The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2020-05-20 Utilities Advisory Commission Agenda PacketAMERICANS WITH DISABILITY ACT (ADA) Persons with disabilities who require auxiliary aids or services in using City facilities, services or programs or who would like information on the City’s compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) of 1990, may contact (650) 329-2550 (Voice) 24 hours in advance. NOTICE IS POSTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 54954.2(a) OR 54956 ****BY VIRTUAL TELECONFERENCE ONLY*** https://zoom.us/join Meeting ID: 966-9129-7246 Phone: 1 (669) 900-6833 Pursuant to the provisions of California Governor’s Executive Order N-29-20, issued on March 17, 2020, to prevent the spread of COVID-19, this meeting will be held by virtual teleconference only, with no physical location. The meeting will be broadcast on Cable TV Channel 26, live on YouTube at https://www.youtube.com/c/cityofpaloalto, and Midpen Media Center at https://midpenmedia.org. Members of the public who wish to participate by computer or phone can find the instructions at the end of this agenda. 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 April 15, 2020 IV.AGENDA REVIEW AND REVISIONS V.REPORTS FROM COMMISSIONER MEETINGS/EVENTS VI.UTILITIES DIRECTOR REPORT VII.COMMISSIONER COMMENTS VIII.UNFINISHED BUSINESS - None IX.NEW BUSINESS 1.Update and Discussion of the COVID-19 Health Emergency and the City's Response- Verbal Discussion Presentation, no Report 2.Discussion of Potential Goals and Key Actions Related to the 2020 Sustainability & Climate Discussion Action Plan UTILITIES ADVISORY COMMISSION – SPECIAL MEETING WEDNESDAY, May 20, 2020 – 9:00 A.M. ZOOM Webinar Chairman: Michael Danaher  Vice Chair: Lisa Forssell  Commissioners: Donald Jackson, A.C. Johnston, Greg Scharff, Lauren Segal, and Loren Smith  Council Liaison: Alison Cormack Presentation AMERICANS WITH DISABILITY ACT (ADA) Persons with disabilities who require auxiliary aids or services in using City facilities, services or programs or who would like information on the City’s compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) of 1990, may contact (650) 329-2550 (Voice) 24 hours in advance. Discussion Action 3.Discussion of Accounting for Leaked Natural Gas in Palo Alto Greenhouse Gas Emissions 4.Staff Recommendation That the Utilities Advisory Commission Recommend the City Council Adopt the Proposed Operating and Capital Budgets for the Utilities Department for Fiscal Year 2021 Report 5.Selection of Potential Topic(s) for Discussion at Future UAC Meeting Action NEXT SCHEDULED MEETING: June 17, 2020 ADDITIONAL INFORMATION - The materials below are provided for informational purposes, not for action or discussion during UAC Meetings (Govt. Code Section 54954.2(a)(2)). Informational Reports 12-Month Rolling Calendar Public Letter(s) to the UAC Presentation Presentation AMERICANS WITH DISABILITY ACT (ADA) Persons with disabilities who require auxiliary aids or services in using City facilities, services or programs or who would like information on the City’s compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) of 1990, may contact (650) 329-2550 (Voice) 24 hours in advance. PUBLIC COMMENT INSTRUCTIONS Members of the Public may provide public comments to teleconference meetings via email, teleconference, or by phone. 1.Written public comments may be submitted by email to UACPublicMeetings@CityofPaloAlto.org. 2.Spoken public comments using a computer will be accepted through the teleconference meeting. To address the Commission, click on the link below for the appropriate meeting to access a Zoom- based meeting. Please read the following instructions carefully. A.You may download the Zoom client or connect to the meeting in-browser. If using your browser, make sure you are using a current, up-to-date browser: Chrome 30+, Firefox 27+, Microsoft Edge 12+, Safari 7+. Certain functionality may be disabled in older browsers including Internet Explorer. B.You will be asked to enter an email address and name. We request that you identify yourself by name as this will be visible online and will be used to notify you that it is your turn to speak. C.When you wish to speak on an agenda item, click on “raise hand.” The Attendant will activate and unmute speakers in turn. Speakers will be notified shortly before they are called to speak. D.When called, please limit your remarks to the time limit allotted. E.A timer will be shown on the computer to help keep track of your comments. 3.Spoken public comments using a smart phone use the telephone number listed below. When you wish to speak on an agenda item hit *9 on your phone so we know that you wish to speak. You will be asked to provide your first and last name before addressing the Council. You will be advised how long you have to speak. When called please limit your remarks to the agenda item and time limit allotted. Join Zoom Webinar Here Meeting ID: 966-9129-7246 Phone number: Utilities Advisory Commission Minutes Approved on: Page 1 of 7 UTILITIES ADVISORY COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES OF APRIL 15, 2020 SPECIAL MEETING CALL TO ORDER Chair Danaher called the virtual meeting of the Utilities Advisory Commission (UAC) to order at 9:00 a.m. Present: Chair Danaher, Vice Chair Forssell (joined at 9:07 a.m.), Commissioners Jackson, Johnston, Scharff, Segal, and Smith Absent: None ORAL COMMUNICATIONS None. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES Chair Danaher requested page 5 of the minutes reflect Commissioner Jackson's revision of "Commissioner Jackson wanted to review the RFP but not necessarily prior to its release." Commissioner Segal moved to approve the minutes of the March 5, 2020 meeting as amended. Commissioner Smith seconded the motion. The motion carried 6-0 with Chair Danaher and Commissioners Jackson, Scharff, Segal, and Smith voting yes, Commissioner Johnston abstaining, and Vice Chair Forssell absent. AGENDA REVIEW AND REVISIONS None. REPORTS FROM COMMISSIONER MEETINGS/EVENTS None. GENERAL MANAGER OF UTILITIES REPORT Dean Batchelor, Utilities Director, reported Information Technology (IT) staff has done a fantastic job ensuring videoconferencing and remote work proceeds smoothly. Library staff is supporting the community support call center and communications concerning preparation for recovery. Planning and Development Services staff continues to handle permit applications submitted online and is supporting the Emergency Operations Center (EOC). Public Works staff continues work on essential projects with staff alternating weeks of working from home and onsite. Administrative Services staff continues to process payments and refunds, prepare audits, research Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) requirements and record keeping, and prepare the City budget. Community Services staff is preparing online programming and recovery programs. Fire Department inspectors are reinforcing vegetation management for wildland fires. Communications staff is writing and publishing information daily and developing scripts for the community support call center. Customer Service staff is responding to billing inquiries, including requests for assistance. About a half of Customer Service staff are working remotely. Approximately 25,000 meters are being estimated so that meter readers do not have to contact customers. Letters have been sent to the affected DRAFT Utilities Advisory Commission Minutes Approved on: Page 2 of 7 customers. Resource Management Division (RMD) and Utility Program Services (UPS) staff is working on assistance programs for small and medium business customers, monitoring water, gas and electric loads, and running models of recession scenarios. Engineering staff is maintaining invoice payments and reviewing cybersecurity for Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition (SCADA) systems. If an economic recession occurs, staff is preparing project designs to take advantage of lower costs. Operations staff continues to respond to emergencies and outages, clean sewer mains, and maintain streetlights and traffic signals. Essential workers are working alternate weeks, wearing masks, and when possible working individually. Crews are practicing social distancing. Morale is high. About 50% of City employees are working remotely, 45% are working onsite, and about 5% have taken leave. The Council has authorized paid administrative leave through June 30, 2020 for City employees whose work is less than 100% essential. The Utilities Department has a total of 215 employees, and about 60% are working from home, 35% report weekly, and 5% have taken leave. Managers are reviewing tasks with employees daily. Nelly Baumb, City Clerk's Office, advised that the public has not been able to join the meeting, provided the correct password for the public, and requested Chair Danaher reopen Oral Communications. Chair Danaher indicated he would do so following the Director's Report. Jonathan Abendschein, Assistant Director of Resource Management, indicated economic impacts from the COVID pandemic are modest and manageable at the current time, but the impacts in a few months are unknown. Staff is tracking loads, decreases in sales, and utility bill defaults. Electric load has decreased, but water and gas loads have not. The majority of the Electric Utility's sales are to the business community; therefore, temporary business closures and increased telecommuting have a large impact on the Electric Utility. In the Gas and Water Utilities, about 50% of usage is residential. The decrease in water sales to commercial customers has been offset by the increase in sales to residential customers. In response to Chair Danaher's inquiry regarding the impact of the differences in commercial and residential rates, Abendschein related that rates are fairly similar and did not expect major impacts. Abendschein continued the presentation, stating for every $1 of sales revenue lost, staff can reduce costs by 40₵-60₵ because the purchases of water, gas, and electricity are reduced. If 8-10% load losses continue for the next three months in the Electric Utility, there will be a $1.5 million net loss of revenue, which can be absorbed in existing reserves. The impact of bill defaults is unclear because staff has no data at the current time and data obtained from the billing system is limited. Staff is working to obtain more data about delinquent bills. During the Great Recession, defaults never reached 0.25% of revenue or approximately $100,00-$200,000 for the Gas and Water Utilities and $400,000-$600,000 for the Electric Utility. Staff has estimated the impact of all retail and restaurant customers defaulting at $3 million in the Electric Utility, $550,000 in the Gas Utility, and $300,000 in the Water Utility. Staff anticipates the impacts could be several hundred thousand dollars in the Gas and Water Utilities and $1-$1.5 million in the Electric Utility. These losses can be absorbed in existing Reserves. In reply to Commissioner Smith's question regarding absorbing a maximum loss of $3.8 million in reserves, Abendschein advised that Electric Utility Reserves could absorb $3 million in defaults and $1.5 million in lost sales revenue. Using Reserves may not be prudent given the uncertainty of future impacts. In answer to Chair Danaher's query regarding defaults, Abendschein explained that estimates for restaurants and retailers assume normal usage and a 100% default rate. Chair Danaher remarked that the two assumptions are double counting because the electric load would decrease as well. Abendschein concurred and indicated the estimates are very conservative. In answer to Councilmember Cormack's inquiry regarding a utility's knowledge of a closed business, Abendschein explained that without smart meters, staff cannot determine through bill or usage information which restaurants and retailers are closed. As the billing cycle continues, reduced usage in accounts may indicate closed businesses, and staff may be able to provide information at a later time. Utilities Advisory Commission Minutes Approved on: Page 3 of 7 In response to Commissioner Smith's query regarding a model for a percentage of businesses closing for the remainder of the year, Abendschein related that staff is modeling scenarios like this. A continued 10% load decrease through fiscal year (FY) 2021 would be significant. More information could be available for the May UAC meeting. Abendschein further reported the best reference point for future impacts is the Great Recession; however, separating the impacts of long-term trends, the drought, and the Great Recession is difficult. The long-term impacts of the Great Recession on load appear to be minimal, a 1-3% decrease, for all utilities. During the Great Recession, write-offs did not exceed 0.25% of revenue except in the Water Utility, where write-offs were 0.77% of revenue. Because this recession will probably be different from the Great Recession and recovery may be lengthy, staff is preparing alternate forecasts. Staff is working with the Administrative Services Department to ensure City of Palo Alto Utilities (CPAU) assumptions align with City assumptions. In reply to Commissioner Jackson's question about more rainfall in the past month, Abendschein advised that rainfall affects hydroelectric output. Rainfall in March helped the current dry year, but dry hydroelectric conditions will probably have a $3-$5 million impact on the utility. This impact and the COVID impacts are manageable. In answer to Chair Danaher's query regarding cost savings in addition to reduced purchases, Abendschein indicated supply cost savings are likely the largest. Other cost savings probably total a fraction of supply cost savings. Chair Danaher returned to Oral Communications. COMMISSIONER COMMENTS None. UNFINISHED BUSINESS None. NEW BUSINESS ITEM 1: ACTION: Staff Recommendation that the Utilities Advisory Commission Recommend the City Council Adopt a Resolution Approving the Fiscal Year 2021 Electric Financial Plan and Reserve Transfers, Amending the Electric Utility Reserve Management Practices and Increasing Electric Rates by Amending the E-1, E-2, E- 2-G, E-4, E-4-G, E-4 TOU, E-7, E-7-G, E-7 TOU, E-14, E-EEC and E-NSE Rate Schedules. Eric Keniston, Senior Resource Planner, reported staff proposes a 2% electric rate increase to match inflation and to mitigate potential future costs and/or losses. Operations Reserves are projected to fall within guideline levels. Staff plans to begin repaying the $10 million loan from the Special Projects Reserve and add funding to the Capital Improvement Program (CIP) Reserve. Staff plans not to allocate an additional $4 million to the Hydroelectric Stabilization Reserve given the dry hydroelectric year. Electric Utility costs are divided 39% to distribution and 61% to supply. The main supply cost driver is increasing transmission costs. Distribution cost drivers are medical/retirement benefit costs, capital investment, underground construction costs, and contract expenses for line crews. Staff projects 2-3% rate increases after FY 2021. The 2% rate increase is composed of 0.4% net electric supply cost increases, 0.8% CIP cost and investment increases, 0.4% operations cost increases, and 0.3% load loss. While projections are conservative, they may be more accurate due to the impacts of COVID. In response to Chair Danaher's question, Keniston advised that the projections include the proposed rate increase. In reply to Commissioner Smith's inquiry regarding conservative projections, Keniston explained that early in FY 2020 his expectations for sales were low, but sales have exceeded his projections until the last three to Utilities Advisory Commission Minutes Approved on: Page 4 of 7 four months. Sales are now closer to his original expectations. For FY 2021, he originally projected a slight sales decline. His models do not anticipate the costs of a continuing COVID response. Keniston further reported the Distribution Operating Reserve balance exceeds the minimum guideline level and the risk assessment guideline. CPAU's rates are approximately 34% less than PG&E's rates but higher than Santa Clara's rates. Under a 0% rate increase scenario for FY 2021, future years would need 4% rate increases. In answer to Commissioner Smith's inquiries regarding delaying action for one month and procurement strategies for projects, Dean Batchelor, Utilities Director, requested the UAC make a recommendation during the current meeting as the Finance Committee will review the rates on April 21. The Engineering group is advancing CIP projects to take advantage of hopefully lower costs in the next few months. In reply to Commissioner Johnston's query regarding inclusion of hourly accounting for carbon emissions and treatment of Renewable Energy Certificates (RECs) in the projections, Keniston indicated the projections do include hourly accounting and the sale of RECs. In response to Commissioner Scharff's question about revenue from a 0% rate increase, Keniston explained that over the long term, revenues would be about the same for a 0% and 2% rate increase. In answer to Chair Danaher's inquiry regarding a dry year, Keniston felt a 2% increase would be prudent given the impact of a dry hydroelectric year. Funds from the Hydroelectric Stabilization Reserve or a hydroelectric add-on fee could offset the increased costs of a dry hydroelectric year. Councilmember Cormack commented that rates have to be set soon so that staff can prepare the City Budget for Council certification in June. If a majority of customers has significant trouble with a minor rate increase, keeping rates flat is worth considering. If a minority of customers has significant trouble, then rates should be increased. In reviewing the proposed Budget, the Council will review all impacts of the emergency. In reply to her questions, Keniston explained that reduced demand from nonresidential customers shifts the burden of fixed costs to the remaining customers. Anecdotally, electric loads across Northern California have deceased 8-10%. Jonathan Abendschein, Assistant Director of Resource Management, indicated market prices for electricity have decreased, and the sale of electric supply will generate less revenue. The demand for renewable energy remains high. Chair Danaher felt the rate increase is modest. The businesses most affected during the shutdown would not use much load. The Council can approve a different or no rate increase. Commissioner Segal believed a 2% rate increase, if comparable to the rate of inflation, is logical and suggested messaging about the rate increase include information about assistance programs. ACTION: Commissioner Jackson moved to recommend the City Council adopt a Resolution approving the Fiscal Year 2021 Electric Financial Plan and Reserve Transfers, Amending the Electric Utility Reserve Management Practices and Increasing Electric Rates by amending the E-1, E-2, E-2-G, E-4, E-4-G, E-4 TOU, E- 7, E-7-G, E-7 TOU, E-14, E-EEC and E-NSE Rate Schedules. Commissioner Smith seconded the motion. The Motion carried 7-0 with Chair Danaher, Vice Chair Forssell, and Commissioners Jackson, Johnston, Scharff, Segal and Smith voting yes. ITEM 2: ACTION: Staff Recommendation that the Utilities Advisory Commission Recommend the City Council Adopt a Resolution Approving the Fiscal Year 2021 Gas Utility Financial Plan, Including Proposed Transfers and an Amendment to the Gas Utility Reserve Management Practices and Increasing Gas Rates by Amending Rate Schedules G-1 (Residential Gas Service), G-2 (Residential Master-Metered and Commercial Gas Service), G-3 (Large Commercial Gas Service), and G-10 (Compressed Natural Gas Service). Utilities Advisory Commission Minutes Approved on: Page 5 of 7 Eric Keniston, Senior Resource Planner, reported staff proposes a 3% gas rate increase because of distribution system cost increases. Gas Utility costs are divided 60% to distribution and 40% to supply. Capital investment and distribution costs are relatively fixed unless projects are delayed. The cost drivers for gas supply are gas supply, PG&E gas transmission rates, Cap and Trade costs, and the Carbon Neutral Gas Plan. Cost drivers for gas distribution are overhead costs, underground construction costs, temporary funding of crossbore investigations, and overhead transfers. CPAU's rates are 8% lower than PG&E's rates. Projections indicate 6% rate increases will be needed in FY 2022-2024. Staff is investigating the benefits of bond financing main replacement projects. The 3% rate increase is composed of 1.5% operations and maintenance (O&M) expense increases and 1.7% CIP investment increases. With the rate increase, the Operating Reserves balance will remain within guidelines. Staff has not found any shifts in usage related to the COVID situation. Currently, residential bills in winter are lower and in summer are higher than PG&E's bills. Commercial bills are higher than PG&E's bills. With the rate increase, smaller gas users could have lower bills, and more costs will shift to larger gas users. Commercial customers will see a 3-4% increase in their bills with the rate increase. The monthly service charge for all customers will decrease. Alternative 1 is a 5% rate increase in FY 2021 with 4% increases in FY 2022-2024. Alternative 1 will have a larger impact on customers than the staff recommendation. If the UAC recommends a 3% rate increase, the Gas Utility Financial Plan will need to be amended. Alternative 2 is a 0% rate increase in FY 2021 with 10%, 8% and 3% rate increases in FY 2022-2024 respectively. Large rate increases in FY 2022-2024 will be needed to keep Reserves balances within the guideline levels after a major main replacement project and a 0% rate increase in FY 2021. Bond financing could reduce the rate increases. In response to Commissioner Smith's inquiries regarding FY 2021-2025 rate increases under the staff recommendation and Alternative 1, Keniston explained that the ending Operations Reserve balance will be different for each scenario because the cumulative rate increases will be different. Alternative 1 will provide a more stable target Reserve fund balance earlier in the five-year period. The staff recommendation will ease customers into rate increases. PG&E's capital investment costs are reflected in its rates, and CPAU passes PG&E's rates onto customers. That would not affect the Operating Reserve. Commissioner Smith felt Alternative 2 would be risky, and a 10% increase would be difficult for customers. In answer to Commissioner Johnston's queries about lower labor costs and accelerating capital projects, Keniston advised that lower project costs would be an automatic savings for CPAU. If CIP costs decrease, rate increases in subsequent years could be lower. Dean Batchelor, Utilities Director, added that accomplishing more capital projects while spending the same amount of money may be more prudent than reducing future rate increases. Reserves balances will be a factor in any decision. In reply to Vice Chair Forssell's questions regarding the 5% rate increase in Alternate 1 and new projections for supply costs, Keniston indicated 5% reflects the average bill change and assumes a static supply cost. A 3% rate increase is a 5% distribution rate increase overall. Bills for small residential users will decrease under the Staff recommendation and Alternate 1. Several small commercial customers use gas only in winter months, and their bills will decrease under the staff recommendation. Jonathan Abendschein, Assistant Director of Resource Management, related that lower gas prices are forecast for the next few years, and the pandemic has exacerbated lower prices. Vice Chair Forssell remarked that a 3% versus 5% rate increase is not the way to think about the impact on customers given the differences in bill impacts based on customer class and usage rate. Alternative 1 could maintain the financial health of the Gas Utility. Maintaining healthy Reserves would be prudent because the City may take action to reduce load. Chair Danaher indicated his preference for the staff recommendation in light of the current hardship. Commissioner Jackson commented that from an environmental perspective, cheap natural gas is not necessarily a good thing. He was more interested in larger rate increases but, given the impact on local businesses, he could accept a 3% rate increase. Commissioner Scharff preferred a 3% rate increase in light of the economic climate. Utilities Advisory Commission Minutes Approved on: Page 6 of 7 Commissioner Segal was comfortable with a 3% rate increase, even though she would prefer a higher rate increase. Commissioner Johnston was more comfortable with a 3% rate increase than a 5% rate increase. Councilmember Cormack suggested messaging for the rate increase include a prominent announcement of the lower monthly service charge. ACTION: Commissioner Johnston moved to recommend the City Council adopt a Resolution approving the Fiscal Year 2021 Gas Utility Financial Plan, including proposed transfers and an amendment in the Gas Utility Reserve Management Practices and increasing gas rates by amending Rate Schedules G-1 (Residential Gas Service), G-2 (Residential Master-Metered and Commercial Gas Service), G-3 (Large Commercial Gas Service), and G-10 (Compressed Natural Gas Service). Commissioner Segal seconded the motion. The motion carried 7-0 with Chair Danaher, Vice Chair Forssell, and Commissioners Jackson, Johnston, Scharff, Segal, and Smith voting yes. ITEM 3: ACTION: Staff Recommendation that the Utilities Advisory Commission Recommend the City Council Make No Changes to Wastewater Collection Utility Rates for July 1, 2020. Lisa Bilir, Resource Planner, reported staff proposes a 0% rate increase for FY 2021 and 5% rate increases for FY 2022-2025. Wastewater Utility costs are composed of 43% collections costs and 57% treatment costs. Treatment cost drivers include rehabilitation of the Regional Water Quality Control Plant (RWQCP). Operations/capital cost drivers include salary and benefits costs, underground construction costs, and capital project costs. No large main replacement projects are scheduled for FY 2021. CPAU's average residential bill is approximately 26% lower than residential bills in neighboring communities. The average commercial bill is about 14% higher than commercial bills in neighboring communities. Staff plans to utilize the CIP Reserve for capital expenses over the next few years. Based on projections, the Wastewater Operations Reserve balance will reach the guideline minimum in FY 2024 and increase in FY 2025. Jonathan Abendschein, Assistant Director of Resource Management, advised that, at his request, staff recommends no rate increase rather than a nominal rate increase because a cost of service study is underway. Staff's ability to work on the study has been heavily impacted by the shelter-in-place order. Staff may propose a rate change at mid-year. In response to Commissioner Segal's query about including the impacts of restaurant closures in the cost of service study, Bilir indicated staff is beginning to explore the impacts of restaurant closures for the Financial Plan. Staff does not know if the impacts will be long term or short term and will seek the consultant's advice for including the impacts in the cost of service study. In reply to Vice Chair Forssell's inquiry about rehabilitation of the RWQCP, Bilir explained that the list of projects in Slide 4 are upcoming and will drive future rate increases. Councilmember Cormack expressed interest in having information about the Capital Reserve in a future presentation. Work at the RWQCP continues as essential construction work. ACTION: Vice Chair Forssell moved to recommend the City Council make no changes to Wastewater Collection Utility Rates for July 1, 2020. Commissioner Scharff seconded the motion. The motion carried 7-0 with Chair Danaher, Vice Chair Forssell, and Commissioners Jackson, Johnston, Scharff, Segal, and Smith voting yes. ITEM 4: ACTION: Selection of Potential Topic(s) for Discussion at Future UAC Meeting. In reply to Chair Danaher's inquiry regarding a discussion of the Sustainability and Climate Action Plan (S/CAP), Dean Batchelor, Utilities Director, suggested staff could present information in July. Councilmember Utilities Advisory Commission Minutes Approved on: Page 7 of 7 Cormack reported the Council will receive an interim report about the S/CAP in June. Commissioner Jackson proposed the item be scheduled for the June UAC meeting. Commissioner Johnston requested an item regarding the emerging technologies program. Batchelor agreed to present information at a future meeting. Chair Danaher noted Commissioner interest in the sale of RECs and suggested staff present information later in the year. He requested an update of COVID impacts on utility projections at each meeting. Commissioner Segal requested an educational presentation regarding Cap and Trade monies and impacts. Commissioner Jackson proposed a future item regarding the performance of internet infrastructure during the crisis as an indicator of improvements needed for future crises. Chair Danaher requested an update of progress with the fiber plans in the next few months. Vice Chair Forssell requested a discussion of gas emissions and distribution and transmission system leaks in the summer timeframe. Batchelor advised that staff proposes rescheduling the May 6 meeting to May 20 and canceling the June meeting because of staff's focus on the COVID emergency. Agenda items could include the S/CAP, water supply and the water system, automated metering infrastructure (AMI), and the electric vehicle (EV) program. Items for the budget and water supply should be relatively short. After a discussion of meetings and agenda topics, Chair Danaher noted Commissioners' interest in a May 13 or 20 meeting with agenda items for the S/CAP and perhaps a couple of other items. Jonathan Abendschein, Assistant Director of Resource Management, indicated reports for meetings scheduled in the first week of May have to be submitted in the next few days. Staff could not prepare a report for the S/CAP in a few days; therefore, he advocated for rescheduling the May 6 UAC meeting to late May or early June. Chair Danaher announced the UAC's agreement for rescheduling the May 6 meeting to May 20. Batchelor reminded the UAC's budget ad hoc committee of its meeting on April 22 at 4:00 p.m. ACTION: None NEXT SCHEDULED MEETING: May 6, 2020 Meeting adjourned at 11:28 a.m. Respectfully Submitted Tabatha Boatwright City of Palo Alto Utilities Utilities Advisory Commission Minutes Approved on: June 17, 2020 Page 1 of 11 UTILITIES ADVISORY COMMISSION VIRTUAL MEETING MINUTES OF MAY 20, 2020 SPECIAL MEETING CALL TO ORDER Chair Danaher called the meeting of the Utilities Advisory Commission (UAC) to order at 9:02 a.m. Present: Chair Danaher, Vice Chair Forssell, Commissioners Jackson (joined at 9:05), Johnston, Scharff, Segal, Smith Absent: None ORAL COMMUNICATIONS None. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES Commissioner Segal requested the deletion of "even though she would prefer a higher rate increase" from her comments at the top of page 6. Commissioner Scharff moved to approve the minutes of the April 15, 2020 meeting as amended. Commissioner Johnston seconded the motion. The motion carried 6-0 with Chair Danaher, Vice Chair Forssell, and Commissioners Johnston, Scharff, Segal and Smith voting yes, and Commissioner Jackson absent. AGENDA REVIEW AND REVISIONS None. REPORTS FROM COMMISSIONER MEETINGS/EVENTS Commissioner Smith reported Commissioner Jackson and he attended the Finance Committee meeting, discussed the sale of Bucket 1 Renewable Energy Certificates (RECs), and requested the Finance Committee review the sale of Bucket 1 RECs again during the meeting. UTILITIES DIRECTOR REPORT Dean Batchelor, Utilities Director, delivered the Utilities Director's Report. Utilities Rate Assistance and Payment Relief for Residential and Commercial Customers – When the coronavirus (COVID-19) shelter in place public health order took effect, Utilities expanded payment relief and rate assistance programs to help our residential and commercial customers. We want to ensure the lights stay on and the water continues to flow for customers experiencing financial challenges during this time. The City’s proclamation of a local emergency in March instituted a moratorium on disconnections for non- payment, late payment fees, and full-bill payment requirements. Customers can make partial payments without penalty and without risk of disconnection for non-payment. The total of missed payments (except late fees, which will be waived in their entirety) will continue to be owed, but customers will be eligible for an extended payment plan of up to 18 months from the proclamation termination. Utilities Advisory Commission Minutes Approved on: June 17, 2020 Page 2 of 11 Residents may qualify for our Rate Assistance Program, which provides a 25% discount on gas and electricity charges and 20% discount on storm drain service fees. Both residential and commercial customers can equalize their monthly bill payment into twelve equal amounts through our Bill Payment Plan. Another helpful resource is ProjectPLEDGE, which allows commercial and residential Utilities customers in good standing with their own accounts to donate funding on a one-time or recurring basis to help another resident in Palo Alto. Residents who are struggling to pay their utility bills may apply to this program for one-time assistance. Details for anyone wishing to donate or apply for the program can be found at cityofpaloalto.org/projectpledge. Utilities Customer Service can help answer questions associated with any of these payment relief and rate assistance programs. Customer support is available through the call center at (650) 329-2161, the MyCPAU online customer account service, or by email at UtilitiesCustomerService@cityofpaloalto.org. Outreach – CPAU has stepped up outreach about these financial assistance programs in an effort to get the word out to anyone needing help during this difficult time. This information is being shared in community email updates, on the Utilities and cityofpaloalto.org/coronavirus websites, in social media, and utility bill inserts, including one currently running during the month of May. Modifications to Utilities Programs – In accordance with the County order lifting restrictions on construction activities, some energy efficiency projects are resuming. Examples of allowed activities include commercial energy efficiency projects, solar installations, EV charger installations, and other work that does not require staff or consultant visits inside occupied residential dwellings. The County’s construction protocols must be followed. Large projects in spaces over 20,000 feet of floor space require one set of protocols be followed: https://www.sccgov.org/sites/covid19/Documents/appendix-b-2-lg-project-04-29-2020.pdf. Small project in spaces less than 20,000 square feet require a different set of protocols: https://www.sccgov.org/sites/covid19/Documents/appendix-b-1-sm-project-04-29-2020.pdf. Although all visits inside occupied residential dwellings are temporarily on hold, many Utilities programs have been modified to continue to provide value to the community. The Home Efficiency Genie, one of Palo Alto’s most popular offerings, is available for phone consultations. Refrigerator recycling is available via curbside pickups. Customers may join waitlists for our low income and multifamily energy assistance programs. Heat pump water heaters may be installed if there is a health and safety issue caused by lack of a working water heater. Water conservation activities administered by Valley Water are also available through Do-It Yourself Home Water Survey Kits which can be mailed to customers and are accessible online. Customers may join a waitlist for Waterwise Outdoor Surveys. Rebates that do not require pre-inspection measurements, such as weather-based irrigation controller rebates, irrigation equipment, or rainwater capture components may be processed and approved without a site visit. Also, due to the shelter in place public health order, all Utilities events and workshops have been canceled until further notice. Saving Energy and Water While Sheltering in Place – Staff are committed to finding additional ways to innovate and expand energy and water related programs in the shelter in place environment. Recognizing that unprecedented numbers of people are working and studying from home and will likely experience increased costs on their utility bills, we have been running a social media campaign to share tips and tricks for saving energy and water and making the home environment more comfortable. MyCPAU is Here! CPAU has fully launched our new online utility account management system, MyCPAU for our residential and business utility customers. MyCPAU offers new features and functionalities so customers can easily manage their utility account services online. MyCPAU has replaced our former My Utilities Account customer site, and the My Utilities Account site has been discontinued. Customer account information was automatically migrated to the new MyCPAU site. To inform customers of this, we send out email notices with a temporary password and instructions for registering on the new site. We are also providing outreach through utility bill inserts, email newsletters, printing info on utility bills, mailing postcards to everyone in Palo Alto, and sharing through social media, including with a new announcement video. Our Customer Service Utilities Advisory Commission Minutes Approved on: June 17, 2020 Page 3 of 11 Representatives stand ready to answer any questions and help people use the new site. Thank you to those of you who helped us with the soft launch beta testing and shared feedback to help us improve this service. Your input was helpful, and we encourage you to continue sharing feedback. COMMISSIONER COMMENTS In response to Commissioner Segal's inquiry about the recent power outage near the Community Center, Dean Batchelor, Utilities Director, advised that the outage occurred after hours, and a crew was called to replace a bad transformer. Councilmember Cormack announced the Bay Area Water Supply and Conservation Agency (BAWSCA) has launched virtual landscape classes. The public can register for classes at bawsca.org. UNFINISHED BUSINESS None. NEW BUSINESS ITEM 1: DISCUSSION: Update and Discussion of the COVID-19 Health Emergency and the City's Response. Dean Batchelor, Utilities Director, shared modifications to public health orders, new shifts for operational crews, symptom checks for employees, resumption of meter reading, and number of staff working onsite and remotely. ACTION: None ITEM 2: DISCUSSION: Discussion of Potential Goals and Key Actions Related to the 2020 Sustainability & Climate Action Plan. Jonathan Abendschein, Assistant Director of Resource Management, reported the Utilities Department is heavily involved in the carbon-reducing aspects of the Sustainability and Climate Action Plan (S/CAP). In April, the Council directed staff to present amended goals and key actions for the S/CAP. Staff requests the UAC's feedback regarding goals and key actions that would be useful or productive in achieving carbon reduction goals. Technical feasibility rather than cost or difficulty of implementation should be the criterion for suggestions. Christine Luong, Sustainability Manager, reviewed S/CAP components and focus areas, the proposed update process, and a timeline of S/CAP events. Not counting natural gas offsets, emissions are down about 36%. Road transportation accounts for 64% and natural gas about 32% of the remaining emissions. Counting offsets, emissions are down about 56% with road transportation accounting for 94% of the remaining emissions. The City needs to reduce about 300,000 metric tons (MT) of CO2 equivalent in order to reach the 80% reduction by 2030 goal. Natural gas consumption has not changed much since 2013. The community has provided feedback on proposed goals and key actions. AECOM will prepare an impact analysis of suggested goals and key actions. The Council will provide input regarding the updated goals and key actions on June 8. In response to Chair Danaher's questions about Council study sessions and the impact analysis, Luong advised that the Council has received an informational report and held a study session on April 13. The Council will review updated goals and key actions on June 8 and the impact analysis and all proposed key actions in the fall. The impact analysis will provide the dollars per ton of carbon avoided and a breakdown of natural gas usage by type of customer and by appliance, space heating, and water heating. Commissioner Jackson suggested if complete electrification of Palo Alto at some future time is a goal, information should state explicitly that as a consequence there will be no natural gas and the City will not sell natural gas. Additional suggestions are to consider banning any new installation of natural gas-based appliances and implementing on-bill financing of heat pump water heaters, HVAC units, and induction cooktops. In reply to his question about the goal of facilitating 50% of vehicles owned by low-income Utilities Advisory Commission Minutes Approved on: June 17, 2020 Page 4 of 11 households to be electric vehicles (EV) by 2030, Shiva Swaminathan, Senior Resource Planner, explained that the object of the goal is to have 50% of low-income households own and drive EVs. The Low Carbon Fuel Standard program provides funding for EV incentives and requires almost 50% of funds received to be devoted to low-income customers beginning in 2023. City of Palo Alto Utilities (CPAU) is allowed to define low-income households. Commissioner Jackson believed CPAU should facilitate the availability of EV charging to low-income households and multifamily residences. Abendschein added that staff is wrestling with ways to encourage EV purchases. Commissioner Jackson expressed strong support for implementing an all-electric utility rate. Commissioner Smith agreed with Commissioner Jackson's comments. An additional reduction of 118,000 MT of CO2 emissions from mobility is a big target. He asked how CPAU is poised to implement mobility-related measures that have been defined as opportunities, assuming the rates effective July 1, 2020 remain in place for the next two to three years. Swaminathan indicated currently 300,000 MT is associated with transportation, and 80% of 300,000 MT is 240,000 MT. Of the 300,000 MT related to transportation, about half is attributed to residents and half to nonresidents traveling within the City. The goal is more like a reduction of 240,000 MT. Staff, the community, and outside agencies define 300,000 MT as 1 billion vehicle miles traveled (VMT). The question is how to reduce the VMT of gasoline-powered vehicles to 80%. The City can utilize transportation demand management (TDM) programs to impact nonresidents' travel within Palo Alto. Funding for EV charging in general over the next three years totals about $8 million, most of which comes from the Low Carbon Fuel Standard program. Most of the funds have been dedicated to multifamily residential, not-for-profit, and mixed-use properties. Telecommuting is another strategy for emissions reduction. Residential customers can be divided into multifamily and single-family homes. The City has 15,000 single-family homes and 10,000 multifamily homes. Based on a community survey and community engagement, staff has not dedicated any funding to EV chargers for single-family homes. In 2020, 20% of funding will be allocated to the Clean Fuels Rebate program, which offers rebates of $1,000-$2,000 per EV. In 2023, 50% of remaining funding will be allocated to low-income EV purchases. In answer to Commissioner Smith's query regarding the impact of the health emergency on the stability of funding from the Low Carbon Fuel Standard program, Swaminathan advised that the City has already received about $4 million, but staff anticipates the amount of funding will decrease in the short term. Abendschein added that in July the UAC will hear about near-term programs. A straightforward role for the City is to build an EV charging network, and a number of programs focus on that. Commissioner Smith reiterated that the reduction goal is tremendous, and there is not sufficient funding to reach the goal. In reply to Commissioner Scharff's inquiry regarding eliminating gas offsets or educating the community as to their value, Dean Batchelor, Utilities Director, reported Staff recommended the Council eliminate the gas offset program as a cost-cutting measure because of the community's negative perception of gas offsets. In response to Commissioner Scharf's query about the purchase of gas offsets funding carbon reductions elsewhere, Abendschein related that staff purchases offsets that have not been approved by the California Air Resources Board (CARB) but could be approved by CARB if staff submitted them for approval. Generally, purchase of the offsets funds programs such as destruction of refrigerant and preservation of forests. The community has expressed concern that relying on offsets to achieve the 80% by 2030 goal is not sustainable and reduces the urgency of achieving goals. Luong added that the overwhelming feedback from the community is offsets were always meant to be a bridging strategy. Commissioner Scharff remarked that the community accepts RECs but not gas offsets. Incentives help the City move incrementally toward its goal, but they probably will not achieve the goal. He wanted to know the impact of telecommuting on the City's progress if telecommuting continues after the public health orders are lifted. Abendschein indicated AECOM's analysis will include needed trip reduction and EV penetration. Incentives are a part of the solution but not the solution. CPAU has little ability to incentivize the purchase of EVs or telecommuting for nonresidents, but staff will share some new ideas with the UAC on June 8. Commissioner Scharff suggested staff educate the community regarding gas offsets if they effectively reduce carbon emissions. Luong reported the Carbon Disclosure Project and the ICLEI Protocols allow offsets in GHG reporting. The Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) conducted a study that found traffic in the Bay Area has Utilities Advisory Commission Minutes Approved on: June 17, 2020 Page 5 of 11 decreased 50%-85% since the shelter-in-place order was instituted. The traffic reduction is equivalent to a 20%-30% reduction in CO2 equivalents. Chair Danaher