighborhood meetings.
WASTEWATER COLLECTION UTILITY FINANCIAL PLAN
F e b r u a r y 2 0 1 6 23 | P a g e
APPENDICES
Appendix A: Wastewater Collection Financial Forecast Detail
Appendix B: Wastewater Collection Utility Capital Improvement Program (CIP) Detail
Appendix C: Wastewater Collection Utility Reserves Management Practices
Appendix D: Sample of Wastewater Collection Outreach Materials
WASTEWATER COLLECTION UTILITY FINANCIAL PLAN
F e b r u a r y 2 0 1 6 24 | P a g e
APPENDIX A : WASTEWATER COLLECTIO N FINANCIAL FORECAST D ETA IL
WASTEWATER COLLECTION UTILITY FINANCIAL PLAN
F e b r u a r y 2 0 1 6 25 | P a g e
APPENDIX B : WASTEWATER COLLECTIO N UTILITY CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM (CIP) DETAIL
WASTEWATER COLLECTION UTILITY FINANCIAL PLAN
F e b r u a r y 2 0 1 6 26 | P a g e
APPENDIX C : WASTEWATER COLLECTIO N UTILITY RESERVES
MANAGEMENT PRACTICES
The following reserves management practices shall be used when developing the W astewater
Collection Utility Financial Plan:
Section 1. Definitions
a) “Financial Planning Period” – The Financial Planning Period is the range of future fiscal
years covered by the Financial Plan. For example, if the Financial Plan delivered in
conjunction with the FY 2015 budget includes projections for FY 2015 to FY 2019, FY
2015 to FY 2019 would be the Financial Planning Period .
b) “Fund Balance” – As used in these Reserves Management Practices, Fund Balance refers
to the Utility’s Unrestricted Net Assets.
c) “Net Assets” - The Government Accounting Standards Board defines a Utility’s Net
Assets as the difference between its assets and liabilities.
d) “Unrestricted Net Assets” - The portion of the Utility’s Net Assets not invested in capital
assets (net of related debt) or restricted for debt service or other restricted purposes.
Section 2. Reserves
The Wastewater Collection Utility’s Fund Balance is reserved for the following purposes:
a) For existing contracts, as described in Section 3 (Reserve for Commitments)
b) For operating and capital budgets re-appropriated from previous years, as described in
Section 4 (Reserve for Re-appropriations)
c) For cash flow management and contingencies related to the Wastewater Collection
Utility’s Capital Improvement Program (CIP), as described in Section 5 (CIP Reserve)
d) For rate stabilization, as described in Section 6 (Rate Stabilization Reserve)
e) For operating contingencies, as described in Section 7 (Operations Reserve)
f) Any funds not included in the other reserves will be considered Unassigned Reserves
and shall be returned to ratepayers or assigned a specific purpose as described in
Section 8 (Unassigned Reserves).
Section 3. Reserve for Commitments
At the end of each fiscal year the Reserve for Commitments will be set to an amount equal
to the total remaining spending authority for all contracts in force for the Wastewater
Collection Utility at that time.
Section 4. Reserve for Re-appropriations
At the end of each fiscal year the Reserve for Re-appropriations will be set to an amount
equal to the amount of all remaining capital and non-capital budgets, if any, that will be re-
appropriated to the following fiscal year in accordance with Palo Alto Municipal Code
Section 2.28.090.
WASTEWATER COLLECTION UTILITY FINANCIAL PLAN
F e b r u a r y 2 0 1 6 27 | P a g e
Section 5. CIP Reserve
The CIP Reserve is used to manage cash flow for capital projects and acts as a reserve for
capital contingencies. Staff will manage the CIP Reserve according to the following
practices:
a) The following guideline levels are set forth for the CIP Reserve. These guideline levels
are calculated for each fiscal year of the Financial Planning Period based on the levels of
CIP expense budgeted for that year.
Minimum Level 12 months of budgeted CIP expense
Maximum Level 24 months of budgeted CIP expense
b) Changes in Reserves: Staff is authorized to transfer funds between the CIP Reserve and
the Reserve for Commitments when funds are added or removed from to that reserve
as a result of a change in contractual commitments related to CIP projects. Any other
additions to or withdrawals from the CIP reserve require Council action.
c) Minimum Level:
i) Funds held in the Reserve for Commitments may be counted as part of the CIP
Reserve for the purpose of determining compliance with the CIP Reserve minimum
guideline level.
ii) If, at the end of any fiscal year, the minimum guideline is not met, staff shall present
a plan to the City Council to replenish the reserve. The plan shall be delivered by the
end of the following fiscal year, and shall, at a minimum, result in the reserve
reaching its minimum level by the end of the next fiscal year. For example, if the CIP
Reserve is below its minimum level at the end of FY 2017, staff must present a plan
by June 30, 2018 to return the reserve to its minimum level by June 30, 2019. In
addition, staff may present, and the Council may adopt, an alternative plan that
takes longer than one year to replenish the reserve, or that does so in a shorter
period of time.
d) Maximum Level: If, at any time, the CIP Reserve reaches its maximum level, no funds
may be added to this reserve. If there are funds in this reserve in excess of the
maximum level staff must propose to transfer these funds to another reserve or return
them to ratepayers in the next Financial Plan. Staff may also seek City Council to
approve holding funds in this reserve in excess of the maximum level if they are held for
a specific future purpose related to the CIP.
Section 6. Rate Stabilization Reserve
Funds may be added to the Rate Stabilization Reserve by action of the City Council and held
to manage the trajectory of future year rate increases. Withdrawal of funds from the Rate
Stabilization Reserve requires Council action. If there are funds in the Rate Stabilization
Reserve at the end of any fiscal year, any subsequent Wastewater Collection Utility
Financial Plan must result in the withdrawal of all funds from this Reserve by the end of the
Financial Planning Period.
WASTEWATER COLLECTION UTILITY FINANCIAL PLAN
F e b r u a r y 2 0 1 6 28 | P a g e
Section 7. Operations Reserve
The Operations Reserve is used to manage normal variations in costs and as a reserve for
contingencies. Any portion of the Wastewater Collection Utility’s Fund Balance not
included in the reserves described in Section 3-Section 6 above will be included in the
Operations Reserve unless this reserve has reached its maximum level as set forth in Section
7(d) below. Staff will manage the Operations Reserve according to the following practices:
a) The following guideline levels are set forth for the Operations Reserve. These guideline
levels are calculated for each fiscal year of the Financial Planning Period based on the
levels of Operations and Maintenance (O&M) and commodity expense forecasted for
that year in the Financial Plan.
Minimum Level 60 days of O&M and commodity expense
Target Level 105 days of O&M and commodity expense
Maximum Level 150 days of O&M and commodity expense
b) Minimum Level: If, at the end of any fiscal year, the funds remaining in the Operations
Reserve are lower than the minimum level set forth above, staff shall present a plan to
the City Council to replenish the reserve. The plan shall be delivered within six months
of the end of the fiscal year, and shall, at a minimum, result in the reserve reaching its
minimum level by the end of the following fiscal year. For example, if the Operations
Reserve is below its minimum level at the end of FY 2014, staff must present a plan by
December 31, 2014 to return the reserve to its minimum level by June 30, 2015. In
addition, staff may present, and the Council may adopt, an alternative plan that ta kes
longer than one year to replenish the reserve.
c) Target Level: If, at the end of any fiscal year, the Operations Reserve is higher or lower
than the target level, any Financial Plan created for the Wastewater Collection Utility
shall be designed to return the Operations Reserve to its target level within four years.
d) Maximum Level: If, at any time, the Operations Reserve reaches its maximum level, no
funds may be added to this reserve. Any further increase in the Wastewater Collection
Utility’s Fund Balance shall be automatically included in the Unassigned Reserve
described in Section 8, below.
Section 8. Unassigned Reserve
If the Operations Reserve reaches its maximum level, any further additions to the
Wastewater Collection Utility’s Fund Balance will be held in the Unassigned Reserve. If
there are any funds in the Unassigned Reserve at the end of any fiscal year, the next
Financial Plan presented to the City Council must include a plan to assign them to a specific
purpose or return them to the Wastewater Collection Utility ratepayers by the end of the
first fiscal year of the next Financial Planning Period. For example, if there were funds in the
Unassigned Reserves at the end of FY 2015, and the next Financial Planning Period is
FY 2016 through FY 2020, the Financial Plan shall include a plan to return or assign any
funds in the Unassigned Reserve by the end of FY 2016. Staff may present an alternative
plan that retains these funds or returns them over a longer period of time.
WASTEWATER COLLECTION UTILITY FINANCIAL PLAN
F e b r u a r y 2 0 1 6 29 | P a g e
APPENDIX D : SAMPLE OF WASTEWATER COLLECTIO N OUTREACH
MATERIALS
Attachment C
* NOT YET APPROVED *
6053687
Resolution No. _________
Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Increasing
Wastewater Rates by Amending Rate Schedules S-1 (Residential
Wastewater Collection and Disposal), S-2 (Commercial Wastewater
Collection and Disposal), S-6 (Restaurant Wastewater Collection and
Disposal) and S-7 (Commercial Wastewater Collection and Disposal –
Industrial Discharger)
R E C I T A L S
A. Pursuant to Chapter 12.20.010 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code, the Council of
the City of Palo Alto may by resolution adopt rules and regulations governing utility services,
fees and charges.
B. On ____, 2016, the City Council held a full and fair public hearing regarding the
proposed rate increase and considered all protests against the proposals.
C. As required by Article XIII D, Section 6 of the California Constitution and
applicable law, notice of the ________ 2016 public hearing was mailed to all City of Palo Alto
Utilities wastewater customers by _______, 2016.
D. The City Clerk has tabulated the total number of written protests presented by
the close of the public hearing, and determined that it was less than fifty percent (50%) of the
total number of customers and property owners subject to the proposed wastewater rate
amendments, therefore a majority protest does not exist against the proposal.
The Council of the City of Palo Alto does hereby RESOLVE as follows:
SECTION 1. Pursuant to Section 12.20.010 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code, Utility
Rate Schedule S-1 (Residential Wastewater Collection and Disposal) is hereby amended to read
as attached and incorporated. Utility Rate Schedule S-1, as amended, shall become effective
July 1, 2016.
SECTION 2. Pursuant to Section 12.20.010 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code, Utility
Rate Schedule S-2 (Commercial Wastewater Collection and Disposal) is hereby amended to read
as attached and incorporated. Utility Rate Schedule S-2, as amended, shall become effective
July 1, 2016.
SECTION 3. Pursuant to Section 12.20.010 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code, Utility
Rate Schedule S-6 (Restaurant Wastewater Collection and Disposal) is hereby amended to read
as attached and incorporated. Utility Rate Schedule S-6, as amended, shall become effective
July 1, 2016.
Attachment C
* NOT YET APPROVED *
6053687
SECTION 4. Pursuant to Section 12.20.010 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code, Utility
Rate Schedule S-7 (Commercial Wastewater Collection and Disposal – Industrial Discharger) is
hereby amended to read as attached and incorporated. Utility Rate Schedule S-7, as amended,
shall become effective July 1, 2016.
SECTION 5. The Council finds that the revenue derived from the wastewater rates
approved by this resolution do not exceed the funds required to provide water service , and the
revenue derived from the adoption of this resolution shall be used only for the purposes set
forth in Article VII, Section 2, of the Charter of the City of Palo Alto.
SECTION 6. The Council finds that the fees and charges adopted by this resolution
are charges imposed for a specific government service or product provided directly to the payor
that are not provided to those not charged, and do not exceed the reasonable costs to the City
of providing the service or product.
SECTION 7. The Council finds that the adoption of this resolution changing
wastewater collection rates to meet operating expenses, purchase supplies and materials, meet
financial reserve needs and obtain funds for capital improvements necessary to maintain
service is not subject to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), pursuant to California
Public Resources Code Sec. 21080(b)(8) and Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations Sec.
15273(a). After reviewing the staff report and all attachments presented to Council, the
Council incorporates these documents herein and finds that sufficient evidence has been
presented setting forth with specificity the basis for this claim of CEQA exemption.
INTRODUCED AND PASSED:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTENTIONS:
ATTEST:
___________________________ ___________________________
City Clerk Mayor
APPROVED AS TO FORM: APPROVED:
___________________________ ___________________________
Senior Deputy City Attorney City Manager
Attachment C
* NOT YET APPROVED *
6053687
___________________________
Director of Utilities
___________________________
Director of Administrative Services
RESIDENTIAL WASTEWATER COLLECTION AND DISPOSAL
UTILITY RATE SCHEDULE S-1
CITY OF PALO ALTO UTILITIES
Issued by the City Council
Supersedes Sheet No S-1-1 Effective 7-1-20156
dated 7-1-20125 Sheet No S-1-1
A. APPLICABILITY:
This schedule applies to each occupied residential dwelling unit.
B. TERRITORY:
This schedule applies everywhere the City of Palo Alto provides wastewater service.
C. RATES:
Per Month
Each domestic dwelling unit ..................................................................................................
$3134.8395
D. SPECIAL NOTES:
1. Any dwelling unit being individually served by a water, gas, or electric meter will be
considered continuously occupied.
2. For two or more occupied dwelling units served by one water meter, the monthly wastewater
charge will be calculated by multiplying the current wastewater rate by the number of
dwelling units.
3. Each developed separate lot shall have a separate service lateral to a sanitary main or
manhole.
{End}
ATTACHMENT D
COMMERCIAL WASTEWATER COLLECTION AND DISPOSAL
UTILITY RATE SCHEDULE S-2
CITY OF PALO ALTO UTILITIES
Issued by the City Council
Supersedes Sheet No S-2-1 Effective 7-1-20156
dated 7-1-20125 Sheet No S-2-1
A. APPLICABILITY:
This schedule applies to all commercial establishments other than those served under Utility Rate
Schedule S-1 (Domestic Residential Wastewater Collection and Disposal), Rate Schedule S-6
(Restaurant Wastewater Collection and Disposal) or Rate Schedule S-7 (Commercial
Establishments Wastewater Disposal – Industrial Discharger).
B. TERRITORY:
This schedule applies everywhere the City of Palo Alto provides wastewater services.
C. RATES:
1. Minimum Charge per connection per month .............................................................$3134.8395
2. Quantity Rates, per 100 cubic feet (See Section D.1) ............................................. $6.7116
D. SPECIAL NOTES:
1. The monthly charge for the quantity rate set forth in Section C.2 of this rate schedule will
be based upon the average water usage for the months of January, February and March,
and applied in the following July. If a water meter is identified as exclusively serving
irrigation landscaping, such meter will be exempted from wastewater charge calculations.
Customers without an applicable usage history will be charged at the minimum monthly
charge until such time as such usage may reasonably be established by the City of Palo
Alto Utilities Department.
2. The City of Palo Alto Utilities Department may require wastewater metering facilities, in
which case service will be governed by terms of a special agreement between the City
and the Customer.
{End}
RESTAURANT WASTEWATER COLLECTION AND DISPOSAL
UTILITY RATE SCHEDULE S-6
CITY OF PALO ALTO UTILITIES
Issued by the City Council
Supersedes Sheet No S-6-1 Effective 7-1-20156
dated 7-1-20125 Sheet No S-6-1
A. APPLICABILITY:
This schedule applies to all restaurants.
B. TERRITORY:
This schedule applies everywhere the City of Palo Alto provides wastewater services.
C. RATES:
1. Minimum charge per connection per month ......................................................... $3134.8395
2. Quantity Rates, per 100 cubic feet of monthly metered water usage ......................... $
910.5238
D. SPECIAL NOTES:
1. The City of Palo Alto Utilities Department may require wastewater metering facilities, in
which case service will be governed by terms of a special agreement between the City and
the Customer.
{End}
COMMERCIAL WASTEWATER COLLECTION AND DISPOSAL
–INDUSTRIAL DISCHARGER
UTILITY RATE SCHEDULE S-7
CITY OF PALO ALTO UTILITIES
Issued by the City Council
Supersedes Sheet No S-7-1 Effective 7-1-20156
dated 7-1-20125 Sheet No S-7-1
A. APPLICABILITY:
This schedule applies to any establishment requiring sampling of industrial discharges in excess
of 25,000 gallons per day, or special discharge monitoring, as defined in Rule and Regulation 23,
Section D.
B. TERRITORY:
This schedule applies everywhere the City of Palo Alto provides wastewater services.
C. RATES:
1. Collection System Operation, Maintenance, and Infiltration Inflow:
$1.7894 per 100 cubic feet of metered water use.
