HomeMy WebLinkAbout2016-04-19 Finance Committee Agenda Packet Finance Committee
1
MATERIALS RELATED TO AN ITEM ON THIS AGENDA SUBMITTED TO THE CITY COUNCIL AFTER DISTRIBUTION OF THE AGENDA
PACKET ARE AVAILABLE FOR PUBLIC INSPECTION IN THE CITY CLERK’S OFFICE AT PALO ALTO CITY HALL, 250 HAMILTON AVE.
DURING NORMAL BUSINESS HOURS.
April 19, 2016
Regular Meeting
Community Meeting Room
7:00 PM
Agenda posted according to PAMC Section 2.04.070. Supporting materials are available in
the Council Chambers on the Thursday 10 days preceding the meeting.
PUBLIC COMMENT Members of the public may speak to agendized items. If you wish to address the Committee on any issue that is on
this agenda, please complete a speaker request card located on the table at the entrance to the Council
Chambers/Council Conference Room, and deliver it to the Clerk prior to discussion of the item. You are not required to give your name on the speaker card in order to speak to the Committee, but it is very helpful.
Call to Order
Oral Communications
Members of the public may speak to any item NOT on the agenda.
Action Items
1. Adoption of a Resolution Amending Utility Rate Schedule D-1 (Storm
and Surface Water Drainage) Reflecting a 3.2 Percent Consumer Price
Index Rate Increase to $13.03 Per Month Per Equivalent Residential Unit
for Fiscal Year 2017
2. Utilities Advisory Committee Recommendation That the City Council
Adopt: (1) a Resolution Approving the Fiscal Year 2017 Wastewater
Collection Utility Financial Plan; and (2) a Resolution Increasing
Wastewater Collection Rates by Amending Rate Schedules S-1
(Residential Wastewater Collection and Disposal), S-2 (Commercial
Wastewater Collection and Disposal), S-6 (Restaurant Wastewater
Collection and Disposal) and S-7 (Commercial Wastewater Collection
and Disposal – Industrial Discharger)
3. Utilities Advisory Committee Recommendation That the City Council
Adopt: (1) a Resolution Approving the Fiscal Year 2017 Water Utility
Financial Plan; and (2) a Resolution Increasing Water Rates by
Amending Rate Schedules W-1 (General Residential Water Service), W-
2 (Water Service from Fire Hydrants), W-3 (Fire Service Connections),
W-4 (Residential Master-Metered and General Non-Residential Water
Service), and W-7 (Non-Residential Irrigation Water Service)
2 April 19, 2016
MATERIALS RELATED TO AN ITEM ON THIS AGENDA SUBMITTED TO THE CITY COUNCIL AFTER DISTRIBUTION OF THE AGENDA
PACKET ARE AVAILABLE FOR PUBLIC INSPECTION IN THE CITY CLERK’S OFFICE AT PALO ALTO CITY HALL, 250 HAMILTON AVE.
DURING NORMAL BUSINESS HOURS.
4. Finance Committee Discussion and Recommendation That Council Adopt
(as Part of the Fiscal Year 2017 Annual Budget) a Resolution Amending
the Refuse Rates for Fiscal Year 2017 to Cover Program Costs for Both
the Residential and Commercial Sectors and to Provide a Reduced Cost
for Commercial Compost Collection
Future Meetings and Agendas
Adjournment
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.
Finance Committee Items Tentatively Scheduled
Meeting
Date
Line
No. Item Title Referral
Date
Please see Budget Hearing Calendar for May
6/21/2016 1 3rd Quarter FY2016 Financial Report (ASD)
Finance Committee Items to be Scheduled
Referral
Date
Line
No. Item Title Status
2013 2 Police Services Utilization and Resources Study (Police)
To be
scheduled
in 2016
3
Consideration of stronger encroachment fees for
construction that impact portions or all of a city street or
sidewalk (Public Works)
4
Cubberley Center Master Plan: Additional Information and
a Timeline for the Site (requested by the FC) (City
Manager)
Date Meeting Time/Location Agenda
Mon, 4/25 City Council 6PM, Chambers Transmittal of proposed capital and operating
budgets to Council and forward to Finance
Committee for review and discussion
Tues, 5/3 Finance Committee 6:00 PM,
Chambers
Budget Kickoff; Departments:
1) Council Appointed Officials & Council
2) Office of Sustainability
3) General Liability Fund
4) Human Resources, Employee Benefits Funds
4a) Retiree Health Benefit Fund
5) Information Technology (Operating and
Capital)
6) ASD/Printing & Mailing Fund
7) Non‐departmental
Thurs, 5/5 Finance Committee
Special Meeting
6:00 PM,
Chambers
1) Fire
2) Police
3) Office of Emergency Services
Tues, 5/10 Finance Committee
Special Meeting
6:00 PM,
Chambers
1) Community Services
2) Library
3) Planning
4) Development Services
5) Special Revenue Funds (including Parking
District & Stanford Development Agreement
Fund)
Thurs, 5/12 Finance Committee
Special Meeting
6:00 PM,
Chambers
1) Municipal Fee Schedule
2) Public Works: General Fund, Storm Drain,
Refuse, Wastewater Treatment, Airport, Vehicle
Replacement, related capital
Tues, 5/17 Finance Committee 7:00 PM,
Chambers
1) Utilities (capital & operating)
2) General Fund Capital
Thurs, 5/19 Finance Committee
Special Meeting
6:00 PM,
Chambers
Hold for additional discussion, if needed
Wed, 5/25 Finance Committee 6:00 PM,
Chambers
1) Wrap up with Finance Committee
Mon, 6/13 City Council 6:00 PM,
Chambers
Public Hearing ‐ Budget
Mon, 6/20 City Council 6:00 PM,
Chambers
Public Hearing ‐ Budget Adoption
City of Palo Alto
Council & Finance Committee Budget Hearings
Fiscal Year 2017 Budget Process
Please note that Agenda items may be advanced or delayed based on the number of budget proposals and/or
other discussion items.