commented that individuals within the community may share and express the same opinion, but that should not be misconstrued as the community having a single voice. Vice Chair Forssell observed that companies have found that if they build EV chargers, the vehicles come. The goal of ensuring adequate numbers and types of EV chargers to support the growing number of EVs could be phrased more assertively such that the goal is framed as building out public charging in advance of EV adoption. Perhaps the City could provide a carshare service such as Zipcar as a means to provide electric mobility to people who live or work in Palo Alto. The City could explore a partnership with Uber and Lyft if there is some opportunity to facilitate electrification of those fleets. In answer to her query regarding electrification of the City fleet, Swaminathan advised that the City has about 700 vehicles in its fleet, and about 250 of those are light-duty vehicles, which are amenable to electrification. The Public Works Department has committed to replacing gas vehicles with EVs when they reach their end of life unless there is a compelling reason not to do so. Staff is in the process of assessing the budgetary impact of that. With respect to the Zipcar concept, staff has approached some low-income programs to fund Zipcars parked on low-income properties. Property managers at some locations were worried about liability and not enthusiastic about the idea. Staff continues to pursue that type of idea. Vice Chair Forssell suggested parking EVs on City-owned property near low-income housing. Commissioner Jackson's comments about the gas utility and goals for gas usage are intriguing. The key action to explore electrification of City-owned facilities could be to electrify City-owned facilities. She supported an all-electric utility rate. In answer to her question regarding industrial processes in the City that use natural gas, Chair Danaher noted laundromats utilize gas dryers. Abendschein indicated a few industrial processes are located in the City, but the number decreases every year. Natural gas is used in facilities such as hospitals and large plants where heat pump technology is not available. It may not be necessary to electrify 100% of the City to achieve the carbon goals. Commissioner Segal noted the community feedback indicated a lack of understanding of the goal to increase active transportation mode share and encouraged staff to draft goals free of jargon. She expressed concern that it will be a long time before shared transportation returns to pre-pandemic levels. In reply to her inquiry about possible reasons for virtually no change in progress towards goals since 2013 except for offsets, Abendschein indicated programs are not as impactful as staff would like, but they do have some impact. Efficiency programs have had significant impacts over the last several years. However, the impacts have gone towards offsetting load growth in utilities. Commissioner Segal wanted to understand whether staff could use existing levers, over which the City has some control, more assertively to increase emissions reductions because funding may not be available for incentives in the short term. Programs that spread out the cost of electrification for customers would be great. Staff should consider all opportunities to make EV adoption easier for customers interested in EVs. In response to Commissioner Johnston's query regarding group-buy opportunities for EVs, Abendschein indicated the annual SunShares program is an EV group-buy opportunity for the community, but the scale needs to increase to accelerate EV adoption. Commissioner Johnston agreed that the main action for EV adoption is increasing access to EV chargers. In response to his question regarding use of biogas, Abendschein reported the use of biogas is technically feasible, but it is costly and the supply is limited. Hiromi Kelty, Resource Planner, advised that CPAU offered a new EV group-buy opportunity through Drive Clean Bay Area in 2020. Unlike the SunShares program, Drive Clean Bay Area offers all EV models. Commissioner Johnston believed widespread advance notice would be key in generating interest in the event. Councilmember Cormack related that questions raised by Commissioners will have to be presented to the Council. AECOM's work will be important in answering questions. She wanted to focus on goals and actions Utilities Advisory Commission Minutes Approved on: June 17, 2020 Page 6 of 11 in the categories of energy, mobility and EVs. Continuing the sale of natural gas is another major question. Fundamentally, key actions and goals will be based on costs. Chair Danaher indicated in a few years the majority of EVs should be electric bikes, scooters, and other micro mobility, which are the most effective way to reduce energy consumption. In addition, group buys could benefit students, low-income people, and residents in multifamily dwellings. There should be crowd sourcing of data and suggestions. EV adoption is dependent on chargers, and the UAC's monthly or quarterly report should track the number of chargers in the City. Staff should more aggressively seek third-party chargers. Projects are working on the production of carbon-neutral gasoline at competitive prices, and it may be available in the next few years. The Cap and Trade program is the most economically sensible approach to reducing carbon. The City's carbon footprint is not limited to emissions in Palo Alto because the manufacturing of goods utilized in the City occurs outside the City. Offsets are a viable approach to reducing emissions and should be an important part of policy. He wanted to review cost-benefit data for space heating, water heating, and cooking because funding may not be utilized cost effectively. On-bill financing for EVs and appliances should be a priority. Automated Metering Infrastructure (AMI) should not be delayed. With increased telecommuting and online shopping, Fiber to the Premises (FTTP) should be accelerated. The difficulties of permitting solar and EV infrastructure should be addressed. The water program has to consider efficiency and water reuse as well as supply sufficiency. ACTION: None ITEM 3: DISCUSSION: Discussion of Accounting for Leaked Natural Gas in Palo Alto Greenhouse Gas Emissions. Vice Chair Forssell reported leaks occur throughout the natural gas system. CPAU accounts for distribution leakage within Palo Alto only. The questions are whether CPAU should account for leakage throughout the system and whether the carbon accounting methodology should utilize a 20-year or 100-year time horizon for the global warming potential (GWP) of methane. CPAU currently uses a 100-year time horizon. A shorter time horizon is appropriate given the immediacy and urgency of climate change. Including leakage and a 20- year time horizon for the GWP will impact the GHG inventory significantly and might impact actions to lower the City's GHG footprint. In reply to Chair Danaher's question about the impact of upstream leakage and changing the time horizon, Vice Chair Forssell explained that changing the GWP from 21 to 86 would increase emissions by approximately 20,000 MT. Including upstream leakage and changing the GWP would increase emissions by 158,000 MT. In response to Commissioner Jackson's query regarding the impact of reporting natural gas emissions on staff resources, Jonathan Abendschein, Assistant Director of Resource Management, advised that an informational report to the UAC and Council would have a modest impact on staff, which could be absorbed in existing resources. Commissioner Segal added that a 20-year time horizon would be a more accurate way to consider methane emissions. A 100-year time horizon appears to be used because of convention. In answer to Commissioner Scharff's inquiries about the request for an informational report and the purpose of such a report, Vice Chair Forssell related that an informational report can raise the UAC's and the Council's awareness of the issue. The original thought was to suggest increasing the purchase of offsets to cover leakage, but this is not the right time for increasing expenditures. Awareness of increased emissions could change the priority of S/CAP action items. Commissioner Segal indicated an approach or a priority for reducing gas emissions has not been determined. Commissioner Jackson added that gas leakage is part of building a case against natural gas usage and for ending the Gas Utility. Chair Danaher stated a more complete view of gas emissions will aid the cost-benefit analyses of different spending measures for reducing GHG. Utilities Advisory Commission Minutes Approved on: June 17, 2020 Page 7 of 11 Lena Perkins, Senior Resource Planner, advised that these changes will affect the dollars per ton avoided for in-City programs versus out-of-state offsets. ACTION: None ITEM 4: ACTION: Staff Recommendation that the Utilities Advisor Commission Recommend the City Council Adopt the Proposed Operating and Capital Budgets for the Utilities Department for Fiscal Year 2021 Report. Dave Yuan, Strategic Business Manager, reported the fiscal year (FY) Utilities Proposed Operating and Capital Budgets contain minimal rate increases and commit to providing essential services. Due to the COVID-19 emergency, staff has amended the Proposed Budget to withdraw a request for two new positions and freeze five vacant non-critical positions. Staff proposes to recruit and fill critical positions in operations and engineering. Operating Reserve Fund balances are projected to exceed minimum guideline levels, and recommended 0% rate changes for most Utilities will have minimal impacts. In reviewing the Proposed Budget, the Council recommended 0% rate increases for the Electric, Water, and Wastewater Utilities, a 2% rate increase for the Gas Utility, and a 2.5% Consumer Price Index (CPI) rate increase for the Fiber Utility. With a reduction in the monthly gas service charge, the average residential customer will see a decrease in their monthly gas bill despite the rate increase. Residential customers with higher usage will see an increase in their monthly bill. Commercial customers will see a $250-$500 increase in their monthly bills depending on their usage. Staff anticipates a revenue loss of about $18 million in the Electric Fund due to the 0% rate increase and a load reduction; proposes to freeze 1.85 full-time equivalents (FTE) in vacant positions; recommends postponing non-critical electric underground rebuild projects; and proposes to reevaluate the purchase and sale of RECs. In response to Chair Danaher's question regarding the loss due to load reduction and offsets for reductions in purchases, Yuan advised that the anticipated revenue loss does not include a $9 million offset for purchases. Yuan continued his presentation, stating staff projects net revenue from the sale of in-state (Bucket 1) RECs and the purchase of out-of-state (Bucket 3) RECs over five years will total $16.735 million. The net revenue is based on current hydroelectric generation projections, load projections, and REC market prices. Because the California Energy Commission (CEC) does not consider out-of-state RECs an eligible renewable resource, CPAU's Power Content Label (PCL) will reflect 80-90% carbon-free energy. In reply to Commissioner Jackson's query regarding the PCL, Yuan indicated the Electric Utility's emissions will be 100% carbon free even though the PCL reflects only 80%. In answer to Commissioner Smith's questions about increasing the sale and purchase of RECs and a timeframe for realizing the projected net revenue for FY 2021, Yuan clarified that a policy change allows the purchase of Bucket 3 RECs. The market price will determine the amount of net revenue for FY 2021. Jim Stack, Senior Resource Planner, indicated the State has not relaxed its requirements for the use of in-state RECs. Prior to the pandemic, the State discussed requiring all in-state RECs. With each month that passes, CPAU loses the opportunity to sell RECs and earn the projected revenue. In response to Commissioner Jackson's inquiry regarding delaying the sale of July and August RECs, Stack explained that once CPAU generates RECs, it can sell them as Bucket 3 RECs only. Bucket 1 RECs have to be sold prior to their generation. Bucket 1 RECs provide the most profit. To realize the projected revenue of $3.8 million for FY 2021, the Council would have to amend the Carbon Neutral Plan in June so that July RECs could be sold as Bucket 1 RECs by the end of June. A two-month delay could result in the loss of around $1 million in potential revenue. Jonathan Abendschein, Assistant Director of Resource Management, indicated amendment of the Carbon Neutral Plan has not been agendized, but a motion to recommend the City Council approve the budget could include a direction to staff to pursue the program. Given the lead times for staff reports, staff may not be able to present an amendment to the Carbon Neutral Plan to the UAC in June, which means the Council would not consider an amendment until September. Utilities Advisory Commission Minutes Approved on: June 17, 2020 Page 8 of 11 In reply to Commissioner Segal's query about the UAC's previous consideration of amending the Carbon Neutral Plan, Abendschein related that the previous discussion pertained to the sale of surplus RECs. A motion directing staff to pursue an exchange of RECs below the surplus as part of the budget could accomplish a Carbon Neutral Plan amendment before July. In answer to Councilmember Cormack's inquiry regarding legal review of the proposal, Abendschein indicated the proposal is subject to a number of internal reviews, which includes review by the City Attorney. Commissioner Smith liked the policy of exchanging RECs because it provides an option for the Council and staff to further electrification efforts via a funding source other than the State or Federal governments. In a year's time, when the health emergency has hopefully ended, the Council could reverse the policy. Yuan further stated projections for Electric Operation Reserves at the end of FY 2021 are slightly below target levels. Under the projections, the Electric Utility can maintain services, invest in critical infrastructure, provide customer support, promote efficiency programs, and continue implementation of S/CAP programs and capital improvement projects. The majority of Fiber Utility customers will not be affected by the 2.5% rate increase. Projected ending Reserves for the Fiber Utility are $34 million. Staff proposes to freeze 0.25 FTE in vacant positions and increase funding for the Fiber Optics Network Rebuild project. A design contract for the Fiber Optics Network Rebuild project will be presented to the Council for approval in June. In answer to Chair Danaher's inquiries regarding the phasing of the project, Yuan indicated Phase 1 for analysis and design will extend for about six months. Phase 2 for construction will take six to nine months. Phases 3 and 4 will study FTTP and will be presented to the UAC in about a year. In response to Commissioner Smith's query about installation of a portion of AMI in FY 2021, Yuan advised that the Request for Proposals (RFP) will close in mid-June, and contracts may be awarded by the beginning of calendar year 2021. Installation will probably begin in 2022. Dean Batchelor, Utilities Director, added that fiber will be installed with AMI collectors because fiber will transmit data from the collectors to the billing system. Shiva Swaminathan, Senior Resource Planner, clarified that data can be transmitted via fiber or the cellular network, which is the default method. Fiber provides a robust and secure connection. Yuan continued his presentation, stating a $3 million reduction in the Gas Utility will be needed to maintain Reserves. Staff proposes to reduce the scope of the gas main replacement project, freeze 1.15 FTE in vacant positions, and postpone the gas meter replacement project. Gas Operation Reserves are projected to fall slightly below target levels at the end of FY 2021. The Gas Utility will maintain the cross-bore safety inspection program, continue the main replacement project, increase the frequency of Citywide leak surveys, and evaluate and elevate gas meter testing. In answer to Commissioner Segal's inquiry regarding meter testing, Batchelor related that meters will be tested for accuracy and leakage. Yuan further stated staff proposes to reduce the scope of future sewer main replacement projects and the sewer sanitary rehabilitation project in the Wastewater Collection Utility. Bond financing of capital projects is an option if construction costs decrease during a recession. The Wastewater Collection Operation Reserve is projected to fall below the target level at the end of FY 2021. Staff will complete the cost of service study, continue to assess and design future sewer main replacement projects, procure a new mobile management software system, continue the sewer system rehabilitation, and purchase new construction equipment. In the Water Utility, staff proposes to freeze 1.15 FTE in vacant positions, postpone water meter replacement, and evaluate and elevate water meter testing. The Water Operation Reserves are projected to reach the reserve maximum at the end of FY 2021. The Water Utility expects revenue losses due to reduced consumption and flat rates for two years. The seismic water tank replacement and water main replacements projects will continue. Utilities Advisory Commission Minutes Approved on: June 17, 2020 Page 9 of 11 Bret Andersen remarked that amending the Carbon Neutral Plan will be a notable change because there is a qualitative difference between Bucket 1 and Bucket 3 RECs. He understood revenues generated from the sale of RECs would be used for electrification projects. Commissioner Johnston commended staff for softening the impact of budget constraints on customers. He concurred with modifying the Carbon Neutral Plan to reduce the impact of the pandemic. Commissioner Smith recalled the UAC's discussion of RECs in February. Given the economic impacts of the pandemic and the goal of a carbon-free Palo Alto, helping the City find revenue to accomplish goals is logical. Commissioner Scharff believed some of the proposals for the Gas Utility requires direction from the City Council. The majority of savings are obtained through reducing the gas main replacement project. He questioned staff not proposing bond financing for capital projects when the projects involve safety and the Gas Utility will not be eliminated in the next ten years. Batchelor noted the Council raised the same issues, and the Council probably recommended a 2% rate increase in order to fund capital projects. Gas leaks are minimal, and testing for leaks will continue. Bond financing remains an option for capital projects. Funding could be taken from the Reserves, but he preferred not to do that. Commissioner Scharff supported the use of carbon offsets for the Gas Utility. Without the offsets, the Gas Utility will not be carbon neutral. In answer to his question regarding alternatives to eliminating the offset program, Batchelor indicated funding for the program could be taken from Reserves or capital projects could be reduced further. At Chair Danaher's request for an explanation of bond financing, Yuan reported multiple utilities may seek financing. Developing a bond offering typically takes about three to four months. Abendschein added that the minimum amount is usually $5 million, but staff should evaluate $10 million. Financing would be across multiple utilities, but each utility has to pay its share of debt service costs. Chair Danaher proposed staff evaluate bond financing to accelerate capital projects and save on construction costs. Eliminating the offset program could send the message that the City will neglect environmental goals to fill budget shortfalls. In reply to Commissioner Segal's queries about using bond proceeds to pay off existing debt and customer connections, Yuan was not sure the proceeds could be used for existing debt, but the existing debt could be refinanced in the new offering. CPAU could save money by refinancing the existing debt, and staff will evaluate that. Batchelor explained that customer connections are revenue neutral because the customer pays a fee for a first-time connection to a building or residence. Yuan clarified that the utility bears a portion of the cost if improvements to the system are made at the same time as the connection. Batchelor reported before internal crews bore for any type of new service, they have to inspect the sewer line with a video camera to ensure it was not bored into. All capital projects for replacement services require contractors to record inspections of sewer lines to prove cross-bores have not occurred. Commissioner Segal suggested FTTP could be part of a carbon reduction program as it is important for telecommuting. Yuan advised that a new study will evaluate combining undergrounding, fiber, and electrification into one package for neighborhoods. In answer to Commissioner Segal's inquiry about the number of customers seeking bill assistance, Yuan indicated the number of customers applying for assistance has increased but not as much as staff expected. Some customers have submitted incomplete applications. Staff has asked customers inquiring about payment arrangements to inquire again when the emergency ends and the total balance due is known. Donations to ProjectPLEDGE have increased. The number of past-due residential bills has declined significantly probably because MyCPAU reminds customers of due dates. Staff anticipates the number will continue to decrease. The number of past-due commercial bills has increased. Commissioner Segal concurred with comments not to eliminate the gas offset program. Commissioners reached consensus to continue the gas offset program. Commissioner Smith preferred to fund the offset program with proceeds from the sale of Bucket 1 RECs. Commissioner Johnston qualified his support based on Staff finding funding for the program. Utilities Advisory Commission Minutes Approved on: June 17, 2020 Page 10 of 11 Commissioners supported bond financing as a means to fund and perhaps accelerate capital projects, particularly FTTP. Commissioner Smith noted civil infrastructure contractors continue to be extremely busy; therefore, he did not anticipate a decrease in construction costs. Commissioners supported a policy change to sell Bucket 1 RECs and purchase Bucket 3 RECs to meet the full load. Vice Chair Forssell emphasized the importance of framing the issue as replacing Bucket 1 RECs with Bucket 3 RECs, which are legitimate carbon-reducing entities. Commissioner Johnston hoped the Electric Utility could return to purchasing Bucket 1 RECs to cover load. Commissioner Segal concurred with Commissioner Johnston and expressed concern that a drought would reduce potential revenue. Batchelor advised that the policy would not become effective in June because the Council would have to discuss the issues and understand that technically the Electric Utility would be carbon neutral but not from a State perspective. In addition, the Council's break is scheduled for July. Councilmember Cormack acknowledged the fast pace of changes and the inability to study topics in detail. The use of Reserve Funds is appropriate. The Council pushed Director Batchelor hard regarding the gas rate increase, and he admitted the cross-bore and main replacement projects could continue with a 2% rate increase. She did not believe reducing the scope of the projects would create safety issues. She inquired about restrictions on the use of Bucket 1 sale proceeds. Abendschein reported funds associated with the Electric Utility may only be used within the Electric Utility. Otherwise, there are no restrictions on the use of sale proceeds unless the Council establishes restrictions. Councilmember Cormack emphasized that sale proceeds cannot fund General Fund expenditures. ACTION: Commissioner Smith moved to recommend the City Council 1) adopt the Proposed Operating and Capital Budgets for the Utilities Department for Fiscal Year 2021 with an amendment to reinstate the natural gas offset program and 2) amend the Carbon Neutral Plan to sell Bucket 1 Renewable Energy Certificates and purchase Bucket 3 Renewable Energy Certificates. Commissioner Scharff seconded the motion. The motion carried 7-0 with Chair Danaher, Vice Chair Forssell, and Commissioners Jackson, Johnston, Scharff, Segal and Smith voting yes. ITEM 5: ACTION: Selection of Potential Topic(s) for Discussion at Future UAC Meeting. Chair Danaher requested a discussion of bond financing and updates regarding market rates for capital projects and a discussion of accelerating the FTTP project. Dean Batchelor, Utilities Director, remarked that accelerating the FTTP project is unlikely because a new RFP will be required. The selected contractor is capable of doing a high-level design, which will require six to nine months. The Council will then have to approve the design and construction, which is Phase 2. Chair Danaher clarified that the contractor should proceed with design. A detailed discussion of FTTP could surface new ideas. Commissioner Jackson added that the discussion could be preparation for Phases 3 and 4 of the projects. Vice Chair Forssell requested gas leakage return as an action item. Commissioner Scharff requested discussions of the S/CAP, gas offsets, gas leakage, the future of the Gas Utility, and goals for electrification. Chair Danaher suggested the discussion follow receipt of AECOM's analysis of S/CAP goals and actions. Commissioner Segal requested the discussion include the City's or CPAU's ability to mandate behavior versus incentivize and encourage behavior. Jonathan Abendschein, Assistant Director for Resource Management, advised that S/CAP goals and key actions following the Council discussion in June could benefit the discussion. Over the summer, staff will conduct some preliminary analyses of the impacts of rapid decarbonization on the Gas Utility. August or September could be a good time for the discussion. Chair Danaher noted agenda items for water and AMI are scheduled for June. ACTION: None Utilities Advisory Commission Minutes Approved on: June 17, 2020 Page 11 of 11 NEXT SCHEDULED MEETING: June 17, 2020 Commissioner Scharff moved to adjourn the meeting. Commissioner Segal seconded the motion. The motion carried 7-0 with Chair Danaher, Vice Chair Forssell, and Commissioners Jackson, Johnston, Scharff, Segal and Smith voting yes. Meeting adjourned at 12:38 p.m. Respectfully Submitted Tabatha Boatwright City of Palo Alto Utilities City of Palo Alto (ID # 11280) Utilities Advisory Commission Staff Report Report Type: Agenda Items Meeting Date: 5/20/2020 City of Palo Alto Page 1 Summary Title: Sustainability & Climate Action Plan Update Title: Discussion of Potential Goals and Key Actions Related to the 2020 Sustainability & Climate Action Plan From: City Manager Lead Department: Utilities Background & Summary On April 13, 2020, City Council had an extensive discussion of the progress made on the seven Sustainability and Climate Action Plan (S/CAP) topic areas1, and the process to develop key actions for the future to achieve the S/CAP goal of reducing the community’s greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions by 80% by 2030 (Annual Earth Day Report, #11168; Sustainability Work Plan 2020-21 , #11201). During the discussion, staff briefed Council on the timeline and mapped out the process in developing goals and key workplan actions. These goals and actions will be formulated before the help of our consultants and with community input over the next six months. At the meeting Council requested staff to return in June 2020 with the draft set of goals and key actions, before the consultants begin their work on assessing the cost, GHG reduction and sustainability benefits associated with the draft goals and key actions. At the April 15, 2020 UAC meeting, City Council liaison to the UAC, Council member Cormack, requested that the UAC provide input on staff’s draft goals and key actions. Recommended Topics for Discussion at the UAC Meeting Attachment A provides the background on S/CAP, along with draft goals and key actions pertaining to the seven topics. Staff would like UAC’s input on the topics of energy, electric vehicles, and water, areas under UAC purview. Attachment B is a summary of community input received between January 22, 2020 and April 22, 2020 on the 2020 S/CAP Update and the draft goals and key actions. These comments 1 The seven S/CAP Implementation Plan (SIP) areas are: energy, mobility, electric vehicles, water, sea level rise, natural environment, and zero waste. Staff: Shiva Swaminathan City of Palo Alto Page 2 include feedback from the 2020 S/CAP Community Workshop Webi nars, feedback submitted to Council for the April 13 Council Meeting, and feedback received from the Sustainability Website. Documents discussed at the 04/13/2020 Council meeting are provided as weblinks below for additional perspective. •Link to Annual Earth Day Report to Council (4/13/2020, #11168) •Link to Sustainability Work Plan 2020-21 Report to Council (4/13/2020, #11201) •Audio Recordings of Council Discussion of Earth Day Report & Sustainability Work Plan Report (4/13/2020) Resource Impact Appropriate resources are already in place or being considered through the FY 2021 budget process to implement the actions described in the key work plan actions. Policy Implications The goals and key action related to S/CAP 2020 aligns with two of the top three Council Priorities for CY 2020: “Sustainability, in the context of climate change” and “Improving mobility for all.” Stakeholder Engagement Staff has developed a 2020 S/CAP Update Engagement Plan which identifies relevant stakeholders, proposed materials, and desired meeting milestones and outcomes. Environmental Review Discussion of goals and key actions does not constitute a project under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Individual items within the work plan will be e valuated consistent with CEQA prior to approval by the City. Attachments: •Attachment A: 2020 Sustainability and Climate Action Plan Potential Goals and Key Actions DRAFT •Attachment B: Community Input on the 2020 SCAP Potential Goals and Key Actions Related to Energy-Mobility-Electric Vehicles-Water •Attachment C: Item No 2 - SCAP - Presentation Last Updated March 26, 2020 2020 Sustainability and Climate Action Plan Potential Goals and Key Actions DRAFT Attachment A Page 2 of 9 DRAFT 2020 SUSTAINABILITY AND CLIMATE ACTION PLAN POTENTIAL GOALS AND KEY ACTIONS Palo Alto has long been a leader in sustainability, making impressive progress towards reducing its carbon impacts, greenhouse gas emissions, and resource consumption since adopting a Sustainability Policy 1 in 2001, reflecting the City’s intention to be a sustainable community - one which meets its current needs without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs. Since then, the City has undertaken a wide range of initiatives to improve the sustainability performance of both government operations and the community at large, including: adopting one of the first municipal Climate Action Plans2 in the US in 2007; adopting a Sustainability and Climate Action Plan (S/CAP) Framework 3 in 2016, which includes an aspirational goal of reducing Greenhouse Gas (GHGs) emissions 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2030 4; providing 100 percent carbon neutral natural gas since July 2017 — making the City of Palo Alto Utilities the first utility in the world to provide carbon neutral electricity and natural gas as a standard to all customers — having provided 100 percent carbon neutral electricity since 2013; and, in December 2017 accepting the 2018-2020 Sustainability Implementation Plan (SIP) “Key Actions” as a summary of the City’s work program 5. Sustainability is also embedded in the 2030 Comprehensive Plan 6 (adopted in 2017), with 10 goals and over 50 actions outlined in the 2030 Comprehensive Plan Implementation Plan that are explicitly or implicitly related to sustainability. While GHG emissions reduction is not the only goal of the S/CAP, it is a major one. To achieve an 80 percent reduction target by 2030, Palo Alto will need to meet a target “GHG reduction budget” of about 224,600 MT CO2e 7. The analyses in the 2016 S/CAP Framework (conducted in 2014-2015) projected that more than half of the needed additional reductions (117,900 MT CO2e) could come from mobility related measures, just under half (97,200 MT CO2e) from efficiency and fuel switching measures (largely in buildings), and about four percent (9,500 MT CO2e) from continuation and extension of Palo Alto’s zero waste initiatives. These reduction targets are outdated and don’t include recent sustainability initiatives, actions, and projects. The analyses will 1 https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/7856 2 https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/9946 3 https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/60858 4 https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/news/displaynews.asp?NewsID=3534&TargetID=268 5 https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/63141 6 https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/62915 7 MT CO2e = metric tons of CO2 equivalent Page 3 of 9 Overall, the performance of City Municipal Operations showed a 65.8 percent reduction in Scope 1 and Scope 2 emissions8 from the 2005 baseline year. For the City to continue progress towards its climate and sustainability goals and targets, a 2020 S/CAP Update is necessary to further study the highest impact actions to take. While the SIP focused on two key concerns—CO2 emissions and Water—and four key areas of activity: Energy, Mobility, Electric Vehicles, and Water, the 2020 S/CAP Update will include Key Actions in the following areas: Energy, Mobility, Electric Vehicles, Water, Climate Adaptation and Sea Level Rise, Natural Environment, and Zero Waste. This document outlines the proposed goals and Key Actions that will be the foundation for the 2020 S/CAP. Some of the Key Actions can be readily implemented at a staff level; some will require review and approval by Council; and some may require environmental review, including under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), prior to adoption and implementation. All of the Key Actions will go through an impact an alysis, which will detail the costs and benefits (including co-benefits), expected GHG remissions reductions, and sustainability benefits. In addition, in March 2019 Council approved a Sea Level Rise Adaptation Policy to provide a roadmap for creating a co mprehensive Sea Level Rise Adaptation Plan, which will be incorporated into the 2020 S/CAP Update. The City is fully committed to a sustainable future. The City owns, operates, and maintains a full - service utilities portfolio that provides electric, gas, water, and wastewater services to residents and businesses in Palo Alto. Palo Alto’s continued leadership in advancing sustainability commitments has succeeded mainly because of the continued cooperation across City Departments and diverse community stakeholders, and the support of City Council. The 2020 S/CAP will be a major step forward towards the 2030 goal of 80 percent GHG reduction, which far exceeds the state of California’s world-leading reduction goals of 40 percent by 2030 and 80 percent by 2050. As the rest of the country looks to California for leadership in sustainability, the City of Palo Alto will continue to lead by example. Key Timeline Dates: ➢February 2020: Council Informational Report on 2020 S/CAP Update ➢March 2020: Council Approval of 2020 – 2021 Sustainability Work Plan ➢March 2020: 2020 S/CAP Update Community Engagement Workshop ➢April – October 2020: 2020 S/CAP topic – specific meetings ➢Spring 2020: Sea Level Rise Vulnerability Assessment commences ➢May 2020: Updated Business as Usual Forecast completed ➢Summer 2020: Impact Analysis of 2020 S/CAP Key Actions completed ➢Fall 2020: Council Study Session on 2020 S/CAP Update ➢Fall 2020: 2020 S/CAP Summit to finalize goals and Key Actions ➢December 2020: Draft CEQA Report completed 8 Scope 1 and Scope 2 emissions are non-biogenic emissions that are caused by human activity. Biogenic emissions are assumed to be net carbon neutral and not reported under GHG emission reporting protocols. Scope 2 emissions from electricity were eliminated starting in 2013 by the purchase of Renewable Energy Credits (RECs) under the Carbon Neutral Plan. Page 4 of 9 ➢April 2021: Final CEQA Report completed ➢April 2021: Sea Level Rise Adaptation Plan completed ➢April 2021: Council Adopts 2020 S/CAP Update ➢2025: Update the S/CAP with further key actions ➢2030: Achieve S/CAP Goals, including 80% GHG Reduction Page 5 of 9 2020 SUSTAINABILITY AND CLIMATE ACTION PLAN GOALS Reduce Greenhouse Gas (GHG) emissions from the direct use of natural gas in Palo Alto’s building sector by 40% below 1990 levels by 2030 Increase Heat Pump Water Heater adoption to 25% by 2030 Increase all-Electric homes to 20% of all residential single-family homes by 2030 Increase active transportation mode share to 25% for local work trips by 2030 Increase availability of transit and shared mobility services by increasing to 75% the proportion of residents within a quarter-mile walkshed of frequent transit by 2030 Implement Complete Streets and build out the Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation Plan Increase the number of EVs registered in Palo Alto, as a share of total vehicles registered, from 7% in 2018 to 50% by 2030 Target to facilitate 50% of vehicles owned by low income households to be EVs by 2030 Ensure there are adequate numbers and types of EV chargers in Palo Alto to support the growing number of EVs registered in and commuting to Palo Alto Expand the number of EVs in the City’s fleet as the EV fleet market evolves Reduce per capita water use compared to 2019 Increase the percentage of recycled water used (volume of recycled water/recycled water filter capacity) by 10% in 2022 compared to 2019 Reduce the total dissolved solids by 50% compared to 2019 base year Manage stormwater to slow the flow to receiving waters and improve water quality to protect the SF Bay, while also treating it as a beneficial resource for alternative uses Develop a multi-year Sea Level Rise Adaptation Plan for Council Review by April 2021 to include a sea level rise vulnerability assessment and a community engagement strategy for plan development and implementation Renew, restore, and enhance resilience of our natural environment Maximize biodiversity and stewardship of flora, fauna, and air, soil, and water resources Reduce environmental impacts of our actions Increase tree canopy to 40% city-wide coverage by 2030 Expand the designation of pesticide-free parks and city facilities Divert 95% of waste from landfills by 2030, and ultimately achieve zero waste to landfill Implement short- and medium-term initiatives identified in the 2018 Zero Waste Plan Page 6 of 9 GOALS Reduce GHG emissions from the direct use of natural gas in Palo Alto’s building sector by 40% below 1990 levels by 2030 Increase Heat Pump Water Heater adoption to 25% by 2030 Increase all-Electric homes to 20% of all residential single-family homes by 2030 KEY ACTIONS •Meet or exceed City Council-adopted energy efficiency targets •Explore electrification of city-owned facilities with the goal of phasing out fossil fuel use in existing municipal buildings •Phase out fossil fuel use in new and existing buildings through a combination of programs & mandates (includes partnerships and collaborations to support market transformation) •Increase awareness and adoption of efficient electric alternatives to gas appliances and all - electric buildings through community engagement •Implement an all-electric utility rate •Explore opportunities to increase energy resilience (e.g. energy storage, microgrids) •Explore the impact of building decarbonization on City’s gas utility and develop mitigation strategies •Continue to purchase carbon offsets to match natural gas emissions as a transitional measure. Evaluate potential local offset purchases KEY PERFORMANCE INDICATORS •GHG emissions from the building sector •Heat Pump Water Heater plus new residential construction permits •Number of all-Electric homes / customers on all-electric utility rate Emissions from natural gas use represent about 32 percent of Palo Alto’s remaining carbon footprint if we exclude PaloAltoGreen Gas offsets. The decreasing emissions of California and Palo Alto’s energy supply due to renewable energy opens the opportunity to reduce natural gas use through electrification in addition to continued efficiency measures. Palo Alto will first seek to reduce natural gas u sage through energy efficiency and conservation, followed by electrification of water heating, space heating, clothes drying and cooking where practical and cost effective. ENERGY Building efficiency and electrification are key to achieving Palo Alto’s - and California’s – greenhouse gas (GHG) reduction goals. Overcoming building electrification barriers at both the local and regional level will be necessary to increase market adoption in existing buildings. Electrification - and encouraging existing buildings to upgrade to modern energy efficiency levels -may pose significant strategic and operating challenges for the City of Palo Alto Utilities (CPAU ) but is an important strategy to meeting the City’s aggressive GHG reduction goal. Page 7 of 9 GOALS Increase active transportation mode share to 25% for local work trips by 2030 Increase availability of transit and shared mobility services by increasing to 75% the proportion of residents within a quarter-mile walkshed of frequent transit by 2030 Implement Complete Streets and build out the Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation Plan KEY ACTIONS •Fund the TMA with the goal of reducing SOV commute-trips downtown by 30% •Make transit investments that significantly enhance coverage, service quality, frequency, speed and/or access •Expand and improve bicycle and pedestrian facilities, connectivity, convenience, and/or safety in a manner that significantly increases the % of trips taken by walking or biking •Adopt TDM Ordinance per Comp Plan Policy •Increase the number of City Employees utilizing commute benefits •Encourage the use of bike and/or scooter sharing, and the provision of required infrastructure throughout Palo Alto, especially at transit stations and stops, job centers, community centers, and other destinations •Enhance traffic signals to improve traffic flow and reduce idling and associated GHG emissions •Increase the number of bike facilities, including bike parking and signalized intersections with bicycle accommodations (e.g. bicycle signal heads, bicycle detection, colored bicycle lanes) KEY PERFORMANCE INDICATORS •Commute mode share for all modes •Transit ridership and proportion of residents within a quarter-mile walkshed of frequent transit •Commute Benefits participation by City Employees •Miles of bikeways and number of enhanced intersections MOBILITY Road transportation represents the largest percentage of Palo Alto’s existing carbon footprint – and a congestion headache. GHG emissions are a function of two factors: Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT), addressed here, and the carbon intensity (GHG/VMT), addressed in the next section. Reducing GHG/VMT is largely driven by Federal Standards, state policy and vehicle offerings (including fuel efficiency and EVs). However, VMT and EV adoption can be influenced by local programs and policies. The mobility marketplace is changing rapidly: Lyft and Uber are changing the landscape; Autonomous Vehicles are anticipated to increase in market share; and, land use and mobility interact in substantial and complex ways. Page 8 of 9 GOALS Increase the number of EVs registered in Palo Alto, as a share of total vehicles registered, from 7% in 2018 to 50% by 2030 Target to facilitate 50% of vehicles owned by low income households to be EVs by 2030 Ensure there are adequate numbers and types of EV chargers in Palo Alto to support the growing number of EVs registered in and commuting to Palo Alto Expand the number of EVs in the City’s fleet as the EV fleet market evolves KEY ACTIONS •Ensure that at least 75% of the community is aware of the environmental and economic benefits of electric vehicles and the programs available to them •By 2022 quantify the public and private EV charger network needed within the community to support 50% EV penetration in Palo Alto, and develop an implementation plan to establish that charging network •Develop programs to assist and incentivize private EV charging installations in hard to reach locations such as multifamily properties, non-profits, and small commercial sites to ensure adequate and diverse EV charging infrastructure •By 2022, develop a strategic plan to encourage charging of inbound EVs within Palo Alto •Continue to electrify municipal fleet as opportunities arise, and by 2021 develop a comprehensive fleet electrification workplan and associated EV charging needs KEY PERFORMANCE INDICATORS •EVs registered in Palo Alto •EVs registered in low income households in Palo Alto •Percentage of EVs in City’s fleet and availability of municipal charging infrastructure •Number and type of EV charging ports/infrastructure in Palo Alto •Percentage reduction of transportation-related emissions due to EVs ELECTRIC VEHICLES More than half of Palo Alto’s emissions come from transportation, making adoption of Electric Vehicles (EVs) a crucial component to reaching our carbon reduction goals. Compared to fossil fuel vehicles, EVs are cheaper to drive, have lower maintenance costs, and produce no emissions. Driving and charging an EV in Palo Alto especially makes sense given the City’s carbon neutral electricity supply and low electric retail rates. Palo Alto has the highest adoption rate of Electric Vehicles (EVs) in the US, with 1 in 3 new vehicles registered as electric in 2017. Survey results show that 70% of Palo Alto residents are extremely interested in their next vehicle to be an EV if they knew EV charging would be readily available. Page 9 of 9 GOALS Reduce per capita water use compared to 20199 Increase the percentage of recycled water used (volume of recycled water/recycled water filter capacity) by 10% in 2022 compared to 2019 Reduce the total dissolved solids by 50% compared to 2019 base year Manage stormwater to slow the flow to receiving waters and improve water quality to protect the SF Bay, while also treating it as a beneficial resource for alternative uses10 KEY ACTIONS •Maximize cost-effective water conservation & efficiency •Expand the use of effluent from the RWQCP through Non-Potable Reuse, Indirect Potable Reuse, or Direct Potable Reuse •Establish quantifiable baseline and targets for implementation of green stormwater infrastructure on private property, municipal facilities and public rights-of-way by 2024 •Design and build a salt removal facility for the PA Wastewater Treatment Plant •Develop a "One Water" Portfolio for Palo Alto KEY PERFORMANCE INDICATORS •Per capita water use (Gallons Per Capita Per Day) •Percentage recycled water use •Total dissolved solids in recycled water 9 Water use goals will be updated to indoor residential use targets and irrigation use targets after Making Conservation a California Way of Life regulations are established 10 Green Stormwater Infrastructure (GSI) goals will be updated once additional quantification work is conducted over the next three years to provide accurate, realistic and publicly vetted metrics. Water reuse will increase in importance as California’s population expands and climate change and new environmental regulations pose uncertainties in imported water supply availability. Whether a water supply shortage exists or not, “Making Water Conservation a California Way of Life” is a concept embraced by the City. WATER Water is a limited resource in California, and its availability will be further impacted by climate change and new environmental regulations. Both potable water supplies and hydroelectric needs could be challenged by long-term shifts in California’s precipitation regime. With shifting climate patterns, and significant long-term water supply uncertainty, it would be prudent to reduce water consumption while exploring ways to capture and store water, as well as to increase the availability and use of recycled water. Attachment B Go Back to Contents Page Page 1 of 49 Input on the 2020 Sustainability and Climate Action Plan Potential Goals and Key Actions, and Community Engagement Workshop #1 - Compilation of All Input Provided on the 2018 – 2020 Sustainability Implementation Plan Areas (Energy, Mobility, Electric Vehicles, and Water) between 1/22/2020 to 4/30/2020 Contents (You can jump to any of the highlighted sections by hovering your mouse over the section and holding down CTRL while clicking on your mouse) - Energy o Feedback on Potential Goals o Suggestions for New Goals o Potential Key Actions to explore further o Feedback on Potential Key Actions o Suggestions for New Key Actions o General Feedback - Mobility o Feedback on Potential Goals o Suggestions for New Goals o Potential Key Actions to explore further o Feedback on Potential Key Actions o Suggestions for New Key Actions o General Feedback - Electric Vehicles o Feedback on Potential Goals o Suggestions for New Goals o Potential Key Actions to explore further o Feedback on Potential Key Actions o Suggestions for New Key Actions o General Feedback - Water o Feedback on Potential Goals o Suggestions for New Goals o Potential Key Actions to explore further o Feedback on Potential Key Actions o Suggestions for New Key Actions o General Feedback Document containing the entire community feedback is linked here. Attachment B Go Back to Contents Page Page 2 of 49 Energy Potential Goals  Reduce greenhouse gas emissions from the direct use of natural gas in Palo Alto’s building sector by 40% below 1990 levels by 2030  Increase Heat Pump Water Heater adoption to 25% by 2030  Increase all-Electric homes to 20% of all residential single-family homes by 2030 Energy: Feedback on Potential Goals - Midtown Resident o How can I be polite about these minimalist “energy goals”, which are pledged to be achieved in 10 years time. Instead of these tiny “goals”, how about getting to 95% electric by 2025? - Resident o As a proud Palo Alto resident, sustainability advocate, founder and CEO of an industry non-profit focused on the sustainable development deployment and utilization of renewable natural gas (RNG or biogas-derived Biomethane), I would like to suggest an amendment to bullet #1 of the draft 2020 Sustainability and Climate Action Plan Potential Areas and Priorities regarding building efficiency & electrification as follows (proposed language added in bold):  Building efficiency and electrification are key to achieving Palo Alto’s greenhouse gas reduction goals. Decarbonizing existing buildings, including by replacing fossil gas with renewable gas, and Oovercoming building electrification barriers at both the local and regional level will be necessary to increase market adoption in both existing buildings and new construction. - Greenmeadow Resident o I am surprised that the goal for all-electric (20%) is almost as large as that for heat-pump water heaters (25%). I would think the latter is much cheaper, particularly for retrofits, and so much more achievable. I would raise our goal for water heating and consider lowering it for space heating (though that is a no-brainer for new construction). A concern I have is that we seem to be prioritizing the most expensive options, and options that do not apply to renters or people in larger buildings. I also think that residents are increasingly concerned with the reliability of our electricity, and that will make conservation and efficiency more appealing than electrification. So how can we measure and reward that? - Resident o I am not sure if the HPWH and All electric home goals are sufficient to meet the 40% reduction goals. The bottom line - in order to meet 80% by 2030, we need to fuel switch most water heaters and a majority of space heating systems. For water heaters, this would be approx. 