2. Advanced Waste Treatment Operations and Maintenance Charge:
$1.1405 per 100 cubic feet of metered water use
3. $ 247.56 per 1000 pounds (lbs) of COD (Chemical Oxygen Demand)
4. $ 596.62 per 1000 lbs of SS (Suspended Solids)
5. $ 3,983.85 per 1000 lbs of NH3 (Ammonia)
6. $ 14,781.25 per 1000 lbs of toxics (chromium, copper, cyanide, lead, nickel, silver, and zinc)
D. SPECIAL NOTES:
1. Water usage will be determined as defined in Rule and Regulation 23, Section D. If a
water meter is identified as exclusively serving irrigation landscaping, such meter will be
exempted from wastewater charge calculations.
2. The City of Palo Alto Utilities Department may require wastewater metering facilities, in
which case service will be governed by terms of a special agreement between the City of
Palo Alto and the Customer.
3. Charges for large discharges will be determined on the basis of sampling as outlined in
Utilities Rule and Regulation 23, Section D. However, for purposes of arriving at an
accurate flow estimate, discharge meters, if installed, can be utilized to measure outflow
for billing purposes. Annual charges will be determined and allocated monthly for billing
purposes.
{End}
Page 1 of 8
3
MEMORANDUM
TO: UTILITIES ADVISORY COMMISSION
FROM: UTILITIES DEPARTMENT
DATE: March 2, 2016
SUBJECT: Staff Recommendation that the Utilities Advisory Commission Recommend
that the City Council Adopt: (1) a Resolution Approving the Fiscal Year 2017
Water Utility Financial Plan; and (2) a Resolution Increasing Water Rates by
Amending Rate Schedules W-1 (General Residential Water Service), W-2
(Water Service from Fire Hydrants), W-3 (Fire Service Connections), W-4
(Residential Master-Metered and General Non-Residential Water Service), and
W-7 (Non-Residential Irrigation Water Service)
RECOMMENDATION
Staff requests that the Utilities Advisory Commission (UAC) recommend that the Council:
1. Adopt a resolution (Attachment A) approving the fiscal year (FY) 2017 Water Utility
Financial Plan (Attachment B); and
2. Adopt a resolution (Attachment C) increasing water rates by amending Rate Schedules
W-1 (General Residential Water Service), W-2 (Water Service from Fire Hydrants), W-3
(Fire Service Connections), W-4 (Residential Master-Metered and General Non-
Residential Water Service), and W-7 (Non-Residential Irrigation Water Service).
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The FY 2017 Water Utility Financial Plan includes projections of the utility’s costs and revenues
for FY 2017 through FY 2026. Costs are projected to rise substantially for the next several years
due primarily to increasing water supply costs. As a result, staff projects the need for a 6%
water rate increase on July 1, 2016 and 9% rate increases in FY 2018 and FY 2019. The 6%
increase is needed to recover costs due to an expected 7% increase for the cost of water from
the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission (SFPUC) as well as increased local operations
costs.
Costs are increasing by 24% from FY 2016 to FY 2026 and these increases are mostly due to
water supply costs. Current projections are that water supply costs will increase by 7% in FY
2017, but with the recent continuing drought, the trajectory of future water supply cost
increases is uncertain. To keep the Operations Reserve healthy while minimizing the impact to
Page 2 of 8
customers, staff proposes spreading the rate increases required to match projected costs over
several years. This is possible with transfers to the Operations Reserve: $4 million from the CIP
Reserve in FY 2017 and $4.7 million and $1.87 million from the Rate Stabilization Reserve in FY
2016 and FY 2017, respectively. These actions will reduce the Rate Stabilization Reserve to zero
by the end of FY 2017.
BACKGROUND
Every year staff presents the UAC with Financial Plans for its Electric, Gas, Water, and
Wastewater Collection Utilities and recommends any rate adjustments required to maintain
their financial health. These Financial Plans include a comprehensive overview of the utility’s
operations, both retrospective and prospective, and are intended to be a reference for UAC and
Council members as they review the budget and staff’s rate recommendations. Each Financial
Plan also contains a set of Reserves Management Practices describing the reserves for each
utility and the management practices for those reserves.
The UAC reviewed preliminary financial forecasts at its February 3, 2016 meeting. Staff has
revised the preliminary projections presented at that meeting.
DISCUSSION
Staff’s annual assessment of the financial position of the City’s water utility is completed to
ensure adequate revenue to fund operations, in compliance with the cost of service
requirements set forth in the California Constitution (Proposition 218). This includes making
long-term projections of market conditions, the physical condition of the system, and other
factors that could affect utility costs, and setting rates adequate to recover these costs. The
current rate proposals are also based on the cost of service methodology described in the 2012
Palo Alto Water Cost of Service & Rate Study, the 2015 Study update and Drought Rate
memorandum completed by Raftelis Financial Consultants.
Proposed Actions for FY 2016
This year’s Water Utility Financial Plan includes the following proposed actions for FY 2016:
1. Reduce the $5.5 million transfer from the Rate Stabilization Reserve to the Operations
Reserve proposed in the FY 2016 Water Financial Plan to $4.7 million .
Proposed Actions for FY 2017
This year’s Water Utility Financial Plan also includes the following proposed actions for FY 2017:
1. Transfer $1.87 million from the Rate Stabilization Reserve to the Operations Reserve.
2. Transfer $4 million from the CIP Reserve to the Operations Reserve
These transfers will enable staff to maintain Operations Reserve levels while spreading the
required rate increases for the water utility over several years. These proposed actions are
described in more detail in the FY 2017 Water Financial Plan (Attachment B).
In addition, staff proposes to adjust water rates to the levels shown in Tables 1 through 4,
below, effective July 1, 2016. These changes are projected to increase the system average
Page 3 of 8
water rate by roughly 6%. These rate changes are included in the proposed amended rate
schedules in Attachment D.
Table 1: Water Consumption Charges in $/CCF (Current and Proposed)
Current
(9/1/15)
Proposed
(7/1/16)
Change
$/CCF %
W-1 (Residential) Volumetric Rates ($/CCF)
Tier 1 Rates 5.93 6.30 0.37 6%
Tier 2 Rates 8.38 8.82 0.44 5%
W-2 (Construction) Volumetric Rates ($/CCF)
Uniform Rate 6.92 7.32 0.40 6%
W-4 (Commercial) Volumetric Rates ($/CCF)
Uniform Rate 6.92 7.32 0.40 6%
W-7 (Irrigation) Volumetric Rates ($/CCF)
Uniform Rate 8.29 8.72 0.43 5%
Table 2: Current and Proposed Monthly Service Charge
Meter
Size
Monthly Service Charge
($/month based on meter size) Change
Current
(9/1/15)
Proposed
(7/1/16) $/mo %
5/8” $16.03 $16.77 $0.74 5%
3/4” $21.50 $22.60 $1.10 5%
1” $32.45 $34.26 $1.81 6%
1 ½” $59.83 $63.40 $3.57 6%
2” $92.67 $98.37 $5.70 6%
3” $196.70 $209.11 $12.41 6%
4” $350.00 $372.31 $22.31 6%
6” $716.82 $762.81 $45.99 6%
8” $1,319.07 $1,403.94 $84.87 6%
10” $2,085.57 $2,219.92 $134.35 6%
12” $2,742.56 $2,919.34 $495.89 6%
Page 4 of 8
Table 3: Current and Proposed Monthly Fire Service Charges
Meter
Size
Monthly Service Charge
($/month based on meter size) Change
Current
(9/1/15)
Proposed
(7/1/16) $/mo %
2” $3.43 $3.79 $0.36 10%
4” $21.22 $23.42 $2.20 10%
6” $61.63 $68.03 $6.40 10%
8” $131.34 $144.97 $13.63 10%
10” $236.20 $260.70 $24.50 10%
12” $381.52 $421.11 $39.59 10%
Table 4: Drought Surcharges in $/CCF (Current and Proposed)
Current
(9/1/15)
Proposed
(7/1/16)
Change
$/CCF %
10%/15% Reduction
W-1 Residential (Tier 1) 0.19 0.20 $0.01 5%
W-1 Residential (Tier 2) 0.55 0.58 0.03 5%
W-4 (Non-residential and
Master Metered Multi-Family) 0.24 0.26 0.02 8%
W-7 (Irrigation) 0.51 0.53 0.02 4%
20% Reduction
W-1 Residential (Tier 1) 0.39 0.43 0.04 10%
W-1 Residential (Tier 2) 1.14 1.21 0.07 6%
W-4 (Non-residential and
Master Metered Multi-Family) 0.49 0.53 0.04 8%
W-7 (Irrigation) 1.18 1.25 0.07 6%
25% Reduction
W-1 Residential (Tier 1) 0.59 0.64 0.05 8%
W-1 Residential (Tier 2) 1.76 1.85 0.09 5%
W-4 (Non-residential and
Master Metered Multi-Family) 0.72 0.77 0.05 7%
W-7 (Irrigation) 1.93 2.02 0.09 5%
Bill Impact of Proposed Rate Changes
Table 5 shows the impact of the proposed July 1, 2016 rate changes on residential bills. The
average increase is roughly 6%, but some customers may see variations due to slight changes in
the composition of the utility’s costs and how that affects the first tier and fixed charges under
the cost of service methodology. The bill comparison also includes continued activation of the
drought surcharge at the 20% reduction level.
Page 5 of 8
Table 5: Impact of Proposed Rate Changes on Residential Bills
Usage
(CCF/month)
Bill under
Existing Rates
(9/1/15)
Bill under
Proposed Rates
(7/1/16)
Change
$/mo. %
4 41.31 43.69 2.38 6%
(Winter median) 7 63.47 67.18 3.71 6%
(Annual median) 9 82.51 87.24 4.73 6%
(Summer median) 14 130.11 137.39 7.28 6%
25 234.83 247.72 12.89 5%
Table 6 shows the impact of the proposed July 1, 201 6 rate changes on various representative
commercial customer bills. As with residents, this comparison includes the 20% drought
surcharge level.
Table 6: Impact of Proposed Rate Changes on Commercial Bills
Usage
(CCF/month)
Bill under
Current Rates
(9/1/15)
Bill under
Proposed Rates
(7/1/16)
Change
$/mo. %
Commercial (W-4) (5/8” meters)
(Annual median) 12 104.95 110.97 6.02 6%
(Annual average) 64 490.27 519.17 28.90 6%
Irrigation (W-7) (1 ½” meters)
(Winter median) 9 145 153 8 6%
(Summer median) 37 410 432 22 5%
(Winter average) 56 590 622 32 5%
(Summer average) 199 1,944 2047 103 5%
FY 2017 Financial Plan’s Projected Rate Adjustments for the Next Five Fiscal Years
Table 7 shows the projected rate adjustments over the next five years and their impact on the
annual median residential water bill.
Table 7: Projected Rate Adjustments, FY 2016 to FY 2020
FY 2017 FY 2018 FY 2019 FY 2020 FY 2021
Water Utility 6% 9% 9% 6% 2%
Estimated Bill Impact ($/mo)* $4.73 $7.85 $8.56 $6.22 $2.20
* estimated impact on median residential water bill, which is currently $82.51.
The main driver for the increase in the water utility’s costs (and therefore rates) over the next
several years is the cost of water. Wholesale water costs are projected to rise 7% in FY 2017,
but due to the ongoing drought, future increases are uncertain. What is certain is that the
SFPUC’s costs to operate the Regional Water System are primarily fixed costs, so the water rate
is highly dependent on usage by users of the Regional Water System.
Page 6 of 8
The Water Utility may also see a $1 million increase in operating costs for a capital lease for
emergency generators for wells and pump stations. Aside from that, operating and CIP costs
are projected to rise roughly 2% to 4% annually over that time. The FY 2017 Water Utility
Financial Plan assumes the current drought ends in 2017, but based on CPAU’s experience,
consumption is not anticipated to return to pre-drought levels.
Last year, staff discussed uncertainty in the forecasts of capital costs for the water utility in
coming years. Water main replacement costs have risen substantially in recent years, and it is
possible higher CIP expenditures will be required in the future. Staff is in the process of
reviewing a recently completed master plan for the water distribution system, and expects
better information about future main replacement costs when that plan is completed. The
review is expected to be completed during 2016.
Water Bill Comparison with Surrounding Cities
Table 8 compares water bills under current rates as of February 1, 2016 for residential
customers to those in surrounding communities. CPAU has the highest monthly bills of the
group, although bills for smaller water users are less than in some surrounding communities. It
is unclear at this time what water rate changes may be implemented in these communities for
FY 2017.
Table 8: Residential Monthly Water Bill Comparison
Usage
(CCF/month)
Residential monthly bill comparison ($/month)*
As of February 2016
Palo
Alto
Menlo
Park
Mountain
View Hayward
Redwood
City
Santa
Clara
4 41.31 44.11 31.46 28.68 43.69 16.64
(Winter median) 7 63.47 62.25 48.77 48.42 57.13 29.12
(Annual median) 9 82.51 74.36 60.31 61.58 66.77 37.44
(Summer median) 14 130.11 106.12 89.16 96.24 95.46 58.24
25 234.83 176.80 187.23 181.49 182.14 104.00
Based on the FY 2013 BAWSCA survey, the fraction of SFPUC as the source of potable
water supply was 100% for Palo Alto, 95% for Menlo Park, 100% for Redwood City, 87%
for Mountain View, 10% for Santa Clara and 100% for Hayward.
Changes from Preliminary Financial Forecast
After presenting the preliminary financial forecast to the UAC on February 3, 2016, SFPUC
updated its wholesale water rate increase estimate. The wholesale rate is now forecast to
increase from $3.75/per hundred cubic feet (CCF) to $4.05/CCF for FY 2017 instead of the
previously projected $4.50/CCF. Therefore, a 6% retail rate increase, rather than the 9%
increase in the preliminary financial forecast, is proposed to be effective July 1, 2016. However,
SFPUC’s wholesale water rates for FY 2017 will not be finalized until June 2016.
Page 7 of 8
Changes from Last Year’s Financial Forecast
Staff has projected future water rate increases for several years. Table 9 compares current rate
projections to those projected in the last two year’s Financial Plans. As shown, the FY 2017 rate
projections are somewhat lower than projected last year. In the FY 2015 Financial Plan, the
drought was not known to be as long or severe as it has been so the rate increase projections
are generally lower than current projections.
Table 9: Projected Water Rate Trajectory for FY 2017 to FY 2026
Projection FY
2017
FY
2018
FY
2019
FY
2020
FY
2021
FY
2022
FY
2023
FY
2024
FY
2025
FY
2026
Current
(FY 2017 Financial Plan) 6% 9% 9% 6% 2% 2% 2% 3% 5% 3%
Last year
(FY 2016 Financial Plan) 8% 8% 8% 3% 1% 2% 3% N/A N/A N/A
Two years ago
(FY 2015 Financial Plan) 6% 6% 6% 5% 1% N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
NEXT STEPS
The Finance Committee is scheduled to review the FY 2017 Water Financial Plan on April 19,
2016. Assuming the Finance Committee supports staff’s recommendation , notification of the
rate increases will be sent to customers as required by Article XIIID of the State Constitution
(added by Proposition 218). The Financial Plans and rate schedules will then go to the City
Council with the FY 2017 budget for adoption, at which time the public hearing required by
Article XIIID of the State Constitution will be held.
RESOURCE IMPACT
Normal year sales revenues for the Water Utility are projected to increase by roughly 6% ($1.9
million) as a result of these rate increases. See the attached FY 2017 Water Financial Plan for a
more comprehensive overview of projected cost and revenue changes for the next ten years.
POLICY IMPLICATIONS
The proposed water rate adjustments are consistent with Council-adopted Reserve
Management Practices that are part of the Financial Plans, and were developed using a cost of
service study and methodology consistent with the cost of service requirements of Proposition
218.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The UAC’s review and recommendation to Council on the FY 2017 Water Financial Plans and
rate adjustments does not meet the California Environmental Quality Act’s definition of a
project, pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21065, thus no environmental review is
required.
ATTACHMENTS
A. Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Approving the FY 2017 Water Utility
Financial Plan
B. Proposed FY 2017 Water Utility Fi nancial Plan
C. Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Adopting a Water Rate Increase and
Amending Rate Schedules W-1, W-2, W-3, W-4, and W-7
D. Amended Rate Schedules W-1, W-2, W-3, W-4, and W-7
PREPARED BY:
REVIEWED BY:
C~. RIC KENISTON, Acting Rates Manager
ANE RATCHYE, Assistant Director, Resource Management : c:J 5b--... APPROVED BY:
EDSHIKADA
Interim Director of Utilities
Page 8of8
Attachment A
* NOT YET APPROVED *
6053681
Resolution No. _________
Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Approving the
FY 2017 Water Utility Financial Plan
R E C I T A L S
A. Each year the City of Palo Alto (“City”) regularly assesses the financial position of
its utilities with the goal of ensuring adequate revenue to fund operations. This includes
making long-term projections of market conditions, the physical condition of the system, and
other factors that could affect utility costs, and setting rates adequate to recover these costs. It
does this with the goal of providing safe, reliable, and sustainable utility services at competitive
rates. The City adopts Financial Plans to summarize these projections.
B. The City uses reserves to protect against contingencies and to manage other
aspects of its operations, and regularly assesses the adequacy of these reserves and the
management practices governing their operation. The status of utility reserves and their
management practices are included in Reserves Management Practices attached to and made
part of the Financial Plans.
The Council of the City of Palo Alto does hereby RESOLVE as follows:
SECTION 1. The Council hereby adopts the FY 2017 Water Utility Financial Plan.
SECTION 2. The Council hereby approves the transfer of $4.7 million in FY 2016 from
the Rate Stabilization Reserve to the Operations Reserve, as described in the FY 2017 Water
Utility Financial Plan approved via this resolution.
SECTION 3. The Council finds that the adoption of this resolution does not meet the
California Environmental Quality Act’s (CEQA) definition of a project under Public Resources
Code Section 21065, and therefore, no environmental assessment is required.
INTRODUCED AND PASSED:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTENTIONS:
ATTEST:
___________________________ ___________________________
Attachment A
* NOT YET APPROVED *
6053681
City Clerk Mayor
APPROVED AS TO FORM: APPROVED:
___________________________ ___________________________
Senior Deputy City Attorney City Manager
___________________________
Director of Utilities
___________________________
Director of Administrative Services
FY 2017 WATER
UTILITY
FINANCIAL PLAN
FY 2017 TO FY 2026
ATTACHMENT B
WATER UTILITY FINANCIAL PLAN
F e b r u a r y 2 0 1 6 2 | P a g e
FY 2017 WATER UTILITY
FINANCIAL PLAN
FY 201 7 TO FY 20 2 6
TABLE OF C ONTENTS
Section 1: Definitions and Abbreviations................................................................................ 4
Section 2: Executive Summary and Recommendations ........................................................... 4
Section 2A: Overview of Financial Position .................................................................................. 4
Section 2B: Summary of Proposed Actions .................................................................................. 5
Section 3: Detail of FY 2017 Rate and Reserves Proposals ....................................................... 5
Section 3A: Rate Design ............................................................................................................... 5
Section 3B: Current and Proposed Rates ..................................................................................... 6
Section 3C: Bill Impact of Proposed Rate Changes ...................................................................... 8
Section 3D: Proposed Reserve Transfers ..................................................................................... 9
Section 4: Utility Overview .................................................................................................... 9
Section 4A: Water Utility History ................................................................................................. 9
Section 4B: Customer Base ........................................................................................................ 10
Section 4C: Distribution System ................................................................................................. 11
Section 4D: Cost Structure and Revenue Sources ...................................................................... 11
Section 4E: Reserves Structure ................................................................................................... 12
Section 4F: Competitiveness ...................................................................................................... 12
Section 5: Utility Financial Projections ................................................................................. 13
Section 5A: Load Forecast .......................................................................................................... 13
Section 5B: FY 2011 to FY 2015 Cost and Revenue Trends ........................................................ 14
Section 5C: FY 2015 Results ....................................................................................................... 15
Section 5D: FY 2016 Projections ................................................................................................ 16
Section 5E: FY 2017 – FY 2026 Projections ................................................................................ 16
Section 5F: Risk Assessment and Reserves Adequacy ............................................................... 18
Section 5G: Alternate ScenarIOS ................................................................................................ 19
WATER UTILITY FINANCIAL PLAN
F e b r u a r y 2 0 1 6 3 | P a g e
Section 5H: Long-Term Outlook ................................................................................................. 21
Section 6: Details and Assumptions ..................................................................................... 21
Section 6A: Water Purchase Costs ............................................................................................. 21
Section 6B: Operations .............................................................................................................. 23
Section 6C: Capital Improvement Program (CIP) ....................................................................... 24
Section 6D: Debt Service ............................................................................................................ 27
Section 6E: Other Revenues ....................................................................................................... 28
Section 6F: Sales Revenues ........................................................................................................ 28
Section 7: Communications Plan .......................................................................................... 28
Appendices ......................................................................................................................... 30
Appendix A: Water Utility Financial Forecast Detail ................................................................. 31
Appendix B: Water Utility Capital Improvement Program (CIP) Detail ..................................... 33
Appendix C: Water Utility Reserves Management Practices ..................................................... 35
Appendix D: Description of Water Utility Operational Activities ............................................... 38
Appendix E: Sample of Water Utility Outreach Communications ............................................. 39
WATER UTILITY FINANCIAL PLAN
F e b r u a r y 2 0 1 6 4 | P a g e
SECTION 1 : DEFINITIONS AND ABBR EVIATIONS
BAWSCA Bay Area Water Supply and Conservation Agency
CCF The standard unit of measurement for water delivered to water customers, equal to
one hundred cubic feet, or roughly 748 gallons.
CIP Capital Improvement Program
CPAU City of Palo Alto Utilities Department
O&M Operations and Maintenance
RFC Raftelis Financial Consultants, Inc.
SFPUC San Francisco Public Utilities Commission
SFWD San Francisco Water Department
UAC Utilities Advisory Commission
WSIP The SFPUC’s Water System Improvement Program to seismically strengthen the
transmission lines of the Hetch Hetchy regional water system.
SECTION 2 : EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS
This document presents a Financial Plan for the City’s Water Utility for the next ten years. This
Financial Plan provides revenues to cover the costs of operating the utility safely over that time
while adequately investing for the future. It also addresses the financial risks facing the utility
over the short term and long term, and includes measures to mitigate and manage those risks.
SECTION 2 A: OVERVIEW OF FINANCIAL POSITION
By FY 2026, costs for the Water Utility will increase 24% over FY 2016 levels, as shown in Table
1. Most of increase is related to the cost of water supplied by the San Francisco Public Utilities
Commission (SFPUC), which is projected to rise 34% in that time due to the issuance of long
term debt to finance major seismic improvements to the Hetch Hetchy transmission system.
The cost of replacing the water mains in the City’s water distribution system has also increased
substantially from the low costs seen during the recent recession, but is projected to remain
relatively level during the forecast horizon. Staff projects only inflationary increases to most
other costs over the forecast period.
Table 1: Expenses for FY 2015 to FY 2026 (Thousand $’s)
Expenses
($000)
FY
2015
(act.)
FY
2016
(est.)
FY
2017
FY
2018
FY
2019
FY
2020
FY
2021
FY
2022
FY
2023
FY
2024
FY
2025
FY
2026
Water
Purchases 15,670 17,645 18,899 19,976 21,177 21,259 21,475 21,697 21,915 22,302 23,652 23,426
Operations
15,826 17,442 17,065 17,509 17,960 18,429 18,863 19,276 19,703 20,135 20,578 21,033
Capital
Projects 8,580 11,039 10,216 10,012 10,252 10,555 10,867 11,189 11,519 11,860 12,211 12,572
TOTAL 40,077 46,127 46,180 47,498 49,390 50,243 51,205 52,161 53,137 54,297 56,441 57,031
To cover these increases in costs, revenues (and therefore rates) need to increase over the next
several years to balance costs and revenues. The rate trajectory shown in Table 2 assumes that
WATER UTILITY FINANCIAL PLAN
F e b r u a r y 2 0 1 6 5 | P a g e
the drought continues through 2017 and that consumption does not return to its pre-drought
levels. Table 2 also compares current rate projections to those projected in last year’s Financial
Plan.
Table 2: Projected Water Rate Trajectory for FY 2017 to FY 2026
Projection FY
2017
FY
2018
FY
2019
FY
2020
FY
2021
FY
2022
FY
2023
FY
2024
FY
2025
FY
2026
Current 6% 9% 9% 6% 2% 2% 2% 3% 5% 3%
Last year 8% 8% 8% 3% 1% 2% 3% N/A N/A N/A
The Water Utility has a Rate Stabilization Reserve that can be used to smooth rate increases
over several years. This Financial Plan projects that these reserves will be exhausted by the end
of FY 2017. The Water Utility also has a Capital Improvement Program (CIP) Reserve that can be
used to offset one-time unanticipated capital costs. This Financial Plan assumes that the CIP
Reserve will be used for unanticipated capital expenses or returned to the Operations Reserve
by the end of FY 2017. At that point the Emergency Water Supply and Storage Project and the
Water System Master Plan will have been completed, so capital costs will be known with more
certainty. Table 3 shows the projected reserve transfers over the forecast period.
Table 3: Transfers To/(From) Reserves for FY 2016 to FY 2026 ($000)
Reserve FY 2016 FY 2017 FY 2018 to FY 2026
Capital Improvement - (4,000) -
Rate Stabilization (4,700) (1,867) -
Operations 4,700 5,867 -
SECTION 2 B : SUMMARY OF PROPOSED ACTIONS
Staff proposes the following actions for the Water Utility in FY 201 6:
1. Transfer $4.7 million from the Rate Stabilization Reserve to the Operations Reserve. See
Section 3D: Proposed Reserve Transfers for more details.
Staff proposes the following actions for the Water Utility in FY 2017:
1. Increase rates as shown in Section 3B: Current and Proposed Rates. These changes are
projected to increase the system average rate by roughly 6%.
2. Transfer $1.867 million from the Rate Stabilization Reserve to the Operations Reserve.
See Section 3D: Proposed Reserve Transfers for more details.
3. Transfer $4 million from the CIP Reserve to the Operations Reserve.
SECTION 3 : DETAIL OF FY 201 7 RATE AND RESERVES PR OPOSALS
SECTION 3 A : RATE DESIGN
The Water Utility’s rates are evaluated and implemented in compliance with the cost of service
requirements and procedural rules set forth in the California Constitution under Article 13 (per
Proposition 218). Current rates were structured based on staff’s assessment of the financial
WATER UTILITY FINANCIAL PLAN
F e b r u a r y 2 0 1 6 6 | P a g e
position of the Water Utility, and updated using the methodology from the March 2012 Palo
Alto Water Cost of Service & Rate Study by Raftelis Financial Consultants, Inc., as well as
Raftelis’ 2015 memoranda updating the 2012 Study and analyzing drought rates (Staff Report
2676). Staff plans to review and update this cost of service study in 2 to 3 years, unless any
major changes occur to the utility’s operations or customer base that would necessitate an
earlier study. Before conducting any new cost of service study, staff will review current rates
and the scope of the study with the Utilities Advisory Commission (UAC) and Council to
determine the City’s policy priorities.
SECTION 3 B : CURRENT AND PROPOSED RATES
The current rates and surcharges were effective on September 1, 2015. Rates were re-aligned
to the results of an updated cost of service study, performed by Raftelis Financial Consultants,
Inc. (RFC), which both developed the drought surcharges and reviewed the City’s water rate
methodology and structure in light of recent court decisions interpreting the state
constitution’s cost of service requirements. RFC examined and validated both the City’s
methodology and rate structure as fundamentally sound, recommending only minor
adjustments to ensure that peaking costs were equitably allocated to each customer class and
residential rate tier.
CPAU has five rate schedules: one for separately metered residential customers (W-1), one for
commercial and master-metered multi-family residential customers (W-4), and specific
schedules for irrigation-only services (W-7), services to fire sprinkler systems in buildings and
private hydrants (W-3), and for service to fire hydrant rental meters used for construction (W-
2). All customers pay a monthly service charge, based on the size of their inlet meter. This
charge represents meter reading, billing, and other customer service costs, but also the cost of
maintaining the capability to deliver a peak flow for that customer corresponding to their meter
size. All customers are also charged for each CCF (one hundred cubic feet) of water used.
Separately metered residential customers are charged on a tiered basis, with the first 0.2 CCF
per day (6 CCF for a 30 day billing period) charged a base price per CCF, and all additional units
charged a higher price per CCF. Commercial customers pay a uniform price for each CCF used,
and a higher price for separately metered irrigation service.
Table 4 and Table 6 show the current and proposed monthly service charges for all rate
schedules. Staff evaluated grouping the smallest meter sizes (5/8”, 3/4” and 1” meters) into
one charge category, but confirmed that there is a significant variation in actual demand on the
water distribution system among customers using each of these water sizes. As such, staff is
not recommending a change to the monthly service charge schedule.
Table 5 shows the consumption charges. Table 7 shows the current and proposed drought
surcharge levels. The basis for calculating these charges is staff’s annual assessment of the
water utility’s financial position, as well as the cost of service methodology from the 2012 Palo
Alto Water Cost of Service & Rate Study and 2015 update, prepared by RFC.
WATER UTILITY FINANCIAL PLAN
F e b r u a r y 2 0 1 6 7 | P a g e
Table 4: Current and Proposed Monthly Service Charges
Meter
Size
Monthly Service Charge
($/month based on meter size) Change
Current (9/1/15) Proposed (7/1/16) $/mo %
5/8” $16.03 $16.77 $0.74 5%
3/4” $21.50 $22.60 $1.10 5%
1” $32.45 $34.26 $1.81 6%
1 ½” $59.83 $63.40 $3.57 6%
2” $92.67 $98.37 $5.70 6%
3” $196.70 $209.11 $12.41 6%
4” $350.00 $372.31 $22.31 6%
6” $716.82 $762.81 $45.99 6%
8” $1,319.07 $1,403.94 $84.87 6%
10” $2,085.57 $2,219.92 $134.35 6%
12” $2,742.56 $2,919.34 $495.89 6%
Table 5: Current and Proposed Water Consumption Charges
Current
(9/1/15)
Proposed
(7/1/16)
Change
$/CCF %
W-1 (Residential) Volumetric Rates ($/CCF)
Tier 1 Rates 5.93 6.30 0.37 6%
Tier 2 Rates 8.38 8.82 0.44 5%
W-2 (Construction) Volumetric Rates ($/CCF)
Uniform Rate 6.92 7.32 0.40 6%
W-4 (Commercial) Volumetric Rates ($/CCF)
Uniform Rate 6.92 7.32 0.40 6%
W-7 (Irrigation) Volumetric Rates ($/CCF)
Uniform Rate 8.29 8.72 0.43 5%
Table 6: Current and Proposed Monthly Fire Service Charges
Meter
Size
Monthly Service Charge
($/month based on meter size) Change
Current (9/1/15) Proposed (7/1/16) $/mo %
2” $3.43 $3.79 $0.36 10%
4” $21.22 $23.42 $2.20 10%
6” $61.63 $68.03 $6.40 10%
8” $131.34 $144.97 $13.63 10%
10” $236.20 $260.70 $24.50 10%
12” $381.52 $421.11 $39.59 10%
WATER UTILITY FINANCIAL PLAN
F e b r u a r y 2 0 1 6 8 | P a g e
Table 7: Current and Proposed Drought Surcharge Charges
Current
(9/1/15)
Proposed
(7/1/16)
Change
$/CCF %
10%/15% Reduction ($/CCF)
W-1 Residential (Tier 1) 0.19 0.20 $0.01 5%
W-1 Residential (Tier 2) 0.55 0.58 0.03 5%
W-4 (Non-residential and Master
Metered Multi-Family) 0.24 0.26 0.02 8%
W-7 (Irrigation) 0.51 0.53 0.02 4%
20% Reduction ($/CCF)
W-1 Residential (Tier 1) 0.39 0.43 0.04 10%
W-1 Residential (Tier 2) 1.14 1.21 0.07 6%
W-4 (Non-residential and Master
Metered Multi-Family) 0.49 0.53 0.04 8%
W-7 (Irrigation) 1.18 1.25 0.07 6%
25% Reduction ($/CCF)
W-1 Residential (Tier 1) 0.59 0.64 0.05 8%
W-1 Residential (Tier 2) 1.76 1.85 0.09 5%
W-4 (Non-residential and Master
Metered Multi-Family) 0.72 0.77 0.05 7%
W-7 (Irrigation) 1.93 2.02 0.09 5%
SECTION 3 C : BILL IMPACT OF PROPO SED RATE CHANGES
Table 8 shows the impact of the proposed July 1, 2016 rate changes on the median residential
bill. The average increase is roughly 6%, but some customers may see slightly higher or lower
increases due to slight changes in the composition of the utility’s costs. Table 8 is presented
assuming continued activation of the drought surcharge at the 20% reduction level.
Table 8: Impact of Proposed Water Rate Changes on Residential Bills
Usage
(CCF/month)
Bill under
Current Rates
(9/15/15)
Bill under
Proposed
Rates (7/1/16)
Change
$/mo. %
4 $ 41.31 $ 43.69 $ 2.38 6%
(Winter median) 7 63.47 67.18 3.71 6%
(Annual median) 9 82.51 87.24 4.73 6%
(Summer median) 14 130.11 137.39 7.28 6%
25 234.83 247.72 12.89 5%
Table 9 shows the impact of the proposed July 1, 2016 rate changes on various representative
commercial customer bills. This comparison includes continuation of the drought surcharge at
the 20% reduction level.