2300 water heaters per year. This requires a strong program that provides not only easy permitting, but also rebates and financing options and mandated fuel switching. - Resident o These are very ambitious goals. I am all for them, but concerned they are not realistic. What is the projected GHG effect of the reduced natural gas use in the soon-to-be adopted reach code? I think commercial and multi-family properties should be included Attachment B Go Back to Contents Page Page 3 of 49 too, not just single-family homes. I don't think these adoption rates are feasible without financially disincentivizing natural gas use in already-existing building stock. How can that be done in a legal and just way? We need some serious rebates and elevated rates for not jumping for it, and a full-service effort to make the switch as painless as possible. There aren't currently enough skilled HPWH installation contractors to make this level of shift feasible. - Resident o I am opposed to the City's direction to eliminate use of natural gas in home for heating, cooking and hot water. The other options are not cost effective - therefore I oppose all the goals that aim to do this. This is an elitist perspective that has the result of forcing out retired and middle-income people There is no cost-effective option for hot water heating compared to natural gas. - Resident o How are these percentages going to be based on? Per household, or per capita? - Resident o While ambitious, these goals are doable and essential.  Reduce greenhouse gas emissions from the direct use of natural gas in Palo Alto’s building sector by 40% below 1990 levels by 2030 - Barron Park Resident o Palo Alto should be reducing GHG emissions from natural gas in buildings by about 70%, not 40% as the 70% reduction is what is required to meet the 80 by 30 goal. Not sure why the city is aiming low on this. - Resident o I would like the 40% decrease sooner. The HPWH adoption should be part of an ongoing exchange program as any new homeowner replaces a water heater. This should be a highly subsidized program with communications at all retail locations as well as to contractors. - Professorville Resident o How does a 40% reduction equal a 80% reduction? - Resident o As you may know, RNG is produced from methane (a short-lived climate pollutant that is many times more potent than carbon as a greenhouse gas) that has been captured (avoided emissions) from organic waste streams, including at municipal solid waste landfills, from diverted food waste, wastewater treatment facilities, livestock and agricultural operations. Once captured it is converted to an ultra-low carbon source of fuel or power. RNG is raw biogas that has been conditioned such that it is interchangeable with and serves as a direct replacement for natural gas, and can be injected into and decarbonize existing pipeline distribution system, effectively decarbonizing the gas delivered and used to heat and power existing residential, commercial and industrial facilities (where electrification is too difficult or otherwise unfeasible). This would also correlate with and support the first goal listed in the draft 2020 Sustainability and Climate Action Plan Goals document to: Reduce greenhouse gas emissions from the direct use of natural gas in Palo Alto’s building sector by 40% below 1990 levels by 2030. o A variety of studies have found that RNG will be a necessary component of any strategy for reaching California’s long-term decarbonization goals. For example, work done by Attachment B Go Back to Contents Page Page 4 of 49 Energy and Environmental Economics (E3) found that RNG could contribute to GHG reductions in all sectors, and that use of RNG in the industrial sector would be especially helpful due to the limited alternative abatement options available in that sector. The Energy Futures Initiative (EFI) also found that RNG is likely to be an essential contributor to California’s decarbonization effort, because it is a cost-effective solution available at scale in the near-term. E3 has produced a series of work that shows the complementary nature of RNG and other low-carbon technologies. This series includes: The 2017 Scoping Plan Pathways Analysis, Deep Decarbonization in a High Renewables Future: Updated Results from the California PATHWAYS Model (June 2018) and Residential Building Electrification in California (April 2019) and Natural Gas Distribution in California’s Low-Carbon Future: Technology Options, Customer Costs and Public Health Benefits, (Aas et al. 2019). E3 has consistently included statements such as, “industrial sector emissions are expected to be among the more difficult, and more expensive to mitigate.” (See page 30 of Deep Decarbonization.) EFI, May 2019, Optionality, Flexibility, and Innovation, Pathways for Deep Decarbonization in California, https://static1.squarespace.com/static/58ec123cb3db2bd94e057628/t/5ced6fc515fcc0 b190b60cd2/1559064542876/EFI_CA_Decarbonization_ Full.pdf. Please let me know if you have any questions and or if our organization can serve as a resource as you finalize the draft through the remainder of the process.  Increase Heat Pump Water Heater adoption to 25% by 2030 - Barron Park Resident o For the Heat Pump Water Heater (HPWH) adoption rate, this should be 70% not only 25%. This means that all water heaters on failure, must be required to be replaced with a HPWH when this can be done. With some homes, this will not be possible due to space requirements. Just to be clear, this means that about 2300 HPWH needs to be installed each year if Palo Alto really wants to meet the 80 by 30 goal. The good news is that water heaters have about a 10-year life span so that no water heaters will have to be replaced prematurely if this program can be put in place soon. Since space heating is the next largest natural gas use in the home, there should be a goal of replacing 70% of natural gas space heaters by 2030. There will need to be a good program for this as the natural life time of a space heater is more like 20 years so some will have to be replaced before the end of life to meet the 80 by 30 goal. - Resident o The HPWH goal is good, but not all homes can use HPWH and Heat Pump heaters (Eichlers, those without garages, radiant floor heated places, etc.). It’s kind of in the goal for 20% of all homes to be all-electric, but would be more actionable if it were stated separately as a goal. - Resident o Heat Pump Water Heater conversion is an important component of reducing natural gas usage, but based on personal experience, it's not an easy sell and it's not so easy to get done. My family converted to a heat pump water heater in 2018 and we are happy with our decision to do so. Try to be realistic about what can actually be accomplished here by tracking year-to-year progress against annual requirements to meet this lofty goal. Taking into consideration how many conversions have been made over the past 3 years and projected improvements in technology, is the 25% adoption rate goal by 2030 Attachment B Go Back to Contents Page Page 5 of 49 feasible or pie in the sky? Connecting listed key actions to meeting this goal seems vague. Among other things, an infrastructure of reliable and available contractors for this conversion work needs to be developed. Additional incentivization will likely be required for any significant progress. - Resident o Do you mean 25% of new water heaters are heat pump or ALL are by 2030? Need clarification. - Resident o Clarify if the water heater goal is for residential or also commercial building? - Professorville Resident o How does an adoption of 25% HPWH equal a 90% reduction by 2030?  Increase all-Electric homes to 20% of all residential single-family homes by 2030 - Resident o Will 20% of homes being all electric get us to our 80/30 goal? It doesn’t seem like this will make enough of a difference. - Professorville Resident o How does increase 20% of home electrification get us to 80%? Energy: Suggestions for New Goals - Resident o Please add: Increase use of Renewable Natural Gas (Biomethane) to replace conventional Natural Gas usage (20% by 2030) - Greenmeadow Resident o I am surprised there is no goal around efficiency and/or conservation, except as implied by the 40% reduction goal. I would have a goal around that, since it is something that everyone can do at little cost and little overhead. - Resident o We need to have a goal around retrofit electrification, not just new building electrification. Energy: Potential Key Actions to explore further (These potential Key Actions do not represent all the work that the City is doing or will be doing related to climate change and sustainability. These are the actions we will be prioritizing. They are numbered to make it easier to refer to specific Actions. They are NOT numbered based on priority.) # of Votes Potential Key Actions 5 1. Meet or exceed City Council-adopted energy efficiency targets 7 2. Explore electrification of city-owned facilities with the goal of phasing out fossil fuel use in existing municipal buildings 9 3. Phase out fossil fuel use in new and existing buildings through a combination of programs & mandates (includes partnerships and collaborations to support market transformation) Attachment B Go Back to Contents Page Page 6 of 49 4 4. Increase awareness and adoption of efficient electric alternatives to gas appliances and all-electric buildings through community engagement 3 5. Implement an all-electric utility rate 8 6. Explore opportunities to increase energy resilience (e.g. energy storage, microgrids) 3 7. Explore the impact of building decarbonization on City’s gas utility and develop mitigation strategies 2 8. Continue to purchase carbon offsets to match natural gas emissions as a transitional measure. Evaluate potential local offset purchases Energy: Feedback on Potential Key Actions - Greenmeadow Resident o I think we should focus exclusively on space and water heating and ignore appliances, which have relatively little impact. An easy action here is detecting and repairing leaks (pipelines, gas meters), but I think we are already working on that. - Resident o How do the key actions match or coordinate with Cal state actions/goals? - Palo Alto Non-Profit o Question: Given that furnaces last 30 years, and an estimated 800 gas furnaces are replaced in Palo Alto every year (currently almost entirely with gas furnaces), what is Palo Alto's plan to convert 40% of furnaces to heat pumps by 2030? - Resident o If you want widespread adoption of heat pumps and all-electric homes, you need to find ways to make it easier for homes to increase their electrical capacity. Many homes do not have panels that can accommodate the increased need for electricity. - Resident o I am very much opposed to the Action Items that are aimed to phase out natural gas appliances and natural gas usage in homes. - Professorville Resident o Seems that we'll need to mandate some of these measures in order to meet our goal 1. Meet or exceed City Council-adopted energy efficiency targets 2. Explore electrification of city-owned facilities with the goal of phasing out fossil fuel use in existing municipal buildings - Barron Park Resident o Explore Electrification of city-owned facilities with the goal of phasing out fossil fuel use in existing municipal buildings - Palo Alto Non-Profit o Change "Explore electrification of city-owned facilities" to "Electrify City-owned facilities"  Batteries and Geothermal energy should be added as resilience strategies that also allow for time coincident delivery of clean renewables.  “Home to Grid” is also an essential resilience strategy: The home should be wired so that the EV can Run the house (Japanese EVs are already designed this way). Attachment B Go Back to Contents Page Page 7 of 49 - Resident o Amend #2 to also explore use of renewable natural gas (Biomethane) in concerting with electrification efforts, with goal of phasing out fossil fuel use in existing municipal buildings - Resident o Convert into “Make a plan and implement it to electrify city facilities.” - Resident o Electrifying municipal buildings is a good start. It will give some staff firsthand experience of the hurdles to do so. - Resident o We should be past exploration and start electrification in city buildings. 3. Phase out fossil fuel use in new and existing buildings through a combination of programs & mandates (includes partnerships and collaborations to support market transformation) - Palo Alto Non-Profit o Add “Ensure that installation of rooftop solar panels does not result in loss of existing trees.” Trees are key to addressing climate change by both sequestering carbon and cooling homes through shading and evapotranspiration. A single tree can store hundreds of pounds of carbon over its lifetime. Three trees properly placed around a house can save up to 30% of energy use. Large trees--particularly those designated by the city as protected—should not be lost to solar panel installations. - Palo Alto Non-Profit o This item needs more specificity. Perhaps the components of this action should be separated into separate actions, with target dates set for the establishment of specific programs and mandates. - Barron Park Resident o Must include on-bill financing for electrification. - Resident o The most important Potential Key Action is the phase out of fossil fuel use in existing buildings through programs AND mandates. - Resident o I disagree with moving away from natural gas for heating and cooking. It's too expensive for limited benefits - Resident o Phase out should begin asap. - Professorville Resident o Yes, need to phase out ALL fossil fuels in existing buildings. o Develop decarbonization's impact on under-served community too. Don't make them pay extra. - Evergreen Park Resident o 3 IS ABSOLUTELY THE MOST IMPORTANT. It would be accomplished by first doing 2, 4, 5 & 7. - Resident o Incentivize residents to retrofit from nat gas to electric, by giving them very concrete steps and make it so they don't lose money when doing so. Do focus groups to see what specifics would appeal to residents the best during the planning process. Attachment B Go Back to Contents Page Page 8 of 49 4. Increase awareness and adoption of efficient electric alternatives to gas appliances and all- electric buildings through community engagement - Resident o Take advantage of existing community partners such as non-profits - Resident o In addition to awareness, we should be working on funding support. - Resident o I don't know how this will be possible without #5 and #3. 5. Implement an all-electric utility rate - Resident o I’m very enthusiastic about this item. - Palo Alto Non-Profit o We strongly support an all-electric utility rate - Resident o Might need to increase natural gas usage or cut fees for all-electric customers - Resident o Item 5 is redundant and regressive. It would disproportionately hurt those living in older dual fuel homes and require seniors and lower income residents to pay more to keep the existing infrastructure properly maintained. It is a misguided policy. 6. Explore opportunities to increase energy resilience (e.g. energy storage, microgrids) - Barron Park Resident o Good for resiliency but does not really reduce GHGs - Resident o I’m very enthusiastic about this item. If you can tie electrification to resiliency/disaster preparedness, then it gives you double reasons to invest. - Palo Alto Non-Profit o Include local solar farms in these opportunities. Developing methods to allow for both solar panels and trees can be achieved by batching solar panels in local solar farms in appropriate places. Local solar farms, such as those recently approved by the California Energy Commission for the Sacramento Municipal Utility District, provide an alternative to installation of rooftop solar panels that conflict with trees and parking lot solar panels where there is or could be tree canopy cover. See Natural Environment, Key Action #7 below. - Resident o I think more solar and local storage is the most important action. The electric grid needs to be more reliable and reduce our reliance on PG&E. Palo Alto should be self-sufficient for energy. - Resident o I strongly advocate for transitioning to more distributed energy systems (microgrids) that support the integration of renewable energy technologies as per the recommendations of researchers. This will result in reduction of greenhouse gas emissions and improve the resiliency of our power system. Attachment B Go Back to Contents Page Page 9 of 49 - Professorville Resident o Love microgrids. Good for resiliency too! - Resident o Do feasibility assessments for microgrids in PA. Check with the Clean Coalition about how to do that. 7. Explore the impact of building decarbonization on City’s gas utility and develop mitigation strategies - Barron Park Resident o Explore the impact of building decarbonization on City’s gas utility and develop mitigation strategies for the phasing out of the city gas system to the home. - Resident o Consider (during exploration of impact on City's gas utility) the benefits of replacing conventional natural gas with renewable natural gas as a renewable source of baseload power 8. Continue to purchase carbon offsets to match natural gas emissions as a transitional measure. Evaluate potential local offset purchases - Palo Alto Non-Profit o Reword: “Shift the primary strategy to reduce NG emissions from carbon offsets to real- world infrastructure emission reductions within the City.” - Barron Park Resident o Questionable since this does not really reduce Palo Alto’s GHG but is costly. Money should be spent on electrification instead, especially since the offsets really only cover half of the real GHG emission from natural gas. - Midtown Resident o How about we stop creating poison-pollution instead? - Resident o I’m very unenthusiastic about this item. If we’re going to use carbon offsets – which are really a transition strategy -– we should pay a more realistic rate per metric ton of C02 to represent the true cost of natural gas. Economists currently say that $50 per ton is a true cost, which will cause our gas rates to increase and make electrification more reasonable. - Resident o Continue efforts to meet emission reduction goals without relying on the “accounting crutch” of natural gas offsets. - Resident o I don't think additional time should be spent pursuing natural gas offsets. They make the City seem artificially impressive when we really need to reduce our natural gas consumption. I'm not against offsets but they make the City look like it's reduced its GHG more than it actually has. - Resident o Don't treat offsets as any kind of completion. Inherently, that's dependent on city finances (esp. post-COVID) and doesn't address structural issues - Resident Attachment B Go Back to Contents Page Page 10 of 49 o I would like to see all gas leakage included in calculating GHG emissions from gas and use a 20-year 86X scale for CH4. - Professorville Resident o Local offsets would be great, but we should NOT be counting that towards our GHG reduction. - Resident o Electrification Targets. Set a timeline to eliminate the “bridge” use of natural gas offsets as was done previously with the transition from PA Green to carbon-neutral electricity. Energy: Suggestions for New Key Actions - Greenmeadow Resident o I would like to see an action or two around conservation (e.g., lowering the thermostat), and other universal solutions with low upfront cost. - Resident o I think we need an action (or add to an existing action) about really understanding the barriers to electrification (building department codes, lack of affordable contractors willing to work in Palo Alto, differences between CPAU standards and PG&E standards, Eichlers and other houses that may not work with heat pump technologies etc.) to determine the best programs and incentives to drive electrification. This of course is something we can help with via the Cool Block program. - Palo Alto Non-Profit o Create new Potential Key Action #9: New homes should be wired so that the EV can run the house, known as “home to grid”. (Japanese EVs are already designed this way) - Palo Verde Resident o Add an action item to evaluate whether or not key actions are proving useful or impossible to meet. Maybe the need for carbon offsets means there is a problem with the goal that the carbon offsets are meant to meet. - Professorville Resident o What about more effort on distributed PV? Energy: General Feedback - Employee in Palo Alto o I would like to be in the conversation of how Palo Alto can lower its carbon footprint in our buildings. I specifically would like to address changing some of our requirements around using concrete. - Old Palo Alto Resident o Focus electrification incentives and mandates on high consumption facilities. As a personal example, installing an electric stove and water heater at my house might well be counter-productive: My 2019 yearly gas consumption was 22 therms, maybe equivalent to 15 gallons of gasoline. The City has the data to figure out a program that will put the resources where they will have most effect. If the City is a major gas consumer, it should lead the community in electrifying its hungriest facilities. - Midtown Resident o The #1 thing Palo Alto can do to mitigate building-related climate change is “negawatts” – dramatically increasing building energy efficiency. That will also stretch resources in a Attachment B Go Back to Contents Page Page 11 of 49 supply disruption or emergency. Local renewable energy production is the #2 priority for reducing both building and transportation GHG emissions. Could Palo Alto become a “laboratory” for local climate change innovation by harnessing local renewable distributed energy resources (DER), such as PV electricity and EV storage? These are the difficult challenges we need to undertake. It is essential that we address electricity supply resilience in our plan to reduce GHG emissions – especially if we are contemplating a shift from natural gas to all electric buildings, as the SCAP proposes: With a single grid interconnect – through PG&E – Palo Alto is deeply vulnerable to disruption. A partial solution would be to add a second interconnect, so that we are not vulnerable to a single point failure. And CPAU dispatch of enhanced local resources could provide grid support in an emergency. Perhaps, too, there are opportunities to partner with Stanford, with its innovative energy system. Until we address electricity supply resilience, it would be highly risky to mandate all-electric buildings as our approach to in-building GHG emission reduction, as SCAP proposes. As a Palo Alto emergency services volunteer (BPC and CERT), I have learned that in an earthquake or other emergency, even minimal local energy production could stabilize our neighborhoods, enabling residents to shelter in place, and not evacuate. I propose the goal that 1 house in 10 (proportionately for other buildings) have the energy to power a refrigerator, water pump, and emergency communications. Let’s also explore partnering with Tesla to pilot approaches for using the considerable amount of electricity stored in EVs during supply disruptions or natural emergencies. - Resident o I don't see any statement that the City will stop hooking up natural gas on new construction. That should absolutely happen. - Resident o Electrify everything is a blunt instrument that does not take into account that our electricity overnight comes from gas generation o EE is helpful independent of fuel switching. It should be noted that if the adoption of ZEVs gets to the levels desired, more infrastructure and electricity resources will be needed, especially overnight. Most actions on this list make a fundamental assumption that electricity is always cleaner than natural gas used on site when that is not always the case. Popular slogans and good intentions are obscuring facts here. I urge the Sustainability Planning team to learn about transparent hourly carbon accounting being proposed by CPAU staff, the actual sources of electricity, and the organizing principle of “beneficial electrification,” rather than embracing a single “electrify everything” perspective. Simple and straightforward explanations of the distinctions between achievements like 100% Carbon Neutrality and the reality of electricity delivery can be found at: https://www.tothept.com/understand-distinctions/ and https://www.tothept.com/adopthourly-accounting/ o Beneficial Electrification1 (BE) recommends the shift from fossil fuel-based energy sources to electricity for end-uses where doing so achieves at least one of the following goals while minimizing the impact on others: • Save consumers money over time; • Benefit the environment and reduce greenhouse gas emissions; • Improve product quality or consumer quality of life; • Foster a more robust and resilient grid; • Maintain the social compact of universal service for disadvantaged communities (added for the SECC paper) Attachment B Go Back to Contents Page Page 12 of 49 o Designing beneficial electrification policies and roadmaps provide valuable opportunities to identify solutions that work well for consumers, local communities and the environment. This framework allows consideration of integrating new low carbon and renewable fuels for sectors that are not easy to electrify or where legacy investments in assets and infrastructure will require longer time horizons to transition.2 We also need to distinguish recommendations and policies for new construction versus retrofitting legacy housing which is desirable to maintain for a host of reasons: environmental impact, reduced waste, and economic diversity of the population to name just a few. Palo Alto has extensive natural gas infrastructure and operational costs are socialized across the city. Who pays the fixed costs if we incentivize a lower all- electric rate? Well-intentioned electrification policies such as natural gas bans of direct use in new construction will leave many seniors and lower income residents and their landlords responsible for outstanding costs of maintaining legacy natural gas delivery systems. Do we want to spend the money and endure the disruption to rip out infrastructure when we could gradually replace natural gas and use waste streams that will continue to be produced in the City. We would truly be innovative leaders if we support biogas, anaerobic digestion, or pyrolysis which have other environmental benefits. I would urge the City Council to maintain the Measure E site as a possible location. Varied attitudes exist within the community and trade-offs should be considered. Some people feel natural gas is more reliable than electricity. Most neighborhoods have routine electrical outages and occasional black outs but have not experienced natural gas shortages. Because most consumers do not understand how electricity infrastructure is paid for, they may not fully understand what it means to eliminate an option. With over 98 million smart meters installed in the U.S. reaching 70% of all Americans, Palo Alto is one of only a few cities in California to not have Advanced Meter Infrastructure (AMI) deployed. A key benefit of this technology is that each household can make choices that suit their situation and priorities, including different rates. AMI for gas, water, and electricity is planned for the future in Palo Alto but is only in the early stages. 1 https://beneficialelectrification.com/ 2 Southern California Edison, PATHWAY 2045, Update to the Clean Power and Electrification Pathway, November 2019 o Enable consumer choice and avoid coercion. A decade of research by the Smart Energy Consumer Collaborative and other organizations, as well as the Voices of Experience series published by the U.S. Department of Energy, have definitively confirmed: • Consumers like choices (payment plans, pricing, technology) that align with their priorities and attitudes and dislike having options taken away or solutions imposed; • Overpromising—particularly when it comes to cost savings—degrades customer trust, when those savings are modest or don’t materialize immediately or in a timely fashion; • The potential of technology transformations can only be realized if the major elements are implemented properly, i.e. AMI infrastructure alone can’t deliver operational efficiencies and improved service for customers. Home automation requires price triggers, detailed usage data, and analytics to deliver value; • Industry doesn’t always anticipate which advances consumers will perceive as valuable. (i.e. outage detection and restoration management enabled by AMI was touted as a utility benefit but turned out to be extremely well-received by the public.) Another lesson learned from grid modernization efforts is that people tend to project their own perspective and assume everyone feels the same way they do. When cost Attachment B Go Back to Contents Page Page 13 of 49 savings are perceived as the primary driver for all, marketing materials tend to overwhelming emphasize that point, even if bill savings are elusive or minimal. o Passionate advocates who believe climate change must be tackled quickly at any cost may be less receptive to hearing that transitioning generation resources will take time or that innovations by natural gas suppliers and equipment manufacturers may, in some cases, actually reduce GHG emissions sooner. Consumers will need to be introduced to the alternatives, and they will need to be the ones who make their minds up on which they prefer. o NO Mandates. Adopt accurate hourly carbon accounting so we know what the real impact is. Most people are misinformed because of incomplete info provided by the city. 100% Carbon Neutral does not mean 100% renewables or carbon free and the City leaders use the terms interchangeably and incorrectly. - Barron Park Resident o Palo Alto needs to have true accounting for natural gas use. The global warming potential for natural gas should be 86 times that of CO2 (not 20) and natural gas leakage must also be accounted for including the entire natural gas supply chain and not just within the city boundaries. o On bill financing for HPWH and space heating of homes will be critical in getting electrification of existing homes to happen. This must be implemented to help leverage community funding of electrification as the city will not have enough money, rebates or otherwise to make this happen at scale. o There will also have to be streamlined permitting for electrification to happen at scale. This is an on-going problem such that even now some contractors will not work in Palo Alto any more due to the over burdensome permitting process. o Along with an all-electric rate for homes, the city should also consider changing the solar net meter rates to the old net meter program (more favorable) for homes that go all electric as an incentive to do so. o The city should also look at the possibility of electrifying all homes on a street or cul-de- sac when considering an update of the natural gas line supplying the street or cul-de- sac. Use the money that would have gone to the gas line update, to instead, electrify the homes and turn off the gas all together. - Palo Alto Youth Group o We support the potential goals/actions provided in the energy section. Approving the building reach code ordinance was a crucial first step, and we would like to see greater specificity in terms of actions and strategies to reach (and enforce) these goals. We believe that Palo Alto has the ability and resources to push for more ambitious and GND-aligning reduction plans such as 100% renewable energy by 2030. In addition, overriding the subgoal of 40% natural gas reductions would result in a decrease in the need to purchase offsets, freeing these financial resources for other investments. - Resident o Any kind of renovation based on voluntary pickup is always going to be slow, especially given the high costs of any building operations and the inertia of "my house is fine." There perhaps needs to be strong incentives/disincentives, perhaps a raising of the natural gas utility fees to show the environment cost of usage (based on the Reach Code discussions) o Energy resilience is going to need to be done in a geographically-equitable manner, otherwise we get into the standard neighborhood vs neighborhood discussions (as seen with the Caltrain right-of-ways, 5G towers, underground powerlines, etc.) Attachment B Go Back to Contents Page Page 14 of 49 o At some point, awareness operations might fall into the pitfall of "preaching to the choir," in which case we can't be timid in going forward in methods that might draw latent opposition - Professorville Resident o My biggest complaint in going all electric is in California, ½ of the electricity generated comes from natural gas. That means that ½ of Palo Alto’s electricity comes from natural gas. When electricity is generated at Palo Alto’s energy source it is not marked “this is for Palo Alto”. Palo Alto just pays the bill each month for the amount it uses. CBS Television frequently reviews books on-air and at the end of the review, they mention that the book was published by one of its companies. It’s disclaimer as required by the federal government. To me I think it would be appropriate that you also mention that Palo Alto has it’s own power utility. Palo Alto makes good income for selling electricity. I have no problem with that, I’ve been living here for close to 50 years and love it. When I designed and built my home more than 35 years ago, the theme or concept was energy conservation (Gerry Brown was the governor at the time). I wanted solar water heating and passive energy storage with several large skylights to bring in the sun. Many walls 1½” thick plaster and some floor areas have 2” think concrete with tile. o One more thing regarding heat pump heating, my next door neighbor recently installed a heat pump, but mostly for the AC. I congratulated him as I thought it was a good move. This house was built about 15 years ago with a mostly electric theme. For room heating it had steel plates sticking out from the walls. I remember cringing when I saw this. Last Saturday evening, we started to hear a fan in the background as we were watching TV. I went through the house to see if any fans were left-on. Nothing! The next morning I went outside and then heard the fan noise was coming form the heat pump on the side of the house. The noise is not that much of a problem now, but in the summer when we have windows open, I think it will. BTW, we have an induction cooktop and electric oven. This is just fine. o The problem I have with trying to get everyone or mostly to go all-electric is that using electricity for heating purposes would actually increase and not decrease the use of natural gas in the state. Remember that in California, 50% of electricity is generated by the use of natural gas. That process in the power plant is only 40% efficient. Where as when used in the home or business for heating water or space-heating, natural gas is 90 to 95% efficient. Then there are some cooks that swear by the use of gas for their stoves and cooktops, they will have no other, I’m not one of them. In the use of heat-pump water heaters, remember that the heat pump can only supply a small fraction of the energy required when there is high demand for hot water. The rest comes from electric coils in the tank. They are very efficient, but costly. o Do you have data on the comparison of natural gas heating vs, heat pump costs? o Some people like to have a nice flickering fireplace or gas stove to view or for heating. I think this is very important. o I won't be making any changes. 50% of Californian's electricity comes from natural gas. Heat pump water heaters supply only a small part of heating capability. o Promote the installation of solar water heating systems. We have one in our house and May to October we use no natural gas unless we a couple days of cloudy weather. o In addition, allow the design of water flowing to solar tank that is actually used, i.e., not requiring heat exchangers. Our water is very pure and no problem of calcium build up. o Build a list of energy storage systems and cost. - Community Center Resident Attachment B Go Back to Contents Page Page 15 of 49 o I’d like to see the city take on the following:  Electrification of homes/businesses be it new construction or replacement of appliances in existing home or businesses.  Increase energy efficiency wherever possible. Discourage the unnecessary, frivolous use of exterior and interior illumination. - Community Center Resident o I would like to see the city take on the following:  Electrification of our homes  Increase energy efficiency wherever possible - Crescent Park Resident o Please continue to emphasize electrification measures - Midtown Resident o The City's leadership in switching to renewable electricity is inspiring. Now we need to keep going and eliminate the GHGs from burning fossil gas, one of the largest sources of Palo Alto's emissions. The general comments above about creating measurable goals, and reporting them also apply here. While we should increase the incentives for individual action to retrofit homes, offices and other buildings, we must also undertake a twenty-year plan for the phase out of all natural gas use and the elimination of the old and likely leaking gas pipes that are threaded under our streets. o Here are some further ideas for reducing energy-related GHGs:  1) The City should stop purchasing offsets for gas and instead, put the funds used for that into an aggressive retrofit program to switch out gas-burning water- and space heaters, stoves, clothes dryers, and industrial scale equipment.  2) Standardize PA’s building codes to match those in PG&E’s area. This will reduce retrofit costs for residents who choose to work with a personal contractor.  3) Streamline the permitting process and lower or eliminate fees for retrofit permits.  4) Set up a group buy discount for heat pump water heaters, space-heaters, stove tops and dryers. The SunShares program can be a good model for how to do this.  5) Make a plan to shut-off of gas lines, starting with older gas pipes that would need to be repaired/replaced in the near future. We should replace one- twentieth of the gas-powered appliances every year for the next twenty years, starting in January 2021. That would double (to 50%) the proposed 25% reduction (p.14) in gas-powered water heaters by 2030 — and likewise increase the percentage of all-electric homes to 50% by 2030. We need to think "scale" and "urgent."  6) Train CPAU staff to assist residents in planning their retrofits, including measurement of electrical panel capacity and plans for upgrading such panels if needed to accommodate a larger electric load, including not only appliances, but also potential future EV purchases.  7) Train CPAU staff also to install retrofits, on a schedule that matches the planned gas-line shut-offs. This could be part of CPAU's regular customer service workload. (And yes, it will cost some money -- see 1) above.)  