WATER UTILITY FINANCIAL PLAN
F e b r u a r y 2 0 1 6 9 | P a g e
Table 9: Impact of Proposed Water Rate Changes on Commercial Bills
Usage
(CCF/month)
Bill under
Current Rates
(9/15/15)
Bill under
Proposed Rates
(7/1/16)
Change
$/mo. %
Commercial (W-4) (5/8” meters)
(Annual median) 12 $ 104.95 110.97 6.02 6%
(Annual average) 64 490.27 519.17 28.90 6%
Irrigation (W-7) (1 ½” meters)
(Winter median) 9 145 153 8 6%
(Summer median) 37 410 432 22 5%
(Winter average) 56 590 622 32 5%
(Summer average) 199 1,944 2,047 103 5%
SECTION 3 D : PROPOSED RESERVE TRANSFERS
In the FY 2016 Financial Plan, several transfers between reserves were discussed for FY 2016.
CIP related funds were transferred out of the Reappropriations Replacement into the CIP
Reserve, and $5.5 million was proposed to be transferred from the Rate Stabilization Reserve
into the Operations Reserve.
Due to the long running drought in California, and as lower expenses in FY 2015 resulted in
higher ending reserve balances than initially projected, staff recommends reducing the $5.5
million transfer from the Rate Stabilization Reserve in FY 2016 to $4.7 million, and proposes
transferring $1.87 million in FY 2017. This transfer will exhaust the Rate Stabilization Reserve, as
planned for and discussed in Section 4E: Reserves Structure, and is included in the financial
projections in this Financial Plan. It will enable CPAU to maintain adequate Operations Reserve
levels while moderating the pace of increase in water rates.
A proposed $4 million transfer from the CIP Reserve to the Operations Reserve was also
discussed in the FY 2016 Financial Plan. This transfer will help fund the Operations Reserve, as
well as bring the CIP Reserve closer to its target reserve level. The impact of these transfers on
reserves levels can be seen in Section 4E: Reserves Structure and Appendix A: Water Utility
Financial Forecast Detail.
SECTION 4 : UTILITY OVERVIEW
This section provides an overview of the utility and its operations. It is intended as general
background information and to help readers better understand the forecasts in Section 5:
Utility Financial Projections and Section 6: Details and Assumptions.
SECTION 4 A: WATER UTILITY HISTORY
The Water Utility was established on May 9, 1896, two years after the city was incorporated.
Voters of the 750 person community approved a $40,000 bond to buy local, private water
companies who operated one or more shallow wells to serve the nearby residents. The city
grew and the well system expanded until nine wells were in operation in 1932. Palo Alto began
WATER UTILITY FINANCIAL PLAN
F e b r u a r y 2 0 1 6 10 | P a g e
receiving water from the San Francisco Water Department (SFWD) in 1937 to supplement these
sources.
A 1950 engineering report noted, “the capricious alternation of well waters and the San
Francisco Water Department water…has made satisfactory service to the average customer
practically impossible”. By 1950, only eight wells were still in operation. Despite this,
groundwater production increased in the 1950’s leading to lower groundwater tables and water
quality concerns. In 1962, a survey of water softening costs to CPAU customers determined that
CPAU should purchase 100% of its water supply needs from the SFWD. A 20 -year contract was
signed with San Francisco, and CPAU’s wells were placed in standby condition. The SFWD later
became known as the SFPUC. Since 1962 (except for some very short periods) CPAU’s entire
supply of potable water has come from the SFPUC.
As the city grew, so did the number of mains in the water system. The system of mains
expanded along with the town, while existing sections of the system continued to ag e. In the
mid-1980s, the number of breaks in cast iron mains installed during the 1940s and earlier
started to accelerate. In FY 1994, to combat deterioration of older sections of the system, an
analysis of cost effective system improvements was performed and the rate of main
replacement was increased from one mile per year to three. A plan to replace 75 miles of
deficient mains within 25 years was begun.
In 1999, a study of system reliability concluded that major upgrades were needed to the
distribution system to provide adequate water supply during a natural disaster. This ultimately
resulted in the $40 million Emergency Water Supply and Storage Project, nearly completed,
which involved a new underground reservoir in El Camino Park, the siting and constru ction of
several emergency supply wells, and the upgrade of several existing wells and the Mayfield
pump station.
At the same time that CPAU was evaluating the reliability of its own system, the SFPUC, in
consultation with BAWSCA members, was evaluating the reliability of the Hetch Hetchy water
system, which crosses two major fault lines between the Sierras and the Bay Area. That
evaluation concluded that major upgrades to the system were required. This planning process
culminated in the SFPUC’s $4.8 billion Water System Improvement Project (WSIP), which is
ongoing.
SECTION 4 B : CUSTOMER BASE
CPAU’s Water Utility provides water service to the residents and businesses of Palo Alto, plus a
handful of residential customers not in Palo Alto (Los Altos Hills, primarily). Nearly 20,300
customers are connected to the water system, approximately 16,500 (81%) of which are
separately metered residential customers and 3,800 (19%) of which are commercial, master-
metered residential, irrigation and fire service customers.
Judging from seasonal consumption patterns, between 35% and 50% of Palo Alto’s water is
used for irrigation, and that consumption is heavily weather dependent . It also varies
significantly by season. As a result of these two factors , there is significant variability in the
amount of water that is demanded from the system month to month and year to year.
WATER UTILITY FINANCIAL PLAN
F e b r u a r y 2 0 1 6 11 | P a g e
Figure 1: Cost Structure (FY 2015)
39%
40%
21%
Water Purchases
Operations
Capital
Figure 2: Revenue Structure (FY 2015)
93%
7%
Sales of Water
Other Revenue
SECTION 4 C : DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM
To deliver water to its customers, the utility owns roughly 233 miles of mains (which transport
the water from the SFPUC meters at the city’s borders to the customer’s service laterals and
meters), eight wells (to be used in emergencies), five water storage reservoirs (also for
emergency purposes) and several tanks used to moderate pressure and deal with peaks in flow
and demand (due to fire suppression, heavy usage times, etc.). These represent the vast
majority of the infrastructure used to distribute water in Palo Alto.
SECTION 4 D : COST STRUCTURE AND REVENUE SOURCES
As shown in Figure 1, water purchase
costs accounted for roughly 39% of the
Water Utility’s costs in FY 2015.
Operational costs represented roughly
40%, and capital investment was
responsible for the remaining 21%.
Water purchase costs are projected to
rise to roughly 41% of costs by FY 2026.
The Water Utility receives 93% of its
revenue from sales of water and the
remainder from capacity and connection
fees, interest on reserves, and other
sources. As rates increase over the next
several years, the percentage of revenue
from sales of water is expected to
increase as well. Appendix A: Water
Utility Financial Forecast Detail shows
more detail on the utility’s cost and
revenue structures. Roughly 15% of the
utility’s revenues come from fixed
service charges, though most of its costs
are fixed. This is typical for California
water utilities, and conforms to the Best
Management Practices (BMPs) of the
California Urban Water Conservation Council (CUWCC), a statewide conservation council of
environmental groups, state agencies, and water utilities to which the City is a signatory. One
of CUWCC’s BMPs is that a utility’s revenue from fixed service charges constitute s at most 30%
of the utility’s total revenue from all charges1.
1 See http://www.cuwcc.org/Resources/Memorandum-of-Understanding/Exhibit-1-BMP-Definitions-Schedules-
and-Requirements/BMP-1-Utility-Operations-Programs
WATER UTILITY FINANCIAL PLAN
F e b r u a r y 2 0 1 6 12 | P a g e
SECTION 4 E : RESERVES STRUCTURE
CPAU maintains six reserves for its Water Utility to manage various types of contingencies.
These are summarized below, but see Appendix C: Water Utility Reserves Management
Practices for more detailed definitions and guidelines for reserve management:
Reserve for Commitments: A reserve equal to the utility’s outstanding contract
liabilities for the current fiscal year. Most City funds, including the General Fund, have a
Commitments Reserve.
Reserve for Reappropriations: A reserve for funds dedicated to projects reappropriated
by the City Council, nearly all of which are capital projects. Most City funds, including
the General Fund, have a Reappropriations Reserve.
Capital Improvement Program (CIP) Reserve: The CIP reserve can be used to
accumulate funds for future expenditure on CIP projects and is anticipated to be empty
unless a major one-time CIP expenditure is expected in future years. This CIP can also
act as a contingency reserve for the CIP. This type of reserve is used in other utility funds
(Electric, Gas, and Wastewater Collection) as well.
Rate Stabilization Reserve: This reserve is intended to be empty unless one or more
large rate increases are anticipated in the forecast period. In that case, funds can be
accumulated to spread the impact of those future rate increases across multiple years.
This type of reserve is used in other utility funds (Electric, Gas, and Wastewater
Collection) as well.
Operations Reserve: This is the primary contingency reserve for the Water Utility, and is
used to manage yearly variances from budget for operational water supply costs. This
type of reserve is used in other utility funds (Electric, Gas, and Wastewater Collection)
as well.
Unassigned Reserve: This reserve is for any funds not assigned to the other reserves
and is normally empty.
SECTION 4 F : COMPETITIVENESS
Table 10 shows the current water bills for residential customers compared to what they would
be under surrounding communities’ rate schedules. CPAU has the highest monthly bills of the
group, although bills for smaller water users are less than in some surrounding communities.
WATER UTILITY FINANCIAL PLAN
F e b r u a r y 2 0 1 6 13 | P a g e
Table 10: Residential Monthly Water Bill Comparison
Usage
(CCF/month)
Residential monthly bill comparison ($/month)*
As of February 2016
Palo
Alto
Menlo
Park
Mountain
View Hayward
Redwood
City
Santa
Clara
4 41.31 44.11 31.46 28.68 43.69 16.64
(Winter median) 7 63.47 62.25 48.77 48.42 57.13 29.12
(Annual median) 9 82.51 74.36 60.31 61.58 66.77 37.44
(Summer median) 14 130.11 106.12 89.16 96.24 95.46 58.24
25 234.83 176.80 187.23 181.49 182.14 104.00
* All comparisons use the 5/8” meter size.
SECTION 5 : UTILITY FINANCIAL PROJECTIONS
SECTION 5 A : LOAD FORECAST
Figure 3 shows 40 years of water consumption history. Average water use has trended
downward over time even as Palo Alto’s population has grown. Significant water use reductions
over the 40-year history were in response to requests to reduce water use in the 1976-77 and
1988-92 drought periods. During these periods, customers invested in efficient equipment and
modified behavior to achieve the water reduction goals. More recently, water sales decreased
substantially during the 2007-2009 recession and during the current drought. Water use is
down by similar amounts among both commercial and residential customers. Both summertime
and wintertime use have decreased for all customer classes.
Figure 3: Historical Water Consumption
WATER UTILITY FINANCIAL PLAN
F e b r u a r y 2 0 1 6 14 | P a g e
Figure 4 shows the forecast of water consumption through FY 2026, as denoted by the dotted
line.
Figure 4: Forecast Water Consumption
Palo Alto is currently experiencing drought conditions with State mandated 24% water use
restrictions in effect. The current forecast assumes current conditions continue through FY
2017, with the drought easing in spring of 2017. It also assumes consumption only returns to
50% of its pre-drought levels, which is consistent with patterns experienced in prior droughts.
SECTION 5 B : FY 20 11 TO FY 2015 COST AND REVENUE TRENDS
Figure 5 and the tables in Appendix A: Water Utility Financial Forecast Detail show how costs
have changed during the last five years as well as how they are projected to change over the
next decade.
The annual expenses for the water utility rose substantially between 20 11 and 2015. The
increases were primarily related to water purchase costs, which increased 47% from $10.7
million in FY 2011 to $15.7 million in FY 2014. A more in-depth discussion of water purchase
costs will be found in Section 6A: Water Purchase Costs. Operations cost increased by about 3%
annually, while CIP costs stayed relatively flat, except in FY 2013 when there was a hold on new
CIP spending to permit completion of a backlog of projects. This budgetary hold allowed for
backlogged water main replacement projects to be started, which consumed surplus capital
reserves.
WATER UTILITY FINANCIAL PLAN
F e b r u a r y 2 0 1 6 15 | P a g e
Figure 5: Water Utility Expenses, Revenues, and Rate Changes:
Actual Costs through FY 2015 and Projections through FY 2026
SECTION 5 C : FY 2015 RESULTS
In early 2014, when proposing rate adjustments to be effective on July 1, 2014, staff forecast
the need for a 4% rate increase. However, higher sales in FY 2014, and projected increased
sales in FY 2015 increased reserves such that no rate change was needed for FY 2015. Forecast
revenues for FY 2015 were actually $41.2 million instead of the projected revenues of $36.4
million. The largest reason for this was a return of funds related to a return of CIP funds.
Connection and capacity fees were, and have continued to be, higher than forecast. Actual
expenses for FY 2015 were $40.1 million compared to the projected expenses of $38.7 million.
Table 11 summarizes the variances from forecast.
Actual Projected
WATER UTILITY FINANCIAL PLAN
F e b r u a r y 2 0 1 6 16 | P a g e
Table 11: FY 2015, Actual Results vs. 2014 Forecast
Net Cost/
(Benefit)
Type of
change
Return of capital project funds ($2,667,000) Revenue increase
Connection and capacity fees higher than forecast ($1,043,000) Revenue increase
Water supply costs lower than expected (700,000) Cost savings
Other revenues (interest income, etc.) were higher than
forecasted
($1,152,000) Revenue increase
Operations costs lower than expected (1,300,000) Cost savings
Capital project costs higher than projected 3,500,000 Cost increase
Net Cost / (Benefit) of Variances ($3,362,000)
SECTION 5 D : FY 2016 PROJECTIONS
Several factors have contributed to changes between last year’s forecast and this year’s
projections. Most notably, the ongoing drought has reduced projected FY 2016 sales by around
12%. The activation of a drought rate surcharge in September 2015, however, means that FY
2016 revenues are projected to be only 4.6% lower than forecast. On the cost side, reduced
purchases and lower than forecast wholesale supply rates from the SFPUC are expected to
result in supply cost decreases of 13.7% for FY 2016. Notable are projected CIP cost increases of
$2.3 million, or 26%, mainly due to general cost increases and completing some projects. Table
12 summarizes the changes from last year’s forecast.
Table 12: FY 2016 Change in Projected Results, 2016 Forecast vs 2017 Forecast
Net Cost/
(Benefit)
Type of
change
Lower purchase costs ($2,809,000) Cost savings
Higher misc. revenues (interest income, fees) ($111,000) Revenue increase
Lower sales revenue $2,039,000 Revenue decrease
Capital project costs higher than projected $2,315,000 Cost increase
Higher Operations budgets $163,000 Cost increase
Net Cost / (Benefit) of Variances $1,507,000
SECTION 5 E : FY 2017 – FY 2026 PROJECTIONS
As can be seen in Figure 5 above, costs for the Water Utility are not projected to change
significantly between FY 2016 and FY 2017. However, as discussed earlier, water supply costs
are the main reason for the cost increases. Water supply costs are projected to increase by 7%
in FY 2017 and grow steadily over the coming years. Operations costs include will increase by $1
million in FY 2017 for emergency generator leasing and maintenance, but will otherwise
roughly match inflation through the forecast period. Capital investment costs are also expected
to increase at the same rate of inflation used in the City’s long-term financial plans (2.5 to
3%/year), though there is still uncertainty with regard to the utility’s future costs for main
replacement. See Section 6: Details and Assumptions for more detail on the costs that make up
these projections, as well as the various assumptions underlying the projections.
WATER UTILITY FINANCIAL PLAN
F e b r u a r y 2 0 1 6 17 | P a g e
Revenues are below expenses and will require annual rate increases between 6% and 9%
through FY 2020 to keep up with these cost increases even with the use of the Rate
Stabilization Reserve to spread the increases over multiple years. Costs have already increased
substantially over the last few years, and revenues have not kept pace. Sales revenues were
adequate in FY 2014 due to lower than average CIP expenditures in that year, but starting in FY
2015 deficits are forecast. To help close this gap, revenues were increased by 12% in FY 2016.
Reserves trends based on these revenue projections are shown in Figure 6 below. The Rate
Stabilization Reserve is projected to have a zero balance by the end of FY 2017, and the CIP
Reserve is projected to decrease by $4 million by the end of FY 2017. Assuming these increases
in revenue, the Operations Reserve, the main contingency reserve, is expected to remain above
the minimum reserve level and will be adequate to meet all identified risks, as discussed in
Section 5F: Risk Assessment and Reserves Adequacy.
These projections assume that drought restrictions end in FY 2017, and that the request for
water usage reductions remains at 24%. If the drought worsens or continues longer than
projected, the level of the drought surcharge currently in place may need to be reviewed. The
forecast also assumes that water main replacement project costs do not increase by more than
inflation. This is a major uncertainty as staff awaits the results of the Water Master Plan study
to determine the advisable water main replacement strategy.
Figure 6: Water Utility Reserves
Actual Reserve Levels for FY 2015 and Projections through FY 2026
WATER UTILITY FINANCIAL PLAN
F e b r u a r y 2 0 1 6 18 | P a g e
SECTION 5 F : RISK ASSESSMENT AND RESERVES ADEQUAC Y
The Water Utility currently has one contingency reserve, the Operations Reserve, and this
Financial Plan maintains reserves within the approved reserve maximum and minimum
guidelines throughout the forecast period, as shown in Figure 7. Reserve levels also exceed the
short term risk assessment for the utility. Note that while the Operations Reserve is above the
target level in FY 2017, it falls to below the target (but above the minimum) in FY 2018 through
FY 2020.
Figure 7: Operations Reserve Adequacy
Table 13 summarizes the risk assessment calculation for the Water Utility through FY 2021. The
same methodology is used for FY 2022 through FY 2026 as well . The risk assessment includes
the revenue shortfall that could accrue due to:
1. Lower than forecasted sales revenue; and
2. An increase of 10% of planned system improvement CIP expenditures for the budget
year.
WATER UTILITY FINANCIAL PLAN
F e b r u a r y 2 0 1 6 19 | P a g e
Table 13: Water Risk Assessment ($000)
FY 2017 FY 2018 FY 2019 FY 2020 FY 2021
Total non-commodity revenue $18,406 $20,744 $23,233 $24,976 $25,226
Max. revenue variance, previous ten years 13% 13% 13% 13% 13%
Risk of revenue loss $1,819 $2,050 $2,296 $2,468 $2,492
CIP Budget $10,216 $10,012 $10,252 $10,555 $10,867
CIP Contingency @10% $1,022 $1,001 $1,025 $1,056 $1,087
Total Risk Assessment value $2,840 $3,051 $3,321 $3,523 $3,579
SECTION 5 G : ALTERNATE SCENAR IOS
At the UAC’s February 2016 meeting, it was suggested that staff prepare two alternate
scenarios for rate increases. The first (“Target”) scenario keeps the Operations Reserve at or
near the Target level throughout the forecast period as shown in Figure 8 below. The second
(“Minimum”) has no rate change in FY 2017 and lets the Operations Reserve stay at minimum
for five years as shown in Figure 9 below. Both options as well as the proposed rate
adjustments are shown in Table 14.
Table 14: Projected Water Rate Trajectory for FY 2017 to FY 2026
FY
2017
FY
2018
FY
2019
FY
2020
FY
2021
FY
2022
FY
2023
FY
2024
FY
2025
FY
2026
Proposed 6% 9% 9% 6% 2% 2% 2% 3% 5% 3%
Target 3% 20% 3% 2% 3% 3% 2% 4% 2% 4%
Minimum 0% 18% 7% 3% 3% 4% 3% 4% 3% 4%
The Target scenario requires a 3% rate increase (smaller than the proposed 6% increase) in FY
2017, but requires a very large rate increase (20%) in FY 2018 to make up for another year with
a significant deficit with revenues not covering costs. The level of the Operations Reserve in the
target scenario is shown in Figure 8 below.
The Minimum scenario also requires a significant rate increase (18%) in FY 2018 if no rate
change is implemented in FY 2017 with a large (7%) rate increase required for FY 2019. The
level of the Operations Reserve in the target scenario is shown in Figure 9 below.
Staff recommends a 6% water rate increase in FY 2017 to moderate the rate increases that are
projected in FY 2018 while keeping the Water Operations Reserve at healthy levels.
WATER UTILITY FINANCIAL PLAN
F e b r u a r y 2 0 1 6 20 | P a g e
Figure 8: Operations Reserve at Target Level
Figure 9: Operations Reserve at Minimum for FY 2018 through FY 2021
WATER UTILITY FINANCIAL PLAN
F e b r u a r y 2 0 1 6 21 | P a g e
SECTION 5 H : LONG -TERM OUTLOOK
CPAU has put its Water Utility on strong footing by investing in its distribution system
infrastructure and emergency water facilities over the last 20 years. The Water System Master
Plan, currently under review, will give CPAU a better picture of the long-term outlook for its
infrastructure and will result in a plan for an appropriate schedule for infrastructure
replacement and upgrades. In addition, CPAU’s water supplier, the SFPUC, has replaced and
seismically strengthened its water transmission infrastructure, which will benefit Palo Alto and
all Hetch Hetchy customers over the long term.
The opportunities for CPAU’s Water Utility over the long term may be in alternative water
supplies such as recycled water, groundwater, and water from the Santa Clara Vall ey Water
District. These alternatives have been analyzed in the past, and will be analyzed again in an
upcoming update to the Water Integrated Resource Plan. Some of these alternatives may
provide cost savings or increased drought protection.
Climate change may begin to present challenges for the Water Utility over the next 20 to 40
years. Availability of water from SFPUC’s Regional Water System may change with changing
seasonal precipitation patterns. Water consumption patterns may change. Consumption could
increase due to drier weather or decrease as customers become even more focused on water
conservation. Droughts may become more frequent. The risk of wildfire in the foothills could
increase, possibly threatening utility infrastructure or placing greater demands on it. Sea level
rise could result in greater exposure of utility infrastructure to saltwater intrusion or the need
to protect infrastructure from inundation, possibly resulting in higher maintenance and
replacement costs. It could also affect the groundwater aquifer that the utility relies on in
emergencies. Any of these could result in increases to the costs of operating the Water Utility.
As part of the Sustainability/Climate Action Plan, CPAU is currently working on a Climate
Change Adaptation Roadmap that will begin to assess some of these risks.
SECTION 6 : DETAILS AND ASSUMPTI ONS
SECTION 6 A : WATER P URCHASE COSTS
CPAU purchases all of the potable water supplies from the SFPUC, which owns and operates the
Hetch Hetchy Regional Water System. CPAU is one of several agencies that purchase water
from the SFPUC, all of whom are members of the Bay Area Water Supply and Conservation
Agency (BAWSCA). Palo Alto uses roughly 7% of the water delivered by the SFPUC to BAWSCA
member agencies.
The Hetch Hetchy Regional Water System system begins with a system of reservoirs and
tunnels in the high Sierra in Yosemite County and is transported by a gravity-fed pipeline to the
Bay Area. Currently, the SFPUC is in the midst of a $4.8 billion bond-financed capital
improvement program (the Water System Improvement Program, or WSIP) to seismically
retrofit the facilities that transport water to the Bay Area. This has resulted in large increases in
the annual debt service costs assigned to wholesale customers like Palo Alto. The wholesale
customer debt service share of the WSIP is increasing from $53 million in FY 2010 to over $200
WATER UTILITY FINANCIAL PLAN
F e b r u a r y 2 0 1 6 22 | P a g e
million in FY 2020. As a result, the SFPUC’s wholesale water rate has already increased from
$1.43 per CCF in FY 2009 to $3.75 per CCF in FY 2016, and is forecasted to increase to over
$5.00 per CCF by FY 2025. Figure 10 shows the SFPUC’s actual wholesale water rate since FY
2009 and a projection through FY 2026. Note that the wholesale water rate decreased in FY
2014, but the apparent rate decrease is due to a part of the debt being directly paid by the
BAWSCA agencies. This cost is paid in addition to the wholesale water rate and add about
$0.35 to $0.45 per CCF to the wholesale rate.
The SFPUC’s water rate projections show a less steeply increasing rate trajectory after all of the
debt for the WSIP has been issued. Parts of SFPUC’s system not included in the WSIP also may
need rehabilitation. Some of these projects are already included in the SFPUC’s rate
projections, but the SFPUC is conducting condition assessments of other “up-country” facilities,
located in the Sierras in the coming years. If the these assessments identify other facilities that
need replacement, it may result in additional rate increases beyond FY 2020 as new debt is
issued to finance the projects.
In January 2016, the SFPUC provided a range for FY 2017 wholesale water rates of between $4
and $5 per CCF. In February, the SFPUC updated its estimate for FY 2017 to $4.05/CCF, but
there is much uncertainty surrounding the length of the drought and water usage by the
BAWSCA agencies. Since the State has mandated water use reductions for most BAWSCA
agencies by 20% or more, SFPUC’s rates will invariably need to increase since its costs are
almost entirely fixed with no relation to the quantity of water that delivered by the system .
As shown in Figure 10, this year’s projection of SFPUC wholesale rates has increased from the
previous year’s projection. If the drought ends in FY 2017 and sales increase (or at least don’t
decline further), then rate projections may level out. However, if snow and rain do not
materialize, current calls for restricted usage may continue or even be increased.
WATER UTILITY FINANCIAL PLAN
F e b r u a r y 2 0 1 6 23 | P a g e
Figure 10: Historical and Projected SFPUC Wholesale Water Rate
SECTION 6 B : OPERATIONS
CPAU’s Water Utility operations include the following activities:
Administration, a category that includes charges allocated to the Water Utility for
administrative services provided by the General Fund and for Utilities Department
administration, as well as debt service and other transfers. Additional detail on Water
Utility debt service is provided in Section 6D: Debt Service
Customer Service
Engineering work for maintenance activities (as opposed to capital activities)
Operations and Maintenance of the distribution system; and
Resource Management
Appendix D: Description of Water Utility Operational Activities includes detailed descriptions of
the work associated with each of these activities.
From FY 2011 to FY 2015 Operations costs (excluding debt service, rent, and transfers)
increased 3.5% per year on average (see Figure 11). The increases were driven by allocated
charges, which increased by 7% per year on average and increases in other Operations costs,
which increased by roughly 4% per year. Debt service costs increased by $2.4 million per year as
a result of a bond issued to finance the Emergency Water Supply and Storage Project. Transfers
WATER UTILITY FINANCIAL PLAN
F e b r u a r y 2 0 1 6 24 | P a g e
have varied from year to year, but are expected to remain relatively low and stable through the
forecast period.
In FY 2017 Operations costs are projected to increase by $1 million for a capital lease of
emergency generators for various wells and pump stations. This is a new ongoing cost. Aside
from that, only inflationary increases are projected for Operations costs. Underlying these
projections are assumptions for salary and benefit costs, consumer price index, and other cost
projections that match the City’s long-range financial forecast.
Figure 11: Historical and Projected Operational Costs
SECTION 6 C : CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM (CIP)
The Water Utility’s CIP consists of the following types of projects:
Customer connections, which represents the cost when the Water Utility installs new
services or upgrades existing services at a customer’s request in response to
development or redevelopment. CPAU charges a fee to these customers to cover the
cost of these projects.
Ongoing projects, which represent the cost of replacing aging and under-recording
meters and degraded boxes and covers, minor replacements of various types of
distribution system equipment, and the cost of capitalized tools and equipment.
Actual
Regio
nal
Water
Syste
m
Projected
WATER UTILITY FINANCIAL PLAN
F e b r u a r y 2 0 1 6 25 | P a g e
One time projects, or large, non-recurring replacement of system assets (such as
reservoir rehabilitation)
Water main replacement, which represents the ongoing replacement of aging water
mains, and sometimes the services associated with those mains.
Table 15 shows the FY 2016 adopted budget, with actual spending and remaining budget as of
December 31, 2015. Also included is the five year CIP spending plan, although these figures are
preliminary pending budget discussions starting in May. The ‘committed’ column represents
funds committed to contracts for which work has not yet been completed or invoices paid.
Table 15: Budgeted Water Utility CIP Spending ($000)
*Includes unspent funds from previous years carried forward or reappropriated into the current
fiscal year
**Equal to Reserve for Reappropriations + Reserve for Commitments.
The water main replacement program funds the replacement of deteriorating water mains. The
water system consists of over 236 miles of mains, approximately 2000 fire hydrants, and over
20,000 metered service connections spanning 9 pressure zones over a 26 square mile service
area. CPAU utilizes an asset management database in conjunction with hydraulic modeling
software to prioritize capital improvements. Mains are selected by researching the
maintenance history of the system and identifying those that are undersized, corroded, and
subject to recurring breaks. CPAU uses a scoring system based on criticality in order to
prioritize which mains to replace first, and coordinates with the Public Works street
maintenance program to avoid cutting into newly repaved streets. CPAU replaces
approximately 3 miles of main per year, or 1.3% of the system.
Costs for the water main replacement program are increasing for a variety of reasons:
Fire Code regulations now mandate fire sprinklers for new residential units. To
accommodate increased fire flows, new main replacement projects require larger
diameter pipe.
CPAU has switched to high-density polyethylene (HDPE) for its mains. Installation costs
for this material are slightly higher, though lifecycle costs are lower, and the material
performs better. Joints in distribution mains are the most likely place for failure, and
sections of HDPE pipe can be fused together rather than connected with fittings. In the
long run, this will reduce losses and maintenance costs.
To take full advantage of HDPE’s fusibility, CPAU is now replacing the services along
with the water mains with new HDPE services. In the past, the existing services were
reconnected, regardless of the material. This new practice costs more in the short run,
but will provide long term benefits.
Lastly, costs have escalated after the recession.
WATER UTILITY FINANCIAL PLAN
F e b r u a r y 2 0 1 6 26 | P a g e
These factors have created some uncertainty in future water main replacement costs. If the
cost of water main replacement continues at its current levels, water main replacement
budgets will need to be increased by $1M to $2M per year to keep up the current pace of main
replacement. However, CPAU is nearing the end of a long term water main replacement
program initiated in 1993 to replace the oldest and most degraded parts of the system. Roughly
25% of the system has been replaced, and the rate of water leaks has decreased 50%. This
makes it a good time to re-evaluate the program. CPAU initiated a master planning process in
FY 2015 to evaluate the current state of the distribution system and determine the necessary
rate of main replacement in future years. Currently the utility replaces about 1.3% of the
system each year, which is an 80-year replacement cycle. The master planning process may
reveal a need for a higher main replacement rate, or may reveal that pipes are currently in good
condition and a lower rate of replacement is sufficient. Results are being reviewed and follow
up questions prepared.
If this study determines that a lower rate of main replacement is acceptable, increases to water
main replacement project budgets may not be necessary. Likewise, if the per-mile costs of main
replacement come down, that would also reduce or eliminate the need to increase main
replacement budgets. A combination of reduced costs and a reduced rate of main replacement
could even allow CPAU to reduce those budgets. However, if per-mile main replacement costs
stay at their current levels and the study reveals the need to maintain the same rate of main
replacement (or a higher rate), CPAU’s CIP costs would rise.
One project not included in this forecast is the seismic strengthening of a large water
transmission line in the foothills. Staff has engaged a consultant to investigate alternatives for
this project. The consultant is analyzing an alternative that involves installing a valve and hose
system that could be used to bypass breaks in the line while they are repaired after an
earthquake. This is a relatively low cost alternative that would not substantially affect the
financial forecast. The study is not finalized yet, however, and if it is determined that the entire
pipeline needs to be replaced, it could cost between $15 million and $20 million, which would
likely require bond financing and would substantially affect the financial forecast. The final
report with recommendations is expected to be available in 2016.
Ongoing Projects and Customer Connections are projected to cost approximately $1.9 million in
FY 2016 and increase by 3.5% per year through the end of the forecast period. Actual expenses
for these projects fluctuate annually depending on how many defective meters are discovered
and replaced during routine maintenance, as well as how much development and
redevelopment is going on that prompts the replacement or upgrade of water services. It is
worth noting that property owners pay a fee for water service replacement or expansion during
redevelopment, so when the number of projects go up (meaning higher costs for this activity),
so does fee revenue.
Aside from customer connections, the CIP plan for FY 2016 to FY 2020 is funded by utility rates
and capacity fees. The details of the plan are shown in Appendix B: Water Utility Capital
Improvement Program (CIP) Detail.
WATER UTILITY FINANCIAL PLAN
F e b r u a r y 2 0 1 6 27 | P a g e
SECTION 6 D : DEBT SERVICE
The Water Utility’s annual debt service is roughly $3.2 million per year. This is related to two
bond issuances, one requiring payments through 2026, the other through 2035. CPAU is in
compliance with all covenants on both bonds.
The first bond is the 2009 Water Revenue Bond, Series A, issued for $35 million to finance
construction of the Emergency Water Supply and Storage project (the El Camino Reservoir, new
wells, rehabilitation of existing wells and tanks, etc.) and to be retired by 2035. As part of the
‘Build America’ bond program, there is an interest payment subsidy from the Federal
Government of 35%. There is always the possibility that the federal government will choose to
stop payment on this subsidy. The automatic federal spending cuts under the Budget Control
Act (BCA) of 2011 have already reduced the subsidy by $50,000 per year, and if planned cuts
through 2021 proceed without amendment, staff estimates that the subsidy would be reduced
by over $200,000 per year by 2021. The Bipartisan Budget Act of 2013, which relieved some of
the discretionary spending cuts in the 2011 BCA, did not affect automatic cuts to the subsidy,
and actually extended the automatic cuts through 2023.