8) Provide on-bill financing, so that the cost of retrofits will become part of the utility bill that is transferable to whoever lives or works in a building (and thus Attachment B Go Back to Contents Page Page 16 of 49 pays the bill). This will make it easier for older residents to see that the cost of a retrofit can be spread out over time, even if they sell the house. The long-term loans that are inherent in on-bill financing are crucial if we are going to hit our S/CAP goal. CPAU might be able to tap into municipal bonds or utility bond financing to acquire the capital needed to provide such on-bill financing. - University South Residents o The CFPA document clearly shows that we have not made progress in reducing natural gas use. They point out that this fact is obscured by including carbon offsets in the accounting. We urge the end of this misleading practice. Furthermore, we urge you to adopt the solution proposed in CPFA's BE Smart white paper, including on-bill financing to make it practical for homeowners to replace their hot water heaters and other gas systems with electric ones. - Palo Alto Non-Profit o The city should Determine the date(s) at which the city will turn off the residential commercial and industrial natural gas distribution systems, publicize these date(s) now and simultaneously offer electrification solutions; o Single Family Dwelling Residential Electrification:  For the past 8 years, and until recently, we have lived the “all-electric life” in PGH with an induction stove, heat pump water/ space heater, electric dryer, photovoltaic panels, driving various electric vehicles and more. In comparing PGH to an equivalent natural gas/ electric (dual fueled) home, it is our evaluation that the all-electric life is: • a) Safer for us and our children (both for indoor air quality and in reducing the potential for burns); • b) Less expensive than the dual-fueled home (both first and ongoing costs); • c) More resilient during blackouts and earthquakes • d) More convenient and pleasant to use; and • e) Has a much lower carbon and energy footprint than the equivalent dual-fueled home. - Resident o Adopt an ordinance prohibiting construction by neighboring buildings that decreases solar access to solar panels that existed prior to the construction to protect the investment in solar panels. This includes photovoltaic panels and solar hot water systems. o Regarding the adoption of all-electric homes by the City Council, note the staff’s rushed creation of a pre-application process to allow designers to be exempt from this new requirement. Such a pre-application process was not, to my knowledge, authorized by the City Council in its ordinance. I can understand an application submission prior to the effective date of an ordinance, but I have trouble understanding a pre-application process to get around an ordinance. - Mountain View Resident, Palo Alto Small Business Owner o Seems like it is better to use all sorts of energy as opposed to just electric. That way if there is an issue with the electric grid we have another source of energy. - Downtown North Resident Attachment B Go Back to Contents Page Page 17 of 49 o Will these goals get us to the target. How many homes per year will need to have HPWH installed and how many homes per year need to be electrified? o Make the permitting process for electrification more simple and economical. - Resident o The switch to a heat pump water heater requires two trades be involved: plumbing and electrical. It will be important to train the trades to make this transition - Resident o With all electric efforts what happens to the cost and maintenance of the existing natural gas lines? o Prioritize micro grids - Resident o Palo Alto should strive to reduce ALL Energy use, not only energy from fossil fuels. o Implement a dark-sky ordinance o Disallow all-glass buildings - Resident o Surprised there's zero focus on domestic solar in these goals. o Also, of course, ways to make electrical energy storage more affordable. o I would be interested in participating in any "model home" initiatives for retrofitting less modern homes. - Evergreen Park Resident o 32% CO2 due to CH4. What does "practical & cost effective" mean? Would be helpful to have links to all the relevant docs from Part 1 o What is the breakdown of CH4 use? Is it Single family homes or manufacturing or multifamily dwellings? - Resident o Palo Alto laws forbidding natural gas leaf blowers are a joke. Crack down on that. Don't expect concerned residents to be the policemen on this, informing on their neighbors. Rather, have the police do occasional and unannounced visits to neighborhoods, citing residents who are having leaf blowing on their property. Just like police set up DUI checkpoints or speeder checkpoints, they could do this too. Mobility Potential Goals  Increase active transportation mode share to 25% for local work trips by 2030  Increase availability of transit and shared mobility services by increasing to 75% the proportion of residents within a quarter-mile walkshed of frequent transit by 2030  Implement Complete Streets and build out the Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation Plan Mobility: Feedback on Potential Goals - Resident o This could be simplified to a single “Reducing the number of SOV mode use/VMT by X (eg 80%)” with supportive sub goals as appropriate. - Barron Park Resident Attachment B Go Back to Contents Page Page 18 of 49 o As stated in the webinar intro and seen in the graph above of Palo Alto’s GHG emissions, transportation is the lion’s share of emissions for Palo Alto. While there are may good goals and key actions, there are no specific targets that directly tie these goals and actions to measurable results that will let us know if we are actually meeting the 80 by 30 target. This is a must if we are to know if the programs proposed will actually meet the goal. - Mountain View Resident, Palo Alto Small Business Owner o Agree with the goals. But I do not understand that if these are the goals then why are you building more parking structures. That money should be used to implement these goals. - Resident o The existing goals are good, but we will never reduce our transportation emissions enough until we build more housing near transit, and more housing in general. The state will push/incent cities to build more housing to deal with our housing crisis – climate goals and housing goals are completely linked. - Resident o I like the goals. Transit and "shared mobility services" should not be lumped together; they serve vastly different audiences and the priority should be transit. This needs to result in a reduced percentage of people driving. Complete Streets are very important to separate engine-powered modes from human-powered modes. - Resident o These seem like great goals! - Resident o This doesn't explain what it is talking about. What is "active transportation mode share"? o I don't think the city should spend any more time and money on bicycle plans and implementations. o This doesn't take into account EVs if the goals are to reduce climate change. - City of Palo Alto Staff o The goals for mobility could use a little clarification. As written, I feel that these are left open to interpretation. Some may not know what they mean at all. Perhaps a little more speaking to the issues as you do in other segments would have benefited here. - Palo Verde resident o I don't really understand what these goals as stated mean. What is active transportation mode share? - Greenmeadow Resident o I don’t understand what “active transportation mode share” is. I think the top goal here should be better supporting ebikes, scooters, and bikes. I don’t have much hope for transit -- it is extremely slow to take transit today and I think much of that is structural. E-bikes, scooters, and bikes are relatively quick, and are quite usable by many in our flat, temperate area.  Increase active transportation mode share to 25% for local work trips by 2030 - Resident o The 10% mode share goal for 2020 was not reached. What will be done differently to achieve the 25% mode share goal for 2030? - Palo Alto Resident Attachment B Go Back to Contents Page Page 19 of 49 o Add to goal: Active Transportation needs more of a carrot (vs stick) approach. We need a green network of walkable and bikeable streets where cars are the LAST priority- just 15mph movement and access to driveways /parking on street. Please see link: https://www.sierraclub.org/sites/www.sierraclub.org/files/sce/loma-prieta- chapter/SLU/Policy%20-Green%20Streets%20-%20Sierra%20Club.pdf - Downtown North Resident o Please explain what active transportation mode share means - Professorville Resident o I'm not sure what you mean by "active transportation mode share". - Resident o It is difficult to comment on this without knowing the existing mode share in each case. - Resident o Seems unreasonable to make a goal for local work trips when the great majority of work trips are not local, but rather are folks coming into Palo Alto from other cities. That's what you should direct your goals toward, by working with other cities and by -perhaps- taxing local businesses based upon the number of drivers who come to their place of work.  Increase availability of transit and shared mobility services by increasing to 75% the proportion of residents within a quarter-mile walkshed of frequent transit by 2030 - Barron Park Resident o Need to check this and see what percentage of the population this comes out to be (1/4 mile of transit) and adjust if necessary with real GHG reduction numbers so this can be tracked. - Resident o Increasing the proportion of residents within the 1/4 mile is a good goal, but public transportation has been poor for a long time in Palo Alto. Increasing service (and Santa Clara has been reducing/removing routes) is a priority, too.  Implement Complete Streets and build out the Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation Plan - Palo Alto Resident o Complete streets is a good concept and law. However, it needs to modified to recognize that streets need to categorized as 1. Auto priority, 2. pedestrian priority or 3. mixed traffic for all modes. - Resident o The Council should modify its 'No closed streets" decision which has impacted negatively the options for the Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan. As a result, Transportation created a 'Bicycle Boulevard" along Ross Road that has caused opposition to the Bicycle Plan. Instead, Bicycle Infrastructure should have priority of creating Low Stress Bicycle Routes. - Professorville Resident o Love complete streets concept. Mobility: Suggestions for New Goals Attachment B Go Back to Contents Page Page 20 of 49 - Barron Park Resident o New goal: Work from home two days per week for those workers that can work from home, especially those workers living outside of Palo Alto.  The Shelter In Place has shown this to be very possible in a short timeframe and this would reduce the weekday commuting by as much as 40%. Will have to think about how to promote/incentivize this. - Downtown North Resident o Please add the goal of incentivizing local companies to reduce car trips per day by asking employees to work from home several days/ week. Mobility: Potential Key Actions to explore further (These potential Key Actions do not represent all the work that the City is doing or will be doing related to climate change and sustainability. These are the actions we will be prioritizing. They are numbered to make it easier to refer to specific Actions. They are NOT numbered based on priority.) # of Votes Potential Key Actions 2 1. Fund the Transportation Management Association (TMA) with the goal of reducing Single-Occupancy Vehicle commute trips downtown by 30% 4 2. Make transit investments that significantly enhance coverage, service quality, frequency, speed and/or access 7 3. Expand and improve bicycle and pedestrian facilities, connectivity, convenience, and/or safety in a manner that significantly increases the percentage of trips taken by walking or biking 1 4. Adopt Transportation Demand Ordinance per Comprehensive Plan Policy 0 5. Increase the number of City Employees utilizing commute benefits 3 6. Encourage the use of bike and/or scooter sharing, and the provision of required infrastructure throughout Palo Alto, especially at transit stations and stops, job centers, community centers, and other destinations 2 7. Enhance traffic signals to improve traffic flow and reduce idling and associated greenhouse gas emissions 6 8. Increase the number of bike facilities, including bike parking and signalized intersections with bicycle accommodations (e.g. bicycle signal heads, bicycle detection, colored bicycle lanes) Mobility: Feedback on Potential Key Actions - Midtown Resident o “Potential Key Actions” are mentioned regarding mobility and commuting...yet there’s not a single word about working remotely! Instead, there is: “Enhance traffic signals to improve traffic flow”! How can it be that thousands of Palo Alto workers can switch, almost overnight, to working from home when confronted with a lethal virus, but somehow the City government cannot even imagine such a transition taking place to confront lethal climate pollution? Where is the leadership here? - Resident o Perhaps we could tie in a toll on major city-maintained roads or expand paid parking. We've seen in the Castilleja expansion case that there's a feeling within the city that a lot of traffic is coming from outside, which inherently mean the city can only do so much Attachment B Go Back to Contents Page Page 21 of 49 to influence. East Palo Alto has been discussing possible tolls on University. Otherwise, we've basically been subsidizing single-occupancy vehicles by how much planning decisions we've done - Old Palo Alto Resident o As a small business owner in the City of Palo Alto, I have been able to take advantage of the proximity of my office to a Southern Pacific Railroad station. Visitors to my clinic are offered incentives to use modes of transportation alternative to internal combustion engine vehicles, whether by train, bus, micro-mobility, or walking. More than six years ago we installed an electric outlet for EV charging. The topography throughout the City is essentially flat. This increases the potential for a significant increase in the use of various forms of micro-mobility. The Potential Key Actions set forth regarding Mobility are mostly laudable goals - Resident o It is a good list but it needs to be expanded and then pared down based on impact/effectiveness o We must include pricing of parking and congestion as major approaches to equitably reduce GHG o We must include telework/meeting as underappreciated but essential and high impact method to reduce GHGs - Palo Alto Non-Profit o Because most of Palo Alto’s streets and roads are lined with street trees, these thoroughfares represent the majority of the city’s publicly owned urban forest. There is abundant evidence of the role shade trees play in calming vehicular traffic, enhancing thus promoting active transportation, and their potential as wildlife corridors to enhance biodiversity. - Resident o In reference to key actions #2, #5 and #6 consider: Ride hailing vehicles emit nearly 70 percent more carbon dioxide on average than the other forms of transportation they displace and increase vehicle travel and congestion. If ride hailing vehicles are included as part of the mobility plan, please encourage use of electric vehicles, increased pooled trips, and focus on complementing mass transit. o E-scooters: “When only one-third of e-scooter rides displace automobile travel, then the use of e-scooters likely increases overall transportation emissions by drawing people away from walking, biking or taking public transit”. Consider lifecycle emissions of e- scooters due to manufacture, charging and daily pick-up and delivery for charging. - Palo Alto Resident o TDM: after the experience of Shelter at home and working from home, we need to recognize the opportunity presented. When approving new office developments, consider if company is open to more work-from-home. Make office space smaller, include funds for remote work centers for the community to allow remote working at shared workplace centers with robust internet. Reduced parking 1. Fund the Transportation Management Association (TMA) with the goal of reducing Single- Occupancy Vehicle commute trips downtown by 30% - Barron Park Resident o Fund the Transportation Management Association (TMA) with the goal of reducing Single- Occupancy Vehicle commute trips to downtown and Cal Ave areas by 30% Attachment B Go Back to Contents Page Page 22 of 49 - Palo Alto Non-Profit o Add: [...] “Make 25% of the City Streets Pedestrian and bike friendly with a maximum speed limit of 15mph. - Resident o The TMA should expand throughout the city, from Downtown to Charleston to Green Acres. - Resident o I am glad funding the TMA is #1. Their multiprong approach should be a model for the city Transportation department. - Resident o The Transportation Management Association should be funded through a business license tax. - Resident o TMA goal of reducing single-occupancy vehicle commute trips should be for gasoline only vehicles. EV, Hybrid, Hydrogen cars should be excluded. - Professorville Resident o 1st and last mile is important for TMA to address o Increase TMA funding to implement proposed solutions 2. Make transit investments that significantly enhance coverage, service quality, frequency, speed and/or access - Barron Park Resident o Add to the goal: Have secure bike parking at train stations. - Palo Alto Non-Profit o Add: Public transit should be free. Pursue dense service walkable communities connected by micro mobility to other walk zones. - Greenmeadow Resident o I would stay away from investing too much in transit because I don’t think it will ever work well in our area given peoples’ busy lifestyles. We should aim to get people on bikes or e-bikes or scooters, or in EVs. To the extent I would invest in transit, it would be rapid bus lanes on 101 and El Camino. Plus we probably have to do the CalTrain grade separations. - Resident o The availability of transit is only a portion of the issue. The transit needs to go to the logical places. No transit seems to go to grocery stores/post offices - Resident o There needs to be discussion with Samtrans and VTA on how to make bus lines more efficient within the city, since a common complaint is bus transfers to get to places like Cupertino or Sunnyvale takes hours. o Availability is going to have to be tempered because of the many destinations that people go that transit as it is currently doesn't work so well. (e.g. PA to Los Altos on VTA takes a while, and the PA Shuttles don't service more southern neighborhoods) o There's going to be needs of sticks (opposed to carrots as the current KAs are). Perhaps a toll on Central or Embarcadero, or phasing out free parking. - Resident o Increase city shuttle services - Resident Attachment B Go Back to Contents Page Page 23 of 49 o If we could better synch Palo Alto shuttles and Margarite shuttles across the City, and have them all appear as transit options in Google maps, we might get better utilization of shuttles. This means Stanford would need to let non Stanford people ride their shuttles for example. - Bozeman Resident o How is this achieved? Needs further explanation - Resident o Are you working with MTC/VTA/SamTrans/Caltrain to increase public transit options? Does Palo Alto support public transit as a way to reduce SOV? 3. Expand and improve bicycle and pedestrian facilities, connectivity, convenience, and/or safety in a manner that significantly increases the percentage of trips taken by walking or biking - Barron Park Resident o Add to the goal: Close Churchill and Alma grade crossings and have bike/ped tunnel. Install bike counters around the city to monitor bike/ped use. - Palo Alto Non-Profit o Add measurable goals such as, "Expand and improve bicycle and pedestrian facilities, connectivity, convenience, and safety in a manner that increases the percentage of trips taken by walking or biking by 25% of 2019 levels by 2025 and 50% of 2019 levels by 2030. o Example: Oakland has closed 10% of its streets to cars, a total of 74 miles. - Resident o Include making bicycle facilities "Low Stress" Routes so that more people - not just the road warriors- will be willing and able to use bicycles. - Resident o Prioritize completion of the Bike and Ped Transportation Plan. We need to thoughtfully plan new infrastructure support for bicycles including increased facilities and accommodations, including separated bicycle lanes, bicycle parking, o While expanding and improving bicycle and pedestrian connectivity, prioritize thoughtful integration of trees along pathways for both enhanced community experience and increased carbon sequestration. - Resident o Add native plants and shade trees to all bike corridors - no one likes walking in the sun - Resident o #3 is the most important - Resident o No more bicycle investments. - Resident o Bicycle lanes should be extended beyond school routes. Would love to see University Ave. as pedestrian and bikes only with Lytton and Hamilton one-way roads. 4. Adopt Transportation Demand Ordinance per Comprehensive Plan Policy - Greenmeadow Resident Attachment B Go Back to Contents Page Page 24 of 49 o I don’t know what “Transportation Demand Ordinance” is, or what the TMA plans, so it is hard to comment on those. I do think we can start charging for parking to help fund some of these other projects. - Resident o The Transportation Demand Ordinance must be adopted and enforced. Otherwise this is a toothless program that will have minimal impact. - Resident o A Transportation Demand Ordinance should include taking an inventory of existing Transportation Demand Management plans as part of project approvals and enforcing them, including penalties for failure to perform. 5. Increase the number of City Employees utilizing commute benefits - Old Palo Alto Resident o This could be readily implemented by providing free transit passes and/or very low rental rates, or 0% loans for the purchase of various forms of micro-mobility. The possibilities here are vast: traditional commute bicycles; electric bicycles; cargo bikes; scooters, pedal or electric. Even wheelchairs could be included in these incentive programs, with electric add-ones such as SmartDrive or Firefly. 3-wheeled electric utility vehicles such as the Good Earth Firefly have potential versatility well beyond parking enforcement, security, shipping & delivery and grounds maintenance. Such micro- mobility ought to be available for rent for visitors to the City, at its main entrances from freeways. Parking facilities already exist at these locations for ride-sharing commuters. Let these facilities be expanded where such expansion is needed, so that ICEs remain at the margins of the City. This would enable our streets to be safer, to ease traffic congestion and to significantly reduce emissions as well as wear and tear on city streets. - Resident o To increase the number of City employees utilizing commute benefits, please consider making all commute benefits available to all employees, regardless of what primary site they work at. E.g. employees at Lucy Stern, MSC, Mitchell Park, or Cubberley should be provided CalTrain passes as desired – biking from CalTrain to these sites is a viable alternative that should be encouraged, rather than inhibited. - Resident o Should be available to employees not just stationed downtown. Include MSC and Community Center. 6. Encourage the use of bike and/or scooter sharing, and the provision of required infrastructure throughout Palo Alto, especially at transit stations and stops, job centers, community centers, and other destinations - Barron Park Resident o Add to the goal: Must increase bike parking for this and understand the GHGs from these sharing solutions. - Resident o Required covered bike parking for all development and renewal of business permits would be awesome - Resident Attachment B Go Back to Contents Page Page 25 of 49 o More bike locking around commercial areas. Better bike paths beyond school routes. Bike/ped only roads. 7. Enhance traffic signals to improve traffic flow and reduce idling and associated greenhouse gas emissions - Barron Park Resident o Add to the goal: Install cameras for light switching that also do bike and ped counts as well. - Old Palo Alto Resident o I must take issue with #7, concerning enhancing traffic signals to improve traffic flow. This improved flow is intended to be for automobiles. I believe it ought to favor pedestrians and micro-mobility use. This is particularly true if the City is serious in its intention to support a transition from ICEs to EVs. - Resident o "improving traffic flow" should be deleted. Reducing idling is a fine goal, but increasing capacity for more cars isn't a sustainability goal. - Resident o Do watch for induced demand for 7, since at some point if people think the roads are too smooth, people will drive more. - Resident o Traffic signals timing needs major investment to sync up flow and demand during peak hours throughout the day. - Bozeman Resident o How is this achieved? Needs further explanation - Resident o Prioritize 7 - Professorville Resident o Have bike riders follow traffic rules, i.e., stop signs. Give out tickets. 8. Increase the number of bike facilities, including bike parking and signalized intersections with bicycle accommodations (e.g. bicycle signal heads, bicycle detection, colored bicycle lanes) - Barron Park Resident o Palo Alto should be like Denmark in 2030. - Palo Alto Resident o See link below for a REALLY CONNECTED and ped and bike friendly / auto UN-friendly network thru the city. https://www.sierraclub.org/sites/www.sierraclub.org/files/sce/loma-prieta- chapter/SLU/Policy%20-Green%20Streets%20-%20Sierra%20Club.pdf o Top priority as it addresses the goal of realistically reaching 25% goal. - Resident o 8 is super important. Also blocking off some streets to motorized through traffic (like on Bryant St) would make a huge difference. - Resident Attachment B Go Back to Contents Page Page 26 of 49 o Increase the number of LOW STRESS BICYCLE facilities, not just bike facilities. Many more people would ride bicycles if they were convinced that the routes were comfortable, safe, and were low stress. - Resident o Don't do this. Enough has been done already. It serves too few people at the expense of everyone else. Mobility: Suggestions for New Key Actions - Palo Alto Non-Profit o New Key Action: “Prioritize large shade trees in the implementation of Complete Streets programs and in the maintenance and retrofit of existing streets.” - Resident o If somehow we come out of this covid-19 crisis with a business culture that permits more “work from home” days - -and somehow the City fosters and/or incentivizes companies to support more “work from home,” that would be a beautiful thing. This is something to think about for 2021 after we have vaccinations for Covid-19 and businesses are tempted to go back to usual operations. - Palo Alto Non-Profit o Create New Potential Key Action #9: "Recognize public street right-of-way as the largest public environmental asset and use more effectively" o Create New Potential Key Action #10: Enact a moratorium on building in the 2050 inundation zone.  See flood map attached at the end of this letter, which assumes 2.5 feet of sea level rise. o Create New Potential Key Action #11: Add that walkable development should be prioritized within ¼ mile of transit with emphasis on service density. Delivery and a redesigned curb for e-shared-mobility should be included. The city should not build for services whose safe access cannot be enforced- infrastructure should be repurposed for safety.  This would save mixed use and multifamily development from some of the costs of EV infrastructure. o Create New Potential Key Action #12: Update Palo Alto’s street design guidelines to include shared micro mobility services and active transportation to create protected and safe spaces for users and riders. Micro mobility allows for safe social distancing. - Resident o There is a big missing key action: urban infill. Land use reform and TOD are needed actions - Resident o Some action will be needed to address commuters coming into Palo Alto to work, not just focus on residents. Mobility: General Feedback - Old Palo Alto Resident o Traffic signal improvement should be aimed at minimizing acceleration as well as idling. For minimal emissions, we want smooth flow at modest speed. If possible, traffic Attachment B Go Back to Contents Page Page 27 of 49 signals should be fitted with reliable bicycle detectors that are well-advertised. Too many cyclists press the pedestrian button to request a green, which gives an unnecessarily long cycle, making stops (acceleration, idling) on the cross street more likely. - Midtown Resident o Transportation, by far Palo Alto’s #1 GHG source according to the SCAP Plan, if we accept the use of electricity RECs and natural gas offsets to reduce building related GHG emissions. - Professorville Resident o What about encouraging more work-from-home for City employees and also with regional employers. Having way more people work from home even two days/week would be huge in terms of pollution, congestion, and gasoline consumption and would free up public transportation capacity. o How about parking meters downtown, on Cal Ave, and at Stanford Shopping Center? As long as the meters are in all commercial areas, the problem of people “shopping elsewhere” would be avoided. I suppose they could go to MP or MV, but those cities would do well to install parking meters, too. This would hopefully encourage less trips and more public transportation (although I’m always skeptical of the latter in a place like PA). - Resident o The proposed (Remote Work Options) RWO plan would minimize the traffic impact on the City and support many of the Potential Key Actions. An immediate action to add is to measure the environmental impact of so many ride share vehicles on the road which contribute to more GHG emissions. Expanding bicycle and scooter use is a nice idea but is not practical for many residents. Please add more education and oversight provisions as many cyclists behave quite aggressively towards pedestrians and drivers, ignoring stop signs or requests to dismount in shared spaces. - Downtown North Resident o Regarding the “mobility” targets, we have learned during this COVID-19 crisis that a lot of the work of companies can be done from home. This saves many tons of GHG’s that would be used commuting, sometimes from as far away as Livermore and Gilroy. (and we enjoy the cleaner air and breathe better). Just as the city incentivized companies to encourage use of public transportation by employees, the city could incentivize companies to allow 70% of their work force to work from home 2-3 days/week. This would result in GHG reduction and make a positive life style change for employees who have long commutes. The city could start this policy with their own employees. - Resident o Capitalize on the fact that shelter in place is getting a lot of white collar workers and businesses comfortable with working at home. Encourage milestones for long term commitment to telecommuting - i.ie, 1 day a week to 2 days to 3 days. Incentivize businesses to help their workers do this. Obvious advantages are: 1. frees up workers' time from commuting 2. frees money business need to pay for office space. 3 don't expect going 100 percent telecommuting - maybe at best 2 days commuting and 3 days telecommuting. Let workers alternate use of office space on alternate commuting days. - Barron Park Resident o The mobility section looks pretty good. Need to make sure that the work that is done by the consultants on the base line for transportation is such that regular Attachment B Go Back to Contents Page Page 28 of 49 reporting/progress is easy to see and that the numbers for this are robust and not too “squishy”, i.e. with a reasonable margin of error and are repeatable. o There is a great opportunity here, with potentially less overall traffic to close Churchill Ave at the CalTrain crossing and build a bike/ped tunnel for access at this point. This maybe the only affordable option here and would still allow local access to Paly H. S. via bike/peds. The same should be considered for the Alma street grade crossing. This would cause a greater shift to active transportation modes as outlined in the first goal. o Again, with the potential decrease in traffic after the coronavirus has run its course, there should be a much greater increase in the bike/ped infrastructure. There is a real opportunity here for a large mode shift in how Palo Alto gets around. I have seen way more people getting out on bikes then ever before, and clearly part of this increase are new riders as they feel safer with the reduction in traffic. Palo Alto should be like Denmark in 2030. - Resident o Promote road changes that locally make riding/walking quicker than driving. For example, the Stanford campus has no through traffic for cars. One can park in the middle of campus, but driving somewhere else always involves getting back to larger roads surrounding campus. This would include allowing road closures for bicycle boulevards again. o Turn stop signs into yield signs for bicyclists (Idaho stop). Cyclist differ from cars and pedestrians in the sense that it takes a lot of energy to come to a full stop and start back up. One full stop and starting back up is the equivalent of biking 100 yards. Turning stop signs into yield signs allows cyclists to keep momentum. o Increase parking cost in downtown and on California Ave to encourage people to take different modes of transportation. o Institute a policy that at a certain speed difference between bikes and cars on a road a separated bicycle lane is required to be installed. o Copy a law from the Netherlands that in any accident between a pedestrian and car or a bicycle and car, the car is at fault. This encourages drivers to be very aware of the fact that pedestrians and bicycles are much more vulnerable in traffic. o Promote multi-use zoning. This reduces the distance people have to travel between errands, work, and their homes, and thus promotes walking and biking. o Start a cheap rental program at Caltrain stations. People can take out bike/electric bike/scooter for the day and return it to the station to solve the last mile problem (like Dutch railways Public Transit bikes). Offer both as you go and per week/month for a low price. o Secure bicycle storage at Caltrain stations. Offer both as you go and per week/month for a low price. o Basic bicycle maintenance at Caltain stations (fix flats, sell bicycle lights/batteries) o Get a good public transit connection with SFO and SJC. o Require companies to have safe bicycle storage. o Require companies to have charging points for electric bicycles o Require companies to offer cash credit for riding a bike and/or buying a bicycle instead of driving. o Require companies to contribute to bicycling and walking infrastructure when building/opening an office. o Require companies to contribute to public transit when building/opening an office. Attachment B Go Back to Contents Page Page 29 of 49 o Develop policies to encourage walking and cycling. For example require companies to offer credit to employees to buy a bicycle. Offer savings for customers at stores when they walk or bike. - Palo Alto Youth Group o Palo Alto’s downtown area could benefit from a reduction in car traffic, stress, and time spent finding available parking. Parking reformation through the incorporation of permit-based parking (with discounts for lower-income residents) in downtown Palo Alto (covering University Ave and California Ave) would promote more bike, pedestrian, and scooter traffic. A secondary approach would entirely close select streets to cars and incorporate more bike- and pedestrian-friendly infrastructure such as bike lanes. A relevant case study tracked a number of traffic-related variables on Market Street; the results showed an improvement in air quality and a reduction of transportation time with limited effect on surrounding streets. o The reduction of car traffic and transportation by cars altogether must be achieved hand in hand with another alternative. Palo Alto’s commitment to expanding its transportation system would allow individuals of all demographics, regardless of socio- economic status and ability levels, the privilege of travel. In its goal to expand, Palo Alto should also seek to invest and vocally support the electrification of the Caltrain as well as new and existing public transportation– an effort that would also encourage effective collaboration with existing associations. o As a necessary intermediary, the expansion of bicycle/scooter/car-sharing in order to reduce Single-Occupancy Vehicle commutes could aid in the transition to push Palo Alto to greater reliance on public transportation. - Resident o Palo Alto must implement “Mobility as a Service”, an idea which was actively discussed several years ago when Gil Friend was Chief Sustainability Officer, but has never moved forward. The City must set up a plan with identified goals and a schedule to allow rapid Implementation of such a plan. This is essential for our older population who cannot walk long distances or bicycle to local destinations but still need a way to go shopping, get to doctor appointments, or visit friends. Palo Alto should be a US leader in this effort. o Palo Alto should end any future construction of parking garages as they encourage increased use of low occupancy vehicles. The recent approval of the two garages, one downtown and another in the California Avenue business district should not have been occurred and showed a lack of real commitment to the SCAP. This was a serious lapse of judgment by Council and should not happen again. - Community Center Resident o I’d like to see the city take on the following:  Electrification of our public transportation  Make the use of all gasoline powered equipment, aside from automobiles, illegal with proper enforcement.  Increasing transportation energy efficiency: more walkable, bike-able, completely truck/auto free streets. Provide and encourage the use of more and better public transit.  Make zoning easier for high density residences around public transit and elsewhere. - Community Center Resident o I would like to see the city take on the following:  Electrification of our transportation Attachment B Go Back to Contents Page Page 30 of 49  Increasing transit options (more walkable, bike-able, complete streets, more and better public transit options)  Make zoning easier for density around public transit - Crescent Park Resident o Please provide more emphasis on mobility – especially improvements to bike and pedestrian infrastructure and incentives that reduce reliance on cars - Community Center Residents o Improvements to bike and pedestrian infrastructure are necessary, both in general and particularly during the COVID-19 public health crisis, as we physically separate from one another. Safer and separate paths for both would increase human-powered travel. Furthermore, we need to stop privileging autos over people. This requires both greater dedication of roadways to human-powered movement, and significantly greater commitment to improving bicycle and pedestrian safety. We should also ensure that bicycle parking is plentiful. And we should embrace a variable, dynamically-priced system for motor vehicle parking on all streets throughout the City. We are now experiencing what’s possible during this shelter-in-place period. We are reclaiming a greater degree of the delights of village-style life here in our own community. Let’s build on these successes going forward. People are loving it! We are experiencing first-hand the joys of living and working in a much more walkable, bikeable city. Let’s not squander this natural experiment. - Midtown Resident o The bar graph on the S/CAP webinar (p. 6) clearly shows very little progress in reducing GHGs from the transportation sector. Accordingly, this should be the second main area of work and expenditure in the S/CAP. Again, the City needs to develop measurable objectives, incentives for changed behavior and to publicize our progress widely. o Here are some ideas to include in the updated Plan:  1) Our current experience with the COVID-19 crisis points to the easiest solution: "work from home." This has been a nearly instantaneous change for a large portion of Palo Alto's workforce. The resulting improvement in air quality has surely been equaled by a reduction in GHGs. (We need to get a measurement for this!) The City can easily assign many of its employees to work from home 2-3 days/week; and it can provide incentives to other employers who do so as well. This will also reduce the growing traffic congestion that has plagued our community for nearly a decade.  2) The City should expand the shuttle bus service so that it runs more frequently and on more routes. The quarter-mile walkshed is a great idea -- AND the service needs to be every 15 minutes! Although the COVID crisis will deter some people from getting into vans for a while, we can install hand sanitizer stations at each van door; and once a COVID vaccine is available, expand this service significantly.  3) Bicycles are an excellent way to get around flat Palo Alto; however, they don't work for people with packages, nor for elderly people, nor for people with multiple small children. The "complete streets" ideas are helpful: colored bike lanes, physical separation of bicycles and cars, etc.  4) Bicycle counting technology exists. The City could use that to get a better measure of how many people DO bicycle on many major streets and bike paths.  5) More secure bike parking at workplaces, the CalTrain lots, shopping centers, etc would also help encourage cycling. Attachment B Go Back to Contents Page Page 31 of 49 - Midtown Resident o I want to add my support to the Sustainability and Climate Action Plan and in particular to the mobility section. I am particularly interested in bolstering pedestrian infrastructure. I make many trips on foot, many more than I do by car. But I usually do not see many others doing the same. During the shelter-in-place, I have been heartened to see so many people out walking and hope we can continue to use more of our street space for this activity - Resident o Transportation. Develop incentive and disincentive programs to accelerate the reduction in gasoline powered vehicle use by residents and commuters – our biggest source of GHG’s. Palo Alto is a global leader in EV adoption and can plan a valuable role in demonstrating the feasibility and multiple benefits of widescale ZEV adoption. - Resident o Prioritize completion of the Bike and Ped Transportation Plan. We need to thoughtfully plan new infrastructure support for bicycles including increased facilities and accommodations, including separated bicycle lanes, bicycle parking. o While expanding and improving bicycle and pedestrian connectivity, prioritize thoughtful integration of trees along pathways for both enhanced community experience and increased carbon sequestration. o Actively consider implementation of "Idaho stops" for cyclists. o Planning and research for travel routes, parking, and policy guidelines for new and future mobility modes needs to be supported. o For any commissioned traffic analysis study, please ensure that meaningful breadth of data over both weekdays and weekends, different time of day, day time and night time, etc. is actually measured. Note that for recent commissioned traffic studies re: HSR, the hired consultant measured traffic for a specified number of hours on ONE DAY. It is highly unlikely that this simplistic type of approach can yield trustworthy data. o The Transportation Demand Ordinance must be adopted and enforced. Otherwise this is a toothless program that will have minimal impact. - University South Residents o We are very concerned with the City’s surprising lack of progress in reducing the number of SOV trips into and around the city. According to the first graph in the CFPA report, road trips account for more that 60% of GHG. All the while we have been painfully aware of the need to reduce GHG emissions from vehicles, but the only method that has received much attention is urging people to switch to EVs. That has accomplished little and clearly will not be enough to achieve overall reductions. We call upon council and staff to develop a plan to reduce this transportation component of GHG. Let's look at congestion pricing, or charging drivers to drive into town. This approach has been implemented and is working in cities such as Singapore, London, Stockholm, Milan, Riga as well as US cities including New York, San Diego, San Francisco, Miami. The system is under consideration in Washington DC, Seattle and others. Congestion pricing reduces GHG by curbing vehicle fuel emissions, as employees of local companies then choose to travel by public transportation, presumably supplemented by shuttles to accomplish “first and last mile” travel from transit stops to place of work. The pill is sweetened when employers purchase transit passes for their employees. Surely Palo Alto can be a leader in this area. Employers that are responsible for Attachment B Go Back to Contents Page Page 32 of 49 employee trips into PA, with the attendant emissions must also shoulder part of the responsibility for reducing GHG and achieving 80/30. Staff should develop a plan for employers to account for employee car trips and to bear responsibility for reducing these. This can be accomplished by employer documented increase in employee transit ridership. Simply handing out passes is insufficient. Documenting actual use of transit would be required. Both these approaches must Include safeguards for low income people who may have longer commutes and fewer public transit options. - Resident o The city continues to subsidize single passenger vehicles at the expense of our climate goals:  The city has funded a parking garage and continues to pursue Caltrain grade separation, representing tens of millions and potentially billions of dollars of subsidies for automobile-centric development, respectively.  In one of the smartest and richest towns in the country, the city council fails to recognize that parking spaces can be revenue streams rather than an endless expense.  Parking meters would allow the invisible hand of the market free up parking spaces, while potentially generating revenue for transit improvements.  The city council has blocked bus rapid transit, which would have greatly reduced greenhouse gas emissions parking requirements.  