The second bond issuance is the 2011 Utility Revenue Refunding Bond, Series A, which is to be
retired in 2026. This $17.2 million issuance refinanced an earlier Water and Gas Utility bond
issuance, the 2002 Utility Revenue Bonds, Series A, which was issued to finance various capital
improvements for both systems. The Water Utility’s share of the issuance was roughly $7.8
million.
The cost of debt service for the Water Utility’s share of these bond issuances for the financial
forecast period is shown in Table 16:
Table 16: Water Utility Debt Service ($000)
FY 2016 FY 2017 FY 2018 FY 2019 FY 2020 FY 2021 FY 2022 FY 2023
2009 Water Revenue Bonds,
Series A (net of grants) 2,002 2,012 2,031 2,046 2,064 2,079 2,101 2,151
2011 Utility Revenue Bonds,
Series A 657 657 656 654 656 657 657 657
Both the 2009 and 2011 Bonds include the following covenants: 1) net revenues plus Available
Reserves shall at least equal 125% of the maximum annual debt service, and 2) Available
Reserves shall be at least 5 times the maximum annual debt service. Note that “Available
Reserves,” as defined for both bonds, include the reserves for the Gas and Electric systems, not
just the Water system. This Financial Plan maintains compliance with these covenants
throughout the forecast period, as shown in Appendix A: Water Utility Financial Forecast Detail.
The net revenues (but not the reserves) of the Water Utility are also pledged for one other
bond as shown in Table 17 below, even though the Water Utility is not responsible for the debt
service payments. The Water Utility’s reserves or net revenues would only be called upon if the
responsible utilities are unable to make their debt service payments. Staff does not currently
foresee this occurring. Requirements of the California Constitution require that any amounts
advanced from one utility to pay debt service for another utility must be repaid by the
borrowing fund.
WATER UTILITY FINANCIAL PLAN
F e b r u a r y 2 0 1 6 28 | P a g e
Table 17: Other Issuances Secured by the Water Utility’s Revenues or Reserves
Bond Issuance Responsible
Utilities
Annual Debt
Service ($000)
Secured by Water Utility’s:
Net Revenues Reserves
1995 Series A Utility
Revenue Bonds Storm Drain $680 Yes No
SECTION 6 E : OTHER REVENUES
The Water Utility receives most of its revenues from sales of water, but about 7% comes from
other sources. The largest revenue source in FY 2015 was a one-time return of previously
budgeted CIP dollars (36%). The next largest source is connection and capacity fees, which in FY
2015 represented 29% of revenue from sources other than water sales. The remainder
consisted of a variety of miscellaneous charges and transfers.
Revenues from connection and capacity fees have more than doubled since FY 2009.
Connection fees are charged to new developments that need new or replacement service
connections, while capacity fees are charged to development that put additional demands on
the water distribution system. Revenue from these sources decreased slightly during the
recession, but has increased substantially since then. Staff is forecasting lower revenue from
these sources in subsequent years, but has increased connection fees that are expected to
offset these reductions to some extent.
Other revenue sources are projected to stay stable through the forecast period, though interest
income always fluctuates depending on changes in interest rates. Some uncertainty also exists
related to the Federal government’s commitment to continuing to pay the interest subsidy on
the Build America Bonds.
SECTION 6 F : SALES REVENUES
Sales revenue projections are based on the load forecast in Section 5A: Load Forecast and the
projected rate changes shown in Figure 5. Except where stated otherwise, these load forecasts
are based on normal precipitation. Precipitation can vary substantially, however, even in non-
drought years, and this can affect revenues substantially. In dry years customers use more
water, increasing revenues, and in wet years they use less. These variations happen in the
winter, since summers have virtually no local precipitation regardless of whether it is a dry or
wet year. The variations are most likely related to winter irrigation demand.
SECTION 7 : COMMUNICATIONS PLAN
In FY 2017, communications will continue to focus on water utility rate increases, including the
reasons why and how rates may change contingent upon continued drought conditions. The
City will also communicate how infrastructure costs and rising rates from our wholesale water
supplier, the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission, increases CPAU costs and must be
recovered through rate increases. Rates communications will include a substantial update to
information on a webpage dedicated to Utilities rates, “breaking news” on the Utility home
webpage, discussion in the Proposition 218 rate adjustment notice, bill inserts, print ads, videos
WATER UTILITY FINANCIAL PLAN
F e b r u a r y 2 0 1 6 29 | P a g e
for web and television, social media posts and frequent educational updates to internal and
external stakeholders (customer service, marketing, City Manager’s Office, UAC, City Council,
business and residential customers). Other communications vehicles will include financial plans,
presentations to UAC, Finance Committee, City Council and any media coverage as a result of
the rate increases. CPAU will continue its outreach about drought conditions and importance of
water use efficiency, tying in the message that although rates are increasing, efficient usage
should mean that a customer should not see a significant increase in water utility costs on their
bills.
Water conservation outreach will include bill inserts, web updates, email blasts, videos for the
web and television, presentations to customer groups and the use of social media. To keep
customers apprised of the status and accomplishments of CIP projects, a network of project
web pages are maintained. Traffic is driven to the website via ads in publications, newspaper
inserts, and through the comprehensive portfolio of outreach strategies as outlined above.
Safety topics are also emphasized year-round. For all utility outreach, while print materials and
website pages still feature prominently, CPAU is placing more emphasis on digital advertising
content, direct mail, community safety/emergency preparation events and presentations.
WATER UTILITY FINANCIAL PLAN
F e b r u a r y 2 0 1 6 30 | P a g e
APPENDICES
Appendix A: Water Utility Financial Forecast Detail
Appendix B: Water Utility Capital Improvement Program (CIP) Detail
Appendix C: Water Utility Reserves Management Practices
Appendix D: Description of Water Utility Operational Activities
Appendix E: Sample of Water Utility Outreach Communications
APPENDIX A : WATER UTILITY FINANCIAL FORECAST D ETAIL
1 FISCAL YEAR FY 2011 FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017 FY 2018 FY 2019 FY 2020 FY 2021 FY 2022 FY 2023 FY 2024 FY 2025 FY 2026
2
3 WATER SUPPLY
4 Purchases 5,416,220 5,538,305 5,532,947 5,507,153 4,671,433 4,127,085 4,172,372 4,353,850 4,556,414 4,486,307 4,448,095 4,410,865 4,372,643 4,328,601 4,285,924 4,231,873
5 Sales 4,992,473 5,062,873 5,097,392 5,047,148 4,433,016 3,858,825 3,859,444 4,027,311 4,214,683 4,149,834 4,114,488 4,080,051 4,044,695 4,003,956 3,964,480 3,914,482
6 (530,686) -12.1%
7 BILL AND RATE CHANGES
8 Variable Charge (Supply)15%38%11%-16%25%22%7%2%2%2%2%2%2%3%3%3%
9 Variable Charge (Distribution)-7%-12%17%30%-16%10%5%15%14%9%2%2%2%3%3%6%
10 Change in System Average Rate 0%12%22%8%0%11%6%9%9%6%2%2%2%3%3%5%
11
12 STARTING RESERVES
13 Reappropriations (Non-CIP)54,000 20,000 - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
14 Commitments (Non-CIP)40,000 765,000 714,000 2,000 347,000 347,000 347,000 347,000 347,000 347,000 347,000 347,000 347,000 347,000 347,000 347,000
15 Restricted for Debt Service 3,348,000 3,348,000 3,225,000 3,225,000 3,331,000 3,316,000 3,316,000 3,316,000 3,316,000 3,316,000 3,316,000 3,316,000 3,316,000 3,316,000 3,316,000 3,316,000
16 Emergency Plant Replacement 1,000,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 - - - - - - - - - - -
17 Capital Reserve - - - - - 4,000,000 13,256,000 9,256,000 9,256,000 9,256,000 9,256,000 9,256,000 9,256,000 9,256,000 9,256,000 9,256,000
18 Rate Stabilization Reserve 17,037,000 10,639,000 7,996,000 17,272,000 20,133,000 6,567,000 1,867,000 - - - - - - - - -
19 Operations Reserve - - - - - 11,663,836 9,807,734 11,017,309 7,655,292 7,759,702 9,208,904 10,185,947 10,710,850 10,890,498 10,976,735 10,969,473
20 Unassigned - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
21 TOTAL STARTING RESERVES 21,479,000 15,772,000 12,935,000 21,499,000 24,811,000 25,893,836 28,593,734 23,936,309 20,574,292 20,678,702 22,127,904 23,104,947 23,629,850 23,809,498 23,895,735 23,888,473
22
23 REVENUES
24 Net Sales 26,133,998 30,673,882 36,647,924 39,029,262 33,654,549 36,263,267 38,159,141 40,715,075 46,016,043 48,155,815 48,584,946 49,023,735 49,587,825 50,566,700 51,576,926 53,401,555
25 Other Revenues and Transfers In 2,812,063 5,892,133 6,811,461 4,053,920 7,504,848 3,307,155 3,363,253 3,420,419 3,478,285 3,536,762 3,597,449 3,662,424 3,728,765 3,816,351 3,906,270 3,998,583
26 TOTAL REVENUES 28,946,061 36,566,015 43,459,385 43,083,182 41,159,397 39,570,422 41,522,394 44,135,494 49,494,328 51,692,577 52,182,395 52,686,158 53,316,590 54,383,051 55,483,196 57,400,138
27
28 EXPENSES 26.4%
29 Water Purchases 10,677,914 14,889,399 16,605,351 15,705,288 15,669,935 17,644,669 18,899,310 19,976,217 21,177,479 21,259,327 21,475,294 21,696,607 21,914,567 22,302,108 22,701,664 23,050,946
30 Operating Expenses
31 Administration
32 Allocated Charges 1,798,630 2,003,116 2,422,880 2,366,077 2,342,985 2,343,499 2,402,461 2,462,917 2,524,882 2,588,411 2,653,298 2,719,668 2,787,709 2,857,466 2,928,969 3,002,261
33 Rent 2,122,405 2,156,887 1,911,963 2,192,454 2,249,457 2,677,106 2,757,419 2,840,142 2,925,346 3,013,106 3,103,500 3,196,605 3,292,503 3,391,278 3,493,016 3,597,807
34 Debt Service 3,341,781 3,385,986 3,219,165 3,220,208 3,218,869 3,222,606 3,219,316 3,222,669 3,220,858 3,220,638 3,222,843 3,223,563 3,224,553 3,224,553 3,224,553 3,224,553
35 Transfers and Other Adjustments 200,286 301,963 2,241,793 335,808 63,612 376,108 383,630 391,302 399,129 407,111 415,253 423,558 432,030 432,030 432,030 432,030
36 Subtotal, Administration 7,463,102 7,847,952 9,795,801 8,114,546 7,874,923 8,619,319 8,762,826 8,917,030 9,070,214 9,229,266 9,394,893 9,563,393 9,736,794 9,905,326 10,078,567 10,256,650
37 Resource Management 575,834 552,972 557,910 570,040 488,331 601,238 621,475 642,529 664,121 686,511 706,216 724,410 743,231 762,742 782,766 803,316
38 Operations and Mtc 4,885,428 4,900,606 4,944,064 4,986,274 5,283,426 5,345,288 5,529,766 5,721,935 5,919,070 6,123,705 6,301,710 6,464,531 6,633,106 6,808,061 6,987,630 7,171,936
39 Engineering (Operating)247,488 301,278 338,659 381,502 358,128 447,404 463,096 479,457 496,243 513,680 528,735 542,422 556,602 571,328 586,444 601,959
40 Customer Service 1,476,175 1,544,608 1,584,759 1,677,926 1,821,447 2,027,659 2,098,960 2,173,305 2,249,589 2,328,837 2,397,182 2,459,257 2,523,568 2,590,368 2,658,935 2,729,318
41 Allowance for Unspent Budget - - - - - 401,476 (411,505) (424,995) (438,832) (453,167) (465,976) (477,939) (490,301) (503,100) (516,234) (529,711)
42 Subtotal, Operating Expenses 14,648,027 15,147,415 17,221,192 15,730,288 15,826,254 17,442,384 17,064,620 17,509,261 17,960,405 18,428,832 18,862,761 19,276,075 19,702,999 20,134,724 20,578,108 21,033,467
43 Capital Program Contribution 9,327,120 9,366,201 1,068,841 8,335,605 8,580,372 11,039,470 10,215,889 10,012,033 10,252,034 10,555,216 10,867,297 11,188,574 11,519,375 11,859,984 12,210,686 12,571,782
44 TOTAL EXPENSES 34,653,061 39,403,015 34,895,385 39,771,182 40,076,561 46,126,524 46,179,819 47,497,511 49,389,918 50,243,375 51,205,352 52,161,256 53,136,941 54,296,815 55,490,458 56,656,195
45
46 ENDING RESERVES
47 Reappropriations (Non-CIP)20,000 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
48 Commitments (Non-CIP)765,000 714,000 2,000 347,000 347,000 347,000 347,000 347,000 347,000 347,000 347,000 347,000 347,000 347,000 347,000 347,000
49 Restricted for Debt Service 3,348,000 3,225,000 3,225,000 3,331,000 3,316,000 3,316,000 3,316,000 3,316,000 3,316,000 3,316,000 3,316,000 3,316,000 3,316,000 3,316,000 3,316,000 3,316,000
50 Emergency Plant Replacement 1,000,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 - - - - - - - - - - - -
51 Capital Reserve - - - - 4,000,000 13,256,000 9,256,000 9,256,000 9,256,000 9,256,000 9,256,000 9,256,000 9,256,000 9,256,000 9,256,000 9,256,000
52 Rate Stabilization Reserve 10,639,000 7,996,000 17,272,000 20,133,000 6,567,000 1,867,000 - - - - - - - - - -
53 Operations Reserve - - - - 11,663,836 9,807,734 11,017,309 7,655,292 7,759,702 9,208,904 10,185,947 10,710,850 10,890,498 10,976,735 10,969,473 11,713,415
54 Unassigned - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
55 TOTAL ENDING RESERVES 15,772,000 12,935,000 21,499,000 24,811,000 25,893,836 28,593,734 23,936,309 20,574,292 20,678,702 22,127,904 23,104,947 23,629,850 23,809,498 23,895,735 23,888,473 24,632,415
56
57 OPERATIONS RESERVE
58 Min (60 days of non-capital expenses)- - - - 5,230,611 6,082,017 6,232,446 6,488,975 6,767,143 6,864,270 6,977,906 7,089,168 7,202,255 7,336,928 7,475,494 7,607,764
59 Target (90 days of non-capital expenses)- - - - 9,395,240 9,166,903 9,395,593 9,783,548 10,204,079 10,353,171 10,527,111 10,697,594 10,870,947 11,085,459 11,306,122 11,517,661
60 Max (120 days of non-capital expenses)- - - - 13,559,870 12,251,790 12,558,739 13,078,120 13,641,014 13,842,072 14,076,317 14,306,020 14,539,639 14,833,990 15,136,750 15,427,559
61 Risk Assessment Value 2,481,768 2,873,181 2,840,361 3,050,960 3,320,931 3,523,428 3,579,316 3,636,369 3,704,694 3,794,916 3,892,600 4,062,286
Appendix A (continued)
1 FISCAL YEAR FY 2011 FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017 FY 2018 FY 2019 FY 2020 FY 2021 FY 2022 FY 2023 FY 2024 FY 2025 FY 2026
2
3 REVENUES
4 Net Sales 90%84%84%91%82%92%92%92%93%93%93%93%93%93%93%93%
5 Other Revenues and Transfers In 10%16%16%9%18%8%8%8%7%7%7%7%7%7%7%7%
6 TOTAL REVENUES 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
7
8 EXPENSES
9 Water Purchases 31%38%48%39%39%38%41%42%43%42%42%42%41%41%41%41%
10 Operating Expenses
11 Administration
12 Allocated Charges 5%5%7%6%6%5%5%5%5%5%5%5%5%5%5%5%
13 Rent 6%5%5%6%6%6%6%6%6%6%6%6%6%6%6%6%
14 Debt Service 10%9%9%8%8%7%7%7%7%6%6%6%6%6%6%6%
15 Transfers and Other Adjustments 1%1%6%1%0%1%1%1%1%1%1%1%1%1%1%1%
16 Subtotal, Administration 22%20%28%20%20%19%19%19%18%18%18%18%18%18%18%18%
17 Resource Management 2%1%2%1%1%1%1%1%1%1%1%1%1%1%1%1%
18 Operations and Mtc 14%12%14%13%13%12%12%12%12%12%12%12%12%13%13%13%
19 Engineering (Operating)1%1%1%1%1%1%1%1%1%1%1%1%1%1%1%1%
20 Customer Service 4%4%5%4%5%4%5%5%5%5%5%5%5%5%5%5%
21 Allowance for Unspent Budget 0%0%0%0%0%1%-1%-1%-1%-1%-1%-1%-1%-1%-1%-1%
22 Subtotal, Operating Expenses 42%38%49%40%39%38%37%37%36%37%37%37%37%37%37%37%
23 Capital Program Contribution 27%24%3%21%21%24%22%21%21%21%21%21%22%22%22%22%
24 TOTAL EXPENSES 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
25
26 RISK ASSESSMENT DETAIL
27 Distribution Revenue Variance 1,623,731 1,769,234 1,818,772 2,049,757 2,295,727 2,467,907 2,492,586 2,517,512 2,552,757 2,608,918 2,671,532 2,805,108
28 10% CIP Program Contingency 858,037 1,103,947 1,021,589 1,001,203 1,025,203 1,055,522 1,086,730 1,118,857 1,151,938 1,185,998 1,221,069 1,257,178
29 Total Risk Asssessment Value 2,481,768 2,873,181 2,840,361 3,050,960 3,320,931 3,523,428 3,579,316 3,636,369 3,704,694 3,794,916 3,892,600 4,062,286
30 Projected Operations Reserve 11,663,836 9,807,734 11,017,309 7,655,292 7,759,702 9,208,904 10,185,947 10,710,850 10,890,498 10,976,735 10,969,473 11,713,415
31 Operations Reserve, % of Risk Value 470% 341% 388% 251% 234% 261% 285% 295% 294% 289% 282% 288%
32
33 OPERATIONS RESERVE
34 Min (60 days of non-capital expenses)- - - - 5,230,611 6,082,017 6,232,446 6,488,975 6,767,143 6,864,270 6,977,906 7,089,168 7,202,255 7,336,928 7,475,494 7,607,764
35 Target (90 days of non-capital expenses)- - - - 9,395,240 9,166,903 9,395,593 9,783,548 10,204,079 10,353,171 10,527,111 10,697,594 10,870,947 11,085,459 11,306,122 11,517,661
36 Max (120 days of non-capital expenses)- - - - 13,559,870 12,251,790 12,558,739 13,078,120 13,641,014 13,842,072 14,076,317 14,306,020 14,539,639 14,833,990 15,136,750 15,427,559
37 Risk Assessment Value 2,481,768 2,873,181 2,840,361 3,050,960 3,320,931 3,523,428 3,579,316 3,636,369 3,704,694 3,794,916 3,892,600 4,062,286
38
39 DEBT SERVICE COVERAGE RATIO
40 Net Revenues (125% of Debt Service)658% 787% 951% 876% 878% 989% 1017% 1063% 1115% 1132% 1152% 1171% 1191% 1216% 1242% 1267%
41 Available Reserves (5x Debt Service)*3.5 2.7 5.7 6.6 6.9 7.7 6.3 5.2 5.3 5.7 6.0 6.2 6.2 6.3 6.3 6.5
WATER UTILITY FINANCIAL PLAN
J u n e 1 6 , 2 0 1 4 33 | P a g e
APPENDIX B : WATER UTILITY CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM (CIP) DETAIL
WATER UTILITY FINANCIAL PLAN
J u n e 1 6 , 2 0 1 4 34 | P a g e
Appendix B: Water Utility Capital Improvement Program (CIP) Detail (Continued)
WATER UTILITY FINANCIAL PLAN
J u n e 1 6 , 2 0 1 4 35 | P a g e
APPENDIX C : WATER UTILITY RESERVES MANAGEMENT PRACTICES
The following reserves management practices shall be used when developing the W ater Utility
Financial Plan:
Section 1. Definitions
a) “Financial Planning Period” – The Financial Planning Period is the range of future fiscal
years covered by the Financial Plan. For example, for the Water Utility Financial Plan
delivered in conjunction with the FY 2015 budget, FY 2015 to FY 2021 is the Financial
Planning Period.