I am absolutely appalled by the Palo Alto Police Department driving poor gas- mileage sports utility vehicles. o I want the city council to abandon tax-payer support for automobile centric development, and start implementing a city where pedestrians, bicycles trains and buses provide most of our transportation needs. - Resident o Regarding Transportation-related Emissions, per the Comprehensive Plan, there should be both a methodology involving Vehicle Miles Traveled and Level of Service. Level of Service measures congestion that causes pollution within our cities. As we build more dense housing along major traffic routes, increased congestion causes increases pollution affecting sensitive receptions like our children. Adopt Menlo Park’s significance criteria for Level of Service. o All occupants and businesses of new office buildings that are required to provide for their own parking should not be allowed to purchase RPP permits. We must not allow scooter sharing to result in the cluttering of our business district sidewalks with scooters that impede the flow of pedestrians, wheelchair users and parents with baby carriages. Our Palo Alto Shuttle should use electric buses, and our sanitation vehicles should also be electric. - Resident o You must face the reality that the world has changed! Peninsula residents will vastly reduce the use of Caltrain, Buses & BART. Private vehicles will be the first, This is the time to call a halt to expansion, new equipment purchases & even electrification. All mass transit will have to under seating & boarding changes to regain ridership. Now is the time to stop purchasing the "Old Norm" & rethink what to buy. No one want to ride on the current & planned equipment! - Resident Attachment B Go Back to Contents Page Page 33 of 49 o Can Palo Alto use special taxes for people who live here but work elsewhere, e.g. San Francisco or wherever. If they work away from here then they are driving move. We can't assume that even if we increase bus and train services, that doesn't mean residents will use them. The pocket book motivates people more than anything else. How can we REALLY incentivize people to use transit? Any new developments need to include adequate parking for bicycles. If one has to park outside in the rain, people won't ride. We have to make it as easy and safe as possible. I parked under a building on campus for many years. If I'd had to leave my bike out in the rain I wouldn't have ridden every day. As it was, I rode rain or shine. - Resident o There should also be an expanded effort to make driving less desirable in the City, by making ALL municipal parking lots paid, and expanding the residential parking system. Carrots are great to drive people on bikes and transit, but no serious results will happen without some major sticks against cars (including EVs). - Resident o Work with PAUSD on these items to reduce car traffic and promote biking and walking to schools. - Resident o Encourage under crossing for active- non motorized beneath Caltrain-Alma at Matadero. Such could be coordinated with XCAP. - Resident o Measure the impact of ride sharing services. I would hypothesize that extra cars just driving around hoping for passengers has a big impact and increases congestion o Many cyclists ride in a fashion that endanger pedestrians but are aggressive and nasty when those behaviors are pointed out o Cyclists often ignore stops signs and other rules of the road which endangers themselves as well as drivers and pedestrians - Professorville Resident o How can we get businesses to encourage working from home? COVID19 has shown many are able to do that. Even if they mandated their employees to work from home 2 times a week! o What about land-use policies? We need to get densification of residences near transit o We need more bike/ped protections. We have perfect weather to bike but it doesn't feel safe o Most of these are really good. We have to make it easier for everyone (including seniors) to get around without getting in their cars. - Resident o Autonomous vehicles will go a long way to these goals, without government input, if affordable. Especially as we who have attained significant age achieve even more. o We do a lot for bicyclists, rightly; they do much less to earn the improvements. Much attention needs to be given to either changing or enforcing traffic laws for bicycles. o Not clear that single occupancy traffic needs reducing, as long as it is in shared, electric, autonomous vehicles that do not need to park. The energy use will probably be OK. Attachment B Go Back to Contents Page Page 34 of 49 Electric Vehicles Potential Goals  Increase the number of electric vehicles (EVs) registered in Palo Alto, as a share of total vehicles registered, from 7% in 2018 to 50% by 2030  Target to facilitate 50% of vehicles owned by low income households to be EVs by 2030  Ensure there are adequate numbers and types of EV chargers in Palo Alto to support the growing number of EVs registered in and commuting to Palo Alto  Expand the number of EVs in the City’s fleet as the EV fleet market evolves Electric Vehicles: Feedback on Potential Goals - Old Palo Alto Resident o To demonstrate its commitment to EVs, the City should lead with its fleet, at least with passenger cars. Another possibility is garbage trucks, though these might not belong to the City. If the City can set specific goals (50% EV penetration) for the public, it should do the same for itself. - Crescent Park Resident o Some history and background: Assemblymember Ting writes bills (AB 1184, 1745, etc) intended to increase EV market penetration. These bills have not been enacted. In 2007, Ira Ruskin’s AB 493 Clean Car Discount (A fee on gas guzzlers with revenue rebated to EVs) failed to pass via simple majority by only 1 vote. Per State Legislative Counsel’s Jennifer Baldwin (transportation), with the passage of Prop 26, AB 493 now requires a 2/3 state legislature vote (or a state ballot initiative) because it is a Prop 26 qualifying tax. In 2017, Assemblymember Quirk requested the development of a “Self-Adjusting California Clean Car Discount - Revenue-neutral GHG-efficiency feebate on new car sales” bill. Because the bill’s feebate is a Prop 26 qualifying tax, the bill requires either a 2/3 vote by the state legislature or a state ballot initiative. Short URL to the draft bill: http://bit.ly/CleanCarTestBill. Summary: New car revenue-neutral, self-funding GHG- efficiency feebate requiring supermajority state legislature vote or simple majority state ballot initiative. A small fee per each inefficient car provides a large rebate for GHG- efficient vehicle purchases. Addresses market failure where private sector is not motivated to increase GHG efficiency as rapidly as the climate needs. The sales accounting of each car-maker is revenue-neutral. The least-efficient portion of the car- maker’s new car sales, defined as producing more than 219 g/mi CO2 (less than 40 MPG) are assessed a small fee. With that fee revenue, the car-maker provides a large rebate to the most-efficient portion of new car sales, producing 110 or fewer g/mi CO2 (80+ MPGe). Accounting is balanced out every month. In the first year, the fee for a 20 MPG vehicle is $74. In the first year, small fees on a large number of cars will generate a relatively large rebate, on the order of $3,000. Fee levels are adjusted up or down each year to ensure achievement of GHG-efficient target market share (set by ARB) with the lowest possible fee. For environmental justice, 15% of fee revenue is carved-out for low- income consumers and poor air quality areas, in the form of higher rebates and gas guzzler retirement. Additional compassionate items from Ruskin’s AB 493 (2007) are included. Individual car-makers that achieve annual GHG-efficient market share targets Attachment B Go Back to Contents Page Page 35 of 49 will be rewarded with lighter regulation, only needing to fulfill environmental justice objectives. Based on France’s experience, this bill eliminates 416M tons GHG over 20 years. 2013 Bay Area PEV Readiness Plan – Background Analysis, expects that a feebate cannot be enacted via regulation, legislation is required: “In fact, California has come close to implementing a statewide feebate program on multiple occasions through legislative efforts – the first time in the early 1990s and more recently in 2008. In California, feebate programs have been proposed as a legislative initiative (e.g., AB 493 Ruskin in 2007), whereby implementation authority would be delegated to ARB and the State Board of Equalization. Moving forward, MTC will have to engage with ARB and the local air district, Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) to determine how the program would be implemented. Ultimately, it is conceivable that MTC would need to seek action via the Legislature to approve of a regional feebate initiative.” The Governor’s 2018 ZEV Action Plan: https://business.ca.gov/industries/zero-emission- vehicles/zev-action-plan/ Norway’s EV Policy: https://elbil.no/english/norwegian-ev-policy/ The Norwegian success story is first and foremost due to a substantial package of incentives developed to promote zero-emission vehicles into the market. The incentives have been gradually introduced by different governments and broad coalitions of parties since the early 1990s to speed up the transition. The Norwegian Parliament has decided on a national goal that all new cars sold by 2025 should be zero-emission (electric or hydrogen). As of May 2018, there are 230,000 registered battery electric cars (BEVs) in Norway. Battery electric and plug-in hybrid vehicles together hold a 50 % market share. The speed of the transition is closely related to policy instruments and a wide range of incentives. The current Government has decided to keep the incentives for zero-emission cars until the end of 2021. The VAT exemption for zero-emission vehicles in Norway has been approved by the EFTA Surveillance Authority (ESA) until the end of 2020. After 2021 the incentives will be revised and adjusted parallel with the market development. In 2015, Norway's lower parliament unsuccessfully moved to mandate 100% of 2025 new car sales be EVs (article: http://bit.ly/2aUfKDm). Comment: “Norway is leading the world right now in terms of EV sales per capita. They’ve already exceeded the CA 2025 sales target. Everyone thinks they can do it because they are a rich country. In fact, they can do it because they have a tax on new car sales that is based on the GHG footprint of the car. The bigger and more horsepower and the more GHG’s generated, the bigger the tax. For EV’s the tax gets waived.” See also: https://twitter.com/AssaadRazzouk/status/875235216515792896 Finland’s new car registration fee effectively doubles the price of a 20 mpg vehicle - the up front equivalent of 10 years of $200/ton carbon tax. France’s successful Bonus-Malus fuel-efficiency Feebate Program. (“good-bad” in Latin) “The largest and most successful automobile feebate program in the world is the French Bonus-Malus program. The program entered into force in January 2008 with three goals: steering buyers toward vehicles that emit less CO2, encouraging the development of new low-emissions vehicle technologies, and accelerating retirements of old, inefficient vehicles. The pivot point of the feebate is automatically revised downward (requiring vehicles to be more efficient to avoid the fee) every two years, maintaining revenue-neutrality. Like most feebates, the Bonus-Malus program provides a rebate for efficient car buyers, maxing out at €6,300 for the most efficient vehicles, and a fee of up to €8,000 on the Attachment B Go Back to Contents Page Page 36 of 49 least efficient vehicles (as of 2016). The bonus cannot exceed 27 percent of the vehicle’s cost, and diesel vehicles are not eligible for a bonus. Although the program uses stair steps, it is roughly equivalent to a rate of $1554/.01 gpm, a relatively strong rate. Unlike a traditional feebate, an annual penalty of €160 is assessed on owners of highly emitting vehicles, necessary to accomplish the goal of accelerating retirements. The Bonus-Malus program was successful in accelerating the rate of efficiency gains in the French vehicle fleet. If the feebate program had not been enacted, vehicles in 2015 would have emitted roughly 25 percent more CO2 per kilometer.” - Greenmeadow Resident o Of the goals, I would prioritize the charging infrastructure and the focus on lower- income households. I would worry less about the other households and city fleet, because those should happen naturally. - Resident o I like the specificity of the first 2 goals for EVs!  Increase the number of electric vehicles (EVs) registered in Palo Alto, as a share of total vehicles registered, from 7% in 2018 to 50% by 2030 - Crescent Park Resident o Is the goal 50% EV market penetration for 2030 new car sales or 50% of the entire owned residential fleet to be EVs in 2030? This goal should probably only be adopted if a frank discussion is included about how very, very difficult this will be to achieve. A history of failed legislative attempts to bring this about should be provided. The goal of 50% market penetration will be difficult to achieve without a bruising battle to enact a strong legislative mandate. S/CAP could develop an enactment and implementation strategy and make a high-profile “here’s how we will achieve this goal” presentation in front of an audience of skeptical subject matter experts. It is likely that a state legislative mandate will be necessary to bring this goal to fruition. Should Palo Alto set about making this an achievable goal? - Resident o How does the 50% by 2030 square with 80/30? The rest look all positive though the list could be pared to just the first and third as essential. - Resident o 50% seems crazy ambitious, and the effort would be better spent electrifying public transportation vehicles. Relying on a system that favors single drivers is not the way to go. - Professorville Resident o The goal is too ambitious. - Resident o In addition, disseminate via a web site consumer info about what electric vehicles are on the market, performance metrics, and cost.  Target to facilitate 50% of vehicles owned by low income households to be EVs by 2030 - Palo Alto Youth Group o While we greatly support the target of 50% EV ownership by low-income households by 2030, necessary incentives must be put in place to ensure that these communities have Attachment B Go Back to Contents Page Page 37 of 49 sufficient resources to own and maintain these vehicles (convenient parking spots, adequate chargers, and other necessary infrastructure). Thus, to encourage this transition, it is crucial to heavily prioritize local and free infrastructure. We are, however, concerned regarding the 2-year timeline for creating a plan that encourages EV charging; collaborating with other cities and the advice of experts could greatly expedite this planning process. We urge Palo Alto to adopt San Francisco’s goal of achieving 100% emission-free transportation by 2040 given its standing as one of the longstanding leaders in sustainability. - Midtown Resident o The stated goal that half the vehicles owned by low income residents would be EVs is a good one; however, a plan needs to be created to make that happen. Purchase incentives for new vehicles are often not be adequate, since one little-considered issue with purchasing a new vehicle is that insurance costs are also higher. Perhaps the City could also negotiate a subsidized insurance program for qualifying low income residents (perhaps based on a reliable payment history with CPAU ?).  Ensure there are adequate numbers and types of EV chargers in Palo Alto to support the growing number of EVs registered in and commuting to Palo Alto  Expand the number of EVs in the City’s fleet as the EV fleet market evolves - Midtown Resident o “Expand the number of EVs in the City’s fleet”. By how many cars? By when? One could achieve this ”goal” by adding one more EV! What would be wrong with selling (almost) all the oil’n’gasoline cars in the City fleet? - Evergreen Park Resident o Specify that EVs are the default choice. Electric Vehicles: Suggestions for New Goals - Resident o Great goals. I would add another: Have all multiple use dwellings (apartment and condo buildings) install electric chargers. This should be mandatory. Electric Vehicles: Potential Key Actions to explore further (These potential Key Actions do not represent all the work that the City is doing or will be doing related to climate change and sustainability. These are the actions we will be prioritizing. They are numbered to make it easier to refer to specific Actions. They are NOT numbered based on priority.) # of Votes Potential Key Actions 1 1. Ensure that at least 75% of the community is aware of the environmental and economic benefits of electric vehicles and the programs available to them 4 2. By 2022 quantify the public and private EV charger network needed within the community to support 50% EV penetration in Palo Alto, and develop an implementation plan to establish that charging network Attachment B Go Back to Contents Page Page 38 of 49 3 3. Develop programs to assist and incentivize private EV charging installations in hard to reach locations such as multifamily properties, non-profits, and small commercial sites to ensure adequate and diverse EV charging infrastructure 0 4. By 2022, develop a strategic plan to encourage charging of inbound EVs within Palo Alto 1 5. Continue to electrify municipal fleet as opportunities arise, and by 2021 develop a comprehensive fleet electrification workplan and associated EV charging needs Electric Vehicles: Feedback on Potential Key Actions - Resident o Share your EV leadership experience with other cities to magnify your savings o Move each target to be one year more prompt - Resident o 2., 3. and 5. are the most important in my opinion. I think that most of the community is aware of EV and its benefits. You need to make sure the chargers are there. Is there any way to situate charging spots near existing gas stations? - Resident o E-bikes are being adopted in greater numbers than electric cars. Incentivize e-bikes instead of or in addition to electric cars. - Resident o Waiting until 2022 to formulate plans seems unnecessary. A lot of spending is going into EV charging already. To me the core question to research now is where are chargers needed to get the most EVs purchased, and who should pay. Just my 2 cents since I’m not well versed here. - Resident o These are all too vague, and unmeasurable. Won't make any difference. The City needs to actually something here, not just plans. It's not aggressive enough at all. 1. Ensure that at least 75% of the community is aware of the environmental and economic benefits of electric vehicles and the programs available to them - Resident o We need a ‘total cost of ownership’ approach for EVs – the upfront cost is or could be higher, but the cost to operate is much lower due to lower costs of electricity, no oil changes, fewer parts to break etc. - Resident o I would like to see this closer to 90% 2. By 2022 quantify the public and private EV charger network needed within the community to support 50% EV penetration in Palo Alto, and develop an implementation plan to establish that charging network - Greenmeadow Resident o On charging, I think it’s important that we prioritize daytime charging such as workplaces, since electricity in general is cheaper and cleaner then. (I know that Palo Attachment B Go Back to Contents Page Page 39 of 49 Alto has hydro, but we can sell it at high prices in the evening if more of our load happens in the daytime hours.) - Palo Alto Non-Profit o Change to Goal Date from 2022 to 2020 - Resident o We should already know this. and really, it is not a good use of resources. We just need to start putting in more charging stations, especially at multifamily residences and low- income residences. 3. Develop programs to assist and incentivize private EV charging installations in hard to reach locations such as multifamily properties, non-profits, and small commercial sites to ensure adequate and diverse EV charging infrastructure - Resident o I like the focus on multi-family chargers – which we’ll need more of if we actually build more multi-family housing units - Resident o How will this be addressed for tenants? They make up about 40% of the city, so it depends on their landlord to go along with it. - Resident o I would very much like to see support for chargers at low income residential facilities. 4. By 2022, develop a strategic plan to encourage charging of inbound EVs within Palo Alto - Palo Alto Non-Profit o Change to Goal Date 2022 to 2021 - Resident o This should be done before the end of 2020. 5. Continue to electrify municipal fleet as opportunities arise, and by 2021 develop a comprehensive fleet electrification workplan and associated EV charging needs - Resident o Electrifying City vehicles is super important because a) city vehicles currently are big idlers because they run equipment in their cars/trucks; b) the batteries in the large trucks (and school busses), could be used as power sources in a significant power outage - Palo Alto Non-Profit o Change to Goal Date from 2021 to 2020 o Add: “Palo Alto shall convert 50% of their fleet to EVs by 2025”. - Resident o I would like to see the vast majority of the city fleet be electric. we need to "walk the walk." o Again, we are past discussion and should be more action focused. Electric Vehicles: Suggestions for New Key Actions - Palo Alto Non-Profit Attachment B Go Back to Contents Page Page 40 of 49 o Create New Potential Key Action #6: "Shift 80% of car charging within the City to daytime hours: 8am-3pm, in order to take advantage of cheap, abundant solar energy."  This would likely need to be done through strong incentives, such as lower electricity rates during these hours. o Create New Potential Key Action #8: Require electric construction equipment on municipal projects and large commercial projects. o Create New Potential Key Action #9: Require commercial fleet operators to convert 50% of their fleet to EVs by 2025. - Evergreen Park Resident o New Key Action: City will both educate and encourage CARB to set a ZEV mandate that supports Palo Alto's EV goals. Electric Vehicles: General Feedback - Old Palo Alto Resident o Using numbers of EVs instead of EV-miles-traveled is a questionable metric. An EV sitting in a driveway or garage does nothing for carbon emissions. For the public it may not be feasible to measure miles traveled. For the City fleet, it should be. - Green Acres II Resident o Adopting policies that allow EV transportation to be more accessible to all city residents, including multi-unit residents would set the stage for more EV adoption. - Barron Park Resident o The goals and key actions for EVs are a good starting point but don’t go far enough, and to be meaningful, there needs to be real numbers for EV adoption each year and how this relates to the 80 by 30 goal. Without this we have no way of knowing if actions will get us there or what our progress to these goals really are each year. While EVs are zero emission, if we were to wave a magic wand and turn all gas cars to electric we would still have parking and congestion problems so we really need to focus on reducing VMT and SOV as well. - Midtown Resident o The Electric Vehicle section of the Plan is pretty thin, and mostly boil down to developing by 2022 a plan to encourage EVs. I think we need to accelerate this. Might we partner with Tesla to find ways to accelerate EV penetration? - Resident o All vehicles driven within Palo Alto must be required to be EVs. Non-compliant vehicles should have to pay a “climate tax” depending on their carbon emissions/mile if they are driven within city limits. - Professorville Resident o I very much like your idea of promoting the use of electric cars. That is a good use for electricity. - Professorville Resident o Expand to include Hydrogen vehicles. The state is investing a ton of money in a network of filling stations. And Toyota, at least, is totally in to get H2 car cost down and have this segment grow like the Prius did. Doesn’t take much to support this useful effort. And with more schemes to produce H2 using clean energy, even though it’s less efficient, we can avoid a mountain of dead batteries that need to be recycled or disposed of somehow. So far there seems to be little thought/planning aimed at what to do with mountains of used Li batteries Attachment B Go Back to Contents Page Page 41 of 49 - Midtown Resident o The City boasts of having 4,000 EV’s (electric cars/vehicles) in Palo Alto. This is true, but the City bought only a handful of EV’s! Those (approximately) 4,000 EV’s were purchased by individual residents for their own personal use. The City did install dozens of Level ll charging stations for electric cars, but not the fast (Level lll) chargers. Approximately 90% of charging is done at home - by residents using their own garage outlets - while only about 10% is done at charging stations. - Palo Alto Youth Group o We urge Palo Alto to develop and adapt a plan for electric vehicle infrastructure construction in all buildings (multi-family, non-profits, small commercial sites), EV charger networks, and a comprehensive electrification plan by 2021. This plan should include effective and efficient strategies that do not inconvenience residents. o Additionally, we believe that incentivizing the use of electric bicycles would greatly improve our path to the 80x30 goal. Putting in more bicycle racks and making it easier to carry a bike on Caltrain could decrease the amount of people in fossil fuel-powered cars. In addition, electric busses can also be very effective for reducing car traffic and the city’s carbon emissions. - Resident o As a tenant, I can see potential issues trying to encourage a larger EV charging network. Perhaps we may need to start enforcing a strict minimum EV charging quota for parking lots and/or neighborhood streets. o EVs are inherently a significant cost to most families, especially given economic downturns and people driving their cars for longer. We are going to need stronger incentives for moving to them; perhaps an added gas tax or cheaper rates for utilities for supporting them. - Resident o How to ensure renters in old rentals have infrastructure to charge a vehicle? Most older rentals wiring sketchy already. - Midtown Resident o Here are some ideas to include in the updated Plan:  6) Because EVs charged at home at night generally mean that the energy entering the car has to be stored somewhere during the day, EV charging at night requires substantial energy storage capacity. Therefore, the City should encourage EV charging during the day when solar energy -- ideally generated by collectors placed on carports -- is most available. This will generally mean that EV chargers should be placed at worksites and in public lots. Therefore, the City should incentivize EV chargers at workplaces.  7) To support placement of EV chargers at multi-family complexes, the City should explore taking on some portion of the installation costs, either through getting a discount for a "group buy" of EV chargers or through playing for needed trenching or other electrical work.  8) Organize "group buys" of EVs both for the City fleet and for fleets of large employers such as the PAUSD, Palo Alto Medical Foundation, etc. Make such purchase opportunities available to residents and those who work in Palo Alto as well. Group purchase rates should also be found for EV charging equipment; perhaps some large corporations could put their procurement staff to work on setting up such a plan for several large employers and the City. Here again, we need to think"scale." Attachment B Go Back to Contents Page Page 42 of 49 - Resident o I am in support of the S/CAP with this improvement: Include reduced permit price, $85.00, for EV charger installation. - Palo Alto Non-Profit o In coordination with other cities with similar climate goals, be a horsefly in the ears of the California Air Resources Board in driving them to adopt a more stringent Zero Emission Vehicle regulation in both increasing the EV numbers and types; o Focus on maximizing low power (level 1) EV charging infrastructure in multi-dwelling units (MDU) versus funding a few token level 2 chargers per MDU and/ or additional public infrastructure) o Support Bay Area wide EV & electrification related educational and outreach events especially hands on events such as EV ride and drives and induction cooking demonstrations. - Resident o Regarding electric vehicles, require that all parking spaces have the requisite conduit for EV charging for new construction in addition to the rules enacted by Palo Alto in 2014. And reconvene the Electric Vehicle Task Force to develop a proposal for remodels of existing buildings. Advertise and promote the Clean Cars for All Initiative of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District. https://www.baaqmd.gov/funding-and- incentives/residents/clean-cars-for-all/apply Consider electric motorcycles for the Police Department (yes, there are special police versions) when we purchase new ones. - Resident o I need to be able to plug my car in at my curb. Can I please run a plug to the curb? This is the barrier to my getting an EV. We can't put both cars in our driveway. I'll pay for all of this. You just need to make it permittable. - Resident o It is confusing to say we are carbon neutral, since it depends when in the day/season we are talking about. - Resident o Without govt. intervention, this transition is nevertheless inevitable. Probably can accelerate the process a little. Focus on chargers at shared-occupancy residences. The rest will probably take care of itself. o This topic should also take autonomy into account. Low income households, with the right incentives, might prefer to use shared vehicles. As may we older residents, more's the pity. o The issue of the impact on the electrical grid needs to be front and center, unless your Utility folks are already confident they can meet the demand, but steady state and instantaneous. Water Potential Goals  Reduce per capita water use compared to 2019 Attachment B Go Back to Contents Page Page 43 of 49  Increase the percentage of recycled water used (volume of recycled water/recycled water filter capacity) by 10% in 2022 compared to 2019  Reduce the total dissolved solids by 50% compared to 2019 base year  Manage stormwater to slow the flow to receiving waters and improve water quality to protect the SF Bay, while also treating it as a beneficial resource for alternative uses Water: Feedback on Potential Goals - Resident o It is very hard to comment on these goals without explanation as to what they provide.  Reduce per capita water use compared to 2019 - Palo Alto Non-Profit o Add a measurable target such as “Reduce per capita water use by x% (or to xx gal/day) by 202x compared to 2019” - Resident o This is unspecific and lacking in information- with no data, why pick 2019 as base year? - Resident o For the per-capita water use, should there be a percentage target? It would temper expectations. - Resident o Reduce how much? And over what time period. 20%? - Resident o Conservation is always a good thing.  Increase the percentage of recycled water used (volume of recycled water/recycled water filter capacity) by 10% in 2022 compared to 2019 - Mountain View Resident, Palo Alto Small Business Owner o Would increase recycled water used by more than 10% in 2022. - Downtown North Resident o Recycled water goals should be more aggressive. - Resident o Is it not possible to increase recycled water usage by more? - Resident o I'm in favor of expanding recycled water when possible  Reduce the total dissolved solids by 50% compared to 2019 base year - Barron Park Resident o This needs more explanation. What is the water that you are addressing? Incoming water, wastewater, recycled water? I would add to the goals, a date certain for the phase out of ground water pumping for home building. The city should not be supporting this. - Palo Alto Non-Profit Attachment B Go Back to Contents Page Page 44 of 49 o Remove Potential Goal #3. Does this goal affect greenhouse gas emissions? While worthy of work in improving sustainable water infrastructure, perhaps it is lower priority than the climate goals. - Resident o I don't understand "Reduce the total dissolved solids by 50%". What are dissolved solids? I would ask that the City devise a way(s) for buildings like mine, with 55 condos, so that individual units pay for THEIR water use. Now it's divided equally among all 55 units. I can conserve all I want while someone else is profligate. Again, the pocketbook moves people more than info and encouragement. - Resident o I don't know what we get by reducing solids by 50%. Would be helpful to know what are consequences of this.  Manage stormwater to slow the flow to receiving waters and improve water quality to protect the SF Bay, while also treating it as a beneficial resource for alternative uses Water: Suggestions for New Goals - Palo Alto Resident o Most important goal is missing- Reduce the amount of wastewater going to the main plant by incentivizing using washing machine water and shower water used in landscaping for native plantings to promote biodiversity and healthy ecology. Recycled water is energy-expensive. And pumping it back uphill to homes is extremely energy intensive. Much better to FIRST REDUCE the amount of water that goes down the sewer. o Similarly, use the concept of bioswales for storm water and measure this metric to see how much water can be reduced in the storm water drains and go instead to grow the trees and plants and into the ground water storage. Trees hold and use up tons of storm/rain water - increase the urban forest using green infrastructure. - Resident o I would like to see allocation of water to back-yard landscaping of fruit trees and native plantings, so - a cross-benefit rather than Silo type goal to support biodiversity and increase food security - Resident o I would like to see a complete ban on basement construction and ground water waste. o I would like to see purple pipes installed whenever possible when we have a utilities project that requires digging. - Resident o Should there be goals related to groundwater (continue ensuring emergency supply)? - Resident o Add water reuse capability as a long-term goal (for businesses - gray and blackwater for example) Water: Potential Key Actions to explore further (These potential Key Actions do not represent all the work that the City is doing or will be doing related to climate change and sustainability. These are the actions we will be prioritizing. They are numbered to make it easier to refer to specific Actions. They are NOT numbered based on priority.) Attachment B Go Back to Contents Page Page 45 of 49 # of Votes Potential Key Actions 3 1. Maximize cost-effective water conservation & efficiency 4 2. Expand the use of effluent from the Regional Water Quality Control Plant through Non-Potable Reuse, Indirect Potable Reuse, or Direct Potable Reuse 5 3. Establish quantifiable baseline and targets for implementation of green stormwater infrastructure on private property, municipal facilities and public rights-of-way by 2024 1 4. Design and build a salt removal facility for the Palo Alto Wastewater Treatment Plant 6 5. Develop a "One Water" Portfolio for Palo Alto Water: Feedback on Potential Key Actions - Barron Park Resident o On the Priority of the Key Actions, I think the existing listing is OK. - Palo Alto Non-Profit o We applaud the clear delineation of the water-related goals and key actions. We prioritize Key Action #5 One-Water Portfolio, and Key Action #3 Green Stormwater Infrastructure. - Resident o If no water is allocated to backyard habitat and fruit trees, these Key Actions can lead to desertification of our beautiful city 1. Maximize cost-effective water conservation & efficiency - Resident o Too general. Metrics? Who is going to do this, how will they do it and when will we know it’s been achieved? - Resident o Too vague; sharpen - Downtown North Resident o Please include a basic educational component on water conservation for PA residents 2. Expand the use of effluent from the Regional Water Quality Control Plant through Non- Potable Reuse, Indirect Potable Reuse, or Direct Potable Reuse - Resident o I am most excited by #2. Recycled water in toilets is such a great idea. 3. Establish quantifiable baseline and targets for implementation of green stormwater infrastructure on private property, municipal facilities and public rights-of-way by 2024 - Resident o Good but, in 4 more years? Atherton has had a plan since 2013. - Resident o Very important - Resident Attachment B Go Back to Contents Page Page 46 of 49 o #3 is also very important. We need to expand education to residents to not wash their cars on their driveways, with soapy water running into the storm drains. I see so many people doing this and I don't feel comfortable confronting them but all that soap going to the Bay is so sad! o Expand stormwater and wastewater outreach efforts on social and earned media. - Resident o I think it is always helpful to have a quantifiable baseline in order to manage goals, but not sure what this means in this context. - Resident o What does item 3 mean? - Resident o The third goal is not clear, assume this is for recycled water. - Palo Alto Non-Profit o Revise: “Establish quantifiable baseline, targets, and incentives for implementation of green stormwater infrastructure on private property, municipal…” By including incentives into the Key Action, it is more likely that private property owners will implement green stormwater infrastructure such as rainwater catchment, permeable hardscape, and bioswales. - Resident o Could be important. Encourage creation of "rain garden" type runoff catchments 4. Design and build a salt removal facility for the Palo Alto Wastewater Treatment Plant - Barron Park Resident o Needs better description. What is this addressing, recycled water, wastewater, incoming water to the plant? Is this to be a desal plant? How much energy will this take? In any case where does the salt go? More verbiage is needed here for people to understand what you are talking about. - Resident o Is this desalinization? - Palo Alto Non-Profit o Remove Potential Key Action #4: This action appears to support Potential Goal #3. - Mountain View Resident, Palo Alto Small Business Owner o Do not like 4 - Resident o What would the cost of "salt removal facility" be? 5. Develop a "One Water" Portfolio for Palo Alto - Resident o YES! The sooner, the better. “When we embrace the belief that water in all its forms has value [including shallow groundwater that is currently pumped into the storm drain when building underground], the full water life cycle can be optimized to build strong economies, vibrant communities, and healthy environments”. All other aspects of water planning fall under the “One Water Portfolio”. o Value shallow groundwater as an important part of our water portfolio. - Resident Attachment B Go Back to Contents Page Page 47 of 49 o #5 is very important because its focus is systemic. It should drive all the other key actions. - Bozeman Resident o Glad that we are addressing the ecosystem's needs as well as people. Can we include more programs that addresses the protection of the ecosystem? - Resident o What is a "One Water" Portfolio? This is confusing use of jargon. - Resident o I don't understand what a one water portfolio means and how it is helpful. generally, I think it is helpful when all stake holders are working together. Water: Suggestions for New Key Actions - Palo Alto Non-Profit o We would like to see the following two new key actions:  New Key Action: “Require climate-appropriate, drought-tolerant species in public and private plantings. Expand the requirements of the Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance (WELO) to further the S/CAP goals.” This new key action will link the Water and Natural Environment areas.  New Key Action: “Ensure that water conservation measures in the landscape during drought and at all times, adhere to the California State “Save our Water and our Trees” principles to ensure existing trees are not lost. Trees are the most valuable component of the landscape for the long-term investment they represent and the magnitude of the benefits they provide. The work of converting the Palo Alto urban forest to a drought-tolerant, climate adapted forest has begun but it will take many years to get there. Meanwhile existing trees need to be kept alive. - Palo Alto Non-Profit o Create New Potential Key Action #6: “Create streamlined design guidelines and permitting process with minimal fees for onsite potable and non-potable water reuse on private (residential and commercial) property.” - Resident o Mandate inclusion of gray water plumbing in new construction for toilets, etc. - Resident o I also think that you need to allow for the wide-scale use of gray water on private property. This needs to be a supported option for new construction, as well as a legal possibility for homeowners who want to divert their gray water for yard use. - Mountain View Resident, Palo Alto Small Business Owner o All new house should have two pipe 1) for grey water and 2) for sewer water - this should be implemented immediately and should take higher priority of all electric houses." - Palo Verde Resident o Add: Encourage planting of and landscaping with native trees and plant to increase rainfall. o It would be good if the role of native species and plant/tree groundcover encourages rain were talked about here. Less concrete. More native greenery. - Resident Attachment B Go Back to Contents Page Page 48 of 49 o Pairing GSI projects with road diets and more protected (class IV) bike lanes is a win- win-win o If there's a way to distinguish water used/develop a model to distinguish home water use vs. irrigation vs. water to grow edibles, that would be awesome. Water to grow edibles (and reduce transportation miles associated with the food we eat) should not be discouraged. - Resident o New Key Action: Develop a program for properties to support backyard habitat and vegetable/fruit gardens - Resident o Suggest including actions related to groundwater, particularly resilient emergency supply. - Resident o Add rainwater collection as a key action for both residential and commercial. Water: General Feedback - City of Palo Alto Staff o Is the City considering/planning to reduce lawn areas on City property (parks, schools) in an effort to reduce water use? Does the City plan on collecting/storing stormwater on City property to use for irrigation in dryer months? - Professorville Resident o Accelerate Direct Potable Reuse so it available when it becomes absolutely needed. Cooperate with San Jose and others in this effort. Don’t reinvent. - Barron Park Resident o While water will be an important resource to manage, since there are no direct GHG reductions that will result from these goals and actions, I would put other parts of the SCAP at a greater priority. The goals and key actions look pretty good and the city is already doing a good job at addressing this. - Palo Alto Youth Group o Focusing efforts on educational programs to inform the populace on climate change and water-waste is a crucial element in reaching Palo Alto’s goal of waste reduction. Incentives should be put in place to use recycled water, low-volume flush toilets, and greywater for outside watering. Strategies might include providing water recycling containers that could be automatically installed in buildings, as well as providing government discounts on low-volume flush toilets to landlords/home-owners. o We should encourage the use of drought-resistant and native California plants in commercial and residential plots to restore and improve the environment and reduce outdoor water usage. Urban cities in drought-stricken areas should seek to leverage nature-based solutions to combat existing climate conditions. The prioritization of drought allocation plans (CA will have more frequent severe droughts in the future) should be enforced to ensure our resilience. o Efforts by Palo Alto to approve a Final Green Stormwater Infrastructure plan(GSI) puts us in a good position to further prioritize and start development of green stormwater infrastructure, which will both help reduce urban heat, reduce pollution within the city and SF Bay, and improve the local environment. - Midtown Resident Attachment B Go Back to Contents Page Page 49 of 49 o Palo Alto has been doing a good job on water conservation and management, and the goals and actions outlined are good ones. One area that should be added to this section, however, is groundwater. When groundwater is pumped for construction of residential basements, it causes ground subsidence. As the soil settles, this, in turn, causes cracks to appear in nearby homes, creating potential structural problems and lowering property values. The City should outlaw the pumping of groundwater for the purposes of residential basement construction. - Palo Alto Resident o "alternative uses....such as growing a habit- supportive urban forest using storm water in bioswales. o Also, making more porous ground surface on properties, by making sidewalks, and driveways and patios using pervious materials. Requiring all new concrete to be pervious concrete in the city. " - Resident o I'd give anything to install significant capacity for grey and rainwater collection for irrigation, but at this point I'd need significant subsidization. If required for new construction, though, it wouldn't be that expensive. As always, I'm willing to be a test case if anybody's interested in discussing it. Deals with all four of your major goals. While at it, installing heat exchange tech may not add that much to the cost, by the way. o Thanks for the opportunity to rant. - Resident o Educate residents about how they can conserve water and store rainwater for their lawns. A website for this would help. - Resident o Use less water sprinkling in city parks. Many parks way over watered. o Encourage the installation of concrete pavers vs. the use of concrete and asphalt driveways. - Bozeman Resident o Can we limit or educate communities about drinking water? Letting people know that it is safe to use tap instead of purchasing bottled water? cityofpaloalto.org/sustainabilityplan Seeking Feedback on 2020 Sustainability and Climate Action Plan Goals and Key Actions Utilities Advisory Commission May 20, 2020 Staff: Shiva Swaminathan Attachment C • CITY OF PALO ALTO 2 2cityofpaloalto.org/sustainabilityplan •Review the 2020 Sustainability and Climate Action Plan (S/CAP) Update Process •Seek UAC input on 2020 S/CAP Goals and Key Actions Today’s Objectives 3 3cityofpaloalto.org/sustainabilityplan •Current S/CAP made up of three components: 1.80 x 30 Goal –adopted April 2016 2.Sustainability and Climate Action Plan Framework –adopted Nov 2016 3.2018-2020 Sustainability Implementation Plan (SIP) –accepted Dec 2017 •2020 Council Priority: Sustainability, in the context of climate change •2020 S/CAP focus areas: Energy, Mobility, Electric Vehicles, Water, Climate Adaptation and SLR, Natural Environment, Zero Waste •Goals related to Energy, Mobility and Electric Vehicles key to meeting 80 x 30 Goals •Staff drafted Goals & Key Actions for community input Background on S/CAP and SIP 4 4cityofpaloalto.org/sustainabilityplan Sustainability and Climate Action Plan Team Leads Christine Tam Evon Ballash Sylvia Star-Lack Shiva Swaminathan Hiromi Kelty Mike Nafziger Karla Dailey Karin North Julie Weiss Christine Luong Walter Passmore Pam Boyle Rodriguez Paula Borges Maybo AuYeung Wendy Hediger 5 5cityofpaloalto.org/sustainabilityplan GHG Emissions Down ~36% in Palo Alto (56.5% with offsets) 800,000 700,000 600,000 ~ 500,000 0 V .... 0 i 400,000 "' ,: 0 ·.;; "' ·e j,jJ 300,000 200,000 100,000 0 Palo Alto Municipal Operations and Community GHG Emissions 1 990 2005 2013 20 14 • Road Travel in t o, from, and w it hin Cit y • Palo Alt o Landf ill Fug it ive Emi ssion s • Wastew ate r Process Emissions • Natu r al Gas Use ~ Natu r al Gas Use (Pa loAlt oGreen Gas Offsets) 2015 2016 2017 20 18 • Lan dfill ed Unrecovered Recyclables Lifecycle Emissions From Annual Tot al W as t e Pl ace d in Lan dfills Natu ral Gas Distri bution Leakage • Net Brown Power Emi.ssions {Weather adjusted) 6 6cityofpaloalto.org/sustainabilityplan 80 x 30 Target (150K MT CO2e) GHG Emissions Down ~36% in Palo Alto (56.5% with offsets) 7 7cityofpaloalto.org/sustainabilityplan 2020 S/CAP Update Proposed Process 2020 2021 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Co n s u l t a n t a n d St a f f W o r k Co m m u n i t y En g a g e m e n t Co u n c i l Me e t i n g s Council Info Report Council Study Session 2020 S/CAP Update Summit Ad o p t e d 2 0 2 0 S / C A P U p d a t e 2020 S/CAP Update Area-Specific Community Engagement Finalize 2020 S/CAP Final CEQA Report Council Adopts 2020 S/CAP Council Study Session Council Action Item Draft 2020 S/CAP Draft Goals and Key Actions with Community input Impact Analysis of Goals and Key Actions 2019 Greenhouse Gas Inventory 2020 S/CAP Update Workshop On-going On-Line Community Engagement 8 8cityofpaloalto.org/sustainabilityplan First Virtual Community Workshop -Opportunity to provide feedback on Goals & Key Actions -Number of Participants (204 total) 156 Part 1: Overview 79 Part 2: Energy 63 Part 3: Mobility 68 Part 4: Electric Vehicles 51 Part 5: Water 59 Part 6: Climate Adaptation and Sea Level Rise 52 Part 7: Natural Environment 59 Part 8: Zero Waste 9 9cityofpaloalto.org/sustainabilityplan 2020 S/CAP Update Proposed Process 2020 2021 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Co n s u l t a n t a n d St a f f W o r k Co m m u n i t y En g a g e m e n t Co u n c i l Me e t i n g s Council Info Report Council Study Session 2020 S/CAP Update Summit Ad o p t e d 2 0 2 0 S / C A P U p d a t e 2020 S/CAP Update Area-Specific Community Engagement Finalize 2020 S/CAP Final CEQA Report Council Adopts 2020 S/CAP Council Study Session Council Action Item Draft 2020 S/CAP Draft Goals and Key Actions with Community input Impact Analysis of Goals and Key Actions 2019 Greenhouse Gas Inventory 2020 S/CAP Update Workshop On-going On-Line Community Engagement 10 10cityofpaloalto.org/sustainabilityplan Feedback Sought Today 1.Draft Goals and Key Actions outlined in the Energy, Electric Vehicle, and Water 2020 S/CAP Focus areas 2.Additional Goals and Key Actions to consider to reach 80 x 30 GHG reduction goal 11 11cityofpaloalto.org/sustainabilityplan Next Steps 1.City Council Input on updated Goals and Key Actions –June 8 2.Completed 2019 GHG Inventory and BAU Forecast –end of June 3.AECOM Impact Analysis –GHG Reduction potential, Estimated Costs, Sustainability Co-Benefits –August / September 4.UAC, PRC, PTC input –Early Fall 5.Council review of 2019 GHG Inventory, BAU Forecast, impact analysis, community input received to date –Early Fall 6.2020 S/CAP Summit –Early Fall 7.First draft of 2020 S/CAP –December 2020 8.CEQA Review and Adoption of 2020 S/CAP –April 2020 City of Palo Alto (ID # 11336) Utilities Advisory Commission Staff Report Report Type: Agenda Items Meeting Date: 5/20/2020 City of Palo Alto Page 1 Summary Title: Accounting for Leaked Natural Gas in Palo Alto Greenhouse Gas Emissions Title: Discussion of Accounting for Leaked Natural Gas in Palo Alto Greenhouse Gas Emissions From: City Manager Lead Department: Utilities Executive Summary Staff is transmitting a colleague’s memo received by the Department from Commissioners Forssell and Segal for discussion by the full Utilities Advisory Commission (UAC). The memo is intended to prompt a discussion of natural gas emissions by the UAC. The memo advocates for reporting on emissions of production of natural gas and its transmission to Palo Alto (“upstream emissions”) in addition to the emissions from combustion of that gas within Palo Alto and any leakage from Palo Alto’s distribution system. It acknowledges the challenges of including this in the greenhouse gas (GHG) inventory update for the 2020 Sustainability and Climate Action Plan (S/CAP). It does recommend internal reporting of upstream natural gas emissions. If the Council, at the UAC’s recommendation, directs Utilities Department staff to begin internal reporting of upstream natural gas emissions for informational purposes, Utilities Department staff can accommodate that request. Staff would provide that report to the UAC and Council in the form of an informational report by the end of 2020 and would update the report annually going forward. Staff also recommends including the upstream emissions for gasoline as a way of assessing the full GHG impac ts of the Utilities Department EV-related programs and customer activities to purchase EVs. This report would not be incorporated into the 2020 S/CAP, and any request to do so would have to involve a broader discussion with the entire City sustainability team and the City Manager. While the memo does not advocate for inclusion of upstream emissions in the upcoming S/CAP Update, this idea has been raised by some community members, so staff has also included the following notes related to the S/CAP for background and context: •Emissions beyond Palo Alto’s boundaries are not included in the GHG inventory protocol the City uses. Using a defined protocol rather than a custom GHG inventory definition allows the City’s GHG inventory to be accepted by experts and to be benchmarked against other cities. While there are other protocols that include upstream emissions, using them would require assessment of a range of other unrelated emissions sources outside Palo Alto boundaries (“Scope 3 emissions”) that would Commissioners: Forssell and Segal City of Palo Alto Page 2 complicate the 2020 S/CAP. The City’s Sustainability Team has expressed a preference not to include any additional Scope 3 emissions beyond those few already included in the City’s adopted reporting protocol. • There are budgetary and contractual considerations to incorporating upstream emissions into the City’s S/CAP update. The Sustainability Team would have to evaluate the cost and time to do so given the state of the City’s budget and the major workload already required by the S/CAP update. • Some commenters on the S/CAP have stated that the inclusion of upstream emissions from natural gas will result in significant changes to activities required to meet the S/CAP 80% by 2030 goal (e.g. a much greater focus on building electrification). However, if upstream emissions are included both from production and transmission of natural gas and gasoline production and transportation, the impact on the mix of activities required to achieve the goal is likely to be less significant. • The use of a 20-year global warming potential (GWP) may create some additional challenges when assessing upstream emissions. While the 2019 IPCC report talks about either the 20-year or 100-year GWP numbers being appropriate for GHG planning, and there does seem to be some debate in the academic world about making more use of the 20-year GWP, both the Federal Environmental Protection Agency and the California Air Resources Board use the 100-year number when they assess California’s emissions. More research would be required to see whether benchmarking GHG protocols accommodate the use of either GWP number. Attachments: • Attachment A: Commissioner's Memo Commissioner Memo from Commissioners Forssell and Segal 1 Accounting for Leaked Natural Gas in Palo Alto Greenhouse Gas Emissions Commissioner Memo Lisa Forssell and Lauren Segal For discussion at the May 20, 2020 meeting of the Utilities Advisory Commission As the City updates the Sustainability and Climate Action Plan (S/CAP) for 2020, we submit this memo to raise awareness in the Utilities Advisory Commission and City Council of a more rigorous way for the City of Palo Alto to consider the full impact of leaked natural gas. We propose that the City consider whether to factor this into the City’s internal Greenhouse Gas (GHG) accounting. We acknowledge that while the City focuses on COVID and all of the health, economic and social impacts it has brought, this is an awkward time to raise these issues. However, the revised S/CAP is moving forward and this information is important for that discussion. Palo Alto currently takes into account fugitive emissions (leaked natural gas) from the gas distribution system within the City, but ignores upstream emissions of gas delivered to Palo Alto.1 This is in line with the current GHG inventory the City uses and how the City evaluates its GHG reduction success relative to state and federal requirements, other utilities , and to the current S/CAP goals. However, it significantly understates the full GHG impact of using natural gas, because methane leaks from natural gas along the entire natural gas system, which includes not only distribution but also production, storage, and transmission. In fact, the majority of the fugitive emissions from leaked natural gas occur before the gas reaches Citygate for distribution. Distribution leaks are currently estimated to be approximately 0.4% of total gas usage in Palo Alto.2 Recent studies indicate that upstream leakage is probably around 2-7% of total gas usage for Bay Area cities.3 While PG&E has certain reporting obligations for transmission system leaks 4, the point here is to identify Palo Alto’s contribution to those system leaks, regardless of where the reporting obligation lies.5 Further, we note that the City has used a 100-year time horizon for the global warming potential (GWP) of methane in its past accounting. In this memo, we explore using a 20-year time horizon and how that would impact GHG emissions estimates. We further note estimates of global warming potential from a more recent report from the Intergovernmental Panel of Climate Change (IPCC). This change in the time horizon and the IPCC update combined would result in a revision of the Global Warming Potential value in t he City’s methodology from 216 to 86.7 Why it matters in Palo Alto Palo Alto has been a leader in sustainability, including adopting a goal of reducing the City’s GHG emissions 80% below 1990 levels by 2030, under the Sustainability and Climate Action Plan (S/CAP). In 2012, the City set mandates for greenhouse gas reduction far ahead of California and the country. In 2020, City Council plans to adopt an updated S/CAP. Attachment A Commissioner Memo from Commissioners Forssell and Segal 2 Palo Alto uses greenhouse gas emissions estimates to measure its progress on the “80 by 30” goal. The City has been measuring GHG emissions, including fugitive methane emissions, since at least 2007 with the first Climate Protection Plan.8 It is helpful to continue to use the same standard for comparison purposes; however, the knowledge surrounding GHG impact has expanded since the City first determined which measurements to use. The City should factor in this updated information, even if for internal purposes only. This way, the true carbon footprint due to City activities is as accurate as possible and reflects the most current science. The Utility currently is developing the 2019 GHG inventory. We understand from the Utilities’ staff that making these accounting changes would make it difficult to use some current utility protocols, which may have benchmarking implications and may add time and costs . We recognize that now is not the time to implement these changes in the City’s external reporting. However, for internal purposes it is important for the City to understand and account for the full GHG impact of natural gas used. Methane, the primary constituent of natural gas, is a potent greenhouse gas, with a global warming potential 86 ti mes that of CO2 when calculated at a 20 year time horizon.9 Put another way, ton for ton, methane traps about 86 times more heat radiation than does carbon dioxide when measured over a 20-year period.10 Figure 1. Illustration of the natural gas system.11 One important source of methane in the atmosphere comes from natural gas leakage (fugitive emissions) at every stage of the gas supply chain: extraction and production, gathering and processing, storage and transmission, and distribution. See Figure 1. above for an illustration. Studies have estimated the average leak rate of methane gas through its lifecycle (from well to fixture) ranges from 2% to 7%12 of total gas usage in the Bay Area. The range of estimates is broad, due to the difficulty of measuring fugitive emissions and the variability of leaks across the entire system. Palo Alto includes some of the greenhouse gas impact of methane in its GHG calculations. It does this in two ways: 1) it assumes that all the natural gas that is delivered to Citygate is combusted13 when it purchases allowances to comply with the State’s Cap and Trade Program 14 Commissioner Memo from Commissioners Forssell and Segal 3 and 2) it estimates GHG emissions from leaks in the distribution system (within the City) when it calculates its greenhouse gas inventory. An example of this GHG inventory is in the 2019 Earth Day report.15 A more complete measure of the GHG impact of the City’s gas usage is to consider leakage along the upstream gas system, in addition to emissions from leakage within the distribution system and combusted gas within the City. This would require the City to calculate the GHG impact based on estimated fugitive emissions as the gas is delivered to Citygate, in addition to the GHG impact of natural gas used within the city. Discussion There are two components to a revised calculation: 1) estimating fugitive emissions from the entire natural gas system and 2) choosing a value for the global warming potential of methane. We discuss each here. Estimating fugitive emissions The Utility reviews the natural gas distribution system for leakage regularly and uses a 3-grade ranking system to determine when or whether to fix leaks.16 Palo Alto has a proactive replacement program for aging distribution infrastructure that is beyond the regulatory requirements. However, no natural gas distribution system is leak-free, and not all gas leaks are big enough to be detected. The Utilities Engineering Department calculates fugitive gas emissions using methodology from the American Gas Association (AGA), to report to the Federal Department of Transportation. This calculation uses different emissions factors, depending on the kinds of pipe and pipeline services, to arrive at an overall estimate of leaked CH4. When this calculation was last done, in 2012, it estimated an annual leakage of 501,092 lbs. of CH4, which equates to an overall distribution system leakage of 0.4% for 2018.17 We have used 0.4% in this memo to illustrate some examples. The City’s natural gas consumption does not leak only in the distribution system, however. Natural gas leaks everywhere in the system, as illustrated above.18 While it is not feasible for the Utility to directly measure fugitive emissions upstream of Palo Alto, there are many possible ways to estimate these emissions.19 Values that could be attributed to upstream emissions range from 2% to 7%, as discussed above, and CARB provides some guidance.20 The change to the City’s current methodology is to look at upstream emissions; these are not included in the 2019 Earth Day Report, which most recently estimated the City’s GHG emissions. Below, we illustrate how the City’s greenhouse gas emissions profile changes when upstream emissions are included, assuming 3% upstream leaks. Commissioner Memo from Commissioners Forssell and Segal 4 Global warming potential of methane The other component of estimating the impact of leaked natural gas is estimating the global warming potential (GWP) of methane, the main component of natural gas. GWP is typically expressed in units of carbon dioxide equivalence, or CO2e. The IPCC estimates the GWP of various greenhouse gasses. It provides estimates on a 20 -year and a 100-year time horizon. Because methane breaks down more quickly in the atmosphere than carbon dioxide, its 100-year GWP is less than its 20-year GWP. The IPCC continues to update its estimates of the global warming potential of various greenhouse gasses every few years since its first Assessment report in 1990. The table below, from the Fifth Assessment Report, gives a value of 86 for the 20 -year GWP of methane. The IPCC plans to release a Sixth Assessment Report in 2021.21 Figure 2. The global warming potential of various gasses at a 20- and 100-year time horizon. From the IPCC Fifth Assessment Report.22 Palo Alto Utilities, like many other government agencies, uses a 100-year time horizon when estimating the GWP of methane. This is appropriate when thinking about climate change as a long-term problem, which it is. However, it is also an urgent problem, and in recent years it has become clear that climate change is happening right now. Palo Alto’s S/CAP goal is to reach an aggressive GHG reduction goal by 2030, ten years from now. Therefore, also considering the 20- year time horizon is appropriate. Insights The City of Palo Alto uses estimates of leaked natural gas from the distribution system in its annual Earth Day Report. For the 2019 report, 4,718 MT of CO2e were estimated as emissions from the natural gas distribution system, using the AGA method of estimating fugitive emissions from 2012. It did not include any estimates of upstream emissions from production, processing, storage, or transmission. Commissioner Memo from Commissioners Forssell and Segal 5 The charts below illustrate how using the proposed methodology changes the City’s estimates of greenhouse gases due to the natural gas system. The impact of the City’s natural gas usage is shown to be much more significant than currently accounted for. Figure 3a uses data from the 2019 Earth Day report.23 In 2018, for example, combusted natural gas emitted 151,143 MT of CO2 and was “neutralized” with the purchase of carbon offsets. Using a 100-year GWP of 21, an estimated 4,781 additional MT of CO2e reported as leakage from the distribution system. These 4,781 MT of CO2e are taken from a DOT report using the AGA method and amount to approximately 0.4% of gas consumed within the City. Figure 4a uses the gas consumption and carbon offset purchase data from the 2019 Earth Day report, but estimates the natural gas system leakage including both upstream and distribution systems. For illustration purposes, it assumes 3% upstream leakage and 0.4% distribution leakage. It also uses a GWP of 86 for methane. With these assumptions, fugitive natural gas emissions for 2018 total 157,563 MT of CO2e - significantly higher than the 4,781 MT from the Earth Day report. As we can see comparing the two charts, regardless of whether offsets are purchased, with an assumption of 3% upstream leakage and a 20-year GWP, the emissions due to the natural gas system (combustion plus fugitive emissions) are approximately double what was previously accounted for. Commissioner Memo from Commissioners Forssell and Segal 6 Figure 3a. GHG emissions from the natural gas system for 1990, 2005, and 2013-2018, as reported in the Earth Day Report in April 2019. This report used a GWP of 21 for methane. It accounted for natural gas distribution system leaks of 4781 MT of CO2e (~0.4%) and did not account for upstream system leaks. Note that the City allowed customers to purchase offsets for their natural gas use starting in 2016, and switched to a City-wide “green gas” program in July of 2017. In 2018, the City purchased carbon offsets for all natural gas consumed in Palo Alto. Figure 3b. Data Table for Table 3a. All data from the 2019 Earth Day Report.24 Commissioner Memo from Commissioners Forssell and Segal 7 Figure 4a. Illustration of GHG emissions from the natural gas system, if an estimate of 3% upstream leakage 0.4% distribution leakage were used, along with a GWP of 86 for methane. Figure 4b. Data Table for Table 4a. Natural gas use and offsets from the 2019 Earth Day Report.25 Natural gas system leakage calculated as follows: given X therms of natural gas use, system leakage equals ((X/.97)*0.03 + X * 0.004 therms) * (4.07 lbs/therm of natural gas at 1.013 bar and 12˚C) ÷ (2205 lbs/MT) * (86 MT CO2e/MT CH4). Commissioner Memo from Commissioners Forssell and Segal 8 As the City moves forward with the revisions to the S/CAP, we hope this memo will provide additional insight into the true impact of natural gas usage. This proposed methodology challenges the City’s ability to claim “carbon neutral natural gas,”26 and provides a bleaker picture of Palo Alto’s GHG impact. However, having more complete information will allow City Council, the Utility and customers to make better-informed choices. Providing a clearer picture of Palo Alto’s GHG impact from natural gas usage can help the City Council determine the new S/CAP goals and incentivize, recommend and/or legislate the actions necessary to meet those goals. 1 City of Palo Alto Staff Report, “Earth Day Report 2019 (EDR19)”, Attachment B, Page 1. https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/70178 2 Staff Memorandum to the Utilities Advisory Commission, June 5, 2019. “Discussion of Natural Gas Leaka ge from the City of Palo Alto’s Gas Distribution System.” http://cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/71699 (p 5 of the pdf). 501,092 lbs of leaked natural gas amounts to approximately 0.4% of the city’s total gas consumption. 3 Goodfriend, Pac, and Huertas, “Methane Math: How Cities Can Rethink Emissions from Natural Gas.” November 2017. Literature review on methane leaks from natural gas systems, p18. 4 PG&E-reported leakage in its entire system would include the portion of leakage attributable to Palo Alto, since the City uses PG&E’s transmission system. 5 See, eg, California Air Resources Board, Regulation for the Mandatory Reporting of Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Subarticle 5, “Reporting Requirements and Calculations Methods for Petroleum and Natural Gas Systems. (pp 206 - 263). https://ww3.arb.ca.gov/cc/reporting/ghg-rep/regulation/mrr-2018-unofficial-2019-4-3.pdf 6 Ibid (2) - staff memo to the UAC about methane leaks. 7 “Anthropogenic and Natural Radiative Forcing,” p714 Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/02/WG1AR5_Chapter08_FINAL.pdf 8 Palo Alto Climate Protection Plan 12/3/2007 https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/9946 9 Ibid (7) 10 Id. 11 See https://www.eia.gov/conference/2015/pdf/presentations/skone.pdf, slide 8, or https://www.aga.org/natural- gas/delivery/. 12 Ibid (3). 13 The Utility accounts for CH4 combusted by customers. When CH4 is combusted it converts to CO2 and H2O. The mass of the resulting CO2 is 2.74 times that of the original CH4. Thus 1 MT of combusted CH4 results in 2.74 MT of CO2. 14 Assistant Director of Resource Management, J. Abendschein (email communication May 7, 2020). 15 Ibid (1). 16 https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/63863 Title: Approval of a 5-Year Contract With Manesco Corporation to Conduct Annual Walking and Mobile Gas Leak Surveys, Including Resurveys of Existing Leaks, for a Total Not-To-Exceed Amount of $437,710 at Table 1, p. 19. 17 Staff is currently re-calculating this leak estimate to reflect new emissions factors issued by AGA, as well as updated data reflecting infrastructure improvements such as pipeline replacements. 18 We do not address leaks at the customer site such as those from water heaters and gas stoves. 19 A discussion of the various methodologies used to measure life-cycle gas emissions is beyond the scope of this memo. 20 Ibid (5). Commissioner Memo from Commissioners Forssell and Segal 9 21 “IPCC Updates Methodology for Greenhouse Gas Inventories.” IPCC Newsroom Post, May 13, 2019. https://www.ipcc.ch/2019/05/13/ipcc-2019-refinement/ 22 Ibid (7). 23 Ibid (1) 24 Id. 25 Id. 26 https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/depts/utl/pathway_to_sustainability/carbon_neutral/default.asp City of Palo Alto (ID # 11293) Utilities Advisory Commission Staff Report Report Type: Agenda Items Meeting Date: 5/20/2020 City of Palo Alto Page 1 Summary Title: FY 2021 Proposed Utilities Operating and CIP Budgets Title: Staff Recommendation That the Utilities Advisory Commission Recommend the City Council Adopt the Proposed Operating and Capital Budgets for the Utilities Department for Fiscal Year 2021 From: City Manager Lead Department: Utilities On April 15, 2020, the Utility Advisory Commission (UAC) approved staff recommendation of electric rate increases of 2% and gas rate increases of 3% for the fiscal year (FY) 2021. In the interest of providing options to help the community keep its utility bills low during the economic crisis created by the COVID-19 pandemic, the Utilities Department presented an alternative rate plan to the Finance Committee on May 5, 2020 involving no rate increases for two years and no more than 5% rate increases in the subsequent three years. The Finance Committee deliberated the proposed fiscal year (FY) 2021 electric (2%) and gas (3%) rate increases and recommended zero rate change for Electric and 3% increase for G as. While the Department normally presents only five year projections, the projections below rely on a full ten-year forecast. Utilities staff normally recommends rate plans that balance costs and revenues and bring reserves to their target level by the end of the five-year forecast period, since forecasts become more uncertain six to ten years into the future. To achieve two years of 0% rate increases without large rate increases in FY 2023 through FY 2025 or major long-term service reductions, staff recommends relaxing this standard and using a ten year forecast period. By doing this staff can better maintain the City’s priorities for its utilities (safety, reliability, cost-effectiveness, and sustainability) over the forecast period. The rate projections for each utility would be as follows: Staff: Dave Yuan City of Palo Alto Page 2 Table 1: Ten-Year Rate Projections by Utility FY 2021 FY 2022 FY 2023 FY 2024 FY 2025 FY 2026 FY 2027 FY 2028 FY 2029 FY 2030 Electric 0% 0% 5% 5% 3% 2% 2% 2% 3% 3% Gas 0% 0% 5% 5% 5% 5% 3% 0% 1% 0% Water 0% 0% 5% 5% 5% 7% 6% 6% 3% 3% Sewer 0% 0% 5% 5% 5% 6% 5% 2% 2% 2% In order to achieve these rates, some one-time cost reductions would be required in the next few years. Table 2: Cost Reductions Required By Utility, FY 2021 – FY 2025 Electric $1.5 million Gas $13.8 million Water No reductions needed Sewer $5.5 million The savings for different types of customers as compared to the proposals presented to the UAC is shown in Table 3. Table 3: Example Customer Savings Compared to Staff Proposal As of July 1, 2020 As of July 1, 2021 Median Residential Customer $0.31 per month $8.80 per month Small business $54 per month $ 81 per month Restaurant $54 per month $108 per month Hotel $156 per month $271 per month Cost reductions (preliminary estimates) would need to be implemented in each utility. Examples of the types of actions that could be taken by the Electric Utility to reduce costs without impacting safety, reliability, and infrastructure investment include: • Postpone non-critical capital investment like utility undergrounding rebuilds ($2.2 million for FY 2021) • Release funds from the Electric Special Projects Reserve to offset economic impacts or to internally finance certain types of expenses. (Reserve balance is currently $41.6 mil lion, of which $5.0 million for FY 2021 and $7.0 million for FY 2022) is tentatively designated for the City’s Advanced Metering Infrastructure (AMI) project.) City of Palo Alto Page 3 • Temporarily reduce utility efforts in energy efficiency in the sectors with longer payback periods for efficiency investments (residential and small and medium business customers). (Exact amount subject to internal review of various programs to review payback periods. Total annual electric efficiency spending is approximately $3.5 million per year.) • Postpone Utilities Department support for building electrification for two to three years. Electric vehicle programs could be continued due to the availability of a segregated state funding source (Low Carbon Fuel Standard program). (~$1 million for FY 2021 and FY 2022) • Reduce the amount of renewable energy purchased by the utility below 100% Carbon Neutral. (~$3 million to $6 million per year for FY 2021 and FY 2022, depending on market prices and the amount sold.) • Two year postponement of installation of advanced metering infrastructure ($12 million) and phase 2 construction of the fiber network expansion to support AMI and SCADA. (~$2 million) The gas utility would need to make the most significant reductions, $13.8 million. To make reductions this large, temporarily bond financing capital expenditures would typically be a reasonable option. But given the City’s ambitious building electrification goals, long -term bond financing may not be prudent. This means that staff may need to temporarily ma ke significant reductions in capital investment for this utility. Examples of the types of actions that might need to be taken by the Gas Utility include: • Ending the City’s Carbon Neutral Gas carbon offset program (~$1 million to $1.5 million per year, depending on market prices) • Temporarily reduce utility efforts in energy efficiency in the sectors with longer payback periods for efficiency investments (residential and small and medium business customers). (Exact amount subject to internal review of various programs to review payback periods. Total annual gas efficiency spending is approximately $600,000 per year.) • Postponing or eliminating cross-bore inspections (~$1 million in FY 2021 and FY 2022) • Postpone installation of advanced metering infrastructure and gas meter replacement (~$3 million in FY 2022) • Cutting back on capital investment by postponing or reducing project scope of work of gas main PVC pipe replacement (up to $10 million) • The impacts of the above cost reductions would impede sustainability efforts, leave the City at some level of risk from cross-bores, delay customer availability of hourly usage data for several years, and slow down the rate of replacement of PVC gas mains, which have glued joints that are at higher risk of leakage during an earthquake. To mitigate the safety risk of these cost reductions, Utilities would increase the frequency of citywide gas surveying (mobile and walking) for gas leaks ($100,000). City of Palo Alto Page 4 The Water Utility does not require any cost reductions to hold rates flat for two years due to delays in CIP projects and no projected supply rate increases from SFPUC until FY 2023. Staff’s preliminary recommendation to the UAC this year was to hold rates flat for two years because costs looked to be relatively flat. In later years costs were expected to increase by 5%, as would rates. Based on UAC feedback and internal staff discussion, staff later decided that it was preferable to have some smaller, earlier rate increases to enable later year rate increases to be 3% to 4% rather than 5%. For the City to hold rates flat for two years, staff would simply need to reinstate its original recommendation. The Wastewater Utility is particularly limited in the types of service reductions it can make. However, bond financing some infrastructure investment may be a viable alternative for this utility. Examples of the types of actions that could be taken by the Wastewater Collection Utility include: • Cutting back on capital investment by postponing or reducing scope of work of sewer main replacement, or bond financing several years of capital investment. (~$5.3 million) • Determining whether Regional Water Quality Control Plant investments can be delayed to reduce projected wastewater treatment charges. (Savings depend on which investments are delayed) • Staff would not recommend cuts to sewer cleaning, maintenance, and inspection activities. If capital investment were postponed staff would need to focus additional maintenance efforts on areas of the system in poorer condition that are currently scheduled for replacement. These projections do assume impacts from an economic downturn over the next five years. These assumed impacts include: • Modest FY 2020 impacts due to shelter in place. The electric utility is seeing a 10% decrease in sales, which is assumed to continue through the end of the fiscal year. The revenue loss for the electric utility is roughly $3.75 million, which is offset by roughly $2.25 million in supply cost savings for a net loss of $1.5 million. Other utilities have not seen any decrease in sales, so no sales decreases are assumed. Significant utility bill defaults by restaurants, retail, and hotels are also assumed for FY 2020 ($2.4 million for the electric utility, $540,000 for the gas utility, $257,000 for the water utility, and $229,000 for the wastewater utility) • For the electric utility, sales are assumed to be reduced by 10% compared to pre-COVID forecasts in FY 2021, 5% in FY 2022, and 3% in FY 2023. Note that during the Great Recession, the electric utility experienced no more than 3% reductions in sales over the entire course of the recession, and sales reductions were typically 1% to 2%. City of Palo Alto Page 5 • Water and gas sales are assumed to drop by twice as much as they did during the Great Recession. During that recession sales dropped by 1% to 3% after accounting for other impacts (e.g. drought and weather), so this forecast assumes post-COVID impacts on sales of 2% to 6% for several years. • No projection is included for utility bill defaults beyond FY 2020 because staff does not have adequate information to make a projection. Utility bill defaults were not significant during the Great Recession (only a few hundred thousand dollars per utility over the course of the entire recession), so if staff based its projections on the Great Recession, the impact of utility bill defaults would be negligible. This is the greatest source of uncertainty in the forecast, since defaults are likely to be much more significant in the coming years than they were in the G reat Recession. Staff will work to improve these forecasts as it tracks delinquent payments over the next few months. Attached are the FY 2021 Proposed Operating and Capital budgets for the Utilities Department. Due to the size of the CIP budget, staff o nly printed the summary pages of each utility for FY 2020– FY 2024. The entire Utilities CIP budget for FY 2021 – FY 2025 with the individual project pages can be downloaded and viewed in in its entirety from the link: Utilities Proposed Capital Budget FY 2021 - FY 2025 Attachments: • Attachment A: FY 2021 Proposed Operating Budget for Utilities • Attachment B: FY 2021 Proposed Capital Budget Summary for Utilities UTILITIES UTILITIES • CITY OF PALO ALTO FISCAL YEAR 2021 PROPOSED OPERATING BUDGET 283 UTILITIESMission Statement The City of Palo Alto Utilities’ mission is to provide safe, reliable, environmentally sustainable, and cost- effective services. Purpose The purpose of the City of Palo Alto Utili- ties is to provide high quality, cost-effec- tive electric, gas, fiber optics, water and wastewater collection services; promote effective energy and water effi- ciency programs; proactively manage infrastructure needs and replace deterio- rated or aging facilities with new technolo- gies to ensure safe and reliable delivery of services; and ensure the City’s utilities are in sound financial condition. Attachment A UTILITIES 284 UTILITIES • CITY OF PALO ALTO FISCAL YEAR 2021 PROPOSED OPERATING BUDGET FY 2021 POSITION TOTALS 245.0 - Full-time 9.46 - Hourly This organizational chart represents citywide Full-Time Equivalents (FTEs) for this department. The Department Summary tables summarize FTEs by position allocation. CUSTOMER SUPPORT SERVICES 1.00 Assistant Director Utilities Customer Support Services 2.00 Credit and Collections Specialist 2.00 Customer Service Specialist-Lead 7.00 Customer Service Representative 2.00 Customer Service Specialist 1.00 Manager Customer Service 1.00 Manager, Utilities Credit and Collections 6.00 Meter Reader 1.00 Meter Reader-Lead UTILITIES DIRECTOR Dean Batchelor ELECTRIC ENGINEERING & OPERATIONS 2.00 Administrative Associate II 1.00 Assistant Director Utilities Operations 1.00 Business Analyst 1.00 Coordinator Utilities Projects 3.00 Electrician Assistant I 1.00 Electric Equipment Technician 2.00 Electric Heavy Equipment Operator 4.00 Electric Project Engineer 2.00 Electric Underground Inspectors 1.00 Electric Underground Inspector-Lead 1.00 Engineering Manager – Electric .00 Engineer Technician III 10.00 Lineperson / Cable Splicer .00 Lineperson / Cable Splicer-Lead 1.00 Manager Electric Operations 3.00 Metering Technician 1.00 Metering Technician- Lead 2.00 Overhead/Underground Troubleman 1.00 Power Engineer 2.00 SCADA Technologist 4.00 Senior Electrical Engineer 5.00 Street Light, Traffic Signal & Fiber Technician 2.00 Street Light, Traffic Signal & Fiber Technician-Lead 6.00 Substation Electrician 2.00 Substation Electrician-Lead 6XSHUYLVRU(OHFWULF3URMHFW(QJLQHHU 3.00 Utilities Comp Tech 1.00 Utilities Comp Tech-Lead 3.00 Utilities Engineer Estimator 1.00 Utilities Engineer Estimator-Lead 3.00 Utilities Locator 6.00 Utilities Supervisor 5.00 Utilities System Operator WGW ENGINEERING & OPERATIONS RESOURCE MANAGEMENT 1.00 Assistant Director, Resource Management 1.00 Administrative Associate II 1.00 Business Analyst 3.00 Key Account Representative 1.00 Manager, Utility Program Services 4.00 Marketing Program Administrator 1.00 Program Assistant II 5.00 Resource Planner .5 Senior Resource Planner UTILITIES ADMINISTRATION 1.00 Administrative Assistant 1.00 Administrative Associate II 2.00 Business Analyst 1.00 Chief Operating Officer 1.00 Compliance Manager 1.00 Coordinator, Utilities Projects 1.00 Manager Communications 1.00 Manager Utilities Telecom 1.00 Principal Business Analyst 0.50 Program Assistant 6DIHW\2IILFHU 3.00 Senior Business Analyst 1.00 Senior Resource Planner 1.00 Strategic Business Manager 2.00 Administrative Associate II 1.00 Assistant Director Utilities Engineering 2.00 Business Analyst 1.00 Cathodic Protection Tech-Asst 1.00 Cathodic Technician 2.00 Cement Finisher 4.00 Coordinator Utilities Projects 4.00 Engineer 1.00 Engineering Manager – WGW (QJLQHHULQJ7HFKQLFLDQ,,, 1.00 Gas & Water Meter Measurement and Control Technician - Lead 4.00 Gas & Water Meter Measurement and Control Technician 4.00 Heavy Equipment Operator / Installer Repairer 5.00 Inspector, Field Services 2.00 Maintenance Mechanic Welding 1.00 Manager WGW Operations 1.00 Program Assistant 5.00 Project Engineer 1.00 Restoration Lead 5.00 Senior Project Engineer 1.00 Senior Mechanic 1.00 Senior Utilities Field Service Rep 2.00 Senior Water System Operator 2.00 Utilities Engineer Estimator 5.00 Utilities Field Service Rep 1.00 Utilities Installer/Repairer 8WLOLWLHV,QVWDOOHU5HSDLUHU$VVLVWDQW 5.00 Utilities Install/Rep-Lead 3.00 Utilities Install/Rep-Welding 2.00 Utilities Install/Rep-Welding-Lead 6.00 Utilities Supervisor 4.00 Water Systems Operator II 5.00 WGW Heavy Equipment Operator UTILITIES UTILITIES • CITY OF PALO ALTO FISCAL YEAR 2021 PROPOSED OPERATING BUDGET 285 Description Palo Alto is the only city in California that offers a full array of utility services to its citizens and businesses. Because of this, the City has a unique opportunity to partner with the Palo Alto community to enjoy the benefits and achievements of reliable, home-grown, and environmentally-focused utilities. Palo Alto has a tradition of over 100 years of successful public utility operations. It is a tradition that continues to provide the Palo Alto community with safe and reliable utilities service, local decision-making over policies, utility rate-making, environmental programs, and customized services. The City of Palo Alto Utilities (CPAU) continues to focus on customer service, infrastructure reliability, regulatory compliance, and cost containment. CPAU also supports the City’s sustainability goals by building a low-carbon energy supply through the use of renewable energy and offsets and by promoting programs to help customers use energy and water more efficiently, reduce their carbon footprint, and help them integrate new technologies. At CPAU, our people empower tomorrow’s ambitions while caring for today’s needs. We make this possible with our outstanding professional workforce, leading through collaboration, and optimizing resources to ensure a sustainable and resilient Palo Alto. ADMINISTRATION Utilities Administration is responsible for the overall management of the CPAU including com- munication, regulatory compliance, strategic planning, budget coordination, legislation and reg- ulatory policy analysis, and personnel and administrative support to the entire Department. CUSTOMER SUPPORT SERVICES Customer Support Services annually bills $250 million for the City’s electric, natural gas, water, commercial fiber optic, wastewater collection (operated by CPAU), storm drain, and refuse (operated by Public Works) services; operates the Customer Service Call Center with 75,000 annual customer interactions; reads 90,000 utility meters per month; and implements Credit and Collection policies and financial assistance programs. UTILITIES 286 UTILITIES • CITY OF PALO ALTO FISCAL YEAR 2021 PROPOSED OPERATING BUDGET ENGINEERING Engineering is responsible for managing all phases of CPAU’s capital improvement projects which include providing new or upgrading existing service to customers and replacing and rehabilitating the City’s electric, fiber, gas, water, and wastewater distribution systems. OPERATIONS Utilities Operations is responsible for the operations, maintenance, and emergency response for the electric, fiber, gas, water, and wastewater distribution systems. RESOURCE MANAGEMENT Resource Management is responsible for the long-term resource acquisition plan for, electricity, natural gas, and water; contract negotiations to acquire renewable resources; financial planning; rate development; energy efficiency and water conservation programs; and management of key accounts. UTILITIES UTILITIES • CITY OF PALO ALTO FISCAL YEAR 2021 PROPOSED OPERATING BUDGET 287 Budget Summary FY 2018 Actuals FY 2019 Actuals FY 2020 Adopted Budget FY 2021 Proposed Budget FY 2021 Change $ FY 2021 Change % Dollars by Fund Electric Fund - Operating 51,443,024 56,136,690 76,606,602 79,254,105 2,647,503 3.5% Electric Supply 108,624,454 102,141,767 110,086,193 112,382,196 2,296,003 2.1% Fiber Optics 3,377,476 2,885,744 4,325,932 3,589,532 (736,400)(17.0)% Gas Fund - Operating 23,120,579 26,255,608 26,707,978 36,489,947 9,781,969 36.6% Gas Supply 14,110,302 17,293,927 17,866,764 17,109,788 (756,976)(4.2)% Wastewater Collection - Operating 17,880,581 18,415,551 27,310,057 23,818,873 (3,491,184)(12.8)% Water Fund - Operating 46,737,022 43,711,111 60,843,556 53,359,316 (7,484,240)(12.3)% Total 265,293,438 266,840,398 323,747,082 326,003,756 2,256,675 0.7% Revenues Charges for Services 459,431 509,624 420,000 260,000 (160,000)(38.1)% Charges to Other Funds 841,410 470,943 354,717 375,311 20,594 5.8% From Other Agencies 500,773 488,052 576,632 576,632 ——% Net Sales 248,735,959 264,444,785 264,139,740 276,120,189 11,980,448 4.5% Operating Transfers-In 3,977,536 3,873,979 3,163,724 3,202,109 38,385 1.2% Other Revenue 9,785,634 11,348,937 11,719,065 11,045,946 (673,119)(5.7)% Rental Income 5,000 10,000 ————% Return on Investments 4,131,918 4,908,650 5,160,700 4,565,900 (594,800)(11.5)% Total Revenues 268,437,661 286,054,971 285,534,578 296,146,086 10,611,508 3.7% Positions by Fund Electric Fund 111.23 111.33 110.95 111.34 0.39 0.35% Fiber Optics Fund 7.60 7.60 7.50 7.10 (0.40)(5.33)% Gas Fund 53.11 53.83 53.83 53.83 ——% Utilities Administration 19.21 19.21 19.46 19.46 ——% Wastewater Collection Fund 29.00 29.16 29.16 28.50 (0.66)(2.26)% Water Fund 47.90 46.92 46.94 47.61 0.67 1.43% Total 268.05 268.05 267.84 267.84 ——% UTILITIES 288 UTILITIES • CITY OF PALO ALTO FISCAL YEAR 2021 PROPOSED OPERATING BUDGET ELECTRIC FUND Description On January 16, 1900, the City of Palo Alto began operation of its own electric system. A steam engine was the initial source of the City’s electricity and was replaced by a diesel engine in 1914. As demand for electricity and the population continued to grow, the City of Palo Alto Utilities (CPAU) connected to the Pacific Gas and Electric distribution system and purchased power from additional sources. The integrity of the infrastructure required for achieving a high level of reliability and value for customers is of paramount importance to CPAU. The Electric Fund strives to enhance the customer service connection experience, increase energy efficiency participation, and increase the percentage of electric supply obtained from renewable energy supplies. The City has entered into a number of contracts with producers of wind, landfill gas, and solar energy for more than 15-year terms. UTILITIES UTILITIES • CITY OF PALO ALTO FISCAL YEAR 2021 PROPOSED OPERATING BUDGET 289 Budget Summary FY 2018 Actuals FY 2019 Actuals FY 2020 Adopted Budget FY 2021 Proposed Budget FY 2021 Change $ FY 2021 Change % Dollars by Division CIP Electric Fund 10,315,316 15,615,817 23,765,466 25,675,767 1,910,301 8.0% Electric Administration 24,586,157 23,218,636 27,176,349 27,202,118 25,768 0.1% Electric Customer Service 2,292,027 2,306,400,2,665,595 2,702,805 37,211 1.4% Electric Demand Side Management 3,958,743 3,716,457 6,991,511 7,060,480 68,969 1.0% Electric Engineering (Operating)1,790,943 1,843,389 2,415,964 2,538,266 122,302 5.1% Electric Operations and Maintenance 11,664,339 11,606,585 16,103,804 17,465,526 1,361,722 8.5% Electric Resource Management 105,459,953 99,971,173 107,574,106 108,991,339 1,417,233 1.3% Total 160,067,478 158,278,458 186,692,795 191,636,301 4,943,506 2.6% Dollars by Category Salary & Benefits Healthcare 1,949,617 1,820,670 2,475,451 2,378,757 (96,694)(3.9)% Other Benefits 304,713 318,143 373,996 462,288 88,292 23.6% Overtime 929,360 1,017,707 517,920 531,386 13,466 2.6% Pension 3,103,244 3,214,302 5,290,653 5,332,020 41,367 0.8% Retiree Medical 1,617,277 1,555,185 1,601,840 1,626,258 24,418 1.5% Salary 10,816,735 10,846,696 13,384,300 15,147,711 1,763,411 13.2% Workers' Compensation 123,558 292,351 441,673 459,563 17,889 4.1% Total Salary & Benefits 18,844,505 19,065,053 24,085,834 25,937,983 1,852,149 7.7% Allocated Charges 5,506,903 4,253,400 10,434,079 9,655,240 (778,839)(7.5)% Contract Services 3,096,678 2,786,957 7,615,180 6,677,366 (937,814)(12.3)% Debt Service 8,770,695 8,368,513 8,476,576 8,442,678 (33,898)(0.4)% Equity Transfer 12,887,000 12,973,000 13,129,000 13,479,000 350,000 2.7% Facilities & Equipment 2,174 18,379 64,155 27,300 (36,855)(57.4)% General Expense 2,135,223 2,258,230 3,441,967 3,441,967 ——% Operating Transfers-Out 560,572 297,973 —50,000 50,000 —% Rents & Leases 5,612,918 5,784,139 6,276,636 