b) “Fund Balance” – As used in these Reserves Management Practices, Fund Balance refers
to the Utility’s Unrestricted Net Assets.
c) “Net Assets” - The Government Accounting Standards Board defines a Utility’s Net
Assets as the difference between its assets and liabilities.
d) “Unrestricted Net Assets” - The portion of the Utility’s Net Assets not invested in capital
assets (net of related debt) or restricted for debt service or other restricted purposes.
Section 2. Reserves
The Water Utility’s Fund Balance is reserved for the following purposes:
a) For existing contracts, as described in Section 3 (Reserve for Commitments)
b) For operating and capital budgets re-appropriated from previous years, as described in
Section 4 (Reserve for Re-appropriations)
c) For cash flow management and contingencies related to the Water Utility’s Capital
Improvement Program (CIP), as described in Section 5 (CIP Reserve)
d) For rate stabilization, as described in Section 6 (Rate Stabilization Reserve)
e) For operating contingencies, as described in Section 7 (Operations Reserve)
f) Any funds not included in the other reserves will be considered Unassigned Reserves
and shall be returned to ratepayers or assigned a specific purpose as described in
Section 8 (Unassigned Reserves).
Section 3. Reserve for Commitments
At the end of each fiscal year the Reserve for Commitments will be set to an amount equal
to the total remaining spending authority for all contracts in force for the Water Utility at
that time.
Section 4. Reserve for Re-appropriations
At the end of each fiscal year the Reserve for Re-appropriations will be set to an amount
equal to the amount of all remaining capital and non-capital budgets, if any, that will be re-
appropriated to the following fiscal year in accordance with Palo Alto Municipal Code
Section 2.28.090.
WATER UTILITY FINANCIAL PLAN
J u n e 1 6 , 2 0 1 4 36 | P a g e
Section 5. CIP Reserve
The CIP Reserve is used to manage cash flow for capital projects and acts as a reserve for
capital contingencies. Staff will manage the CIP Reserve according to the following
practices:
a) The following guideline levels are set forth for the CIP Reserve. These guideline levels
are calculated for each fiscal year of the Financial Planning Period based on the levels of
CIP expense budgeted for that year.
Minimum Level 12 months of budgeted CIP expense
Maximum Level 24 months of budgeted CIP expense
b) Changes in Reserves: Staff is authorized to transfer funds between the CIP Reserve and
the Reserve for Commitments when funds are added or removed from to that reserve
as a result of a change in contractual commitments related to CIP projects. Any other
additions to or withdrawals from the CIP reserve require Council action.
c) Minimum Level:
i) Funds held in the Reserve for Commitments may be counted as part of the CIP
Reserve for the purpose of determining compliance with the CIP Reserve minimum
guideline level.
ii) If, at the end of any fiscal year, the minimum guideline is not met, staff shall present
a plan to the City Council to replenish the reserve. The plan shall be delivered by the
end of the following fiscal year, and shall, at a minimum, result in the reserve
reaching its minimum level by the end of the next fiscal year. For example, if the CIP
Reserve is below its minimum level at the end of FY 2017, staff must present a plan
by June 30, 2018 to return the reserve to its minimum level by June 30, 2019. In
addition, staff may present, and the Council may adopt, an alternative plan that
takes longer than one year to replenish the reserve, or that does so in a shorter
period of time.
d) Maximum Level: If, at any time, the CIP Reserve reaches its maximum level, no funds
may be added to this reserve. If there are funds in this reserve in excess of the
maximum level staff must propose to transfer these funds to another reserve or return
them to ratepayers in the next Financial Plan. Staff may also seek City Council to
approve holding funds in this reserve in excess of the maximum level if they are held for
a specific future purpose related to the CIP.
Section 6. Rate Stabilization Reserve
Funds may be added to the Rate Stabilization Reserve by action of the City Council and
held to manage the trajectory of future year rate increases. Withdrawal of funds from
the Rate Stabilization Reserve requires Council action. If there are funds in the Rate
Stabilization Reserve at the end of any fiscal year, any subsequent Water Utility
Financial Plan must result in the withdrawal of all funds from this Reserve by the end of
the next Financial Planning Period.
WATER UTILITY FINANCIAL PLAN
J u n e 1 6 , 2 0 1 4 37 | P a g e
Section 7. Operations Reserve
The Operations Reserve is used to manage normal variations in costs and as a reserve for
contingencies. Any portion of the Water Utility’s Fund Balance not included in the reserves
described in Section 3-Section 6 above will be included in the Operations Reserve unless this
reserve has reached its maximum level as set forth in Section 7(d) below. Staff will manage
the Operations Reserve according to the following practices:
a) The following guideline levels are set forth for the Operations Reserve. These guideline
levels are calculated for each fiscal year of the Financial Planning Period based on the
levels of Operations and Maintenance (O&M) and commodity expense forecasted for
that year in the Financial Plan.
Minimum Level 60 days of O&M and commodity expense
Target Level 90 days of O&M and commodity expense
Maximum Level 120 days of O&M and commodity expense
b) Minimum Level: If, at the end of any fiscal year, the funds remaining in the Operations
Reserve are lower than the minimum level set forth above, staff shall present a plan to
the City Council to replenish the reserve. The plan shall be delivered within six months
of the end of the fiscal year, and shall, at a minimum, result in the reserve reaching its
minimum level by the end of the following fiscal year. For example, if the Operations
Reserve is below its minimum level at the end of FY 2014, staff must present a plan by
December 31, 2014 to return the reserve to its minimum level by June 30, 2015. In
addition, staff may present, and the Council may adopt, an alternative plan that takes
longer than one year to replenish the reserve.
c) Target Level: If, at the end of any fiscal year, the Operations Reserve is higher o r lower
than the target level, any Financial Plan created for the Water Utility shall be designed
to return the Operations Reserve to its target level within four years.
d) Maximum Level: If, at any time, the Operations Reserve reaches its maximum level, no
funds may be added to this reserve. Any further increase in the Water Utility’s Fund
Balance shall be automatically included in the Unassigned Reserve described in Section
8, below.
Section 8. Unassigned Reserve
If the Operations Reserve reaches its maximum level, any further additions to the Water
Utility’s Fund Balance will be held in the Unassigned Reserve. If there are any funds in the
Unassigned Reserve at the end of any fiscal year, the next Financial Plan presented to the
City Council must include a plan to assign them to a specific purpose or return them to the
Water Utility ratepayers by the end of the first fiscal year of the next Financial Planning
Period. For example, if there were funds in the Unassigned Reserves at the end of FY 2015,
and the next Financial Planning Period is FY 2016 through FY 2021, the Financial Plan shall
include a plan to return or assign any funds in the Unassign ed Reserve by the end of
FY 2016. Staff may present an alternative plan that retains these funds or returns them over
a longer period of time.
WATER UTILITY FINANCIAL PLAN
J u n e 1 6 , 2 0 1 4 38 | P a g e
APPENDIX D : DESCRIPTION OF WATER UTILITY OPERATIONAL ACTIVITI ES
This appendix describes the activities associated with the various operational activities referred
to in Section 6B: Operations of this Financial Plan.
Administration: Accounting, purchasing, legal, and other administrative functions provided by
the City’s General Fund staff, as well as shared communications services, CPAU administrative
overhead, and billing system maintenance costs. This category also includes Water Utility debt
service and rent paid to the General Fund for the land associated with reservoirs and various
other facilities.
Customer Service: This category includes the Water Utility’s share of the call center, meter
reading, collections, and billing support functions. Billing support encompasses staff time
associated with bill investigations and quality control on certain aspects of the billing process. It
does not include maintenance of the billing system itself, which is included in Administration.
This category also includes CPAU’s key account representatives, who work with large
commercial customers who have more complex requirements for their water services.
Engineering (Operating): The Water Utility’s engineers focus primarily on the CIP, but a small
portion of their time is spent assisting with distribution system maintenance.
Operations and Maintenance: This category includes the costs of a variety of distribution
system maintenance activities, including:
investigating reports of damaged mains or services and performing emergency repairs;
testing and operating valves;
monitoring water quality and reservoir levels;
monitoring the status of the different pressure zones;
flushing water at hydrants and other closed end points of the system;
building and replacing water services for new or redeveloped buildings; and
testing and replacing meters to ensure accurate sales metering.
This category also includes a variety of functions the utility shares with other City utilities,
including:
the Field Services team (which does field research of various customer service issues);
the Cathodic Protection team (which monitors and maintains the systems that prevent
corrosion in metal tanks and reservoirs); and
the General Services team (which manages and maintains equipment, paves and
restores streets after gas, water, or sewer main replacements, and provides welding
services)
Resource Management: This category includes water procurement, contract management,
water resource planning, interaction with BAWSCA, the SFPUC, and the SCVWD, and tracking of
legislation and regulation related to the water industry.
J u n e 1 6 , 2 0 1 4 39 | P a g e
APPENDIX E : SAMPLE OF WATER UTILITY OUTREACH C OMMUNICATIONS
Attachment C
* NOT YET APPROVED *
6053683
Resolution No. _________
Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Increasing Water
Rates by Amending Rate Schedules W-1 (General Residential Water
Service), W-2 (Water Service from Fire Hydrants), W-3 (Fire Service
Connections), W-4 (Residential Master-Metered and General Non-
Residential Water Service), and W-7 (Non-Residential Irrigation
Water Service)
R E C I T A L S
A. Pursuant to Chapter 12.20.010 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code, the Council of
the City of Palo Alto may by resolution adopt rules and regulations governing utility services,
fees and charges.
B. On ____, 2016, the City Council held a full and fair public hearing regarding the
proposed rate increase and considered all protests against the proposals.
C. As required by Article XIII D, Section 6 of the California Constitution and
applicable law, notice of the ________ 2016 public hearing was mailed to all City of Palo Alto
Utilities water customers by _______, 2016.
D. The City Clerk has tabulated the total number of written protests presented by
the close of the public hearing, and determined that it was less than fifty percent (50%) of the
total number of customers and property owners subject to the proposed water rate
amendments, therefore a majority protest does not exist against the proposal.
The Council of the City of Palo Alto does hereby RESOLVE as follows:
SECTION 1. Pursuant to Section 12.20.010 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code, Utility
Rate Schedule W-1 (General Residential Water Service) is hereby amended to read as attached
and incorporated. Utility Rate Schedule W-1, as amended, shall become effective July 1, 2016.
SECTION 2. Pursuant to Section 12.20.010 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code, Utility
Rate Schedule W-2 (Water Service from Fire Hydrants) is hereby amended to read as attached
and incorporated. Utility Rate Schedule W-2, as amended, shall become effective July 1, 2016.
SECTION 3. Pursuant to Section 12.20.010 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code, Utility
Rate Schedule W-3 (Fire Service Connections) is hereby amended to read as attached and
incorporated. Utility Rate Schedule W-3, as amended, shall become effective July 1, 2016.
SECTION 4. Pursuant to Section 12.20.010 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code, Utility
Rate Schedule W-4 (Residential Master-Metered and General Non-Residential Water Service) is
hereby amended to read as attached and incorporated. Utility Rate Schedule W-4, as amended,
shall become effective July 1, 2016.
Attachment C
* NOT YET APPROVED *
6053683
SECTION 5. Pursuant to Section 12.20.010 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code, Utility
Rate Schedule W-7 (Non-Residential Irrigation Water Service) is hereby amended to read as
attached and incorporated. Utility Rate Schedule W-7, as amended, shall become effective
July 1, 2016.
SECTION 6. The City Council finds as follows:
a. Revenues derived from the water rates approved by this resolution do not exceed
the funds required to provide water service.
b. Revenues derived from the water rates approved by this resolution shall not be used
for any purpose other than providing water service, and the purposes set forth in
Article VII, Section 2, of the Charter of the City of Palo Alto.
c. The amount of the water rates imposed upon any parcel or person as an incident of
property ownership shall not exceed the proportional cost of the water service
attributable to the parcel.
SECTION 7. The Council finds that the fees and charges adopted by this resolution are
charges imposed for a specific government service or product provided directly to the payor
that are not provided to those not charged, and do not exceed the reasonable costs to the City
of providing the service or product.
SECTION 8. Each of the rate schedules adopted by this resolution includes a structure of
drought surcharges that correspond to different levels of water use reduction in the City. In
order to charge the lowest drought surcharge possible, each rate schedule includes not only the
surcharge required to meet the 25% reduction level, but also surcharges reflecting two lower
levels of water use reduction. At any time, no more than one of these three surcharges will be
applicable. On August 17, 2015, Council adopted Resolution 9542 which established that the
Level 2 (20%) drought surcharges set forth on the City's schedule of water rates will be
collected on all City of Palo Alto Utilities water customer bills as of September 1, 2015 and
declared that the surcharge shall remain in effect until rescinded or modified by the City
Council.
SECTION 9. The Council finds that the adoption of this resolution changing water
rates to meet operating expenses, purchase supplies and materials, meet financial reserve
needs and obtain funds for capital improvements necessary to maintain service is not subject to
the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), pursuant to California Public Resources Code
Sec. 21080(b)(8) and Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations Sec. 15273(a). After
reviewing the staff report and all attachments presented to Council, the Council incorporates
these documents herein and finds that sufficient evidence has been presented setting forth
with specificity the basis for this claim of CEQA exemption.