6,389,015 112,379 1.8% Supplies & Material 474,977 533,907 924,207 924,207 ——% Transfer to Infrastructure —199,167 ————% Utility Purchase 94,659,116 89,680,963 95,678,373 97,084,000 1,405,627 1.5% UTILITIES 290 UTILITIES • CITY OF PALO ALTO FISCAL YEAR 2021 PROPOSED OPERATING BUDGET Capital Improvement Program 7,516,715 12,058,775 16,566,787 19,527,544 2,960,758 17.9% Total Dollars by Expense Category 160,067,478 158,278,458 186,692,795 191,636,301 4,943,506 2.6% Revenues Charges for Services 310,863 375,880 380,000 220,000 (160,000)(42.1)% Charges to Other Funds 460,890 193,480 139,712 145,401 5,689 4.1% Net Sales 145,962,397 154,155,483 154,329,190 164,199,920 9,870,730 6.4% Operating Transfers-In 3,465,100 3,334,701 2,615,588 2,644,849 29,261 1.1% Other Revenue 7,508,222 8,797,973 8,928,000 8,918,000 (10,000)(0.1)% Rental Income 5,000 10,000 ————% Return on Investments 1,941,997 2,431,950 2,158,000 2,063,800 (94,200)(4.4)% Total Revenues 159,654,470 169,299,467 168,550,490 178,191,970 9,641,480 5.7% Positions by Division CIP Electric Fund 31.90 31.90 31.90 24.35 (7.55)(23.67)% Electric Customer Service 11.70 12.00 11.90 11.90 ——% Electric Demand Side Management 6.17 6.17 5.59 5.59 ——% Electric Engineering (Operating)4.98 4.98 4.98 6.67 1.69 33.94% Electric Operations and Maintenance 48.10 48.10 48.10 54.35 6.25 12.99% Electric Resource Management 8.38 8.18 8.48 8.48 ——% Total 111.23 111.33 110.95 111.34 0.39 0.35% Staffing Job Classification FY 2018 Actuals FY 2019 Actuals FY 2020 Adopted Budget FY 2021 Proposed Budget FY 2021 Change FTE FY 2021 Salary Account Specialist 0.31 0.31 0.31 0.31 —24,264 Administrative Associate II 3.90 3.90 3.30 3.30 —258,704 Assistant Director Administrative Services 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 —36,462 Assistant Director Utilities Customer Support Services 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 —81,178 Budget Summary FY 2018 Actuals FY 2019 Actuals FY 2020 Adopted Budget FY 2021 Proposed Budget FY 2021 Change $ FY 2021 Change % UTILITIES UTILITIES • CITY OF PALO ALTO FISCAL YEAR 2021 PROPOSED OPERATING BUDGET 291 Assistant Director Utilities Engineering 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 —86,969 Assistant Director Utilities Operations 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.60 —136,307 Assistant Director Utilities/Resource Management 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 —104,447 Business Analyst 1.94 1.60 1.60 1.60 —248,535 Contracts Administrator 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 —10,113 Coordinator Utilities Projects 1.55 1.55 1.55 1.55 —148,385 Customer Service Representative 1.87 1.87 1.87 1.87 —145,277 Customer Service Specialist 0.66 0.66 0.66 0.66 —56,381 Customer Service Specialist-Lead 0.58 0.58 0.58 0.58 —52,985 Electric Heavy Equipment Operator ———2.00 2.00 217,318 Electric Project Engineer 1.95 1.95 3.25 3.65 0.40 580,788 Electric Underground Inspector 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 —228,883 Electric Underground Inspector- Lead 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 —122,387 Electrical Equipment Technician 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 —116,958 Electrician Assistant I 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 —272,563 Engineering Manager - Electric 0.55 0.55 0.55 0.55 —118,244 Engineering Technician III 1.40 1.40 1.40 1.40 —137,971 Heavy Equipment Operator 2.00 2.00 2.00 —(2.00)— Inspector, Field Services 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 —26,577 Lineperson/Cable Specialist 11.00 11.00 11.00 10.00 (1.00)1,574,352 Lineperson/Cable Specialist-Lead 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 —673,837 Manager Customer Service 0.33 0.33 0.33 0.33 —52,070 Manager Electric Operations 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 —192,546 Manager Treasury, Debt & Investments 0.30 0.30 0.30 0.30 —46,513 Manager Utilities Compliance 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15 —29,531 Manager Utilities Credit & Collection 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15 —23,902 Manager Utilities Program Services 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 —61,718 Meter Reader 1.99 1.99 1.99 1.99 —145,286 Meter Reader-Lead 0.33 0.33 0.33 0.33 —25,781 Staffing Job Classification FY 2018 Actuals FY 2019 Actuals FY 2020 Adopted Budget FY 2021 Proposed Budget FY 2021 Change FTE FY 2021 Salary UTILITIES 292 UTILITIES • CITY OF PALO ALTO FISCAL YEAR 2021 PROPOSED OPERATING BUDGET Metering Technician 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 —409,157 Metering Technician-Lead 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 —145,974 Offset Equipment Operator 0.48 0.48 0.48 0.48 —33,426 Overhead Underground Troubleman 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 —330,720 Power Engineer 2.30 2.30 1.00 1.00 —150,030 Principal Business Analyst 0.34 0.34 0.34 0.34 —62,064 Program Assistant II ——0.60 0.60 —51,293 Project Manager 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 —81,806 Resource Planner 3.85 3.65 2.85 2.85 —409,091 SCADA Technologist 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.01 0.01 154,031 Senior Business Analyst 0.68 1.02 1.02 1.02 —161,921 Senior Electrical Engineer 3.95 3.95 3.95 3.95 —766,016 Senior Management Analyst 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 —12,881 Senior Resource Planner 3.06 3.06 3.36 3.36 —600,182 Senior Utilities Field Service Representative 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 —11,588 Street Light, Traffic Signal & Fiber Technician 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 —391,310 Street Light, Traffic Signal & Fiber- Lead 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 —139,610 Substation Electrician 5.50 5.50 5.50 5.50 —782,839 Substation Electrician-Lead 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 —304,595 Supervising Electric Project Engineer 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 —162,968 Tree Maintenance Person 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 —88,150 Utilities Compliance Technician 2.00 2.00 2.00 3.00 1.00 472,306 Utilities Compliance Technician- Lead 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 —168,459 Utilities Credit/Collection Specialist 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 —201,469 Utilities Engineer Estimator 3.25 3.25 3.25 3.23 (0.02)422,605 Utilities Field Services Representative 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 —54,184 Utilities Key Account Representative 1.35 1.35 1.35 1.35 —162,106 Utilities Locator 1.95 1.95 1.95 1.95 —203,652 Staffing Job Classification FY 2018 Actuals FY 2019 Actuals FY 2020 Adopted Budget FY 2021 Proposed Budget FY 2021 Change FTE FY 2021 Salary UTILITIES UTILITIES • CITY OF PALO ALTO FISCAL YEAR 2021 PROPOSED OPERATING BUDGET 293 Utilities Marketing Program Administrator 1.60 1.90 2.70 2.70 —307,981 Utilities Safety Officer 0.55 0.55 0.55 0.55 —72,781 Utilities Supervisor 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 —851,822 Utilities System Operator 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 —881,400 Utility Engineering Estimator - Lead 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 —141,336 Sub-total: Full-Time Equivalent Positions 107.12 107.22 107.52 107.91 0.39 15,226,987 Temporary/Hourly 4.11 4.11 3.43 3.43 —290,926 Total Positions 111.23 111.33 110.95 111.34 0.39 15,517,913 Staffing Job Classification FY 2018 Actuals FY 2019 Actuals FY 2020 Adopted Budget FY 2021 Proposed Budget FY 2021 Change FTE FY 2021 Salary UTILITIES 294 UTILITIES • CITY OF PALO ALTO FISCAL YEAR 2021 PROPOSED OPERATING BUDGET Budget Reconciliation Positions Expenditures Revenues Net Electric Fund Prior Year Budget 110.95 186,692,795 168,550,490 18,142,305 One-time Prior Year Budget Adjustments Elwell Court Improvements — (170,791) — 170,791 Administrative Services Staffing Vacancies — 19,968 — 19,968 One-time Prior Year Budget Adjustments —(150,823)—190,759 Adjustments to Costs of Ongoing Activities Salary and Benefits Adjustments — 1,739,961 — 1,739,961 Electric Commodity Revenue Adjustments — — 5,969,877 (5,969,877) Electric Customer Sales Revenue (3% Rate Increase)— — 4,150,377 (4,150,377) Realignment of Contract Services — (937,814) — (937,814) Transfer from the General Fund (Traffic Signal and Streetlight Electric Costs)— — 62,471 (62,471) Radio Subscription Fees — (36,855) — (36,855) Utility Payment Processing — — 5,689 (5,689) Transfer from the General Fund (Canopy Contract CMR 10959)— — (33,210) 33,210 Utilities Capital Staffing Alignment 0.39 92,220 — 92,220 Return on Investments — — (94,200) 94,200 Surplus Energy Revenue — — (249,524) 249,524 Rents & Leases Expenditure Alignment — 283,170 — 283,170 Equity Transfer to the General Fund — 350,000 — 350,000 Electric Commodity Purchases Expenditure — 1,371,729 — 1,371,729 Capital Improvement Program — 2,960,758 (170,000) 3,130,758 General Fund Cost Allocation Plan — 218,681 — 218,681 General Liability Insurance Allocated Charges — 26,634 — 26,634 Grounds Maintenance Allocated Charges — 627 — 627 Print & Mail Allocated Charges — 14,182 — 14,182 Public Works Engineering & Inspection Allocated Charges — (4,812) — (4,812) Refuse Sales Allocated Charges — (333) — (333) Stormwater Management Allocated Charges — 856 — 856 Utilities Administration Allocated Charges Adjustment — (826,083) — (826,083) Utilities Allocated Charges — (215,318) — (215,318) UTILITIES UTILITIES • CITY OF PALO ALTO FISCAL YEAR 2021 PROPOSED OPERATING BUDGET 295 Utilities Allocated Charges Adjustment — (2,280) — (2,280) Vehicle Replacement & Maintenance Charges — 9,006 — 9,006 Adjustments to Costs of Ongoing Activities 0.39 5,044,329 9,641,480 (4,597,151) Total FY 2021 Base Budget 111.34 191,586,301 178,191,970 13,735,913 1 Compliance Group Staffing Realignment — 0 — — 2 Study of Electric Vehicle Chargers/Locations — 50,000 — 50,000 Total FY 2021 Proposed Budget 111.34 191,636,301 178,191,970 13,785,913 Budget Adjustments Budget Adjustments Positions Expenditures Revenues Net Electric Fund 1 Compliance Group Staffing Realignment 0.00 0 0 0 This ongoing action will add one vacant 1.0 FTE Compliance Technician and drop one vacant 1.0 FTE Linerperson Cablesplicer position to reallocate resources from the Linesperson group to the Compliance group. The Compliance group is responsible for inspecting and coordinating electrical line construction, including construction by contractors. Reallocating resources to the Compliance group aligns with the current business operational needs to meet the growing amount of inspections being conducted and will have minimal impact to the Linesperson group, which receives additional support through a third party contractor. Performance Results Reallocating resources from the Lineperson group to the Compliance group will help meet the current business operational needs with minimal to no impact to costs and service delivery. Budget Reconciliation Positions Expenditures Revenues Net Electric Fund UTILITIES 296 UTILITIES • CITY OF PALO ALTO FISCAL YEAR 2021 PROPOSED OPERATING BUDGET 2 Study of Electric Vehicle Chargers/Locations 0.00 50,000 0 50,000 This one-time action adds funding to conduct a study assessing current and potential future locations of electric vehicle chargers at City facility sites. The study will also explore the standardization of chargers to support fueling for existing and new City vehicles. With the expansion of electric vehicles in the City’s fleet, the number of chargers must also expand. Funding for this study is supported by the Vehicle Replacement and Maintenance Fund Reserve ($50,000) and the Utilities Department ($50,000) through a transfer from the Electric Fund. A corresponding action is proposed in the Vehicle Replacement and Maintenance Fund. (Ongoing Costs: $0) Performance Results This action supports the Sustainability and Climate Action Plan goal of expanding the electric vehicle deployment of the City's fleet. Budget Adjustments Budget Adjustments Positions Expenditures Revenues Net Electric Fund UTILITIES UTILITIES • CITY OF PALO ALTO FISCAL YEAR 2021 PROPOSED OPERATING BUDGET 297 FIBER OPTICS FUND Description In 1996, the City built a dark fiber ring around Palo Alto capable of supporting multiple network developers and service providers with significant growth potential. The fiber backbone network was routed to pass by and provide access to key City facilities and the Palo Alto business community, including research centers and commercial properties. Dark fiber optics service consists of providing the fiber optics cabling, splice points, service connections, and other infrastructure providing high-capacity bandwidth needed to transport large quantities of data. This service excludes the transmitters, receivers, and data itself, which are owned and operated by each customer. UTILITIES 298 UTILITIES • CITY OF PALO ALTO FISCAL YEAR 2021 PROPOSED OPERATING BUDGET Budget Summary FY 2018 Actuals FY 2019 Actuals FY 2020 Adopted Budget FY 2021 Proposed Budget FY 2021 Change $ FY 2021 Change % Dollars by Division CIP Fiber Optics Fund 1,047,968 791,530 1,525,441 749,961 (775,481)(50.8)% Fiber Optics Administration 188,357 205,681 919,370 897,311 (22,060)(2.4)% Fiber Optics Customer Service 678,580 633,076 1,241,621 1,234,507 (7,114)(0.6)% Fiber Optics Operations and Maintenance 1,462,572 1,255,457 639,500 707,753 68,254 10.7% Total 3,377,476 2,885,744 4,325,932 3,589,532 (736,400)(17.0)% Dollars by Category Salary & Benefits Healthcare 163,825 152,237 171,660 139,597 (32,063)(18.7)% Other Benefits 24,736 23,681 29,786 33,953 4,168 14.0% Overtime 21,055 20,229 25,521 26,184 664 2.6% Pension 242,846 247,607 358,230 329,389 (28,841)(8.1)% Salary 1,007,041 884,605 967,733 995,746 28,014 2.9% Workers' Compensation 666 19,047 30,967 32,221 1,254 4.1% Total Salary & Benefits 1,460,169 1,347,406 1,583,895 1,557,091 (26,804)(1.7)% Allocated Charges 542,597 412,690 747,422 756,600 9,178 1.2% Contract Services 161,241 173,912 454,646 454,646 ——% Facilities & Equipment —1,224 2,457 —(2,457)(100.0)% General Expense 2,430 2,125 12,000 12,000 ——% Operating Transfers-Out 129,531 123,557 102,176 102,176 ——% Rents & Leases 75,375 77,787 82,360 53,531 (28,829)(35.0)% Supplies & Material 8,738 1,661 9,000 9,000 ——% Transfer to Infrastructure 5,700 15,218 ————% Capital Improvement Program 991,695 730,163 1,331,975 644,488 (687,488)(51.6)% Total Dollars by Expense Category 3,377,476 2,885,744 4,325,932 3,589,532 (736,400)(17.0)% Revenues Charges for Services 37,224 26,712 ————% Charges to Other Funds 135,895 —————% Net Sales 4,356,872 4,566,484 4,594,824 4,716,421 121,597 2.6% UTILITIES UTILITIES • CITY OF PALO ALTO FISCAL YEAR 2021 PROPOSED OPERATING BUDGET 299 Other Revenue 66,032 163 200,000 200,000 ——% Return on Investments 582,095 683,895 749,500 646,700 (102,800)(13.7)% Total Revenues 5,178,117 5,277,254 5,544,324 5,563,121 18,797 0.3% Positions by Division CIP Fiber Optics Fund 0.79 0.79 0.79 0.39 (0.40)(50.63)% Fiber Optics Customer Service 3.68 3.68 3.58 3.58 ——% Fiber Optics Operations and Maintenance 3.13 3.13 3.13 3.13 ——% Total 7.60 7.60 7.50 7.10 (0.40)(5.33)% Staffing Job Classification FY 2018 Actuals FY 2019 Actuals FY 2020 Adopted Budget FY 2021 Proposed Budget FY 2021 Change FTE FY 2021 Salary Administrative Associate II 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 —15,679 Assistant Director Utilities Customer Support Services 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 —40,589 Assistant Director Utilities Engineering 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 —10,871 Business Analyst 0.30 0.30 0.30 0.30 —46,600 Electric Project Engineer 0.05 0.05 0.45 0.05 (0.40)7,956 Manager Utilities Compliance 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 —19,687 Manager Utilities Credit & Collection 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 —63,740 Manager Utilities Program Services 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 —30,859 Manager Utilities Telecommunications 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 —154,586 Power Engineer 0.40 0.40 ———— Senior Electrical Engineer 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 —9,637 Street Light, Traffic Signal & Fiber Technician 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 —260,874 Street Light, Traffic Signal & Fiber- Lead 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 —139,610 Utilities Key Account Representative 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 —96,063 Budget Summary FY 2018 Actuals FY 2019 Actuals FY 2020 Adopted Budget FY 2021 Proposed Budget FY 2021 Change $ FY 2021 Change % UTILITIES 300 UTILITIES • CITY OF PALO ALTO FISCAL YEAR 2021 PROPOSED OPERATING BUDGET Utilities Locator 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03 —3,133 Sub-total: Full-Time Equivalent Positions 6.78 6.78 6.78 6.38 (0.40)899,882 Temporary/Hourly 0.82 0.82 0.72 0.72 —74,506 Total Positions 7.60 7.60 7.50 7.10 (0.40)974,388 Staffing Job Classification FY 2018 Actuals FY 2019 Actuals FY 2020 Adopted Budget FY 2021 Proposed Budget FY 2021 Change FTE FY 2021 Salary UTILITIES UTILITIES • CITY OF PALO ALTO FISCAL YEAR 2021 PROPOSED OPERATING BUDGET 301 Budget Reconciliation Positions Expenditures Revenues Net Fiber Optics Fund Prior Year Budget 7.50 4,325,932 5,544,324 (1,390,428) One-time Prior Year Budget Adjustments None One-time Prior Year Budget Adjustments Adjustments to Costs of Ongoing Activities Salary and Benefits Adjustments — 66,822 — 66,822 Utilities Capital Staffing Alignment (0.40) (93,626) — (93,626) Fiber Optics Revenue (Rate Increase of 2.5% CPI for EDF-1)— — 121,597 (121,597) Rents & Leases Expenditure Alignment — (28,829) — (28,829) Radio Subscription Fees — (2,457) — (2,457) Return on Investments — — (102,800) 102,800 Capital Improvement Program — (687,488) — (687,488) General Fund Cost Allocation Plan — 31,697 — 31,697 Liability Insurance Allocated Charges — 2,409 — 2,409 Utilities Administration Allocated Charges — (24,928) — (24,928) Adjustments to Costs of Ongoing Activities (0.40)(736,400)18,797 (755,197) Total FY 2021 Proposed Budget 7.10 3,589,532 5,563,121 (2,145,625) UTILITIES 302 UTILITIES • CITY OF PALO ALTO FISCAL YEAR 2021 PROPOSED OPERATING BUDGET GAS FUND Description The municipal natural gas system began operations in 1917 when Palo Alto acquired a privately-owned gas business. During the early years, gas was manufactured from coal tar. This was replaced in the 1920s by natural gas from Pacific Gas and Electric. Today, gas is purchased from several sources. The Gas Utility services include Crossbore Safety, Gas Main Replacements, and Home Energy Audits. The Gas utility infrastructure and its crews maintain an excellent safety record. The gas fund is responsible for planning, designing, budgeting, and constructing major capital improvements to the City’s gas distribution system. UTILITIES UTILITIES • CITY OF PALO ALTO FISCAL YEAR 2021 PROPOSED OPERATING BUDGET 303 Budget Summary FY 2018 Actuals FY 2019 Actuals FY 2020 Adopted Budget FY 2021 Proposed Budget FY 2021 Change $ FY 2021 Change % Dollars by Division CIP Gas Fund 5,504,869 9,145,930 3,342,737 13,153,717 9,810,980 293.5% Gas Administration 11,065,620 10,587,695 13,182,008 12,930,773 (251,235)(1.9)% Gas Customer Service 1,529,936 1,564,025 1,911,680 1,942,647 30,968 1.6% Gas Demand Side Management 828,561 536,424 1,567,605 1,580,301 12,696 0.8% Gas Engineering (Operating)350,902 400,087 670,487 720,445 49,958 7.5% Gas Operations and Maintenance 4,673,257 4,957,368 7,101,687 7,853,574 751,887 10.6% Gas Resource Management 13,277,736 16,358,006 16,798,537 15,418,277 (1,380,260)(8.2)% Total 37,230,881 43,549,535 44,574,742 53,599,734 9,024,993 20.2% Dollars by Category Salary & Benefits Healthcare 883,093 911,670 1,143,407 1,098,276 (45,130)(3.9)% Other Benefits 120,687 134,145 176,172 205,324 29,152 16.5% Overtime 200,797 192,593 198,165 203,318 5,152 2.6% Pension 1,333,372 1,428,625 2,310,105 2,149,058 (161,047)(7.0)% Retiree Medical 625,662 667,617 687,645 704,333 16,688 2.4% Salary 4,151,790 4,384,864 5,432,855 6,098,587 665,733 12.3% Workers' Compensation 90,119 124,864 186,916 194,487 7,571 4.1% Total Salary & Benefits 7,405,521 7,844,377 10,135,265 10,653,383 518,118 5.1% Allocated Charges 2,690,914 2,527,804 5,033,119 4,969,057 (64,063)(1.3)% Contract Services 617,044 542,232 2,463,313 2,441,313 (22,000)(0.9)% Debt Service 203,683 179,933 802,615 802,615 ——% Equity Transfer 6,699,000 6,601,000 7,106,000 7,114,000 8,000 0.1% Facilities & Equipment 2,027 8,570 19,039 1,840 (17,199)(90.3)% General Expense 421,873 358,847 762,991 778,491 15,500 2.0% Operating Transfers-Out 972,491 713,892 410,403 414,965 4,562 1.1% Rents & Leases 735,359 757,276 851,539 610,121 (241,418)(28.4)% Supplies & Material 344,184 355,647 488,816 495,316 6,500 1.3% Transfer to Infrastructure 5,700 84,833 ————% Utility Purchase 12,921,050 15,957,533 16,012,329 14,625,296 (1,387,033)(8.7)% UTILITIES 304 UTILITIES • CITY OF PALO ALTO FISCAL YEAR 2021 PROPOSED OPERATING BUDGET Capital Improvement Program 4,212,033 7,617,592 489,312 10,693,338 10,204,026 2,085.4% Total Dollars by Expense Category 37,230,881 43,549,535 44,574,742 53,599,734 9,024,993 20.2% Revenues Charges for Services 28,560 34,269 20,000 20,000 ——% Charges to Other Funds 115,229 111,459 100,622 105,529 4,907 4.9% Net Sales 35,794,564 40,955,173 37,278,530 39,334,842 2,056,312 5.5% Other Revenue 1,109,304 1,023,183 1,124,303 913,000 (211,303)(18.8)% Return on Investments 568,475 596,995 802,300 621,800 (180,500)(22.5)% Total Revenues 37,616,132 42,721,079 39,325,755 40,995,171 1,669,416 4.2% Positions by Division CIP Gas Fund 15.80 15.80 15.80 11.73 (4.07)(25.76)% Gas Customer Service 9.03 9.13 9.03 9.03 ——% Gas Demand Side Management 1.94 1.54 1.54 1.54 ——% Gas Engineering (Operating)1.40 1.40 1.40 1.85 0.45 32.14% Gas Operations and Maintenance 23.98 24.30 24.30 27.92 3.62 14.90% Gas Resource Management 0.96 1.66 1.76 1.76 ——% Total 53.11 53.83 53.83 53.83 ——% Staffing Job Classification FY 2018 Actuals FY 2019 Actuals FY 2020 Adopted Budget FY 2021 Proposed Budget FY 2021 Change FTE FY 2021 Salary Account Specialist 0.23 0.23 0.23 0.23 —18,002 Administrative Associate II 0.85 0.85 0.60 0.60 —47,037 Assistant Director Administrative Services 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 —9,116 Assistant Director Utilities Customer Support Services 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 —40,589 Assistant Director Utilities Engineering 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 —43,484 Assistant Director Utilities Operations 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15 —34,077 Budget Summary FY 2018 Actuals FY 2019 Actuals FY 2020 Adopted Budget FY 2021 Proposed Budget FY 2021 Change $ FY 2021 Change % UTILITIES UTILITIES • CITY OF PALO ALTO FISCAL YEAR 2021 PROPOSED OPERATING BUDGET 305 Assistant Director Utilities/Resource Management 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 —52,224 Business Analyst 1.48 1.15 1.15 1.15 —178,635 Cathodic Protection Technician Assistant 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 —106,621 Cathodic Technician 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 —130,853 Cement Finisher 0.68 0.68 0.68 0.68 —64,652 Contracts Administrator 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 —10,113 Coordinator Utilities Projects 1.26 1.26 1.26 1.26 —144,092 Customer Service Representative 1.87 1.87 1.87 1.87 —145,277 Customer Service Specialist 0.68 0.68 0.68 0.68 —58,089 Customer Service Specialist-Lead 0.58 0.58 0.58 0.58 —52,985 Engineer 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 —281,008 Engineering Manager - Electric 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15 —32,248 Engineering Manager - WGW 0.33 0.33 0.33 0.33 —66,540 Engineering Technician III 0.70 0.70 0.70 0.70 —68,985 Gas and Water Meter Measurement and Control Technician 3.20 3.20 3.20 3.40 0.20 345,326 Gas and Water Meter Measurement and Control Technician - Lead 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 —86,944 Heavy Equipment Operator 2.52 2.52 2.52 —(2.52)— Heavy Equipment Operator - Install/Repair 0.65 0.65 0.65 0.65 —68,635 Inspector, Field Services 1.42 1.42 1.42 2.05 0.63 217,933 Maintenance Mechanic-Welding 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 —106,538 Manager Customer Service 0.33 0.33 0.33 0.33 —52,070 Manager Treasury, Debt & Investments 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 —15,504 Manager Utilities Compliance 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 —49,218 Manager Utilities Credit & Collection 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15 —23,902 Manager Utilities Operations WGW 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 —37,041 Manager Utilities Program Services 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 —30,859 Meter Reader 1.98 1.98 1.98 1.98 —144,556 Meter Reader-Lead 0.33 0.33 0.33 0.33 —25,781 Principal Business Analyst 0.33 0.33 0.33 0.33 —60,238 Staffing Job Classification FY 2018 Actuals FY 2019 Actuals FY 2020 Adopted Budget FY 2021 Proposed Budget FY 2021 Change FTE FY 2021 Salary UTILITIES 306 UTILITIES • CITY OF PALO ALTO FISCAL YEAR 2021 PROPOSED OPERATING BUDGET Program Assistant I 0.33 0.33 0.33 0.33 —26,255 Program Assistant II ——0.25 0.25 —21,372 Project Engineer 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 —151,216 Resource Planner (0.05)0.65 0.45 0.45 —64,593 Restoration Lead 0.43 0.43 0.43 0.43 —48,530 SCADA Technologist 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.10 (0.10)15,251 Senior Business Analyst 0.66 0.99 0.99 0.99 —157,158 Senior Engineer 2.70 2.70 2.70 2.35 (0.35)400,449 Senior Mechanic 0.33 0.33 0.33 0.33 —37,388 Senior Resource Planner 0.46 0.46 0.56 0.56 —97,650 Senior Utilities Field Service Representative 0.41 0.41 0.41 0.41 —47,509 Substation Electrician 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.25 0.15 35,584 Utilities Engineer Estimator 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.73 (0.12)91,288 Utilities Field Services Representative 1.75 1.75 1.75 1.75 —189,644 Utilities Install Repair-Lead-Welding Certified 1.30 1.30 1.30 0.77 (0.53)90,859 Utilities Install Repair-Welding Certified 1.95 1.95 1.95 1.43 (0.52)141,077 Utilities Install/Repair 3.85 3.85 3.85 4.56 0.71 481,828 Utilities Install/Repair Assistant 0.65 0.65 0.65 0.65 —58,244 Utilities Install/Repair-Lead 1.98 1.98 1.98 1.93 (0.05)205,564 Utilities Key Account Representative 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 —60,039 Utilities Locator 0.29 0.29 0.29 0.29 —30,287 Utilities Marketing Program Administrator 1.00 0.70 0.90 0.90 —102,660 Utilities Safety Officer 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 —26,466 Utilities Supervisor 2.37 2.37 2.37 2.37 —363,019 Water System Operator II 0.66 0.66 0.66 0.66 —65,345 WGW Heavy Equipment Operator ———2.50 2.50 263,484 Sub-total: Full-Time Equivalent Positions 51.14 51.54 51.64 51.64 —6,121,931 Temporary/Hourly 1.97 2.29 2.19 2.19 —121,205 Total Positions 53.11 53.83 53.83 53.83 —6,243,137 Staffing Job Classification FY 2018 Actuals FY 2019 Actuals FY 2020 Adopted Budget FY 2021 Proposed Budget FY 2021 Change FTE FY 2021 Salary UTILITIES UTILITIES • CITY OF PALO ALTO FISCAL YEAR 2021 PROPOSED OPERATING BUDGET 307 Budget Reconciliation Positions Expenditures Revenues Net Gas Fund Prior Year Budget 53.83 44,574,742 39,325,755 5,248,987 One-time Prior Year Budget Adjustments Elwell Court Improvements — (67,452) — (67,452) One-time Prior Year Budget Adjustments —(67,452)—(67,452) Adjustments to Costs of Ongoing Activities Salary and Benefits Adjustments — 565,917 — 565,917 Gas Customer Sales Revenue (5% Rate Increase) — — 2,061,219 (2,061,219) Rents & Leases Expenditure Alignment — (173,966) — (173,966) Utilities Capital Staffing Alignment — (47,798) — (47,798) Contract Services — (22,000) — (22,000) Radio Subscription Fees — (17,199) — (17,199) Transfer to the Water Fund — 4,562 — 4,562 Supplies & Material — 6,500 — 6,500 Equity Transfer to the General Fund — 8,000 — 8,000 General Expense — 15,500 — 15,500 Return on Investments — — (180,500) 180,500 Capital Improvement Program — 10,204,025 (211,303) 10,415,328 General Fund Cost Allocation Plan — 205,498 — 205,498 General Liability Insurance Allocated Charges — 11,070 — 11,070 Landscape Maintenance Contract — 116 — 116 Printing & Mailing Allocated Charges — 4,472 — 4,472 Public Works Engineering & Inspection Allocated Charges — (4,811) — (4,811) Stormwater Management Allocated Charges — 2 — 2 Utilities Administration Allocated Charges Adjustment — (290,345) — (290,345) Utilities Allocated Charges Adjustment — (1,387,033) — (1,387,033) Vehicle Replacement & Maintenance Charges — 9,936 — 9,936 Adjustments to Costs of Ongoing Activities —9,092,444 1,669,416 7,423,028 Total FY 2021 Proposed Budget 53.83 53,599,734 40,995,171 12,604,563 UTILITIES 308 UTILITIES • CITY OF PALO ALTO FISCAL YEAR 2021 PROPOSED OPERATING BUDGET UTILITIES UTILITIES • CITY OF PALO ALTO FISCAL YEAR 2021 PROPOSED OPERATING BUDGET 309 WASTEWATER COLLECTION FUND Description In 1898, Palo Alto approved $28,000 in bond money to fund construction of the City’s first sewer network, which was completed in 1899. Private cesspools and privies were banned, and the City Health Officer had residents connected to the sewer system within a few years. Wastewater Collection’s staff is responsible for design, construction, operation, and maintenance of approximately 216 miles of sewer mains and over 18,000 City-owned laterals. Staff continues overlapping the design and construction elements of rehabilitation and augmentation projects. Wastewater Collection’s priorities are maintaining infrastructure reliability, identifying problems in mains and service laterals through expanded use of video technology, complying with all regulatory requirements, and maintaining its excellent safety record. UTILITIES 310 UTILITIES • CITY OF PALO ALTO FISCAL YEAR 2021 PROPOSED OPERATING BUDGET Budget Summary FY 2018 Actuals FY 2019 Actuals FY 2020 Adopted Budget FY 2021 Proposed Budget FY 2021 Change $ FY 2021 Change % Dollars by Division CIP Wastewater Collection Fund 2,948,288 3,328,061 8,257,990 4,539,588 (3,718,402)(45.0)% Wastewater Collection Administration 2,024,750 1,755,355 3,038,712 2,914,040 (124,671)(4.1)% Wastewater Collection Customer Service 283,291 306,092 355,693 370,071 14,378 4.0% Wastewater Collection Engineering (Operating)345,136 328,587 560,183 517,053 (43,130)(7.7)% Wastewater Collection Operations and Maintenance 12,279,116 12,697,456 15,097,480 15,478,122 380,642 2.5% Total 17,880,581 18,415,551 27,310,057 23,818,873 (3,491,184)(12.8)% Dollars by Category Salary & Benefits Healthcare 530,834 521,663 659,170 602,798 (56,372)(8.6)% Other Benefits 65,624 66,144 88,978 103,544 14,566 16.4% Overtime 204,273 200,097 154,911 158,939 4,028 2.6% Pension 748,942 777,467 1,271,815 1,154,251 (117,564)(9.2)% Retiree Medical 143,626 259,629 267,418 271,771 4,354 1.6% Salary 2,238,681 2,307,005 3,192,081 3,262,834 70,753 2.2% Workers' Compensation 19,139 68,779 104,473 108,705 4,232 4.1% Total Salary & Benefits 3,951,119 4,200,783 5,738,846 5,662,842 (76,004)(1.3)% Allocated Charges 1,173,511 925,975 3,043,020 2,981,634 (61,385)(2.0)% Contract Services 95,622 142,314 248,986 248,986 ——% Debt Service 38,190 33,560 129,001 129,001 ——% Facilities & Equipment —4,897 12,828 3,000 (9,828)(76.6)% General Expense 67,985 91,013 122,900 122,900 ——% Operating Transfers-Out 442,062 340,672 274,068 278,630 4,562 1.7% Rents & Leases 432,531 420,220 480,121 351,729 (128,391)(26.7)% Supplies & Material 270,575 236,250 380,618 380,618 ——% Transfer to Infrastructure —47,444 ————% Utility Purchase 9,559,183 9,842,738 11,233,922 11,255,702 21,780 0.2% UTILITIES UTILITIES • CITY OF PALO ALTO FISCAL YEAR 2021 PROPOSED OPERATING BUDGET 311 Capital Improvement Program 1,849,801 2,129,686 5,645,748 2,403,831 (3,241,918)(57.4)% Total Dollars by Expense Category 17,880,581 18,415,551 27,310,057 23,818,873 (3,491,184)(12.8)% Revenues Charges for Services 22,450 21,253 10,000 10,000 ——% Charges to Other Funds 30,107 30,890 31,693 33,238 1,545 4.9% Net Sales 18,026,146 20,129,208 21,106,047 21,843,118 737,071 3.5% Other Revenue 229,212 313,720 1,082,534 302,000 (780,534)(72.1)% Return on Investments 169,663 201,076 297,700 244,400 (53,300)(17.9)% Total Revenues 18,477,578 20,696,146 22,527,974 22,432,756 (95,217)(0.4)% Positions by Division CIP Wastewater Collection Fund 12.52 12.52 12.52 9.82 (2.70)(21.57)% Wastewater Collection Customer Service 2.22 2.22 2.22 2.22 ——% Wastewater Collection Engineering (Operating)1.40 1.40 1.40 1.40 ——% Wastewater Collection Operations and Maintenance 12.86 13.02 13.02 15.06 2.04 15.66% Total 29.00 29.16 29.16 28.50 (0.66)(2.26)% Staffing Job Classification FY 2018 Actuals FY 2019 Actuals FY 2020 Adopted Budget FY 2021 Proposed Budget FY 2021 Change FTE FY 2021 Salary Account Specialist 0.23 0.23 0.23 0.23 —18,002 Administrative Associate II 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 —31,358 Assistant Director Utilities Engineering 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15 —32,613 Assistant Director Utilities Operations 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 —22,718 Business Analyst 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 —116,501 Cement Finisher 0.76 0.76 0.76 0.76 —72,258 Contracts Administrator 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 —5,056 Budget Summary FY 2018 Actuals FY 2019 Actuals FY 2020 Adopted Budget FY 2021 Proposed Budget FY 2021 Change $ FY 2021 Change % UTILITIES 312 UTILITIES • CITY OF PALO ALTO FISCAL YEAR 2021 PROPOSED OPERATING BUDGET Coordinator Utilities Projects 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 —125,794 Customer Service Representative 1.45 1.45 1.45 1.45 —112,648 Customer Service Specialist-Lead 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 —22,838 Engineer 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 —140,504 Engineering Manager - Electric 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15 —32,248 Engineering Manager - WGW 0.34 0.34 0.34 0.34 —68,556 Engineering Technician III 0.45 0.45 0.45 0.45 —44,348 Heavy Equipment Operator 0.23 0.23 0.23 —(0.23)— Heavy Equipment Operator - Install/Repair 3.15 3.15 3.15 3.15 —315,006 Industrial Waste Investigator 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 —54,704 Inspector, Field Services 1.68 1.68 1.68 0.96 (0.72)102,056 Maintenance Mechanic-Welding 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 —21,308 Manager Utilities Credit & Collection 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15 —23,902 Manager Utilities Operations WGW 0.30 0.30 0.30 0.30 —55,561 Program Assistant I 0.34 0.34 0.34 0.34 —27,050 Project Engineer 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 —302,432 Restoration Lead 0.26 0.26 0.26 0.26 —29,344 Senior Engineer 1.30 1.30 1.30 0.91 (0.39)148,083 Senior Mechanic 0.33 0.33 0.33 0.33 —37,388 Utilities Engineer Estimator 0.47 0.47 0.47 0.56 0.09 68,831 Utilities Field Services Representative 1.25 1.25 1.25 1.25 —135,460 Utilities Install Repair-Lead-Welding Certified 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.58 0.34 68,439 Utilities Install Repair-Welding Certified 0.36 0.36 0.36 0.63 0.27 67,816 Utilities Install/Repair 4.25 4.25 4.25 4.00 (0.25)422,656 Utilities Install/Repair-Lead 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 —230,589 Utilities Locator 0.39 0.39 0.39 0.39 —40,730 Utilities Safety Officer 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 —13,233 Utilities Supervisor 1.72 1.72 1.72 1.72 —253,660 Staffing Job Classification FY 2018 Actuals FY 2019 Actuals FY 2020 Adopted Budget FY 2021 Proposed Budget FY 2021 Change FTE FY 2021 Salary UTILITIES UTILITIES • CITY OF PALO ALTO FISCAL YEAR 2021 PROPOSED OPERATING BUDGET 313 WGW Heavy Equipment Operator ———0.23 0.23 24,241 Sub-total: Full-Time Equivalent Positions 28.40 28.40 28.40 27.74 (0.66)3,287,933 Temporary/Hourly 0.60 0.76 0.76 0.76 —50,339 Total Positions 29.00 29.16 29.16 28.50 (0.66)3,338,272 Staffing Job Classification FY 2018 Actuals FY 2019 Actuals FY 2020 Adopted Budget FY 2021 Proposed Budget FY 2021 Change FTE FY 2021 Salary UTILITIES 314 UTILITIES • CITY OF PALO ALTO FISCAL YEAR 2021 PROPOSED OPERATING BUDGET Budget Reconciliation Positions Expenditures Revenues Net Wastewater Collection Fund Prior Year Budget 29.16 27,310,057 22,527,974 2,662,015 One-time Prior Year Budget Adjustments Elwell Court Improvements — (48,087) — (48,087) One-time Prior Year Budget Adjustments —(48,087)—(48,087) Adjustments to Costs of Ongoing Activities Salary and Benefits Adjustments — 61,038 — 61,038 Wastewater Collection Customer Sales Revenue (6% Rate Increase)— — 1,238,616 (1,238,616) Utilities Capital Staffing Alignment (0.66) (141,273) — (141,273) Rents & Leases Expenditure Alignment — (80,304) — (80,304) Facilities and Equipment Alignment — (9,828) — (9,828) Transfer to Water Fund (WS-02014 Water, Gas, Wastewater Utility GIS Data)—4,562 —4,562 Wastewater Treatment Expenses — 21,780 — 21,780 Return on Investments — — (53,300) 53,300 Capital Improvement Program — (3,245,816) (1,280,534) (1,965,282) General Fund Cost Allocation Plan — 136,368 — 136,368 Liability Insurance Allocated Charges — 8,843 — 8,843 Printing & Mailing Allocated Charges — (79) — (79) Public Works Services Allocated Charges — (27,721) — (27,721) Utilities Administration Allocated Charges — (175,357) — (175,357) Vehicle Replacement & Maintenance Allocated Charges —458 —458 Workers' Compensation Allocated Charges — 4,232 — 4,232 Adjustments to Costs of Ongoing Activities (0.66)(3,443,097)(95,218)(3,352,111) Total FY 2021 Proposed Budget 28.50 23,818,873 22,432,756 (738,184) UTILITIES UTILITIES • CITY OF PALO ALTO FISCAL YEAR 2021 PROPOSED OPERATING BUDGET 315 WATER FUND Description From 1895 until 1928, the City’s water supply came from deep wells. When the groundwater supply started to decline, water was purchased from the San Francisco Regional Water System to supplement the local water system. Since 1962, when Palo Alto’s wells were discontinued as the primary water system, 100 percent of the water has come from the Regional Water System: 85 percent derived from snow melt flowing into the Hetch Hetchy Reservoir and the balance from runoff stored in San Francisco Bay Area reservoirs. The Water Fund focuses on increasing infrastructure reliability and responsiveness to meet the City’s water supply needs during an emergency; maintaining high-quality and reliable sources of water; updating water efficiency goals; and implementing water efficiency programs and services. Additionally, the engineering division is implementing a seismic upgrade to the existing reservoirs, wells and receiving stations to increase supply reliability during catastrophic emergencies. UTILITIES 316 UTILITIES • CITY OF PALO ALTO FISCAL YEAR 2021 PROPOSED OPERATING BUDGET Budget Summary FY 2018 Actuals FY 2019 Actuals FY 2020 Adopted Budget FY 2021 Proposed Budget FY 2021 Change $ FY 2021 Change % Dollars by Division CIP Water Fund 8,504,410 6,039,680 16,973,334 9,424,670 (7,548,664)(44.5)% Water Administration 7,639,414 7,482,882 9,042,889 9,154,922 112,033 1.2% Water Customer Service 1,625,334 1,628,726 2,443,155 2,491,312 48,157 2.0% Water Engineering (Operating)354,598 384,551 641,946 796,149 154,202 24.0% Water Operations and Maintenance 5,732,995 5,999,504 8,371,072 8,916,073 545,000 6.5% Water Resource Management 22,880,271 22,175,768 23,371,160 22,576,191 (794,968)(3.4)% Total 46,737,022 43,711,111 60,843,556 53,359,316 (7,484,240)(12.3)% Dollars by Category Salary & Benefits Healthcare 821,267 822,482 1,021,133 967,427 (53,706)(5.3)% Other Benefits 119,660 125,716 164,802 198,776 33,974 20.6% Overtime 199,089 196,939 282,078 289,412 7,334 2.6% Pension 1,246,740 1,306,588 2,091,774 2,019,119 (72,656)(3.5)% Retiree Medical 300,042 427,827 440,662 444,796 4,134 0.9% Salary 4,959,173 5,266,306 5,372,634 5,814,292 441,658 8.2% Workers' Compensation 92,187 118,581 181,202 188,541 7,339 4.1% Total Salary & Benefits 7,738,159 8,264,439 9,554,284 9,922,363 368,078 3.9% Allocated Charges 3,702,043 3,404,874 5,220,481 5,030,475 (190,006)(3.6)% Contract Services 190,454 386,318 819,002 799,502 (19,500)(2.4)% Debt Service 1,697,010 1,632,435 3,222,606 3,222,606 ——% Facilities & Equipment ——16,711 1,150 (15,561)(93.1)% General Expense 511,796 480,190 658,077 670,077 12,000 1.8% Operating Transfers-Out 698,113 551,820 136,335 136,335 ——% Rents & Leases 1,906,700 1,983,270 3,144,502 3,396,161 251,660 8.0% Supplies & Material 451,691 390,121 610,982 618,482 7,500 1.2% Transfer to Infrastructure 5,700 93,339 ————% Utility Purchase 21,957,711 21,210,399 22,177,643 21,371,296 (806,347)(3.6)% Capital Improvement Program 7,877,646 5,313,905 15,282,934 8,190,870 (7,092,064)(46.4)% Total Dollars by Expense Category 46,737,022 43,711,111 60,843,556 53,359,316 (7,484,240)(12.3)% UTILITIES UTILITIES • CITY OF PALO ALTO FISCAL YEAR 2021 PROPOSED OPERATING BUDGET 317 Revenues Charges for Services 60,334 51,511 10,000 10,000 ——% Charges to Other Funds 99,288 135,114 82,690 91,143 8,453 10.2% From Other Agencies 500,773 488,052 576,632 576,632 ——% Net Sales 44,595,981 44,638,437 46,831,149 46,025,887 (805,263)(1.7)% Operating Transfers-In 512,436 539,278 548,136 557,260 9,124 1.7% Other Revenue 872,864 1,213,898 384,228 712,946 328,718 85.6% Return on Investments 869,689 994,735 1,153,200 989,200 (164,000)(14.2)% Total Revenues 47,511,365 48,061,024 49,586,035 48,963,068 (622,967)(1.3)% Positions by Division CIP Water Fund 8.03 8.03 8.03 5.34 (2.69)(33.49)% Water Customer Service 9.66 9.66 9.58 9.58 ——% Water Engineering (Operating)1.35 1.35 1.35 2.33 0.98 72.59% Water Operations and Maintenance 25.34 24.85 24.85 27.23 2.38 9.58% Water Resource Management 3.52 3.02 3.12 3.12 ——% Total 47.90 46.92 46.94 47.61 0.67 1.43% Staffing Job Classification FY 2018 Actuals FY 2019 Actuals FY 2020 Adopted Budget FY 2021 Proposed Budget FY 2021 Change FTE FY 2021 Salary Account Specialist 0.23 0.23 0.23 0.23 —18,002 Administrative Associate II 0.65 0.65 0.50 0.50 —39,198 Assistant Director Utilities Customer Support Services 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 —40,589 Assistant Director Utilities Engineering 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 —43,484 Assistant Director Utilities Operations 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15 —34,077 Assistant Director Utilities/Resource Management 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 —52,224 Business Analyst 1.53 1.20 1.20 1.20 —186,401 Cement Finisher 0.56 0.56 0.56 0.56 —53,243 Contracts Administrator 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 —10,113 Budget Summary FY 2018 Actuals FY 2019 Actuals FY 2020 Adopted Budget FY 2021 Proposed Budget FY 2021 Change $ FY 2021 Change % UTILITIES 318 UTILITIES • CITY OF PALO ALTO FISCAL YEAR 2021 PROPOSED OPERATING BUDGET Coordinator Utilities Projects 1.09 1.09 1.09 1.09 —124,651 Customer Service Representative 1.81 1.81 1.81 1.81 —140,615 Customer Service Specialist 0.66 0.66 0.66 0.66 —56,381 Customer Service Specialist-Lead 0.59 0.59 0.59 0.59 —53,899 Electric Project Engineer ——0.30 0.30 —47,736 Engineer 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 —140,504 Engineering Manager - Electric 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15 —32,248 Engineering Manager - WGW 0.33 0.33 0.33 0.33 —66,540 Engineering Technician III 0.45 0.45 0.45 0.45 —44,348 Gas and Water Meter Measurement and Control Technician 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.60 (0.20)60,940 Gas and Water Meter Measurement and Control Technician - Lead 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 —21,736 Heavy Equipment Operator 1.95 1.95 1.95 —(1.95)— Heavy Equipment Operator - Install/Repair 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 —21,086 Inspector, Field Services 1.65 1.65 1.65 1.74 0.09 184,977 Maintenance Mechanic-Welding 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 —85,230 Manager Customer Service 0.34 0.34 0.34 0.34 —53,648 Manager Utilities Compliance 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 —98,436 Manager Utilities Credit & Collection 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15 —23,902 Manager Utilities Operations WGW 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 —92,602 Manager Utilities Program Services 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 —30,859 Meter Reader 2.03 2.03 2.03 2.03 —148,206 Meter Reader-Lead 0.34 0.34 0.34 0.34 —26,562 Power Engineer 0.30 0.30 ———— Principal Business Analyst 0.33 0.33 0.33 0.33 —60,238 Program Assistant I 0.33 0.33 0.33 0.33 —26,255 Program Assistant II ——0.15 0.15 —12,823 Project Engineer 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 —302,432 Resource Planner 1.20 0.70 0.70 0.70 —100,479 Restoration Lead 0.31 0.31 0.31 0.31 —34,987 SCADA Technologist 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.89 0.09 135,730 Staffing Job Classification FY 2018 Actuals FY 2019 Actuals FY 2020 Adopted Budget FY 2021 Proposed Budget FY 2021 Change FTE FY 2021 Salary UTILITIES UTILITIES • CITY OF PALO ALTO FISCAL YEAR 2021 PROPOSED OPERATING BUDGET 319 Senior Business Analyst 0.66 0.99 0.99 0.99 —157,158 Senior Engineer 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.74 0.74 285,652 Senior Mechanic 0.34 0.34 0.34 0.34 —38,521 Senior Resource Planner 1.68 1.68 1.78 1.78 —322,997 Senior Utilities Field Service Representative 0.49 0.49 0.49 0.49 —56,780 Senior Water Systems Operator 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 —224,640 Substation Electrician 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.25 (0.15)35,584 Utilities Engineer Estimator 0.43 0.43 0.43 0.48 0.05 60,037 Utilities Field Services Representative 1.50 1.50 1.50 1.50 —162,552 Utilities Install Repair-Lead-Welding Certified 0.46 0.46 0.46 0.65 0.19 76,699 Utilities Install Repair-Welding Certified 0.69 0.69 0.69 0.94 0.25 96,201 Utilities Install/Repair 1.90 1.90 1.90 1.44 (0.46)152,156 Utilities Install/Repair Assistant 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 —31,362 Utilities Install/Repair-Lead 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.07 0.05 114,631 Utilities Key Account Representative 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 —42,027 Utilities Locator 0.34 0.34 0.34 0.34 —35,509 Utilities Marketing Program Administrator 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 —45,627 Utilities Safety Officer 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15 —19,849 Utilities Supervisor 2.91 2.91 2.91 2.91 —459,430 Water System Operator II 3.34 3.34 3.34 3.34 —330,687 WGW Heavy Equipment Operator ———1.97 1.97 207,625 Sub-total: Full-Time Equivalent Positions 45.29 44.79 44.89 45.56 0.67 5,661,105 Temporary/Hourly 2.61 2.13 2.05 2.05 —171,414 Total Positions 47.90 46.92 46.94 47.61 0.67 5,832,519 Staffing Job Classification FY 2018 Actuals FY 2019 Actuals FY 2020 Adopted Budget FY 2021 Proposed Budget FY 2021 Change FTE FY 2021 Salary UTILITIES 320 UTILITIES • CITY OF PALO ALTO FISCAL YEAR 2021 PROPOSED OPERATING BUDGET Budget Reconciliation Positions Expenditures Revenues Net Water Fund Prior Year Budget 46.94 60,843,556 49,586,035 13,756,527 One-time Prior Year Budget Adjustments Elwell Court Improvements — (69,643) — (69,643) One-time Prior Year Budget Adjustments —(69,643)—(69,643) Adjustments to Costs of Ongoing Activities Salary and Benefits Adjustments — 170,291 — 170,291 Water Commodity Purchases Expenditure — (806,347) — (806,347) Revenue from Water System Customer Connections — — 328,718 (328,718) Transfer From Wastewater and Gas Fund (WS- 02014 Water, Gas, Wastewater Utility GIS Data)— — 9,124 (9,124) Radio Subscription Fees — (15,561) — (15,561) Return on Investment — — (164,000) 164,000 Utilities Capital Staffing Alignment 0.67 190,447 — 190,447 Rents & Leases Expenditure Alignment — 321,303 — 321,303 Water Customer Sales Revenue (0% Rate Increase)— — (796,809) 796,809 Capital Improvement Program — (7,092,064) — (7,092,064) General Fund Cost Allocation Plan — 78,472 — 78,472 Liability Insurance Allocated Charges — 12,704 — 12,704 Printing & Mailing Services Allocated Charges — 5,158 — 5,158 Public Works Services Allocated Charges — (4,671) — (4,671) Stormwater Management Allocated Charges — 9 — 9 Utilities Administration Allocated Charges — (267,368) — (267,368) Utilities Allocated Charges — (30,881) — (30,881) Vehicle Replacement & Maintenance Allocated Charges — 16,572 — 16,572 Workers' Compensation Allocated Charges — 7,339 — 7,339 Adjustments to Costs of Ongoing Activities 0.67 (7,414,597)(622,967)(6,791,630) Total FY 2021 Proposed Budget 47.61 53,359,316 48,963,068 6,895,254 ƫƫƫƫ ƫƫĂĀĂāƫƫ ƫƫ325 ELECTRIC FUND Attachment B ELECTRIC FUND 326 ELECTRIC FUND • ƫƫƫƫ ƫƫĂĀĂāƫƫ ƫ ELECTRIC FUND 2!.2%!3 $!ƫ%05ƫ+"ƫ(+ƫ(0+ƫ%/ƫ0$!ƫ+*(5ƫ)1*%%,(%05ƫ%*ƫ(%"+.*%ƫ0$0ƫ+,!.0!/ƫƫ"1((ƫ/1%0!ƫ+"ƫ%05ġƫ +3*! ƫ10%(%05ƫ/!.2%!/ċƫ$!ƫ)1*%%,(ƫ!(!0.%ƫ,+3!.ƫ/5/0!)ƫ!#*ƫ+,!.0%+*ƫ%*ƫāĊĀĀƫ* ƫ+*ġ 0%*1!/ƫ0+ƫ,.+2% !ƫ/"!Čƫ.!(%(!Čƫ* ƫ+/0ƫ!""!0%2!ƫ!(!0.%ƫ/!.2%!ƫ0+ƫ.!/% !*0/ƫ* ƫ1/0+)!./ƫ+"ƫ (+ƫ(0+ċƫ+.ƫ0$!ƫĂĀĂāġĂĀĂĆƫ,%0(ƫ ),.+2!)!*0ƫ.+#.)ƫĨ ĩČƫ,,.+4%)0!(5ƫĸĊĊċĆƫ)%((%+*ƫ%*ƫ !4,!*/!/ƫ%/ƫ,.+&!0! Čƫ3%0$ƫĸĂĆċĈƫ)%((%+*ƫ1 #!0! ƫ%*ƫ%/(ƫ!.ƫĂĀĂāČƫ+"ƫ3$%$ƫĸăċĈƫ)%((%+*ƫ%/ƫ .!+))!* ! ƫ0+ƫ!ƫ.!,,.+,.%0! ƫ".+)ƫ%/(ƫ!.ƫĂĀĂĀċƫ2!.((Čƫƫ0+0(ƫ+"ƫĂĉƫ,.+&!0/ƫ .!ƫ,(**! ƫ+2!.ƫ0$!ƫĆġ5!.ƫ ċ &+.ƫ,.+&!0/ƫ"1* ! ƫ%*ƫ0$!ƫ ĂĀĂāġĂĀĂĆƫ ƫ%*(1 !ƫ++0$%((/ƫ 5/0!)ƫ!1%( ƫĨĸąċĀƫ)%((%+*ĩČƫ 1/00%+*ƫćĀ'ƫ.!'!.ƫ !,(!)!*0/ƫĨĸăċĀƫ)%((%+*ĩČƫ ).0ƫ.% ƫ!$*+(+#5ƫ */0((ġ 0%+*ƫĨĸāĊċĀƫ)%((%+*ĩČƫ(!0.%ƫ1/ġ 0+)!.ƫ+**!0%+*/ƫĨĸāăċĆƫ )%((%+*ĩČƫ0+0(ƫąĥāĂ'ƫ+*2!./%+*ƫ ,.+&!0/ƫĨĸĆċĂƫ)%((%+*ĩČƫ++ ƫ +(!ƫ!,(!)!*0ƫĨĸĈċĆƫ)%((%+*ĩČƫ (!0.%ƫ5/0!)ƫ ),.+2!)!*0/ƫ ĨĸāĂċĆƫ)%((%+*ĩČƫ2.%+1/ƫ1* !.ġ #.+1* ƫ/5/0!)ƫ.!1%( ƫ,.+&!0/ƫ ĨĸĈċĉƫ)%((%+*ĩČƫ* ƫ2!.$! ƫ0+ƫ * !.#.+1* ƫ+*2!./%+*ƫĨĸąċāƫ)%((%+*ĩċƫ$!ƫ1 #!0ƫ"+.ƫ0$!ƫ(!0.%ƫ1* ƫ ƫ%/ƫ0!#+.%6! ƫ%*0+ƫ 0$.!!ƫ05,!/ƫ+"ƫ,.+&!0/čƫ1/0+)!.ƫ+**!0%+*/Čƫ5/0!)ƫ ),.+2!)!*0/Čƫ* ƫ* !.#.+1* %*#ƫ .+&!0/ċ *"./0.101.!ƫ *2!*0+.5 CLASSIFICATION QUANTITY %(!/ƫ+"ƫćĀ'ƫ/1ƫ0.*/)%//%+*ƫ(%*!/āĉƫ)%(!/ 1/00%+*/ƫĨ3ĥăĀĀƫ ƫ0+0(ƫ,%05ĩ Ċ .""%ƫ%#*(/ƫĨ%*0!./!0%+*/ĩƫ)%*0%*! āĀā 0.!!0(%#$0/ƫ)%*0%*! ćČćĀĀ 2!.$! ƫ.%).5ƫ%/0.%10%+*āāćƫ)%(!/ * !.#.+1* ƫ.%).5ƫ%/0.%10%+*āĉĉƫ)%(!/ 2!.$! ƫ!+* .5ƫ%/0.%10%+*Ċăƫ)%(!/ * !.#.+1* ƫ!+* .5ƫ%/0.%10%+*ĈĆƫ)%(!/ ĸĀ ĸąČĀĀĀČĀĀĀ ĸĉČĀĀĀČĀĀĀ ĸāĂČĀĀĀČĀĀĀ ĸāćČĀĀĀČĀĀĀ ĸĂĀČĀĀĀČĀĀĀ ĸĂąČĀĀĀČĀĀĀ ĸĂĉČĀĀĀČĀĀĀ ĂĀāĈ 01(/ ƫĂĀāĊ 01(/ ƫĂĀĂā .+,+/! ƫĂĀĂă .+&!0! ƫĂĀĂĆ .+&!0! (!0.%ƫ1 * ƫ,%0 (ƫ4,!* %01.!/ ELECTRIC FUND ELECTRIC FUND • ƫƫƫƫ ƫƫĂĀĂāƫƫ ƫƫƫƫ327 1/0+)!.ƫ+**!0%+*/ /ƫ1/0+)!./Ěƫ!(!0.%ƫ,+3!.ƫ*!! /ƫ+*0%*1((5ƫ$*#!ƫ 1!ƫ0+ƫ!-1%,)!*0ƫ %0%+*/Čƫ*!3ƫ+*ġ /0.10%+*Čƫ1%( %*#ƫ!4,*/%+*/Čƫ1%( %*#ƫ.!)+ !(/Čƫ0!. +3*/ƫ* ƫ.!1%( /Čƫ* ƫ*!3ƫ1%( %*#ƫ +1,*5ƫ05,!/Čƫ0$!ƫ!(!0.%ƫ/5/0!)ƫ)1/0ƫ!2+(2!ƫ0+ƫ)!!0ƫ0$!/!ƫ*!! /ċƫ$!ƫ(!0.%ƫ1/0+)!.ƫ +**!0%+*/ƫ.+&!0Čƫ3$%$ƫ%/ƫ+*!ƫ+"ƫ0$!ƫ(.#!/0ƫ,.+&!0/ƫ3%0$%*ƫ0$!ƫ(!0.%ƫ1* ƫĨĸĂċĈƫ)%((%+*ƫ%*ƫ %/(ƫ!.ƫĂĀĂāČƫĸāăċĆƫ)%((%+*ƫ+2!.ƫ0$!ƫĂĀĂāġĂĀĂĆƫ ĩČƫ%/ƫ+1*0! ƫ"+.ƫ3%0$%*ƫ0$%/ƫ0!#+.5ċƫ .+&!0/ƫ*ƫ.*#!ƫ".+)ƫ*!3ƫ1%( %*#/ƫ//+%0! ƫ3%0$ƫ0$!ƫ!0!.*/ƫ )%*%/0.0%+*ƫ+/,%0(ƫ0+ƫ .!/% !*0%(ƫ!(!0.%ƫ,*!(ƫ1,#. !/ċƫ$!/!ƫ,.+&!0/ƫ((+3ƫ"+.ƫ0$!ƫ+),(!0%+*ƫ+"ƫ3+.'ƫ.!-1%.! ƫ0+ƫ )!!0ƫ0$!ƫ*!! /ƫ+"ƫ1/0+)!./ƫ3$+ƫ$2!ƫ,,(%! ƫ"+.ƫ*!3ƫ+.ƫ1,#. ! ƫ!(!0.%ƫ/!.2%!Čƫ*!! ƫ0!)ġ ,+..5ƫ,+3!.ƫ"+.ƫ+*/0.10%+*Čƫ+.ƫ.!-1%.!ƫ+0$!.ƫ/!.2%!/ċƫ$!ƫ(!0.%ƫ1* ƫ,5/ƫ"+.ƫƫ,+.0%+*ƫ+"ƫ 0$!/!ƫ,.+&!0/Čƫ3$%(!ƫ.!)%*%*#ƫ+/0/ƫ.!ƫ/1,,+.0! ƫ5ƫ.!%)1./!)!*0/ƫ".+)ƫ1/0+)!./ƫ"+.ƫ ,.+&!0ƫ3+.'ƫ,!."+.)! ƫ5ƫ0$!ƫ%05ċ Recent Accomplishments *ƫ%/(ƫ!.ƫĂĀāĊƫ0$!ƫ0%(%0%!/ƫ(!0.%ƫ%2%/%+*ƫ+),(!0! ƫ+2!.ƫąĀĀƫ1/0+)!.ƫ/!.2%!ƫ,.+&!0/ƫ 3%0$ƫƫ0+0(ƫ+/0ƫ+"ƫĸĂċąƫ)%((%+*ƫ* ƫ.!2!*1!ƫ+"ƫĸāċĈƫ)%((%+*ċƫ *5ƫ,.+&!0/ƫ%*ƫ.!ƫ,.+#.!//ƫ3%0$ƫ *+ƫ)&+.ƫ+),(!0%+*/ƫ0+ƫ.!,+.0ƫ5!0ċ 2021-2025 Capital Improvement Program Recurring Projects $!ƫ(!0.%ƫ1/0+)!.ƫ+**!0%+*/ƫ,.+&!0ƫ %/1//! ƫ+2!ƫ%/ƫ0$!ƫ+*(5ƫ.!1..%*#ƫ,.+&!0ƫ%*ƫ0$%/ƫ 0!#+.5ċƫ01(ƫ+/0/ƫ2.5ƫ5!.ġ+2!.ġ5!.ƫ !,!* %*#ƫ+*ƫ0%2%05ƫ(!2!(/ċƫƫ Non-Recurring Projects ƫ+/,%0(ƫġƫ1/0+)!.ƫ+ ƫ!-1%.!)!*0/ƫ.+&!0ċƫ$%/ƫ,.+&!0ƫ$/ƫ!!*ƫ.! 1! ƫ%*ƫ/+,!ƫ* ƫ "+( ! ƫ%*0+ƫ0$!ƫ(!0.%ƫ1/0+)!.ƫ+**!0%+*/ƫ,.+&!0ċƫ0%(%0%!/ƫ%/ƫ3+.'%*#ƫ3%0$ƫ0$!ƫƫ+*ƫ0$!%.ƫ ,(*/ƫ* ƫ3%0/ƫƫ !%/%+*ƫ".+)ƫƫ+*ƫ0$!ƫ%*0!.%)ƫ!(!0.%ƫ"!! !.ƫ!*$*!)!*0ƫ/+(10%+*ƫ1*0%(ƫ 0$!ƫ*!3ƫćĀ'ƫƫ/1/00%+*ƫ%/ƫ1%(0ċ (!0.%ƫ*#%*!!.%*#ƫ$/ƫ.!!%2! ƫ(+/!ƫ0+ƫĂĀĀƫ,,(%0%+*/ƫ"+.ƫ/)((ƫ!((ƫ00$)!*0/ƫ0+ƫ(!ġ 0.%ƫ10%(%05ƫ/0.!!0(%#$0ƫ* ƫ3++ ƫ,+(!/ċƫ$!ƫ(!0.%ƫ0%(%05ƫ$/ƫ+10ƫćČĆĀĀƫ3++ ƫ,+(!/ƫ* ƫ ćČĆĀĀƫ/0.!!0(%#$0ƫ,+(!/ƫ%053% !Čƫ3$%$ƫ.!ƫ+"ƫ%*0!.!/0ƫ0+ƫ)+%(!ƫ,$+*!ƫ+),*%!/ċƫ$%/ƫ0.!* ƫ+"ƫ /)((ƫ!((ƫ,,(%0%+*/ƫ%/ƫ*0%%,0! ƫ0+ƫ.,% (5ƫ%*.!/!ƫ%*ƫ0$!ƫ*!40ƫ"!3ƫ5!./Čƫ3$%$ƫ3+1( ƫ %*.!/!ƫ+0$ƫ0$!ƫ3+.'(+ ƫ* ƫ//+%0! ƫ.!2!*1!ƫ%*ƫ0$!ƫ(!0.%ƫ1/0+)!.ƫ+**!0%+*/ƫ ,.+&!0ċƫ/ƫ0$!/!ƫ,.+&!0/ƫ* ƫ//+%0! ƫ+/0/ƫ/+(% %"5Čƫ0$!5ƫ3%((ƫ!ƫ.+1#$0ƫ"+.3. ƫ"+.ƫ+*/% ġ !.0%+*ƫ%*ƫ"101.!ƫ,%0(ƫ ),.+2!)!*0ƫ(*/ċ 5/0!)ƫ ),.+2!)!*0/ !5ƫ!(!)!*0/ƫ"+.ƫ!*/1.%*#ƫ.!(%(!ƫ!(!0.%ƫ/!.2%!ƫ0+ƫ%05ƫ+"ƫ(+ƫ(0+ƫ.!/% !*0/ƫ* ƫ1/0+)!./ƫ %*(1 !ƫ.!,(%*#ƫ!(!0.%ƫ/5/0!)ƫ+),+*!*0/ƫ!"+.!ƫ0$!5ƫ.!$ƫ0$!%.ƫ!* ƫ+"ƫ(%"!Ďƫ!*/1.%*#ƫ0$!.!ƫ %/ƫ !-10!ƫ,%05ƫ"+.ƫ0$!ƫ,.+&!0! ƫ!(!0.%ƫ(+ Ďƫ* ƫ%*/0((%*#ƫ,.+0!0%2!ƫ!-1%,)!*0ƫ0+ƫ)%*ġ %)%6!ƫ0$!ƫ%),0ƫ+"ƫ/5/0!)ƫ,.+(!)/ċƫ.+&!0/ƫ%*ƫ0$!ƫ5/0!)ƫ ),.+2!)!*0/ƫ0!#+.5ƫ((+3ƫ"+.ƫƫ ELECTRIC FUND 328 ELECTRIC FUND • ƫƫƫƫ ƫƫĂĀĂāƫƫ ƫ 2.%!05ƫ+"ƫ%),.+2!)!*0/Čƫ%*(1 %*#ƫ0$!ƫ.!,(!)!*0ĥ1,#. !ƫ+"ƫ+( ƫ(!/ƫ* ƫ!-1%,)!*0ƫ* ƫ .%*#%*#ƫ !/%#*/ƫ1,ƫ0+ƫ1..!*0ƫ/0* . /Čƫ%*/0((0%+*ƫ+"ƫ,.+0!0%2!ƫ!-1%,)!*0ƫ* ƫ/3%0$!/Čƫ +*2!./%+*ƫ+"ƫ0$!ƫ!(!0.%ƫ/5/0!)ƫ".+)ƫąČāćĀƫ+(0/ƫĨą'ĩƫ0+ƫāĂČąĈĀƫ+(0/ƫĨāĂ'ĩČƫ* ƫ%*/0((0%+*ƫ +"ƫ,%0+./ƫ0+ƫ%),.+2!ƫ!""%%!*5ċ $!ƫĂĀĂāġĂĀĂĆƫ ƫ%*(1 !/ƫ0+0(ƫ"1* %*#ƫ+"ƫĸĉāċĊƫ)%((%+*ƫ%*ƫ0$%/ƫ0!#+.5Čƫ3%0$ƫĸĂăċĀƫ)%((%+*ƫ((+ġ 0! ƫ%*ƫƫĂĀĂāċƫ%#*%"%*0ƫ,.+&!0/ƫ%*ƫ0$%/ƫ0!#+.5ƫ%*(1 !ƫ).0ƫ.% ƫ!$*+(+#5ƫ */0((0%+*ƫ ĨĸāĊċĀƫ)%((%+*ĩČƫąĥāĂ'ƫ+*2!./%+*ƫ,.+&!0/ƫĨĸĆċĂƫ)%((%+*ĩČƫ(!0.%ƫ5/0!)ƫ ),.+2!)!*0/ƫĨĸāĂċćƫ )%((%+*ĩČƫ++ ƫ+(!ƫ!,(!)!*0/ƫĨĸĈċĆƫ)%((%+*ĩČƫćĀ'ƫ%.1%0ƫ.!'!.ƫ!,(!)!*0/ƫĨĸăċĀƫ)%(ġ (%+*ĩČƫ* ƫ2.%+1/ƫ,.+&!0/ƫ0+ƫ.!1%( ƫ1* !.#.+1* ƫ %/0.%0/ƫ* ƫ/1/00%+*ƫ+),+*!*0/ċƫ Recent Accomplishments Q +),(!0! ƫ.!,(!)!*0ƫ+"ƫ+*!ƫ+"ƫ03!*05ġ"+1.ƫćĀ'ƫ%.1%0ƫ.!'!.ċ Q $5/%(ƫ%*/0((0%+*ƫ+"ƫ*!3ƫ(%*!ƫ.!(5/ƫ* ƫ.!(5ƫ%*!0/ƫ"+.ƫ,.+0!0%+*ƫ+"ƫ+(+. +ƫ*'ƫ ņĂċƫƫ+))%//%+*%*#ƫ0+ƫ+1.ƫ%*ƫƫĂĀĂĀċ Q +),(!0! ƫ+0$!.ƫ)%/!((*!+1/ƫ/5/0!)ƫ%),.+2!)!*0ƫ,.+&!0/ƫ !(%*#ƫ3%0$ƫ.!,(!)!*0ƫ+"ƫ !0!.%+.0! ƫ"%(%0%!/ƫ+.ƫ0+ƫ%),.+2!ƫ/5/0!)ƫ+,!.0%+*ƫ* ƫ.!(%%(%05ċ Q +),(!0! ƫ,$/!ƫ ƫ+"ƫ1,!.2%/+.5ƫ+*0.+(ƫ* ƫ0ƫ-1%/%0%+*ƫĨĩƫ5!./!1.%05ƫ 1,#. !ċ Q *#%*!!.! ƫ.!,(!)!*0ƫ+"ƫĉĆƫ3++ ƫ10%(%05ƫ,+(!/ċ Q %(%05ƫ!(+0%+*ƫ"+.ƫ(0.%*ƫ + !.*%60%+*ƫ.+&!0ƫ!*#%*!!.%*#ƫ%/ƫ/$! 1(! ƫ0+ƫ!ƫ +),(!0! ƫ%*ƫ!* ƫ+"ƫĂĀĂĀċ 2021-2025 Capital Improvement Program Recurring Projects ƫ0+0(ƫ+"ƫĸĂĉċĆƫ)%((%+*ƫ%/ƫ,.+#.))! ƫ"+.ƫ5/0!)ƫ ),.+2!)!*0/ƫ.!1..%*#ƫ,.+&!0/ƫ%*ƫ0$!ƫĂĀĂāġ ĂĀĂĆƫ Čƫ3%0$ƫĸćċĂƫ)%((%+*ƫ((+0! ƫ%*ƫ%/(ƫ!.ƫĂĀĂāċƫ!1..%*#ƫ,.+&!0/ƫ%*ƫ0$%/ƫ0!#+.5ƫ %*(1 !ƫ0$!ƫ"+((+3%*#č Q +))1*%0%+*ƫ5/0!)ƫ ),.+2!)!*0/ƫĨ%/(ƫ!.ƫĂĀĂāčƫĸĀċĀĂƫ)%((%+*ĎƫĆġ!.ƫ čƫĸĀċćƫ )%((%+*ĩ Q (!0.%ƫ%/0.%10%+*ƫ5/0!)ƫ ),.+2!)!*0/ƫĨ%/(ƫ!.ƫĂĀĂāčƫĸĂċĆƫ)%((%+*ĎƫĆġ!.ƫ čƫĸāĂċĆƫ )%((%+*ĩ Q (!0.%ƫ0%(%05ƫ!+#.,$%ƫ *"+.)0%+*ƫ5/0!)ƫĨ%/(ƫ!.ƫĂĀĂāčƫĸĀċĂƫ)%((%+*ĎƫĆġ!.ƫ čƫ ĸĀċĉƫ)%((%+*ĩ Q ƫ5/0!)ƫ,#. !/ƫĨ%/(ƫ!.ƫĂĀĂāčƫĸĀċāƫ)%((%+*ĎƫĆġ!.ƫ čƫĸāċĀƫ)%((%+*ĩ Q 1/00%+*ƫ%(%05ƫ ),.+2!)!*0/ƫĨ%/(ƫ!.ƫĂĀĂāčƫĸĀċĈƫ)%((%+*ĎƫĆġ!.ƫ čƫĸĂċĀƫ)%((%+*ĩ Q 1/00%+*ƫ.+0!0%+*ƫ ),.+2!)!*0/ƫĨ%/(ƫ!.ƫĂĀĂāčƫĸĀċćƫ)%((%+*ĎƫĆġ!.ƫ čƫĸĂċĀƫ)%((%+*ĩ Q * !.#.+1* ƫ5/0!)ƫ!1%( ƫĨ%/(ƫ!.ƫĂĀĂāčƫĸĀċąƫ)%((%+*ĎƫĆġ!.ƫ čƫĸāċĉƫ)%((%+*ĩ Q ++ ƫ+(!ƫ!,(!)!*0/ƫĨ%/(ƫ!.ƫĂĀĂāčƫĸāċĆƫ)%((%+*ĎƫĆġ!.ƫ čƫĸĈċĆƫ)%((%+*ĩ ELECTRIC FUND ELECTRIC FUND • ƫƫƫƫ ƫƫĂĀĂāƫƫ ƫƫƫƫ329 Non-Recurring Projects ƫ0+0(ƫ+"ƫĸĆăċąƫ)%((%+*ƫ%/ƫ((+0! ƫ%*ƫ0$!ƫĂĀĂāġĂĀĂĆƫ ƫ"+.ƫ*+*ġ.!1..%*#ƫ5/0!)ƫ ),.+2!)!*0ƫ ,.+&!0/ċƫ%#*%"%*0ƫ,.+&!0/ƫ%*(1 !č Q !1%( ƫ* !.#.+1* ƫ%/0.%0/čƫĨ%/(ƫ!.ƫĂĀĂāčƫĸĀăċĊƫ)%((%+*ĎƫĆġ!.ƫ čƫĸĈċĉƫ)%((%+*ĩ Q +(+. +ĥ+,'%*/ƫ5/0!)ƫ ),.+2!)!*0čƫĨĆġ!.ƫ čƫĸăċĀƫ)%((%+*ĩ Q ).0ƫ.% ƫ!$*+(+#5ƫ */0((0%+*čƫĨ%/(ƫ!.ƫĂĀĂāčƫĸĆċĀƫ)%((%+*ĎƫĆġ!.ƫ čƫĸāĊċĀƫ)%((%+*ĩ Q ++0$%((/ƫ%/0.%10%+*ƫ5/0!)ƫ!1%( ƫĨ%/(ƫ!.ƫĂĀĂāčƫĸĂċĀƫ)%((%+*ĎƫĆġ5!.ƫ čƫĸąċĀƫ )%((%+*ĩƫ * !.#.+1* %*#ƫ.+&!0/ $!ƫ%05ƫ+"ƫ(+ƫ(0+ƫ!#*ƫƫ,.+#.)ƫ0+ƫ1* !.#.+1* ƫ+2!.$! ƫ!(!0.%Čƫ0!(!,$+*!Čƫ* ƫ(!ƫ ƫ"%(%0%!/ƫ%*ƫāĊćĆƫ3%0$ƫƫ,.+&!0ƫ(+*#ƫ.!#+*ƫ4,.!//35ċƫ%*!ƫ0$0ƫ0%)!ČƫąĈƫ* !.#.+1* ƫ %/0.%0/ƫ$2!ƫ!!*ƫ"+.)! ċƫ$!ƫ1* !.#.+1* %*#ƫ+"ƫ!(!0.%(ƫ(%*!/ƫ%/ƫƫ&+%*0ƫ,.+!//ƫ!03!!*ƫ 0$!ƫ%05ƫ* ƫĒČƫ 1!ƫ0+ƫ&+%*0ƫ+3*!./$%,ƫ+"ƫ0$!ƫ,+(!/Čƫ* ƫ+)/0Čƫ3$%$ƫ(!/!/ƫ,+(!ƫ/,!ƫ ".+)ƫĒċƫ((ƫ0$.!!ƫ!*0%0%!/ƫ/$.!ƫ%*ƫ0$!ƫ+/0ƫ+"ƫ0$!ƫ%*/0((0%+*ƫ+"ƫ1* !.#.+1* ƫ+* 1%0ƫ* ƫ +4!/ƫ*!!//.5ƫ0+ƫ!*(+/!ƫ* ƫ,.+0!0ƫ3%.!/ƫ* ƫ!-1%,)!*0ċƫ$!ƫ%05ƫ05,%((5ƫ0'!/ƫ0$!ƫ(! ƫ %*ƫ0$!ƫ !/%#*Čƫ% %*#Čƫ* ƫ+*/0.10%+*ƫ,.+!//!/ƫ3%0$ƫĒƫ* ƫ+)/0ƫ.!%)1./%*#ƫ0$!ƫ%05ƫ "+.ƫ+*/0.10%+*ƫ* ƫ )%*%/0.0%2!ƫ+/0/ċƫƫ Recent Accomplishments Q * !.#.+1* ƫ%/0.%0ƫąćƫĢƫ!/%#*ƫ+"ƫ0$!ƫ/1/0.101.!ƫ%*/0((0%+*ƫ%/ƫ+),(!0!ƫ* ƫ %*/0((0%+*ƫ+"ƫ1* !.#.+1* ƫ(!/ƫ%/ƫ%*ƫ,.+#.!//ƫ0+ƫ"%(%00!ƫ+*2!./%+*ƫ+"ƫ0$!ƫ+2!.$! ƫ (%*!/ƫ,+.0%+*ƫ*!.ƫ0$!ƫ%*0!./!0%+*ƫ+"ƫ(ƫ)%*+ƫ!(ƫ* ƫ./0. !.+ƫ+ ĥ !/0ƫ$.(!/0+*ƫ+ ċƫ Q * !.#.+1* ƫ%/0.%0ƫąĈƫġƫ*%*!05ġ*%*!ƫ,!.!*0ƫ+"ƫ1/0+)!./ƫ$2!ƫ+),(!0! ƫ0$!ƫ/!.2%!ƫ +*2!./%+*/ƫ* ƫ+**!0%+*/ƫ0+ƫ0$!ƫ1* !.#.+1* ƫ/5/0!)ƫ+1* ƫ5ƫ % (!"%!( ƫ+ ƫĥƫ %/%+*ƫ2!*1!ƫĥƫ+3,!.ƫ0.!!0ƫĥƫ+)!.ƫ2!*1!ċ 2021-2025 Capital Improvement Program Non-Recurring Projects ƫ0+0(ƫ+"ƫĸąċāƫ)%((%+*ƫ%/ƫ((+0! ƫ%*ƫ0$!ƫĂĀĂāġĂĀĂĆƫ ƫ"+.ƫ*+*ġ.!1..%*#ƫ* !.#.+1* %*#ƫ,.+&ġ !0/Čƫ3%0$ƫ,.+&!0/ƫ/0.0%*#ƫ%*ƫƫĂĀĂĂċƫ%#*%"%*0ƫ,.+&!0/ƫ%*ƫ0$%/ƫ0!#+.5ƫ%*(1 !ƫ0$!ƫ"+((+3ġ %*#č Q * !.#.+1* ƫ%/0.%0ƫąĂƫĨĸĂċĀƫ)%((%+*ĩČƫ3$%$ƫ3%((ƫ1* !.#.+1* ƫ+2!.$! ƫ10%(%05ƫ"%(%0%!/ƫ%*ƫ 0$!ƫ.!ƫ*!.ƫ). !.+ƫ+ ĥ)!./+*ƫ0.!!0ĥ % (!"%!( ƫ+ ċ Q * !.#.+1* ƫ%/0.%0ƫąăƫĨĸĂċāƫ)%((%+*ĩČƫ3$%$ƫ3%((ƫ1* !.#.+1* ƫ+2!.$! ƫ10%(%05ƫ"%(%0%!/ƫ%*ƫ 0$!ƫ.!ƫ(+*#ƫ()ƫ0.!!0ƫ* ƫ). !.+ƫ+ ċ ELECTRIC FUND 330 ELECTRIC FUND • ƫƫƫƫ ƫƫĂĀĂāƫƫ ƫ 1)).5ƫ+"ƫ,%0(ƫ0%2%05 ELECTRIC FUND Project Number Project Title FY 2019 Actuals FY 2020 Estimate FY 2021 Proposed FY 2022 FY 2023 FY 2024 FY 2025 5-Year Total Source of Funds Transfers from Other Funds Gas Fund EL-11014 Smart Grid Technology Installation 180,000 0 0 0 0 0 800,000 800,000 Total Gas Fund Transfers 180,000 0 0 0 0 0 800,000 800,000 Water Fund EL-11014 Smart Grid Technology Installation 290,000 0 0 0 0 0 1,300,000 1,300,000 Total Water Fund Transfers 290,000 0 0 0 0 0 1,300,000 1,300,000 Total Transfers from Other Funds 470,000 0 0 0 0 0 2,100,000 2,100,000 Reimbursement from Customers, Telephone, and Cable Television Companies EL-89028 Electric Customer Connections 3,149,534 1,700,000 1,700,000 1,700,000 1,700,000 1,700,000 1,700,000 8,500,000 EL-08001 Underground District 42 - Embarcadero Road, Emerson, Middlefield 0 0 0 0 0 300,000 0 300,000 EL-11009 Underground District 43 - Alma/Embarcadero 0 0 0 0 300,000 0 0 300,000 EL-12001 Underground District 46 - Charleston/El Camino Real 319,257 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 EL-19004 Wood Pole Replacement 0 0 150,000 150,000 150,000 150,000 150,000 750,000 Reimbursement from Customers, Telephone, and Cable Television Companies Total 3,468,791 1,700,000 1,850,000 1,850,000 2,150,000 2,150,000 1,850,000 9,850,000 Total Sources 3,938,791 1,700,000 1,850,000 1,850,000 2,150,000 2,150,000 3,950,000 11,950,000 Use of Funds Customer Connections EL-89028 Electric Customer Connections 2,691,341 2,400,000 2,700,000 2,700,000 2,700,000 2,700,000 2,700,000 13,500,000 EL-17003 VA Hospital Customer Load Requirements 4,825 0 0 0 0 0 0 Customer Connections Total 2,696,166 2,400,000 2,700,000 2,700,000 2,700,000 2,700,000 2,700,000 13,500,000 System Improvements EL-06001 230 kV Electric Intertie 0 0 177,481 0 0 0 0 177,481 EL-16002 Capacitor Bank Installation 179,545 0 300,000 0 0 0 0 300,000 EL-14000 Coleridge/Cowper/Tennyson 4/12Kv Conversion 29,827 0 880,000 0 0 0 0 880,000 EL-19001 Colorado Power Station Equipment Upgrade 922,316 3,200,000 900,000 2,800,000 1,700,000 900,000 400,000 6,700,000 ELECTRIC FUND ELECTRIC FUND • ƫƫƫƫ ƫƫĂĀĂāƫƫ ƫƫƫƫ331 EL-19002 Colorado Substation Improvements 16,360 50,000 340,000 340,000 240,000 0 0 920,000 EL-15000 Colorado/Hopkins System Improvement 0 0 0 0 2,000,000 1,000,000 0 3,000,000 EL-89031 Communications System Improvements 800,766 100,000 170,000 170,000 100,000 100,000 103,000 643,000 EL-17001 East Meadow Circles 4/12kV Conversion 37,709 0 166,000 0 0 0 0 166,000 EL-98003 Electric System Improvements 2,407,460 1,320,645 2,504,700 2,597,000 2,406,000 2,505,000 2,549,700 12,562,400 EL-02011 Electric Utility Geographic Information System 68,904 327,700 165,000 165,000 165,000 165,000 169,950 829,950 EL-17007 Facility Relocation for Caltrain Modernization Project 83,487 300,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 EL-21001 Foothills Rebuild (Fire Mitigation)0 0 2,000,000 2,000,000 0 0 0 4,000,000 EL-20000 Hopkins Substation 4/12kV Conversion 0 0 50,000 50,000 120,000 2,120,000 1,820,000 4,160,000 EL-17005 Inter-Substation Line Protection Relay 94,563 124,101 230,000 150,000 0 0 0 380,000 EL-14004 Maybell 1&2 4/12kV Conversion 52,417 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 EL-11003 Rebuild Underground District 15 6,844 0 1,169,609 0 0 0 0 1,169,609 EL-13003 Rebuild Underground District 16 3,270 0 699,667 0 0 0 0 699,667 EL-14002 Rebuild Underground District 20 0 50,000 0 0 0 1,400,000 100,000 1,500,000 EL-17000 Rebuild Underground District 23 0 0 214,000 0 0 1,100,000 0 1,314,000 EL-10006 Rebuild Underground District 24 156,277 579,651 0 0 0 0 0 0 EL-19000 Rebuild Underground District 25 9,266 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 EL-16000 Rebuild Underground District 26 3,469 0 1,845,500 0 0 0 0 1,845,500 EL-19003 Rebuild Underground District 30 0 0 0 0 50,000 1,200,000 0 1,250,000 EL-14005 Reconfigure Quarry Feeders 101,121 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 EL-02010 SCADA System Upgrades 63,805 180,000 135,000 380,000 140,000 175,000 178,900 1,008,900 EL-11014 Smart Grid Technology Installation 97,288 0 5,000,000 7,000,000 7,000,000 0 0 19,000,000 EL-17002 Substation 60kV Breaker Replacement 79,472 720,000 600,000 600,000 600,000 600,000 618,000 3,018,000 EL-89044 Substation Facility Improvements 375,144 348,332 740,000 450,000 400,000 200,000 206,000 1,996,000 EL-16003 Substation Physical Security 88,039 0 2,168,852 300,000 200,000 165,000 165,000 2,998,852 EL-89038 Substation Protection Improvements 690,592 80,000 620,000 480,000 300,000 300,000 309,000 2,009,000 EL-16001 Underground System Rebuild 22,478 350,000 400,000 350,000 350,000 350,000 360,500 1,810,500 EL-13008 Upgrade Estimating Software 23,148 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 EL-17008 Utility Control Center Upgrades 437,831 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 EL-04012 Utility Site Security Improvements 42,758 50,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 EL-19004 Wood Pole Replacement 26,395 1,500,000 1,500,000 1,500,000 1,500,000 1,500,000 1,545,000 7,545,000 System Improvements Total 6,920,551 9,280,429 22,975,809 19,332,000 17,271,000 13,780,000 8,525,050 81,883,859 Undergrounding Projects EL-08001 Underground District 42 - Embarcadero Road, Emerson, Middlefield 0 0 0 0 1,750,000 250,000 0 2,000,000 EL-11009 Underground District 43 - Alma/Embarcadero 0 0 0 56,000 2,000,000 0 0 2,056,000 Project Number Project Title FY 2019 Actuals FY 2020 Estimate FY 2021 Proposed FY 2022 FY 2023 FY 2024 FY 2025 5-Year Total ELECTRIC FUND 332 ELECTRIC FUND • ƫƫƫƫ ƫƫĂĀĂāƫƫ ƫ ƫ EL-12001 Underground District 46 - Charleston/El Camino Real 1,894,650 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 EL-11010 Underground District 47 - Middlefield/Homer/ Webster/Addison 25,365 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Undergrounding Projects Total 1,920,015 0 0 56,000 3,750,000 250,000 0 4,056,000 Total Uses 11,536,732 11,680,429 25,675,809 22,088,000 23,721,000 16,730,000 11,225,050 99,439,859 Project Number Project Title FY 2019 Actuals FY 2020 Estimate FY 2021 Proposed FY 2022 FY 2023 FY 2024 FY 2025 5-Year Total ƫƫƫƫ ƫƫĂĀĂāƫƫ ƫƫ409 FIBER OPTICS FUND FIBER OPTICS FUND 410 FIBER OPTICS FUND • ƫƫƫƫ ƫƫĂĀĂāƫƫ ƫ FIBER OPTIC 2!.2%!3 $!ƫ%05ƫ+"ƫ(+ƫ(0+ƫ%/ƫ0$!ƫ+*(5ƫ)1*%%,(%05ƫ%*ƫ0$!ƫ00!ƫ+"ƫ(%"+.*%ƫ0$0ƫ+,!.0!/ƫƫ"1((ƫ/1%0!ƫ +"ƫ%05ġ+3*! ƫ10%(%05ƫ/!.2%!/ċƫ$!ƫ)+/0ƫ.!!*0ƫ %0%+*ƫ0+ƫ0$%/ƫ(%/0ƫ+"ƫ/!.2%!/ƫ,.+2% ! ƫ0+ƫ%05ƫ +"ƫ(+ƫ(0+ƫ.!/% !*0/ƫ* ƫ+))!.%(ƫ1/0+)!./ƫ%/ƫ0$!ƫ(%!*/%*#ƫ+"ƫ .'ƫ"%!.ƫ/!.2%!ƫ+**!ġ 0%+*/ƫ+*ƫƫ .'ƫ+,0%(ƫ"%!.ƫ'+*!ƫ*!03+.'ƫĨ"%!.ƫ*!03+.'ĩČƫ+.%#%*((5ƫ !/%#*! ƫ* ƫ1%(0ƫ5ƫ 0$!ƫ%05ƫ%*ƫ0$!ƫ)% ƫ0+ƫ(0!ƫāĊĊĀ/ċƫƫ +.ƫ0$!ƫĂĀĂāġĂĀĂĆƫ,%0(ƫ ),.+2!)!*0ƫ.+#.)ƫĨ ĩČƫ !4,!* %01.!/ƫ+"ƫĸĂċćƫ)%((%+*ƫ.!ƫ ,.+#.))! Čƫ3%0$ƫĸĀċĉƫ)%((%+*ƫ ((+0! ƫ%*ƫ%/(ƫ!.ƫĂĀĂāċƫ &+.ƫ,.+&!0/ƫ"1* ! ƫ%*ƫ0$!ƫ ĂĀĂāġĂĀĂĆƫ ƫ%*(1 !ƫ%!.ƫ ,0%/ƫ1/0+)!.ƫ+**!0%+*/ƫ Ĩĸāċăƫ)%((%+*ĩČƫ%!.ƫ!03+.'ƫ5/ġ 0!)ƫ ),.+2!)!*0/ƫĨĸāċĀƫ)%((%+*ĩƫ * ƫ%!.ƫ!03+.'ƫ5/0!)ƫ !1%( ƫĨĸĀċăƫ)%((%+*ĩċƫ$!ƫ1 ġ #!0ƫ"+.ƫ0$!ƫ%!.ƫ,0%/ƫ ƫ*ƫ !ƫ0!#+.%6! ƫ%*0+ƫ03+ƫ05,!/ƫ+"ƫ ,.+&!0/čƫ,%05ƫ ),.+2!)!*0/ƫ * ƫ1/0+)!.ƫ+**!0%+*/ċ ,%05ƫ ),.+2!)!*0/ %0$ƫ 2*!/ƫ%*ƫ2.%+1/ƫ0!$*+(+#%!/ƫ !,!* !*0ƫ+*ƫ$%#$ġ* 3% 0$ƫ.+ * ƫ+**!0%2%05Čƫ %*.!/!/ƫ%*ƫ+*(%*!ƫ/!.2%!/ƫ* ƫ,,(%0%+*/Čƫ* ƫ/%#*%"%*0ƫ%*.!/!/ƫ%*ƫ 0ƫ0.*/)%//%+*ƫ+2!.ƫ "%!.ƫ+,0%ƫ*!03+.'/Čƫ!//ƫ0+ƫ"%!.ƫ+,0%ƫ(!/ƫ%/ƫ%*.!/%*#(5ƫ%*ƫ !)* ċƫ+ƫ!*/1.!ƫ.!(%(!ƫ "%!.ƫ+,0%ƫ/!.2%!ƫ0+ƫ%05ƫ+"ƫ(+ƫ(0+ƫ.!/% !*0/ƫ* ƫ+))!.%(ƫ1/0+)!./Čƫ*!03+.'ƫ+),+ġ *!*0/ƫ/1$ƫ/ƫ"%!.ƫ+,0%ƫ(!/ƫ* ƫ/,(%!ƫ%*!0/ƫ*!! ƫ0+ƫ!ƫ1,#. ! ƫ+.ƫ ! ƫ0+ƫ%*.!/!ƫ ,%05Ďƫ.!,(! ƫ+.ƫ,.+0!0! ƫ".+)ƫ )#!ƫ5ƫ*%)(/Ďƫ* ƫ.!.+10! ƫ35ƫ".+)ƫ$6. +1/ƫ +* %0%+*/ċ *"./0.101.!ƫ *2!*0+.5 CLASSIFICATION QUANTITY +10!ƫ %(!/ƫ+"ƫ* !.#.+1* ƫ'+*!ƫ%!.ƫ ,0%ƫ(! ăă +10!ƫ %(!/ƫ+"ƫ2!.$! ƫ'+*!ƫ%!.ƫ ,0%ƫ(! āć +0(ƫ+10!ƫ %(!/ƫ+"ƫ'+*!ƫ%!.ƫ(!ąĊ ĸĀ ĸąĀĀČĀĀĀ ĸĉĀĀČĀĀĀ ĸāČĂĀĀČĀĀĀ ĸāČćĀĀČĀĀĀ ƫĂĀāĈ 01(/ ƫĂĀāĊ 01(/ ƫĂĀĂā .+,+/! ƫĂĀĂă .+&!0! ƫĂĀĂĆ .+&!0! %!.ƫ,0%/ƫ1* ƫ,%0(ƫ4 ,!* %01 .!/ FIBER OPTICS FUND FIBER OPTICS FUND • ƫƫƫƫ ƫƫĂĀĂāƫƫ ƫƫƫƫ411 Recent Accomplishments Q ! ƫ*!3ƫ"%!.ƫ+* 1%0ƫ+*ƫ*%2!./%05ƫ2!*1!ƫ/ƫ,.0ƫ+"ƫ0$!ƫ,#. !ƫ+3*0+3*ƫ,.+&!0ċ Q +),(!0! ƫ"%!( ƫ%*2!/0%#0%+*ƫ* ƫ !/%#*ƫ+"ƫ*!3ƫ"%!.ƫ'+*!ƫ(!/ƫ".+)ƫ.'ƫ+1(!2. ƫ 1/00%+*ƫ0+ƫ0*"+. ƫ!/!.$ƫ.'ƫ.!ċ 2021-2025 Capital Improvement Program Recurring Projects $!.!ƫ%/ƫ+*!ƫ.!1..%*#ƫ,.+&!0ƫ%*ƫ0$!ƫ,%05ƫ ),.+2!)!*0/ƫ0!#+.5ƫ%*ƫ0$!ƫĂĀĂāġĂĀĂĆƫ č Q %!.ƫ!03+.'ƫ5/0!)ƫ ),.+2!)!*0/ƫĨ%/(ƫ!.ƫĂĀĂāčƫĸĀċĂƫ)%((%+*ĎƫĂĀĂāġĂĀĂĆƫ čƫĸāċĀƫ )%((%+*ĩ Non-Recurring Projects $!.!ƫ%/ƫ+*!ƫ*+*ġ.!1..%*#ƫ,.+&!0ƫ%*ƫ0$!ƫ,%05ƫ ),.+2!)!*0/ƫ0!#+.5ƫ%*ƫ0$!ƫĂĀĂāġĂĀĂĆƫ č Q %!.ƫ!03+.'ƫ5/0!)ƫ!1%( ƫĨ%/(ƫ!.ƫĂĀĂāčƫĸĀċăƫ)%((%+*ĎƫĂĀĂāġĂĀĂĆƫ čƫĸĀċăƫ)%((%+*ĩ $!ƫ%!.ƫ!03+.'ƫ5/0!)ƫ!1%( ƫ,.+&!0ƫ%/ƫ!4,!0! ƫ0+ƫ!40!* ƫ0$.+1#$ƫ%/(ƫ!.ƫĂĀĂāƫ* ƫ 3%((ƫ.!1%( ƫ,+.0%+*/ƫ+"ƫ0$!ƫ*!03+.'ƫ0$0ƫ$2!ƫ.!$! ƫ,%05Čƫ3$%$ƫ(%)%0/ƫ0$!ƫ%05Ě/ƫ%(%05ƫ0+ƫ ,.+2% !ƫ .'ƫ"%!.ƫ+,0%ƫ/!.2%!ƫ+**!0%+*/ƫ0+ƫ((ƫ,+0!*0%(ƫ1/0+)!./ċƫ!1%( %*#ƫ,+.0%+*/ƫ+"ƫ 0$!ƫ"%!.ƫ*!03+.'ƫ%*(1 !/ƫ%*/0((0%+*ƫ+"ƫ %0%+*(ƫ"%!.ƫ+,0%ƫ(!/ƫ%*ƫ0$!ƫ0*"+. ƫ!/!.$ƫ .'ƫ.!ƫ* ƫ.!,(!)!*0ƫ+"ƫ/!2!.(ƫ!(+3ƫ#.+1* ƫ/,(%!ƫ(+/1.!/ƫ3%0$ƫ, ġ)+1*0! ƫ ,! !/0(/ċƫ!1%( ƫ3+.'ƫ/$! 1(! ƫ"+.ƫ%/(ƫ!.ƫĂĀĂāƫ%*(1 !/ƫ%*/0((%*#ƫ/1/0.101.!ƫ* ƫ .'ƫ "%!.ƫ"+.ƫƫ*!3ƫ"%!.ƫ,0$ƫ".+)ƫ.'ƫ+1(!2. ƫ1/00%+*ƫ0+ƫ0$!ƫ0*"+. ƫ!/!.$ƫ.'ƫ.!ċ 1/0+)!.ƫ+**!0%+*/ /ƫ1/0+)!./ƫ+*0%*1((5ƫ$*#!ƫ0$!%.ƫ"%!.ƫ+,0%ƫ*!! /ƫ 1!ƫ0+ƫ!-1%,)!*0ƫ %0%+*/Čƫ*!3ƫ+*ġ /0.10%+*Čƫ1%( %*#ƫ!4,*/%+*/Čƫ1%( %*#ƫ.!)+ !(/Čƫ0!. +3*/ƫ* ƫ.!1%( /Čƫ* ƫ*!3ƫ1%( %*#ƫ +1,*5ƫ05,!/Čƫ0$!ƫ"%!.ƫ*!03+.'ƫ)1/0ƫ!2+(2!ƫ0+ƫ)!!0ƫ0$!/!ƫ*!! /ċƫƫ.+&!0/ƫ%*ƫ0$%/ƫ0!#+.5ƫ %*(1 !ƫ3+.'ƫ.!-1%.! ƫ0+ƫ)!!0ƫ0$!ƫ*!! /ƫ+"ƫ1/0+)!./ƫ3$+ƫ$2!ƫ,,(%! ƫ"+.ƫ*!3ƫ+.ƫ1,#. ! ƫ .'ƫ"%!.ƫ+,0%ƫ/!.2%!ƫ+**!0%+*/ċƫ$!ƫ+**!0%+*ƫ+/0/ƫ//+%0! ƫ3%0$ƫ*!3ƫ+.ƫ1,#. ! ƫ +**!0%+*/ƫ.!ƫ+""/!0ƫ5ƫ*+*ġ.!1..%*#ƫ$.#!/ƫĨĩƫ0+ƫ!/0(%/$ƫ0$!ƫ+**!0%+*/ƫ* ƫ )+*0$(5ƫ.!1..%*#ƫ$.#!/ƫĨ ĩƫ+.ƫ .'ƫ"%!.ƫ(%!*/!ƫ"!!/ċ Recent Accomplishments Q */0((! ƫ,1(%ƫ%ġ%ƫ0+ƫ1*/!.2! ƫ%05ƫ"%(%0%!/Čƫ%*(1 %*#ƫ+))1*%05ƫ.!/ƫ%*ƫ1!.(!5ƫ +))1*%05ƫ!*0!.Čƫ1%!ƫ0!.*ƫ+))1*%05ƫ!*0!.Čƫ* ƫ5(* /ƫ+("ƫ%*'/ċ 2021-2025 Capital Improvement Program Recurring Projects *ƫ0$!ƫ1/0+)!.ƫ+**!0%+*/ƫ0!#+.5ƫ0$!.!ƫ%/ƫ+*!ƫ.!1..%*#ƫ,.+&!0čƫ%!.ƫ,0%/ƫ1/0+)!.ƫ +**!0%+*/ċƫ *ƫ0$!ƫĂĀĂāġĂĀĂĆƫ,%0(ƫ ),.+2!)!*0ƫ.+#.)Čƫ.!1..%*#ƫ"1* %*#ƫ%*ƫ0$%/ƫ,.+&!0ƫ FIBER OPTICS FUND 412 FIBER OPTICS FUND • ƫƫƫƫ ƫƫĂĀĂāƫƫ ƫ .!)%*/ƫ0ƫĸĀċĂĆƫ)%((%+*ƫ**1((5ċƫ$%/ƫ,.+&!0ƫ,.+2% !/ƫ"1* %*#ƫ"+.ƫ0$!ƫ%*/0((0%+*ƫ+"ƫ"%!.ƫ+,0%ƫ %*"./0.101.!ƫ"+.ƫ*!3ƫ/!.2%!ƫ+**!0%+*/ċ Non-Recurring Projects $!.!ƫ.!ƫ*+ƫ*+*ġ.!1..%*#ƫ,.+&!0/ƫ%*ƫ0$%/ƫ0!#+.5ċ 1)).5ƫ+"ƫ,%0(ƫ0%2%05 FIBER OPTICS FUND Project Number Project Title FY 2019 Actuals FY 2020 Estimate FY 2021 Proposed FY 2022 FY 2023 FY 2024 FY 2025 5-Year Total Source of Funds Other Revenues FO-10000 Fiber Optics Customer Connections: Connection Charges 42,396 35,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 1,000,000 Other Revenues Total 42,396 35,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 1,000,000 Total Sources 42,396 35,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 1,000,000 Use of Funds Capacity Improvements FO-10001 Fiber Optics Network System Improvements 1,009,942 125,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 1,000,000 FO-16000 Fiber Optics System Rebuild 0 150,000 300,000 0 0 0 0 300,000 Capacity Improvements Total 1,009,942 275,000 500,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 1,300,000 Customer Connections FO-10000 Fiber Optics Customer Connections 133,326 77,000 250,000 250,000 250,000 250,000 250,000 1,250,000 Customer Connections Total 133,326 77,000 250,000 250,000 250,000 250,000 250,000 1,250,000 Total Uses 1,143,268 352,000 750,000 450,000 450,000 450,000 450,000 2,550,000 ƫƫƫƫ ƫƫĂĀĂāƫƫ ƫƫ423 GAS FUND GAS FUND 424 GAS FUND • ƫƫƫƫ ƫƫĂĀĂāƫƫ ƫ GAS FUND 2!.2%!3 $!ƫ%05ƫ+"ƫ(+ƫ(0+ƫ%/ƫ0$!ƫ+*(5ƫ )1*%%,(%05ƫ%*ƫ(%"+.*%ƫ0$0ƫ +,!.0!/ƫƫ"1((ƫ/1%0!ƫ+"ƫ%05ġ +3*! ƫ10%(%05ƫ/!.2%!/ċƫ$!ƫ )1*%%,(ƫ*01.(ƫ#/ƫ %/0.%1ġ 0%+*ƫ/5/0!)ƫ!#*ƫ+,!.0%+*ƫ%*ƫ āĊāĈƫ* ƫ,.+2% !/ƫ/"!Čƫ.!(%(!Čƫ * ƫ+/0ƫ!""!0%2!ƫ#/ƫ/!.2%!ƫ0+ƫ .!/% !*0/ƫ* ƫ1/0+)!./ƫ+"ƫ(+ƫ (0+ċƫ+.ƫ0$!ƫĂĀĂāġĂĀĂĆƫ,%0(ƫ ),.+2!)!*0ƫ.+#.)ƫĨ ĩČƫ ,,.+4%)0!(5ƫĸąĆċăƫ)%((%+*ƫ%/ƫ ,.+&!0! Čƫ3%0$ƫĸāăċĂƫ)%((%+*ƫ((+ġ 0! ƫ%*ƫ%/(ƫ!.ƫĂĀĂāċƫ2!.((Čƫ ƫ0+0(ƫ+"ƫ/!2!*ƫ,.+&!0/ƫ.!ƫ ,(**! ƫ"+.ƫ0$!ƫĆġ5!.ƫ ċƫ &+.ƫ,.+&!0/ƫ"1* ! ƫ%*ƫ0$!ƫĂĀĂāġĂĀĂĆƫ ƫ%*(1 !ƫ/ƫ %*ƫ!,(!)!*0/ƫĨ1)1(0%2!ƫ0+0(ƫ+"ƫ ĸăĂċćƫ)%((%+*ĩČƫ/ƫ5/0!)Čƫ1/0+)!.ƫ+**!0%+*/ƫĨĸĆċĉƫ)%((%+*ĩČƫ* ƫ/ƫ !0!./ƫ* ƫ!#1(ġ 0+./ƫĨĸăċĊƫ)%((%+*ĩċƫ$!ƫ1 #!0ƫ"+.ƫ0$!ƫ/ƫ1* ƫ ƫ*ƫ!ƫ0!#+.%6! ƫ%*0+ƫ0$.!!ƫ/!,.0!ƫ 05,!/ƫ+"ƫ,.+&!0/čƫ1/0+)!.ƫ+**!0%+*/Čƫ/ƫ %*ƫ!,(!)!*0/Čƫ* ƫ5/0!)ƫ ),.+2!)!*0/ċ *"./0.101.!ƫ *2!*0+.5 CLASSIFICATION QUANTITY +0(ƫ)%(!/ƫ+"ƫ#/ƫ)%*ƫ %/0.%10%+*ƫ/5/0!)Ăāā +0(ƫ)%(!/ƫ+"ƫ#/ƫ/!.2%!ƫ!40!*/%+*ƫ0+ƫ.!/%ġ !*0/ƫ* ƫ1/%*!//!/ ĂĀĆ 1)!.ƫ+"ƫ#/ƫ.!!%2%*#ƫ/00%+*/ą 01.(ƫ/ƫ5/0!) MATERIAL TYPE MILES OF MAINS IN SYSTEM NUMBER OF SERVICES IN SYSTEM MILES OF SERVICES IN SYSTEM (AVG 62’/ SERVICE) 0!!(ćĂċćĉ āČĈăĆ ĂĀċăĈ (/0%ČƫăăċĈĀ ćĊā ĉċāā (/0%ČƫāāąċĀĂ āąČāĂĊ āćĆċĊą (/0%ČƫĀċāā ĆĀ ĀċĆĊ (/0%Čƫ0$!.ĀċĀā ăĆ Āċąā 0$!.Ā Ĉćć ĉċĊĊ ĂāĀċĆĂ āĈČąĀć ĂĀąċąā ĸĀ ĸĂČĀĀĀČĀĀĀ ĸąČĀĀĀČĀĀĀ ĸćČĀĀĀČĀĀĀ ĸĉČĀĀĀČĀĀĀ ĸāĀČĀĀĀČĀĀĀ ĸāĂČĀĀĀČĀĀĀ ĸāąČĀĀĀČĀĀĀ ƫĂĀāĈ 01(/ ƫĂĀāĊ 01(/ ƫĂĀĂā .+,+/! ƫĂĀĂă .+&!0! ƫĂĀĂĆ .+&!0! /ƫ1* ƫ ,%0 (ƫ 4,!* %1 .!/ GAS FUND GAS FUND • ƫƫƫƫ ƫƫĂĀĂāƫƫ ƫƫƫƫ425 1/0+)!.ƫ+**!0%+*/ /ƫ1/0+)!./ƫ+*0%*1((5ƫ$*#!ƫ0$!%.ƫ#/ƫ*!! /ƫ 1!ƫ0+ƫ!-1%,)!*0ƫ %0%+*/Čƫ1%( %*#ƫ!4,*ġ /%+*/Čƫ1%( %*#ƫ.!)+ !(/Čƫ* ƫ*!3ƫ1%( %*#ƫ+1,*5ƫ05,!/Čƫ0$!ƫ#/ƫ/5/0!)ƫ)1/0ƫ!2+(2!ƫ0+ƫ )!!0ƫ0$!/!ƫ*!! /ċƫ$!ƫ/ƫ5/0!)ƫ1/0+)!.ƫ+**!0%+*/ƫ,.+&!0Čƫ3$%$ƫ%/ƫ+*!ƫ+"ƫ0$!ƫ(.#!/0ƫ .!1..%*#ƫ,.+&!0/ƫ3%0$%*ƫ0$!ƫ/ƫ1* ƫĨĸāċāƫ)%((%+*ƫ%*ƫ%/(ƫ!.ƫĂĀĂāČƫĸĆċĉƫ)%((%+*ƫ+2!.ƫ0$!ƫĂĀĂāġ ĂĀĂĆƫ ĩČƫ%/ƫ+1*0! ƫ"+.ƫ3%0$%*ƫ0$%/ƫ0!#+.5ċƫ$%/ƫ,.+&!0ƫ((+3/ƫ"+.ƫ0$!ƫ+),(!0%+*ƫ+"ƫ3+.'ƫ .!-1%.! ƫ0+ƫ)!!0ƫ0$!ƫ*!! /ƫ+"ƫ1/0+)!./ƫ3$+ƫ$2!ƫ,,(%! ƫ"+.ƫ*!3ƫ+.ƫ1,#. ! ƫ#/ƫ/!.2%!ċƫ $!ƫ/ƫ1* ƫ,5/ƫ"+.ƫƫ,+.0%+*ƫ+"ƫ0$%/ƫ,.+&!0Čƫ3$%(!ƫ.!)%*%*#ƫ+/0/ƫ.!ƫ/1,,+.0! ƫ5ƫ.!%)ġ 1./!)!*0/ƫ".+)ƫ1/0+)!./ƫ"+.ƫ+**!0%+*ƫ3+.'ƫ,!."+.)! ƫ5ƫ0$!ƫ%05ċƫ$!ƫ+*(5ƫ,.+&!0ƫ%*ƫ0$!ƫ ƫĂĀĂāƫġƫƫĂĀĂĆƫ ƫ%*ƫ0$%/ƫ0!#+.5ƫ%/ƫƫ.!1..%*#ƫ,.+&!0ċƫƫ Recent Accomplishments Q *ƫ%/(ƫ!.ƫĂĀāĊČƫ0$!ƫ0%(%0%!/ƫ/ƫ%2%/%+*ƫ+),(!0! ƫ,,.+4%)0!(5ƫāĆăƫ1/0+)!.ƫ/!.2%!ƫ ,.+&!0/Čƫ0ƫƫ+/0ƫ+"ƫĸĀċĊƫ)%((%+*ċ 2021-2025 Capital Improvement Program Recurring Projects ƫ0+0(ƫ+"ƫĸĆċĉƫ)%((%+*ƫ%/ƫ,.+#.))! ƫ"+.ƫ1/0+)!.ƫ+**!0%+*/ƫ.!1..%*#ƫ,.+&!0/ƫ%*ƫ0$!ƫĂĀĂāġ ĂĀĂĆƫ Čƫ3%0$ƫĸāċāƫ)%((%+*ƫ((+0! ƫ%*ƫ%/(ƫ!.ƫĂĀĂāċƫ!1..%*#ƫ,.+&!0/ƫ%*ƫ0$%/ƫ0!#+.5ƫ %*(1 !ƫ0$!ƫ"+((+3%*#č Q /ƫ5/0!)Čƫ1/0+)!.ƫ+**!0%+*/ƫĨ%/(ƫ!.ƫĂĀĂāčƫĸāċāƫ)%((%+*ĎƫĆġ!.ƫ čƫĸĆċĉƫ)%((%+*ĩ /ƫ %*ƫ!,(!)!*0/ $!ƫ/ƫ %*ƫ!,(!)!*0/ƫĨ ĩƫ0!#+.5ƫ+1*0/ƫ"+.ƫ0$!ƫ.!,(!)!*0ƫ+"ƫ%* !-10!(5ġ /%6! ƫ* ƫ/0.101.((5ƫ !"%%!*0ƫ#/ƫ)%*/ƫ* ƫ/!.2%!/ƫ0$0ƫ.!ƫ/1&!0ƫ0+ƫ+..+/%+*ƫ+.ƫ.!$%*#ƫ 0$!ƫ!* ƫ+"ƫ0$!%.ƫ!4,!0! ƫ(%"!ċƫƫ$!ƫ0%(%0%!/ƫ!,.0)!*0ƫ++. %*0!/ƫ3%0$ƫ0$!ƫ1(%ƫ+.'/ƫ !,.0)!*0Ě/ƫ/0.!!0ƫ)%*0!**!ƫ,.+&!0/ƫ0+ƫ)%*%)%6!ƫ )#!ƫ0+ƫ0$!ƫ%05Ě/ƫ,2!)!*0ƫ* ƫ )4%)%6!ƫ+/0ƫ!""%%!*5ċƫ *ƫ0$!ƫ*!40ƫ"%2!ƫ5!./Čƫ%0ƫ%/ƫ*0%%,0! ƫ0$0ƫ,,.+4%)0!(5ƫĊĀČĀĀĀƫ(%*ġ !.ƫ"!!0ƫ+"ƫ#/ƫ)%*/Čƫ+.ƫ!%#$0ƫ,!.!*0ƫ+"ƫ0$!ƫ!*0%.!ƫ/5/0!)Čƫ3%((ƫ!ƫ.!,(! ċƫ$!ƫĂĀĂāġĂĀĂĆƫ ƫ %*(1 !/ƫĸăĂċćƫ)%((%+*ƫ%*ƫ"1* %*#ƫ"+.ƫ,.+&!0/ƫ3%0$%*ƫ0$%/ƫ0!#+.5Čƫ3$%$ƫ.!ƫ!$ƫ*+*ġ.!1..%*#ċ Recent Accomplishments Q %*(%6%*#ƫ !/%#*/ƫ+"ƫ0$!ƫ/ƫ %*ƫ!,(!)!*0ƫĂăƫ,.+&!0ƫ3%0$%*ƫ1/%*!//ƫ %/0.%0/ƫ0+ƫ .!,(!ƫ,,.+4%)0!(5ƫĂĈČĀĀĀƫ(%*!.ƫ"!!0ƫ+"ƫ*01.(ƫ#/ƫ)%*/ƫ* ƫăĆĀƫ*01.(ƫ#/ƫ/!.2%!ƫ ,%,!(%*!/ƫ) !ƫ+"ƫ+(52%*5(ƫ$(+.% !ƫĨĩƫ* ƫ0!!(ƫ('ƫ.,ƫ%,!ƫĨĩċ 2021-2025 Capital Improvement Program Non-Recurring Projects $.!!ƫ ƫ,.+&!0/ƫ.!ƫ%*(1 ! ƫ%*ƫ0$!ƫĂĀĂāġĂĀĂĆƫ ƫĨ%/(ƫ!.ƫĂĀĂāčƫĸāĀċćƫ)%((%+*ĎƫĆġ!.ƫ čƫĸăĂċćƫ)%((%+*ĩċƫƫ GAS FUND 426 GAS FUND • ƫƫƫƫ ƫƫĂĀĂāƫƫ ƫ 5/0!)ƫ ),.+2!)!*0/ +ƫ!*/1.!ƫ.!(%(!ƫ#/ƫ/!.2%!/ƫ"+.ƫ0$!ƫ%05ƫ+"ƫ(+ƫ(0+ƫ.!/% !*0/ƫ* ƫ1/0+)!./Čƫ#/ƫ%*"./0.1ġ 01.!ƫ)1/0ƫ!ƫ.!,(! ƫ1,+*ƫ.!$%*#ƫ0$!ƫ!* ƫ+"ƫ%0/ƫ!4,!0! ƫ(%"!ċƫ$!ƫ5/0!)ƫ ),.+2!)!*0/ƫ 0!#+.5ƫ%*(1 !/ƫ0$.!!ƫ,.+&!0/ƫ 1.%*#ƫ0$!ƫĂĀĂāġĂĀĂĆƫ ƫ0ƫƫ0+0(ƫ+/0ƫ+"ƫĸćċĊƫ)%((%+*Čƫ3%0$ƫ ĸāċĆƫ)%((%+*ƫ((+0! ƫ%*ƫ%/(ƫ!.ƫĂĀĂāċƫ$!.!ƫ.!ƫ0$.!!ƫ,.+&!0/ƫ%*ƫ0$%/ƫ0!#+.5ƫ%*ƫ0$!ƫƫĂĀĂāƫ ġƫƫĂĀĂĆƫ Ďƫ!$ƫ%/ƫ.!1..%*#ċ Recent Accomplishments Q .!//! ƫāĀĂƫ. !ƫāČƫĂČƫ* ƫăƫ!'/ƫ0$.+1#$+10ƫ0$!ƫ%05ċƫƫ Q /0(%/$! ƫ*ƫ+10.!$ƫ,.+#.)ƫ0+ƫ .!//ƫ#/ƫ)!0!.ƫ*+.)(ƫ+,!.0%*#ƫ+* %0%+*/ƫ Ĩĩƫ0$.+1#$ƫ0$!ƫ*+0%"%0%+*ƫ+"ƫ,.+,!.05ƫ+3*!./Čƫ%*%0%0%*#ƫƫ++. %*0! ƫ!""+.0ƫ0+ƫ .!(+0!ƫ0$!ƫ#/ƫ)!0!.ƫ(//%"%! ƫ/ƫ*ƫċƫ$!/!ƫ*+0%"%0%+*/ƫ.!/1(0! ƫ%*ƫƫĆĀŌƫ.!/,+*/!ƫ .0!ċƫ Q +),(!0! ƫ.!,(!)!*0ƫ+"ƫ,,.+4%)0!(5ƫĉĆƫ+"ƫ0$!ƫāĀăƫ*01.(ƫ#/ƫ/!.2%!/ƫ3%0$ƫ,%,!(%*!ƫ )0!.%(ƫ+"ƫ.5(+*%0.%(!ƫ10 %!*!ƫ05.!*!ƫĨĩƫ+.ƫ!*%0!Čƫ0ƫ2.%+1/ƫ(+0%+*/ƫ3%0$%*ƫ0$!ƫ %05ċ Q +),(!0! ƫ%*/,!0%+*ƫ+"ƫăćĀƫ+"ƫ0$!ƫāĂĆĀƫ/*%0.5ƫ/!3!.ƫ(0!.(/ƫ0+ƫ!ƫ%*/,!0! ƫ%*ƫ5!.ƫ+*!ƫ 1* !.ƫ0$!ƫ$/!ƫ ƫ.+//+.!ƫ/ƫ"!05ƫ.+#.)ċƫ$!ƫ.+//+.!ƫ/ƫ"!05ƫ.+#.)ƫ%/ƫ0+ƫ %*/,!0ƫ!4%/0%*#ƫ/*%0.5ƫ/!3!.ƫ(0!.(/ƫ"+.ƫ )#!/ƫ1/! ƫ 1.%*#ƫ0$!ƫ%*/0((0%+*ƫ+"ƫ*01.(ƫ #/ƫ)%*ƫ* ƫ/!.2%!ƫ,%,!(%*!/ċ Q 1.$/! ƫ*!3ƫćĘƫ* ƫĉĘƫ 1!((!.ƫ0,,%*#ƫ* ƫ/0+,,%*#ƫ!-1%,)!*0ƫ"+.ƫ%05ƫ0""ƫ+,!.0%+*/ƫƫƫƫ * ƫ)%*0!**!ƫ3+.'ƫ+*ƫćĘƫ* ƫĉĘƫ/0!!(ƫ,%,!(%*!/ċƫ-1%/%0%+*ƫ+"ƫ0$%/ƫ!-1%,)!*0ƫ%/ƫ.1%(ƫ 0+ƫ/"!(5ƫ,!."+.)ƫ)%*0!**!ƫ+.ƫ+),(!0!ƫ%),.+2!)!*0/ƫ+*ƫ0$!ƫ%05Ě/ƫ(.#!.ƫ/0!!(ƫ)%*/ƫ 3$%$ƫ0.*/,+.0ƫ#/ƫ".+)ƫ0$!ƫ %/0.%10%+*ƫ/00%+*/ƫ0+ƫ0$!ƫ/)((!.ƫ %/0.%10%+*ƫ)%*/ƫ 0$.+1#$+10ƫ0$!ƫ%05ċƫ 2021-2025 Capital Improvement Program Recurring Projects $!.!ƫ.!ƫ0$.!!ƫ"1* ! ƫ.!1..%*#ƫ,.+&!0/ƫ%*ƫ0$!ƫ5/0!)ƫ ),.+2!)!*0/ƫ0!#+.5ƫ%*ƫ0$!ƫĂĀĂāġ ĂĀĂĆƫ č Q /ƫ%/0.%10%+*ƫ5/0!)ƫ ),.+2!)!*0/ƫĨ%/(ƫ!.ƫĂĀĂāčƫĸĀċĆƫ)%((%+*ĎƫĆġ!.ƫ čƫĸĂċĆƫ )%((%+*ĩ Q /ƫ-1%,)!*0ƫ* ƫ++(/ƫĨ%/(ƫ!.ƫĂĀĂāčƫĸĀċāƫ)%((%+*ĎƫĆġ!.ƫ čƫĸĀċĆƫ)%((%+*ĩ Q /ƫ !0!./ƫ* ƫ!#1(0+./ƫĨ%/(ƫ!.ƫĂĀĂāčƫĸĀċĊƫ)%((%+*ĎƫĆġ!.ƫ čƫĸăċĊƫ)%((%+*ĩ (!/!ƫ.!"!.ƫ0+ƫ0$!ƫ%05ƫ+"ƫ(+ƫ(0+ƫ0%(%0%!/ƫ3!,#!ƫ0+ƫ+*"%.)ƫ,.+&!0ƫ !0%(/čƫ $00,čĥĥ333ċ%05+",(+(0+ċ+.#ĥ#+2ĥ !,0/ĥ10(ĥ,.+&!0/ĥ !"1(0ċ/, GAS FUND GAS FUND • ƫƫƫƫ ƫƫĂĀĂāƫƫ ƫƫƫƫ427 1)).5ƫ+"ƫ,%0(ƫ0%2%05 GAS FUND Project Number Project Title FY 2019 Actuals FY 2020 Estimate FY 2021 Proposed FY 2022 FY 2023 FY 2024 FY 2025 5-Year Total Source of Funds Other Revenues GS-12001 Gas Main Replacement - Project 22 8,548 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 GS-80017 Gas System, Customer Connections 1,001,785 1,110,303 900,000 900,000 900,000 900,000 900,000 4,500,000 Other Revenue Total 1,010,333 1,110,303 900,000 900,000 900,000 900,000 900,000 4,500,000 Total Sources 1,010,333 1,110,303 900,000 900,000 900,000 900,000 900,000 4,500,000 Use of Funds Customer Connections GS-80017 Gas System, Customer Connections 1,039,110 1,403,926 1,082,688 1,124,169 1,166,894 1,210,901 1,247,228 5,831,880 GS-03009 System Extensions - Unreimbursed 38,679 40,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 Customer Connections Total 1,077,789 1,443,926 1,082,688 1,124,169 1,166,894 1,210,901 1,247,228 5,831,880 Gas Main Replacements GS-12001 Gas Main Replacement - Project 22 8,400,336 968,137 0 0 0 0 0 0 GS-13001 Gas Main Replacement - Project 23 90,291 289,655 10,620,046 0 0 0 0 10,620,046 GS-14003 Gas Main Replacement - Project 24 0 0 0 2,000,000 9,000,000 0 0 11,000,000 GS-15000 Gas Main Replacement - Project 25 0 0 0 0 0 2,000,000 9,000,000 11,000,000 Gas Main Replacements Total 8,490,627 1,257,792 10,620,046 2,000,000 9,000,000 2,000,000 9,000,000 32,620,046 System Improvements GS-18000 Gas ABS/Tenite Replacement Project 31,015 1,500,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 GS-11002 Gas Distribution System Improvements 9,600 500,000 500,000 500,000 500,000 500,000 500,000 2,500,000 GS-14004 Gas Distribution System Model 2,157 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 GS-13002 Gas Equipment and Tools 117,005 273,576 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 500,000 GS-80019 Gas Meters and Regulators 45,551 171,000 850,001 1,000,000 1,000,000 500,000 500,000 3,850,001 GS-15001 Security at City’s Gas Receiving Stations 31,134 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 System Improvements Total 236,462 2,444,576 1,450,001 1,600,000 1,600,000 1,100,000 1,100,000 6,850,001 Total Uses 9,804,878 5,146,294 13,152,735 4,724,169 11,766,894 4,310,901 11,347,228 45,301,927 ƫƫƫƫ ƫƫĂĀĂāƫƫ ƫƫ469 WASTEWATER COLLECTION FUND WASTEWATER COLLECTION FUND 470 WASTEWATER COLLECTION FUND • ƫƫƫƫ ƫƫĂĀĂāƫƫ ƫ WASTEWATER COLLE 2!.2%!3 $!ƫ%05ƫ+"ƫ(+ƫ(0+ƫ%/ƫ0$!ƫ+*(5ƫ)1*%%,(%05ƫ%*ƫ(%"+.*%ƫ0$0ƫ+,!.0!/ƫƫ"1((ƫ/1%0!ƫ+"ƫ%05ġ +3*! ƫ10%(%05ƫ/!.2%!/ċƫ$!ƫ)1*%%,(ƫ/0!30!.ƫ+((!0%+*ƫ5/0!)ƫ!#*ƫ+,!.0%+*ƫ%*ƫāĉĊĉƫ * ƫ+*0%*1!/ƫ0+ƫ,.+2% !ƫ/"!Čƫ.!(%(!Čƫ* ƫ+/0ƫ!""!0%2!ƫ/!.2%!/ƫ0+ƫ.!/% !*0/ƫ* ƫ1/0+)!./ƫ+"ƫ (+ƫ(0+ċƫ+.ƫ0$!ƫĂĀĂāġĂĀĂĆƫ,%0(ƫ ),.+2!)!*0ƫ.+#.)ƫĨ ĩČƫ,,.+4%)0!(5ƫĸĂąċĈƫ)%((%+*ƫ%*ƫ !4,!*/!/ƫ%/ƫ,.+&!0! Čƫ3%0$ƫĸąċĆƫ)%((%+*ƫ((+0! ƫ%*ƫ%/(ƫ!.ƫĂĀĂāċƫ2!.((Čƫƫ0+0(ƫ+"ƫĉƫ,.+&ġ !0/ƫ.!ƫ,.+#.))! ƫ"+.ƫ0$!ƫĆġ5!.ƫ ċƫ &+.ƫ,.+&!0/ƫ"1* ! ƫ%*ƫ0$!ƫ ĂĀĂāġĂĀĂĆƫ ƫ%*(1 !ƫ/0!3ġ 0!.ƫ+((!0%+*ƫ5/0!)ƫ!$%(%0ġ 0%+*ĥ1#)!*00%+*ƫ,.+&!0/ƫ Ĩ1)1(0%2!ƫ0+0(ƫ+"ƫĸāćċĊƫ)%(ġ (%+*ĩČƫ!3!.ƫ0!.(ĥ *$+(!ƫ !$%(%00%+*ƫ* ƫ!,(!)!*0ƫ Ĩĸąċăƫ)%((%+*ĩČƫ* ƫ!3!.ƫ5/0!)Čƫ 1/0+)!.ƫ+**!0%+*/ƫĨĸĂċĂƫ)%(ġ (%+*ĩċƫ$!ƫ1 #!0ƫ"+.ƫ0$!ƫ/0!ġ 30!.ƫ+((!0%+*ƫ1* ƫ ƫ%/ƫ 0!#+.%6! ƫ%*0+ƫ03+ƫ/!,.0!ƫ 05,!/ƫ+"ƫ,.+&!0/čƫ1/0+)!.ƫ +**!0%+*/ƫ* ƫ5/0!)ƫ ),.+2!)!*0/ċ 1/0+)!.ƫ+**!0%+*/ /ƫ1/0+)!./ƫ+*0%*1((5ƫ$*#!ƫ0$!%.ƫ3/0!30!.ƫ*!! /ƫ 1!ƫ0+ƫ!-1%,)!*0ƫ %0%+*/Čƫ*!3ƫ+*ġ /0.10%+*Čƫ1%( %*#ƫ!4,*/%+*/Čƫ1%( %*#ƫ.!)+ !(/Čƫ0!. +3*/ƫ* ƫ.!1%( /Čƫ* ƫ*!3ƫ1%( %*#ƫ +1,*5ƫ05,!/Čƫ0$!ƫ/0!30!.ƫ+((!0%+*ƫ5/0!)ƫ)1/0ƫ!2+(2!ƫ0+ƫ)!!0ƫ0$!/!ƫ*!! /ċƫ$!ƫ !3!.ƫ5/0!)ƫ1/0+)!.ƫ+**!0%+*/ƫ,.+&!0ƫ%/ƫ0$!ƫ+*(5ƫ,.+&!0ƫ3%0$%*ƫ0$%/ƫ0!#+.5ƫ* ƫ %*(1 !/ƫ3+.'ƫ.!-1%.! ƫ0+ƫ)!!0ƫ0$!ƫ*!! /ƫ+"ƫ1/0+)!./ƫ3$+ƫ$2!ƫ,,(%! ƫ"+.ƫ*!3ƫ/!3!.ƫ(0!.ġ (/ċƫ$!ƫ/0!30!.ƫ+((!0%+*ƫ1* ƫ,5/ƫ"+.ƫƫ,+.0%+*ƫ+"ƫ0$%/ƫ,.+&!0ƫ3$%(!ƫ.!)%*%*#ƫ+/0/ƫ.!ƫ /1,,+.0! ƫ5ƫ.!%)1./!)!*0/ƫ".+)ƫ1/0+)!./ƫ"+.ƫ,.+&!0ƫ3+.'ƫ,!."+.)! ƫ5ƫ0$!ƫ%05ċ Recent Accomplishments Q *ƫ%/(ƫ!.ƫĂĀāĊČƫ0$!ƫ0%(%0%!/ƫ/0!30!.ƫ%2%/%+*ƫ+),(!0! ƫ+2!.ƫĆćƫ1/0+)!.ƫ/!.2%!ƫ ,.+&!0/ƫ3%0$ƫƫ0+0(ƫ+/0ƫ+"ƫĸĀċĈƫ)%((%+*ċ *"./0.101.!ƫ *2!*0+.5 CLASSIFICATION QUANTITY +0(ƫ)%(!/ƫ+"ƫ/*%0.5ƫ/!3!.ƫ(%*!/Ăāćċă +0(ƫ*1)!.ƫ+"ƫ/*%0.5ƫ(0!.(/āĉČĀĂĉ ĸĀ ĸĂČĀĀĀČĀĀĀ ĸąČĀĀĀČĀĀĀ ĸćČĀĀĀČĀĀĀ ĸĉČĀĀĀČĀĀĀ ĸāĀČĀĀĀČĀĀĀ ƫĂĀāĈ 01(/ ƫĂĀāĊ 01(/ ƫĂĀĂā .+&!0! ƫĂĀĂă .+&!0! ƫĂĀĂą .+&!0! /0!30!.ƫ +((!0%+*ƫ 1 * ƫ ,%0 (ƫ 4,!* %0 1 .!/ WASTEWATER COLLECTION FUND WASTEWATER COLLECTION FUND • ƫƫƫƫ ƫƫĂĀĂāƫƫ ƫƫƫƫ471 2021-2025 Capital Improvement Program Recurring Projects $!.!ƫ%/ƫ+*!ƫ,.+&!0ƫ3%0$%*ƫ0$%/ƫ0!#+.5Čƫ0$!ƫ!3!.ƫ5/0!)Čƫ1/0+)!.ƫ+**!0%+*/ƫ,.+&!0Čƫ 3%0$ƫ"1* %*#ƫ+"ƫĸĂċĂƫ)%((%+*ƫ+2!.ƫ0$!ƫĆƫ5!.ƫ ċƫ$%/ƫ,.+&!0ƫ"1* /ƫ$*#!/ƫ0+ƫ1/0+)!.ƫ+**!ġ 0%+*/ƫ* ƫ+/0/ƫ.!ƫ,.0%((5ƫ+""/!0ƫ5ƫ.!%)1./!)!*0/ƫ".+)ƫ1/0+)!./ƫ.!-1!/0%*#ƫ0$!ƫ/!.2%!ċ 5/0!)ƫ ),.+2!)!*0 +ƫ!*/1.!ƫ.!(%(!ƫ3/0!30!.ƫ/!.2%!/ƫ"+.ƫ0$!ƫ%05ƫ+"ƫ(+ƫ(0+ƫ.!/% !*0/ƫ* ƫ1/0+)!./Čƫ%*".ġ /0.101.!ƫ)1/0ƫ!ƫ.!,(! ƫ1,+*ƫ.!$%*#ƫ0$!ƫ!* ƫ+"ƫ%0/ƫ1/!"1(ƫ(%"!ċƫ$!ƫ%*"./0.101.!ƫ.!,(!ġ )!*0ƫ,.+#.)ƫ%*(1 !/ƫ,.+&!0/ƫ0$0ƫ3%((ƫ.!$%(%00!ƫ+.ƫ.!,(!ƫ !0!.%+.0! ƫ,%,!(%*!/ċƫ *ƫ0$!ƫ *!40ƫ"%2!ƫ5!./Čƫ%0ƫ%/ƫ!/0%)0! ƫ0$0ƫ,,.+4%)0!(5ƫąĀČĀĀĀƫ(%*!.ƫ"!!0ƫ+"ƫ3/0!30!.ƫ)%*/ƫ3%((ƫ!ƫ .!,(! ċ Recent Accomplishments Q +),(!0! ƫ+*/0.10%+*ƫ+"ƫ*%0.5ƫ!3!.ƫ!,(!)!*0ƫ.+&!0ƫĨƫĂĉĩƫ.0ƫƫ0+ƫ.!,(!ƫ ,,.+4%)0!(5ƫĈČćĆĆƫ"!!0ƫ+"ƫ/!3!.ƫ,%,!/ČƫĈĈƫ/!.2%!ƫ(0!.(/Čƫ* ƫāĂƫ)*$+(!/ƫ+*ƫ.!#+*ƫ 4,.!//35ƫ* ƫ.!$%(%00!ƫĂČĀĀĀƫ(%*!.ƫ"!!0ƫ+"ƫ/!3!.ƫ)%*ƫ,%,!(%*!/ƫ+*ƫ(+3!.ƫ#!ƫ %((ƫ + ƫ* ƫ+(+. +ƫ2!*1!ċ Q +),(!0! ƫ !/%#*ƫ* ƫ/+(%%00%+*ƫ,'#!ƫ+"ƫ*%0.5ƫ!3!.ƫ!,(!)!*0ƫ.+&!0ƫĨƫ ĂĊĩƫ0+ƫ.!,(!ƫ,,.+4%)0!(5ƫĉČĊĆĂƫ(%*!.ƫ"!!0ƫ+"ƫ/*%0.5ƫ/!3!.ƫ)%*/Čƫ/ƫ3!((ƫ/ƫ .!,(!)!*0ƫ* ƫ.!$%(%00%+*ƫ+"ƫąāƫ/!3!.ƫ)*$+(!/ƫ%*ƫ0$!ƫ$.(!/0+*ƫ ! +3/ƫ *!%#$+.$++ ċƫƫ$!ƫ!4%/0%*#ƫ(5ƫ,%,!ƫ)%*/ƫ3%((ƫ!ƫ.!,(! ƫ3%0$ƫ%#$ƫ!*/%05ƫ+(5!0$5(!*!ƫ ,%,!ċƫƫ *ƫ %0%+*ČƫāĆąƫ!4%/0%*#ƫ%05ġ+3*! ƫ/!3!.ƫ/!.2%!ƫ(0!.(/ƫ* ƫ(!*+10/ƫ3%((ƫ!ƫ .!,(! ƫ3%0$ƫ*!3ƫąėƫ* ƫćėƫ/!.2%!ƫ(0!.(/ƫ* ƫ(!*+10/ċ 2021-2025 Capital Improvement Program Recurring Projects ƫ0+0(ƫ+"ƫĸĆċćƫ)%((%+*ƫ%/ƫ,.+#.))! ƫ"+.ƫ5/0!)ƫ ),.+2!)!*0ƫ.!1..%*#ƫ,.+&!0/ƫ%*ƫ0$!ƫĂĀĂāġ ĂĀĂĆƫ Čƫ3%0$ƫĸāċăƫ)%((%+*ƫ((+0! ƫ%*ƫ%/(ƫ!.ƫĂĀĂāċƫ!1..%*#ƫ,.+&!0/ƫ%*ƫ0$%/ƫ0!#+.5ƫ %*(1 !ƫ0$!ƫ"+((+3%*#č Q /0!30!.ƫ5/0!)ƫ ),.+2!)!*0/ƫĨ%/(ƫ!.ƫĂĀĂāčƫĸĀċĂƫ)%((%+*ĎƫĆġ!.ƫ čƫĸāċĀƫ)%((%+*ĩ Q /0!30!.ƫ!*!.(ƫ-1%,)!*0ƫ* ƫ++(/ƫĨ%/(ƫ!.ƫĂĀĂāčƫĸĀċĂƫ)%((%+*ĎƫĆġ!.ƫ čƫĸĀċąƫ )%((%+*ĩ Q !3!.ƫ0!.(ĥ *$+(!ƫ!$%(%00%+*ƫ* ƫ!,(!)!*0ƫĨ%/(ƫ!.ƫĂĀĂāčƫĸĀċĊƫ)%((%+*ĎƫĆġ !.ƫ čƫĸąċăƫ)%((%+*ĩ Non-Recurring Projects $!ƫ)&+.%05ƫ+"ƫ"1* %*#ƫ3%0$%*ƫ0$%/ƫ0!#+.5ƫ%/ƫ((+0! ƫ0+3. /ƫ/0!30!.ƫ+((!0%+*ƫ5/0!)ƫ !$%(%00%+*ĥ1#)!*00%+*ƫ.+&!0/ƫĨ1)1(0%2!ƫ0+0(ƫ+"ƫĸāćċĊƫ)%((%+*ĩċƫ$!/!ƫ,.+&!0/ƫ%),(!ġ )!*0ƫ$%#$ġ,.%+.%05ƫ.!$%(%00%+*Čƫ1#)!*00%+*Čƫ* ƫ(0!.(ƫ.!,(!)!*0ƫ3+.'ƫ3$%$ƫ.! 1!/ƫ %*"(+3ƫ+"ƫ.%*"((ƫ* ƫ#.+1* 30!.ƫ%*0+ƫ0$!ƫ+((!0%+*ƫ/5/0!)ċƫ$!ƫ0%(%0%!/ƫ!,.0)!*0ƫ++. %ġ WASTEWATER COLLECTION FUND 472 WASTEWATER COLLECTION FUND • ƫƫƫƫ ƫƫĂĀĂāƫƫ ƫ *0!/ƫ3%0$ƫ0$!ƫ1(%ƫ+.'/ƫ!,.0)!*0Ě/ƫ/0.!!0ƫ)%*0!**!ƫ,.+&!0/ƫ0+ƫ)%*%)%6!ƫ )#!ƫ0+ƫ 0$!ƫ%05Ě/ƫ,2!)!*0ƫ* ƫ)4%)%6!ƫ+/0ƫ!""%%!*%!/ċƫƫ %*!.ƫ"++0#!ƫ* ƫ(+0%+*/ƫ.!ƫ/1&!0ƫ0+ƫ$*#!Čƫ,(!/!ƫ.!"!.ƫ0+ƫ0$!ƫ%05ƫ+"ƫ(+ƫ(0+ƫ0%(%0%!/ƫ 3!,#!ƫ0+ƫ+*"%.)ƫ,.+&!0ƫ !0%(/čƫ333ċ%05+",(+(0+ċ+.#ĥ#+2ĥ !,0/ĥ10(ĥ,.+&!0/ĥ !"1(0ċ/,ċ 1)).5ƫ+"ƫ,%0(ƫ0%2%05 WASTEWATER COLLECTION FUND ƫ Project Number Project Title FY 2019 Actuals FY 2020 Estimate FY 2021 Proposed FY 2022 FY 2023 FY 2024 FY 2025 5-Year Total Source of Funds Other Revenues WC-80020 Sewer System, Customer Connections 597,315 430,534 300,000 300,000 300,000 300,000 300,000 1,500,000 Other Revenue Total 597,315 430,534 300,000 300,000 300,000 300,000 300,000 1,500,000 Total Sources 597,315 430,534 300,000 300,000 300,000 300,000 300,000 1,500,000 Use of Funds Customer Connections WC-80020 Sewer System, Customer Connections 301,755 445,000 420,000 450,000 450,000 450,000 450,000 2,220,000 Customer Connections Total 301,755 445,000 420,000 450,000 450,000 450,000 450,000 2,220,000 System Improvements WC-99013 Sewer Lateral/Manhole Rehabilitation and Replacement 802,497 944,728 876,000 800,000 825,000 850,000 875,500 4,226,500 WC-15001 Wastewater Collection System Rehabilitation/ Augmentation Project 28 430,621 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 WC-16001 Wastewater Collection System Rehabilitation/ Augmentation Project 29 113,466 300,000 1,638,000 0 0 0 0 1,638,000 WC-17001 Wastewater Collection System Rehabilitation/ Augmentation Project 30 0 200,000 1,221,000 5,500,000 0 0 0 6,721,000 WC-19001 Wastewater Collection System Rehabilitation/ Augmentation Project 31 0 0 0 0 1,650,000 5,200,000 0 6,850,000 WC-20000 Wastewater Collection System Rehabilitation/ Augmentation Project 32 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,650,000 1,650,000 WC-13002 Wastewater General Equipment and Tools 0 30,000 185,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 385,000 WC-15002 Wastewater System Improvements 0 260,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 1,000,000 System Improvements Total 1,346,584 1,734,728 4,120,000 6,550,000 2,725,000 6,300,000 2,775,500 22,470,500 Total Uses 1,648,339 2,179,728 4,540,000 7,000,000 3,175,000 6,750,000 3,225,500 24,690,500 ƫƫƫƫ ƫƫĂĀĂāƫƫ ƫƫ517 WATER FUND WATER FUND 518 WATER FUND • ƫƫƫƫ ƫƫĂĀĂāƫƫ ƫ WATER FUND 2!.2%!3 $!ƫ%05ƫ+"ƫ(+ƫ(0+ƫ%/ƫ0$!ƫ+*(5ƫ)1*%%,(%05ƫ%*ƫ(%"+.*%ƫ0$0ƫ+,!.0!/ƫƫ"1((ƫ/1%0!ƫ+"ƫ%05ġ +3*! ƫ10%(%05ƫ/!.2%!/ċƫ$!ƫ)1*%%,(ƫ0!.ƫ%/0.%10%+*ƫ5/0!)ƫ!#*ƫ+,!.0%+*ƫ%*ƫāĉĊćƫ* ƫ +*0%*1!/ƫ0+ƫ,.+2% !ƫ/"!Čƫ.!(%(!Čƫ* ƫ+/0ġ!""!0%2!ƫ30!.ƫ/!.2%!ƫ0+ƫ.!/% !*0/ƫ* ƫ1/0+)!./ƫ +"ƫ(+ƫ(0+ċƫ+.ƫ0$!ƫĂĀĂāġĂĀĂĆƫ,%0(ƫ ),.+2!)!*0ƫ.+#.)ƫĨ ĩČƫ,,.+4%)0!(5ƫĸąĆċćƫ)%(ġ (%+*ƫ%*ƫ!4,!*/!/ƫ.!ƫ,.+&!0! Čƫ3%0$ƫĸĊċąƫ)%((%+*ƫ((+0! ƫ%*ƫ%/(ƫ!.ƫĂĀĂāċƫ2!.((Čƫƫ0+0(ƫ+"ƫ āąƫ,.+&!0/ƫ.!ƫ,(**! ƫ"+.ƫ0$!ƫĆġ5!.ƫ ċƫƫƫ &+.ƫ,.+&!0/ƫ"1* ! ƫ%*ƫ 0$!ƫĂĀĂāġĂĀĂĆƫ ƫ%*(1 !ƫ0!.ƫ %*ƫ!,(!)!*0/ƫĨ1)1(0%2!ƫ 0+0(ƫ+"ƫĸĂāċĈƫ)%((%+*ĩČƫ0!.ƫ5/ġ 0!)ƫ1/0+)!.ƫ+**!0%+*/ƫ ĨĸąċĆƫ)%((%+*ĩČƫ0!.ƫ !0!./ƫ Ĩĸăċĉƫ)%((%+*ĩƫ* ƫ0!.Čƫ/Čƫ * ƫ/0!30!.ƫ0%(%05ƫ ƫ0ƫ ĨĸĂċĆƫ)%((%+*ĩċƫ$!ƫ1 #!0ƫ"+.ƫ0$!ƫ 0!.ƫ1* ƫ ƫ%/ƫ0!#+.%6! ƫ %*0+ƫ0$.!!ƫ05,!/ƫ+"ƫ,.+&!0/čƫ1/ġ 0+)!.ƫ+**!0%+*/Čƫ5/0!)ƫ ),.+2!)!*0/Čƫ* ƫ0!.ƫ %*ƫ !,(!)!*0/ċ *"./0.101.!ƫ *2!*0+.5 Classification Quantity %(!/ƫ+"ƫ30!.ƫ)%*Ăăăċāć 1)!.ƫ+"ƫ3!((/āƫ0%2!ƫ/0* 5ƫ* ƫĈƫ!)!.#!*5ƫ/0* 5 1)!.ƫ+"ƫ.!/!.2+%./ąƫ/0!!(ƫ* ƫăƫ.!%*"+.! ƫ+*.!0! Ā ąČĀĀĀČĀĀĀ ĉČĀĀĀČĀĀĀ āĂČĀĀĀČĀĀĀ āćČĀĀĀČĀĀĀ ƫĂĀāĈ 01(/ ƫĂĀāĊ 01(/ ƫĂĀĂā .+,+/! ƫĂĀĂă .+&!0! ƫĂĀĂĆ .+&!0! 0!.ƫ1 * ƫ,%0(ƫ 4 ,!* %0 1.!/ WATER FUND WATER FUND • ƫƫƫƫ ƫƫĂĀĂāƫƫ ƫƫƫƫ519 1/0+)!.ƫ+**!0%+*/ /ƫ1/0+)!./ƫ+*0%*1((5ƫ$*#!ƫ0$!%.ƫ30!.ƫ*!! /ƫ 1!ƫ0+ƫ!-1%,)!*0ƫ %0%+*/Čƫ*!3ƫ+*/0.1ġ 0%+*Čƫ1%( %*#ƫ!4,*/%+*/Čƫ1%( %*#ƫ.!)+ !(/Čƫ0!. +3*/ƫ* ƫ.!1%( /Čƫ* ƫ*!3ƫ1%( %*#ƫ+1ġ ,*5ƫ05,!/Čƫ0$!ƫ30!.ƫ/5/0!)ƫ)1/0ƫ!2+(2!ƫ0+ƫ)!!0ƫ0$!/!ƫ*!! /ċƫƫ$!ƫ0!.ƫ5/0!)ƫ1/0+)!.ƫ +**!0%+*/ƫ%/ƫ0$!ƫ+*(5ƫ,.+&!0ƫ%*ƫ0$%/ƫ0!#+.5ƫ* ƫ%*(1 !/ƫ3+.'ƫ.!-1%.! ƫ0+ƫ)!!0ƫ0$!ƫ*!! /ƫ +"ƫ1/0+)!./ƫ3$+ƫ$2!ƫ,,(%! ƫ"+.ƫ*!3ƫ+.ƫ1,#. ! ƫ30!.ƫ/!.2%!ċƫƫ$!ƫ0!.ƫ1* ƫ,5/ƫ"+.ƫƫ ,+.0%+*ƫ+"ƫ0$%/ƫ,.+&!0Čƫ3$%(!ƫ.!)%*%*#ƫ+/0/ƫ.!ƫ/1,,+.0! ƫ5ƫ.!%)1./!)!*0/ƫ".+)ƫ1/0+)!./ƫ "+.ƫ,.+&!0ƫ3+.'ƫ,!."+.)! ƫ5ƫ0$!ƫ%05ċ Recent Accomplishments *ƫ%/(ƫ!.ƫĂĀāĊƫ0$!ƫ0!.ƫ0%(%05ƫ+),(!0! ƫ+2!.ƫāĀĀƫ30!.ƫ/!.2%!ƫ,.+&!0/ƫ3%0$ƫƫ0+0(ƫ+/0ƫ +"ƫĸāċăƫ)%((%+*ċ 2021-2025 Capital Improvement Program Recurring Projects $!ƫ0!.ƫ5/0!)ƫ1/0+)!.ƫ+**!0%+*/ƫ%/ƫ0$!ƫ+*(5ƫ,.+&!0ƫ3%0$%*ƫ0$%/ƫ0!#+.5ċƫ2!.ƫ0$!ƫ +1./!ƫ+"ƫ0$!ƫĂĀĂāġĂĀĂĆƫ ČƫĸąċĆƫ)%((%+*ƫ%/ƫ"+.!/0! Čƫ3%0$ƫĸĀċĉĆƫ)%((%+*ƫ((+0! ƫ%*ƫ%/(ƫ!.ƫ ĂĀĂāċ 5/0!)ƫ ),.+2!)!*0/ +ƫ!*/1.!ƫ.!(%(!ƫ30!.ƫ/!.2%!/ƫ"+.ƫ0$!ƫ%05ƫ+"ƫ(+ƫ(0+Ě/ƫ.!/% !*0/ƫ* ƫ1/0+)!./Čƫ%*"./0.1ġ 01.!ƫ)1/0ƫ!ƫ.!,(! ƫ0ƫ0$!ƫ!* ƫ+"ƫ%0/ƫ!4,!0! ƫ(%"!ċƫ$!ƫ5/0!)ƫ ),.+2!)!*0/ƫ0!#+.5ƫ %*(1 !/ƫĊƫ,.+&!0/ƫ/ƫ,.0ƫ+"ƫ0$!ƫĂĀĂāġĂĀĂĆƫ ƫ0ƫƫ0+0(ƫ+/0ƫ+"ƫĸāĊċąƫ)%((%+*Čƫ3%0$ƫĸĆċćƫ)%((%+*ƫ ((+0! ƫ%*ƫ%/(ƫ!.ƫĂĀĂāċ Recent Accomplishments Q !,%.! ƫ30!.ƫ)%*ƫ0.*/)%//%+*ƫ,%,!(%*!ƫ+*ƫ( ƫ#!ƫ %((ƫ+ ƫ* ƫ%*/0((! ƫ//+%0! ƫ $5 .*0/ƫ* ƫ2(2!/ċ 0!.ƫ%/0.%10%+*ƫ5/0!)ƫ %*ƫ 0!.%(/ MATERIAL TYPE TOTAL LENGTH PERCENT /!/0+/ƫ!)!*0ƫ%,!āăĂċĆĈƫ)%ĆćċĉćŌ +*.!0!ƫ5(%* !.ƫ%,!āćċĉāƫ)%ĈċĂāŌ /0ƫ .+*ƫ%,!ƫĂāċĂĂƫ)%ĊċāĀŌ 10%(!ƫ .+*ƫ%,!ąċĆĊƫ)%āċĊĈŌ +(5!0$5(!*!āąċĈăƫ)%ćċăĂŌ +(52%*5(ƫ$(+.% !ąĂċĆąƫ)%āĉċĂąŌ 0!!(ĀċĈƫ)%ĀċăŌ +0(č Ăăăċāćƫ)%ƫ WATER FUND 520 WATER FUND • ƫƫƫƫ ƫƫĂĀĂāƫƫ ƫ Q +),(!0! ƫ0$!ƫ !/%#*ƫ+"ƫ0$!ƫ 5"%!( ƫ!/!.2+%.ƫ!*0ƫ* ƫ.'ƫ!,%.ƫ,.+&!0ċƫƫ Q +),(!0! ƫ0$!ƫ(ƫ)%*+ƫ!(ƫ1),ƫ00%+*ƫ* ƫ 5"%!( ƫ1),ƫ00%+*ƫ)+ %"%0%+*/ƫ0+ƫ 0$!ƫ/5/0!)ƫ* ƫ+*0.+(ƫ,.+#.)/ƫ0+ƫ%),.+2!ƫ+,!.0%+*(ƫ"(!4%%(%05ƫ* ƫ/5/0!)ƫ.!/%(%!*5ċ Q +),(!0! ƫ0$!ƫ/0! 5ƫ/00!ƫ* ƫ!40!* ! ƫ,!.%+ ƫ/%)1(0%+*ƫ30!.ƫ)+ !(/ƫ0$0ƫ3%((ƫ//%/0ƫ%*ƫ /0+.#!ƫ* ƫ+,!.0%+*(ƫ.!+))!* 0%+*/ċ Q 0.0! ƫ !2!(+,)!*0ƫ+"ƫ0$!ƫ0!.ƫ *"./0.101.!ƫ%/'ƫ* ƫ!/%(%!*!ƫ//!//)!*0ƫ +1)!*0ƫ/ƫ.!-1%.! ƫ5ƫ)!.%Ě/ƫ0!.ƫ *"./0.101.!ƫ0ƫ+"ƫĂĀāĉƫĨ ƫĚāĉĩċƫ ƫęāĉƫ .!-1%.!/ƫ+))1*%05ƫ30!.ƫ/5/0!)/ƫ/!.2%*#ƫăČăĀĀƫ+.ƫ)+.!ƫ,!./+*/ƫ0+ƫ+* 10ƫƫ.%/'ƫ* ƫ .!/%(%!*!ƫ//!//)!*0ƫ* ƫ !2!(+,ƫ*ƫ!)!.#!*5ƫ.!/,+*/!ƫ,(*ƫ0$0ƫ)1/0ƫ!ƫ0%2!(5ƫ 1, 0! ƫ!2!.5ƫ"%2!ƫ5!./ċƫ Q !2!(+,! ƫ0$!ƫ0!/0ƫ,.+! 1.!ƫ"+.ƫ+((!0%*#ƫ 0ƫ0+ƫ!2(10!ƫ0$!ƫ+* %0%+*ƫ+"ƫ+1.ƫ#%*#ƫ /!/0+/ƫ!)!*0ƫ%,!ƫĨĩċƫ$!ƫ0!/0ƫ.!/1(0ƫ%/ƫƫ0++(ƫ0+ƫ$!(,ƫ !0!.)%*!ƫ0$!ƫ(%"!ƫ!4,!0*5ƫ +"ƫ/ċƫƫ 2021-2025 Capital Improvement Program Recurring Projects ƫ0+0(ƫ+"ƫĸāĂċąƫ)%((%+*ƫ%/ƫ,.+#.))! ƫ"+.ƫ5/0!)ƫ ),.+2!)!*0ƫ.!1..%*#ƫ,.+&!0/ƫ 1.%*#ƫ0$!ƫ ĂĀĂāġĂĀĂĆƫ Čƫ3%0$ƫĸăċąƫ)%((%+*ƫ((+0! ƫ%*ƫ%/(ƫ!.ƫĂĀĂāċƫ!1..%*#ƫ,.+&!0/ƫ%*ƫ0$%/ƫ0!#+.5ƫ %*(1 !ƫ0$!ƫ"+((+3%*#č Q 0!.ƫ%/0.%10%+*ƫ5/0!)ƫ ),.+2!)!*0/ƫĨ%/(ƫ!.ƫĂĀĂāčƫĸĀċăƫ)%((%+*ĎƫĆġ!.ƫ čƫĸāċąƫ )%((%+*ĩ Q 0!.ƫ!*!.(ƫ-1%,)!*0ĥ++(/ƫĨ%/(ƫ!.ƫĂĀĂāčƫĸĀċĀĆƫ)%((%+*ĎƫĆġ!.ƫ čƫĸĀċĂĆƫ)%((%+*ĩ Q 0!.Čƫ/Čƫ/0!30!.ƫ0%(%05ƫ ƫ0ƫĨ%/(ƫ!.ƫĂĀĂāčƫĸĀċĆƫ)%((%+*ĎƫĆġ!.ƫ čƫĸĂċĆƫ )%((%+*ĩ Q 0!.ƫ !0!./ƫĨ%/(ƫ!.ƫĂĀĂāčƫĸāċĆƫ)%((%+*ĎƫĆġ!.ƫ čƫĸăċĉƫ)%((%+*ĩ Q 0!.ƫ!.2%!ƫ5 .*0ƫ!,(!)!*0ƫĨ%/(ƫ!.ƫĂĀĂāčƫĸĀċąƫ)%((%+*ĎƫĆġ!.ƫ čƫĸĂċĀƫ)%((%+*ĩ Q 0!.ƫ5/0!)ƫ1,,(5ƫ ),.+2!)!*0/ƫĨ%/(ƫ!.ƫĂĀĂāčƫĸĀċĈƫ)%((%+*ĎƫĆġ!.ƫ čƫĸĂċąƫ)%((%+*ĩ Non-Recurring Projects ƫ0+0(ƫ+"ƫĸćċăƫ)%((%+*ƫ%/ƫ,.+#.))! ƫ"+.ƫ*+*ġ.!1..%*#ƫ,.+&!0/ƫ 1.%*#ƫ0$!ƫĂĀĂāġĂĀĂĆƫ Čƫ3%0$ƫ ĸāċąƫ)%((%+*ƫ((+0! ƫ%*ƫ%/(ƫ!.ƫĂĀĂāċƫ+*ġ.!1..%*#ƫ,.+&!0/ƫ%*ƫ0$%/ƫ0!#+.5ƫ%*(1 !ƫ0$!ƫ"+(ġ (+3%*#č Q 0!.ƫ!5(%*#ƫ%(%0%!/ƫĨ%/(ƫ!.ƫĂĀĂāčƫĸĀċąƫ)%((%+*ĩ Q 0!.ƫ*'ƫ!%/)%ƫ,#. !ƫ* ƫ!$%(%00%+*ƫĨ%/(ƫ!.ƫĂĀĂāčƫĸāċĀƫ)%((%+*ĎƫĆġ5!.ƫ čƫ ĸĆċĊƫ)%((%+*ĩ 0!.ƫ %*ƫ!,(!)!*0/ $!ƫ0!.ƫ %*ƫ!,(!)!*0/ƫ0!#+.5ƫ+1*0/ƫ"+.ƫ0$!ƫ.!,(!)!*0ƫ+"ƫ%* !-10!(5ƫ/%6! ƫ * ƫ/0.101.((5ƫ !"%%!*0ƫ30!.ƫ)%*/ċƫ *ƫ0$!ƫ*!40ƫ"%2!ƫ5!./Čƫ%0ƫ%/ƫ!/0%)0! ƫ0$0ƫ,,.+4%)0!(5ƫ ĆĀČĀĀĀƫ(%*!.ƫ"!!0ƫ+"ƫ30!.ƫ)%*/ƫ3%((ƫ!ƫ.!,(! ċƫ$!ƫ**1(ƫ(%*!.ƫ"!!0ƫ.!,(!)!*0ƫ0+0(/ƫ 3!.!ƫ.! 1! ƫ5ƫ,,.+4%)0!(5ƫĂăŌƫ 1!ƫ0+ƫ/%#*%"%*0ƫ%*.!/!/ƫ%*ƫ(+.ƫ* ƫ)0!.%(ƫ WATER FUND WATER FUND • ƫƫƫƫ ƫƫĂĀĂāƫƫ ƫƫƫƫ521 +/0/ċƫ%05ƫ/0""ƫ$/ƫ,.+,+/! ƫƫ*!3ƫ.!,(!)!*0ƫ/$! 1(!ƫ+"ƫ30!.ƫĒƫ3/0!30!.ƫ+*/0.10%+*ƫ !2!.5ƫ!2!*ƫ5!.ƫ* ƫ#/ƫ+*/0.10%+*ƫ!2!.5ƫ+ ƫ5!.ƫ0+ƫ.! 1!ƫ0$!ƫ)+1*0ƫ+"ƫ+*/0.10%+*ƫ 3$!*ƫ,.%!/ƫ.!ƫ$%#$ƫ* ƫ((+3ƫ/0""ƫ0+ƫ"+1/ƫ+*ƫ+0$!.ƫ,.%+.%0%!/ƫ/1$ƫ/ƫĥ!*%0!ƫ#/ƫ/!.2%!/ƫ .!,(!)!*0Čƫ30!.ƫ0*'ƫ.!,(!)!*0ƫ* ƫ.+//ġ+.!ƫ%*/,!0%+*/ċ *ƫĂĀāĊƫ0$!ƫ**1(ƫ.!,(!)!*0ƫ"++0#!ƫ3/ƫ.! 1! ƫ0+ƫ+),!*/0!ƫ"+.ƫ/+)!ƫ+"ƫ0$!ƫ).'!0ƫ $*#!/ƫ0$0ƫ"+.! ƫƫ.!% ƫ* ƫƫ/%*#(!ƫ% ƫ%*ƫ0$!ƫ,/0ċƫ!% /ƫ* ƫ0$!ƫ.! 10%+*ƫ+"ƫ0+0(ƫ"++0ġ #!ƫ+),(!0! ƫ**1((5ƫ3%((ƫ!40!* ƫ0$!ƫ+2!.((ƫ0%)!ƫ%0ƫ3%((ƫ0'!ƫ0+ƫ+),(!0!ƫ0$!ƫ!*0%.!ƫ/5/0!)ƫ .!,(!)!*0Ďƫ$+3!2!.Čƫƫ.!!*0ƫ/01 5ƫ%* %0! ƫ0$0ƫ0$!ƫ%05ƫ$/ƫ(.! 5ƫ.!,(! ƫ)*5ƫ+"ƫ0$!ƫ )+/0ƫ(!'ġ,.+*!ƫ* ƫ !0!.%+.0! ƫ,%,!/ƫ".+)ƫ0$!ƫ,/0ƫ30!.ƫ)%*ƫ.!,(!)!*0ƫ,.+&!0/ƫāƫ 0$.+1#$ƫĂćċƫ$%/ƫ/01 5ƫ.!+))!* ! ƫ.!,(%*#ƫāăċĆƫ)%(!/ƫ+"ƫ)%*/ƫ3%0$%*ƫ0$!ƫ*!40ƫ ! !Čƫ* ƫ +*"%.)! ƫ0$0ƫ0$!ƫ!2!.5ġ+0$!.ġ5!.ƫ+*/0.10%+*ƫ,.+#.)ƫ3%((ƫ((+3ƫ/0""ƫ0+ƫ.!,(!ƫ0$!/!ƫāăċĆƫ )%(!/ƫ+"ƫ30!.ƫ)%*/ƫ3%0$%*ƫ0$!ƫ*!40ƫāĀƫ5!./ċ Recent Accomplishments Q 0.0! ƫ+*/0.10%+*ƫ+"ƫ0!.ƫ %*ƫ!,(!)!*0ƫ,.+&!0ƫĨ ƫĂĈĩƫ0+ƫ.!,(!ƫ,,.+4%)0!(5ƫ ĆČĀĀĀƫ(%*!.ƫ"!!0ƫ+"ƫ30!.ƫ)%*ƫ,%,!(%*!/ƫ%*ƫ0$!ƫ* ƫ%((ƫ+ ƫ* ƫ1(0+*ƫ0.!!0ƫ.!/ċƫ0. 0! ƫ !/%#*ƫ+"ƫ0$!ƫ.!)%*%*#ƫăĉĀĀƫ(%*!.ƫ"!!0ƫ%*ƫ*ƫ!/!)!*0ƫ+""ƫ+"ƫ* ƫ%((ƫ+ ċƫ 2021-2025 Capital Improvement Program Non-Recurring Projects $!ƫĂĀĂāġĂĀĂĆƫ ƫ%*(1 !/ƫĸĂāċĈƫ)%((%+*ƫ%*ƫ"1* %*#ƫ"+.ƫąƫ*+*ġ.!1..%*#ƫ,.+&!0/ƫ3%0$%*ƫ0$%/ƫ0!ġ #+.5Čƫ3%0$ƫĸăċĀƫ)%((%+*ƫ,,.+,.%0! ƫ"+.ƫ%/(ƫ!.ƫĂĀĂāċƫ$!ƫ0%(%0%!/ƫ!,.0)!*0ƫ++. %*0!/ƫ 3%0$ƫ0$!ƫ1(%ƫ+.'/ƫ!,.0)!*0Ě/ƫ/0.!!0ƫ)%*0!**!ƫ,.+&!0/ƫ0+ƫ)%*%)%6!ƫ )#!ƫ0+ƫ0$!ƫ %05Ě/ƫ,2!)!*0ƫ* ƫ)4%)%6!ƫ+/0ƫ!""%%!*%!/ƫ3$!*ƫ.!,(%*#ƫ30!.ƫ)%*/ċ 1)).5ƫ+"ƫ,%0(ƫ0%2%05 WATER FUND Project Number Project Title FY 2019 Actuals FY 2020 Estimate FY 2021 Proposed FY 2022 FY 2023 FY 2024 FY 2025 5-Year Total Source of Funds Transfer from Other Funds Gas Fund WS-02014 Water Gas Wastewater GIS Data 147,630 152,059 156,621 161,320 166,160 166,160 176,266 826,527 Total Gas Fund Transfers 147,630 152,059 156,621 161,320 166,160 166,160 176,266 826,527 Wastewater Collection Fund WS-02014 Water Gas Wastewater GIS Data 147,630 152,059 156,621 161,320 166,160 166,160 176,266 826,527 Total Wastewater Collection Fund 147,630 152,059 156,621 161,320 166,160 166,160 176,266 826,527 Total Transfer from Other Funds 295,260 304,118 313,242 322,640 332,320 342,286 352,532 1,653,054 WATER FUND 522 WATER FUND • ƫƫƫƫ ƫƫĂĀĂāƫƫ ƫ ƫ Other Revenues WS-80013 Water System, Customer Connections 1,766,050 957,228 1,285,946 1,315,524 1,345,990 1,495,819 1,539,875 6,983,154 Other Revenue Total 1,766,050 957,228 1,285,946 1,315,524 1,345,990 1,495,819 1,539,875 6,983,154 Total Sources 2,061,310 1,261,346 1,599,188 1,638,164 1,678,310 1,838,105 1,892,407 8,646,174 Use of Funds Customer Connections WS-80013 Water System, Customer Connections 851,385 761,424 850,000 877,250 904,595 931,955 960,500 4,524,300 Customer Connections Total 851,385 761,424 850,000 877,250 904,595 931,955 960,500 4,524,300 System Improvements WS-19000 Mayfield Reservoir Subgrade and Venting Repair 0 200,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 WS-11003 Water Distribution System Improvements 148,016 495,741 269,469 277,553 285,880 294,456 305,000 1,432,358 WS-13002 Water General Equipment/Tools 0 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 250,000 WS-02014 Water, Gas, Wastewater Utility GIS Data 178,991 1,066,277 469,862 483,958 498,477 513,431 528,800 2,494,528 WS-80015 Water Meters 122,265 300,000 1,530,450 546,364 562,755 579,638 600,000 3,819,207 WS-07001 Water Recycling Facilities 0 0 395,649 0 0 0 0 395,649 WS-07000 Water Regulation Station Improvements 74,430 0 759,000 0 0 0 0 759,000 WS-08001 Water Reservoir Coating Improvements 90,707 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 WS-80014 Water Service Hydrant Replacement 72,158 449,673 400,000 400,000 400,000 400,000 412,000 2,012,000 WS-11004 Water System Supply Improvements 61,673 263,327 749,469 277,553 285,880 345,131 715,000 2,373,033 WS-09000 Water Tank Seismic Upgrade and Rehabilitation 752,256 5,252,188 951,000 500,000 3,800,000 0 600,000 5,851,000 System Improvements Total 1,500,496 8,077,206 5,574,899 2,535,428 5,882,992 2,182,656 3,210,800 19,386,775 Water Main Replacements WS-12001 Water Main Replacement - Project 26 4,574,968 746,315 0 0 0 0 0 0 WS-13001 Water Main Replacement - Project 27 105,524 4,568,639 2,500,000 0 0 0 0 2,500,000 WS-14001 Water Main Replacement - Project 28 0 80,000 500,000 8,500,000 0 0 0 9,000,000 WS-15002 Water Main Replacement - Project 29 0 0 0 850,000 0 8,500,000 0 9,350,000 WS-16001 Water Main Replacement - Project 30 0 0 0 0 0 850,000 0 850,000 Water Main Replacements Total 4,680,492 5,394,954 3,000,000 9,350,000 0 9,350,000 0 21,700,000 Total Uses 7,032,373 14,233,584 9,424,899 12,762,678 6,787,587 12,464,611 4,171,300 45,611,075 Project Number Project Title FY 2019 Actuals FY 2020 Estimate FY 2021 Proposed FY 2022 FY 2023 FY 2024 FY 2025 5-Year Total