Attachment C
* NOT YET APPROVED *
6053683
INTRODUCED AND PASSED:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTENTIONS:
ATTEST:
___________________________ ___________________________
City Clerk Mayor
APPROVED AS TO FORM: APPROVED:
___________________________ ___________________________
Senior Deputy City Attorney City Manager
___________________________
Director of Utilities
___________________________
Director of Administrative Services
GENERAL RESIDENTIAL WATER SERVICE
UTILITY RATE SCHEDULE W-1
CITY OF PALO ALTO UTILITIES
Issued by the City Council
Supersedes Sheet No W-1-1 Effective 97-1-20156
dated 79-1-2015 Sheet No W-1-1
A. APPLICABILITY:
This schedule applies to all separately metered single family residential water services.
B. TERRITORY:
This schedule applies everywhere the City of Palo Alto provides water services.
C. RATES:
Per Meter
Monthly Service Charge: Per Month
For 5/8-inch meter ..................................................................................................... $ 16.7703
For 3/4 inch meter ..................................................................................................... 2122.6050
For 1 inch meter ........................................................................................................ 3234.2645
For 1 1/2 inch meter .................................................................................................. 5963.4083
For 2-inch meter ........................................................................................................ 9298.3767
For 3-inch meter ........................................................................................................ 196209.1170
For 4-inch meter ........................................................................................................ 350372.3100
For 6-inch meter ........................................................................................................ 716762.8182
For 8-inch meter ........................................................................................................1,3191,403.9407
For 10-inch meter ......................................................................................................2,0852,219.9257
For 12-inch meter .......................................................................................................2,7422,919.3456
Commodity Rate: (To be added to Service Charge and applicable to all pressure zones.)
Per Hundred Cubic Feet (ccf)
Per Month All Pressure Zones
Tier 1 usage ........................................................................................................................$56.3093
Tier 2 usage (All usage over 100% of Tier 1) ........................................................................ 8.8238
ATTACHMENT D
GENERAL RESIDENTIAL WATER SERVICE
UTILITY RATE SCHEDULE W-1
CITY OF PALO ALTO UTILITIES
Issued by the City Council
Supersedes Sheet No W-1-2 Effective 97-1-20156
dated 79-1-2015 Sheet No W-1-2
Drought Surcharges:
A drought surcharge will be added to the Customer’s applicable Commodity Rate for Tier 1 and Tier
2 water usage when the City Council has determined that a water reduction level is in effect for the
City as described in Section D.3. The drought surcharges in the table below are measured in dollars
per hundred cubic feet (ccf).
Water Usage
Reduction level Level 1 (10/15%) Level 2 (20%) Level 3 (25%)
Tier 1 0.2019 0.4339 0.6459
Tier 2 0.5855 1.2114 1.8576
Temporary unmetered service to residential
subdivision developers, per connection ........................................................................ $6.00
D. SPECIAL NOTES:
1. Calculation of Cost Components
The actual bill amount is calculated based on the applicable rates in Section C above and
adjusted for any applicable discounts, surcharges and/or taxes. On a customer’s bill
statement, the bill amount may be broken down into appropriate components as
calculated under Section C.
2. Calculation of Usage Tiers
Tier 1 water usage shall be calculated and billed based upon a level of 0.2 ccf per day
rounded to the nearest whole ccf, based on meter reading days of service. As an example,
for a 30 day bill, the Tier 1 level would be 0 through 6 ccf. For further discussion of bill
calculation and proration, refer to Rule and Regulation 11.
GENERAL RESIDENTIAL WATER SERVICE
UTILITY RATE SCHEDULE W-1
CITY OF PALO ALTO UTILITIES
Issued by the City Council
Supersedes Sheet No W-1-3 Effective 97-1-20156
dated 79-1-2015 Sheet No W-1-3
3. Drought Surcharge
During period of water shortage or restrictions on local water use, the City Council may,
by resolution, declare the need for citywide water conservation at the 10/15%, 20% or
25% level. While such a resolution is in effect, a drought surcharge will apply. The
purpose of the Drought Surcharge is to recover revenues lost as a result of reduced
consumption.
{End}
WATER SERVICE FROM FIRE HYDRANTS
UTILITY RATE SCHEDULE W-2
CITY OF PALO ALTO UTILITIES
Issued by the City Council
Supersedes Sheet No W-2-1 Effective 97-1-20156
dated 79-1-2015 Sheet No W-2-1
A. APPLICABILITY:
This schedule applies to all water taken from fire hydrants for construction, maintenance, and
other uses in conformance with provisions of a Hydrant Meter Permit.
B. TERRITORY:
This schedule applies everywhere the City of Palo Alto provides water services.
C. RATES:
1. Monthly Service Charge.
METER SIZE
5/8 inch ........................................................................................................................... 50.00
3 inch ........................................................................................................................... 125.00
2. Commodity Rate: (per hundred cubic feet) ................................................................ $67.3292
3. Drought Surcharges:
A drought surcharge will be added to the Customer’s applicable Commodity Rate when the
City Council has determined that a water reduction level is in effect for the City as described in
Section D.5. The drought surcharges in the table below are measured in dollars per hundred
cubic feet (ccf).
Water Usage
Reduction level Level 1 (10/15%) Level 2 (20%) Level 3 (25%)
Surcharge 0.2624 0.5349 0.7772
D. SPECIAL NOTES:
1. Monthly charges shall include the applicable monthly service charge in addition to usage billed at
the commodity rate.
2. Any applicant using a hydrant without obtaining a Hydrant Meter Permit or any permittee using a
hydrant without a Hydrant Meter Permit shall pay a fee of $50.00 for each day of such use in
WATER SERVICE FROM FIRE HYDRANTS
UTILITY RATE SCHEDULE W-2
CITY OF PALO ALTO UTILITIES
Issued by the City Council
Supersedes Sheet No W-2-2 Effective 97-1-20156
dated 79-1-2015 Sheet No W-2-2
addition to all other costs and fees provided in this schedule. A hydrant permit may be denied or
revoked for failure to pay such fee.
3. A meter deposit of $750.00 may be charged any applicant for a Hydrant Meter Permit as a
prerequisite to the issuance of a permit and meter(s). A charge of $50.00 per day will be added for
delinquent return of hydrant meters. A fee will be charged for any meter returned with missing or
damaged parts.
4. Any person or company using a fire hydrant improperly or without a permit, or who draws water
from a hydrant without a meter installed and properly recording usage shall, in addition to all other
applicable charges be subject to criminal prosecution pursuant to the Palo Alto Municipal Code.
5. During period of water shortage or restrictions on local water use, the City Council may, by
resolution, declare the need for citywide water conservation at the 10/15%, 20% or 25% level.
While such a resolution is in effect, a drought surcharge will apply. The purpose of the Drought
Surcharge is to recover revenues lost as a result of reduced consumption.
{End}
WATER SERVICE FROM FIRE HYDRANTS
UTILITY RATE SCHEDULE W-2
CITY OF PALO ALTO UTILITIES
Issued by the City Council
Supersedes Sheet No W-2-1 Effective 97-1-20156
dated 79-1-2015 Sheet No W-2-1
A. APPLICABILITY:
This schedule applies to all water taken from fire hydrants for construction, maintenance, and
other uses in conformance with provisions of a Hydrant Meter Permit.
B. TERRITORY:
This schedule applies everywhere the City of Palo Alto provides water services.
C. RATES:
1. Monthly Service Charge.
METER SIZE
5/8 inch ........................................................................................................................... 50.00
3 inch ........................................................................................................................... 125.00
2. Commodity Rate: (per hundred cubic feet) ................................................................ $67.3292
3. Drought Surcharges:
A drought surcharge will be added to the Customer’s applicable Commodity Rate when the
City Council has determined that a water reduction level is in effect for the City as described in
Section D.5. The drought surcharges in the table below are measured in dollars per hundred
cubic feet (ccf).
Water Usage
Reduction level Level 1 (10/15%) Level 2 (20%) Level 3 (25%)
Surcharge 0.2624 0.5349 0.7772
D. SPECIAL NOTES:
1. Monthly charges shall include the applicable monthly service charge in addition to usage billed at
the commodity rate.
2. Any applicant using a hydrant without obtaining a Hydrant Meter Permit or any permittee using a
hydrant without a Hydrant Meter Permit shall pay a fee of $50.00 for each day of such use in
WATER SERVICE FROM FIRE HYDRANTS
UTILITY RATE SCHEDULE W-2
CITY OF PALO ALTO UTILITIES
Issued by the City Council
Supersedes Sheet No W-2-2 Effective 97-1-20156
dated 79-1-2015 Sheet No W-2-2
addition to all other costs and fees provided in this schedule. A hydrant permit may be denied or
revoked for failure to pay such fee.
3. A meter deposit of $750.00 may be charged any applicant for a Hydrant Meter Permit as a
prerequisite to the issuance of a permit and meter(s). A charge of $50.00 per day will be added for
delinquent return of hydrant meters. A fee will be charged for any meter returned with missing or
damaged parts.
4. Any person or company using a fire hydrant improperly or without a permit, or who draws water
from a hydrant without a meter installed and properly recording usage shall, in addition to all other
applicable charges be subject to criminal prosecution pursuant to the Palo Alto Municipal Code.
5. During period of water shortage or restrictions on local water use, the City Council may, by
resolution, declare the need for citywide water conservation at the 10/15%, 20% or 25% level.
While such a resolution is in effect, a drought surcharge will apply. The purpose of the Drought
Surcharge is to recover revenues lost as a result of reduced consumption.
{End}
FIRE SERVICE CONNECTIONS
UTILITY RATE SCHEDULE W-3
CITY OF PALO ALTO UTILITIES
Issued by the City Council
Supersedes Sheet No W-3-1 Effective 97-1-20156
dated 79-1-2015 Sheet No W-3-1
A. APPLICABILITY:
This schedule applies to all public fire hydrants and private fire service connections.
B. TERRITORY:
This schedule applies everywhere the City of Palo Alto provides water services.
C. RATES:
1. Monthly Service Charges
Public Fire Hydrant .................................................................................................... $5.00
Private Fire Service:
2-inch connection .......................................................................................................$3.7943
4-inch connection .......................................................................................................2123.4222
6-inch connection ....................................................................................................... 6168.0363
8-inch connection .......................................................................................................131144.9734
10-inch connection .....................................................................................................236260.7020
12-inch connection .....................................................................................................381421.1152
2. Commodity (To be added to Service Charge unless water is used for fire extinguishing or
testing purposes.)
Per Hundred Cubic Feet
All water usage........................................................................................................... $10.00
D. SPECIAL NOTES:
1. Service under this schedule may be discontinued if water is used for any purpose other
than fire extinguishing or testing and repairing the fire extinguishing facilities. Using
hydrants and fire services for other purposes is illegal and will be subject to the
commodity charge as noted above, fines, and criminal prosecution pursuant to the Palo
Alto Municipal Code.
2. For a combination water and fire service, the general water service schedule shall apply.
FIRE SERVICE CONNECTIONS
UTILITY RATE SCHEDULE W-3
CITY OF PALO ALTO UTILITIES
Issued by the City Council
Supersedes Sheet No W-3-2 Effective 97-1-20156
dated 79-1-2015 Sheet No W-3-2
3. Utilities Rule and Regulation No. 21 provides additional information on Automatic Fire
Services.
4. Repairs and testing of fire extinguishing facilities are not considered unauthorized use of
water if records and documentation are supplied by the customer.
{End}
RESIDENTIAL MASTER-METERED AND
GENERAL NON-RESIDENTIAL WATER SERVICE
UTILITY RATE SCHEDULE W-4
CITY OF PALO ALTO UTILITIES
Issued by the City Council
Supersedes Sheet No W-4-1 Effective 97-1-20156
dated 79-1-2015 Sheet No W-4-1
A. APPLICABILITY:
This schedule applies to non-residential water service in the City of Palo Alto and its distribution
area. This schedule is also applicable to multi-family residential customers served through a master
meter.
B. TERRITORY:
This schedule applies everywhere the City of Palo Alto provides water services.
C. RATES:
Per Meter
Monthly Service Charge Per Month
For 5/8-inch meter .................................................................................... $ 16.7703
For 3/4-inch meter .................................................................................... 2122.6050
For 1-inch meter .................................................................................... 3234.2645
For 1 ½-inch meter .................................................................................... 5963.4083
For 2-inch meter .................................................................................... 9298.3767
For 3-inch meter .................................................................................... 196209.1170
For 4-inch meter .................................................................................... 350372.3100
For 6-inch meter .................................................................................... 716762.8182
For 8-inch meter ....................................................................................1,319403.9407
For 10-inch meter ....................................................................................2,085219.9257
For 12-inch meter ....................................................................................2,742919.3456
Commodity Rates: (to be added to Service Charge)
Per Hundred Cubic Feet (ccf)
Per Month All Pressure Zones
Per ccf ............................................................................................................ $ 67.3292
RESIDENTIAL MASTER-METERED AND
GENERAL NON-RESIDENTIAL WATER SERVICE
UTILITY RATE SCHEDULE W-4
CITY OF PALO ALTO UTILITIES
Issued by the City Council
Supersedes Sheet No W-4-2 Effective 97-1-20156
dated 79-1-2015 Sheet No W-4-2
Drought Surcharges:
A drought surcharge will be added to the Customer’s applicable Commodity Rate when the City
Council has determined that a water reduction level is in effect for the City as described in Section
D.2. The drought surcharges in the table below are measured in dollars per hundred cubic feet
(ccf).
Water Usage
Reduction level Level 1 (10/15%) Level 2 (20%) Level 3 (25%)
Surcharge 0.2624 0.4953 0.7772
D. SPECIAL NOTES:
1. Calculation of Cost Components
The actual bill amount is calculated based on the applicable rates in Section C above and
adjusted for any applicable discounts, surcharges and/or taxes. On a customer’s bill
statement, the bill amount may be broken down into appropriate components as
calculated under Section C.
2. Drought Surcharge
During period of water shortage or restrictions on local water use, the City Council may,
by resolution, declare the need for citywide water conservation at the 10/15%, 20% or
25% level. While such a resolution is in effect, a drought surcharge will apply. The
purpose of the Drought Surcharge is to recover revenues lost as a result of reduced
consumption.
{End}
NON-RESIDENTIAL IRRIGATION WATER SERVICE
UTILITY RATE SCHEDULE W-7
CITY OF PALO ALTO UTILITIES
Issued by the City Council
Supersedes Sheet No W-7-1 Effective 97-1-20156
dated 79-1-2015 Sheet No W-7-1
A. APPLICABILITY:
This schedule applies to non-residential water service supplying dedicated irrigation meters in the
City of Palo Alto and its distribution area.
B. TERRITORY:
This schedule applies everywhere the City of Palo Alto provides water services.
C. RATES:
Per Meter
Monthly Service Charge Per Month
For 5/8-inch meter .................................................................................... $ 16.7703
For 3/4-inch meter .................................................................................... 2122.6050
For 1-inch meter .................................................................................... 3234.2645
For 1 1/2 inch meter .................................................................................... 5963.4083
For 2-inch meter .................................................................................... 9298.3767
For 3-inch meter .................................................................................... 196209.1170
For 4-inch meter .................................................................................... 350372.3100
For 6-inch meter .................................................................................... 716762.8182
For 8-inch meter ....................................................................................1,319403.9407
For 10-inch meter ....................................................................................2,085219.9257
For 12-inch meter ....................................................................................2,742919.3456
Commodity Rates: (to be added to Service Charge)
Per Hundred Cubic Feet (ccf)
Per Month All Pressure Zones
Per ccf ............................................................................................................ $ 8.7229
Drought Surcharges:
A drought surcharge will be added to the Customer’s applicable Commodity Rate when the City
Council has determined that a water reduction level is in effect for the City as described in Section
D.2. The drought surcharges in the table below are measured in dollars per hundred cubic feet (ccf).
NON-RESIDENTIAL IRRIGATION WATER SERVICE
UTILITY RATE SCHEDULE W-7
CITY OF PALO ALTO UTILITIES
Issued by the City Council
Supersedes Sheet No W-7-2 Effective 97-1-20156
dated 79-1-2015 Sheet No W-7-2
Water Usage
Reduction level Level 1 (10/15%) Level 2 (20%) Level 3 (25%)
Surcharge 0.5351 1.2518 12.0293
D. SPECIAL NOTES:
1. Calculation of Cost Components
The actual bill amount is calculated based on the applicable rates in Section C above and
adjusted for any applicable discounts, surcharges and/or taxes. On a customer’s bill
statement, the bill amount may be broken down into appropriate components as
calculated under Section C.
2. Drought Surcharge
During period of water shortage or restrictions on local water use, the City Council may,
by resolution, declare the need for citywide water conservation at the 10/15%, 20% or
25% level. While such a resolution is in effect, a drought surcharge will apply. The
purpose of the Drought Surcharge is to recover revenues lost as a result of reduced
consumption.
{End}