Copy of FY 2017 calendars v3 4/4/2016
City of Palo Alto (ID # 6657)
Finance Committee Staff Report
Report Type: Action Items Meeting Date: 4/19/2016
City of Palo Alto Page 1
Council Priority: City Finances
Summary Title: Storm Drain Fee Increase for FY2017
Title: Adoption of a Resolution Amending Utility Rate Schedule D -1 (Storm
and Surface Water Drainage) Reflecting a 3.2 Percent Consumer Price Index
Rate Increase to $13.03 Per Month Per Equivalent Residential Unit for Fiscal
Year 2017
From: City Manager
Lead Department: Public Works
Recommendation
Staff recommends that the Finance Committee recommend that Council adopt
the attached resolution (Attachment A) amending Utility Rate Schedule D-1
(Storm and Surface Water Drainage), to implement a 3.2% rate increase
consistent with the applicable Consumer Price Index – Urban Consumers,
increasing the monthly charge per Equivalent Residential Unit by $0.40, from
$12.63 to $13.03 for Fiscal Year 2017.
Background
On April 26, 2005, a majority of Palo Alto property owners approved a ballot
measure authorizing an increase in the monthly Storm Drainage Fee to fund
storm drain capital improvements and augmented maintenance. Council certified
the results of the ballot proceeding on May 9, 2005. The approved ballot
measure contained an annual fee escalator clause that permits the Council to
raise the Storm Drainage Fee each year to account for inflationary cost increases.
Specifically, the ballot measure stated:
City of Palo Alto Page 2
“In order to offset the effects of inflation on labor and material costs, the
proposed fee increase would be subject to annual increases beyond the initial
$10.00 per Equivalent Residential Unit (ERU) rate as of July 1 of each year, starting
in 2006. Inflation adjustments would be based on the lesser of the local rate of
inflation (based on the change in the Consumer Price Index [CPI-U] for the San
Francisco-Oakland-San Jose CMSA, published by the United States Department of
Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics) or 6 percent. The City Council would have the
authority and discretion to implement inflation adjustments on an annual basis as
part of the City budget process.”
On May 9, 2005, Council adopted a resolution increasing the Storm Drainage rate
schedule to $10.00 per month per ERU, effective June 1, 2005. The Council
approved rate for FY 2016 is $12.63 per month per ERU.
Discussion
Staff has determined from Bureau of Labor Statistics records that the CPI-U for
the San Francisco-Oakland-San Jose CMSA increased by 3.2% between December
2014 and December 2015. As the CPI-U rate is substantially lower than 6%,
consistent with the ballot measure, staff recommends that the Storm Drainage
Fee be increased by the CPI-U in order to keep fund revenues consistent with
general cost increases and to provide sufficient funds for planned storm drain
capital expenditures. In particular, the increased revenue is needed to cover
construction costs for the remaining storm drain capital improvement projects.
Approval of the rate increase will help to ensure that staff can complete all seven
of the capital projects specified in the 2005 ballot measure before the fee
increase sunsets in June 2017. A table summarizing projected rate increases for
all of the City’s utilities for the period of FY 2017 through FY 2021 is attached for
reference (Attachment B). In order to enact the Storm Drainage Fee increase,
Council must adopt the attached resolution amending Utility Rate Schedule D-1
(Storm and Surface Water Drainage). The new rate for the Storm Drainage Fee
will be $13.03 per month per ERU. Single-family residential properties are billed a
monthly amount based on parcel size, in accordance with the following table:
City of Palo Alto Page 3
RESIDENTIAL RATES (Single-Family Residential Properties)
PARCEL SIZE (sq. ft.) ERU FY2016 RATE FY2017 RATE
< 6,000 sq. ft. 0.8 ERU $10.11/month $10.43/month
6,000-11,000 sq. ft. 1.0 ERU $12.63/month $13.03/month
> 11,000 sq. ft. 1.4 ERU $17.68/month $18.25/month
Commercial, industrial, institutional, and multi-family residential properties are
billed on a monthly basis at a rate of 1.0 ERU for each 2,500 square feet of
impervious surface on the parcel.
Resource Impact
The 3.2 percent increase in rates is expected to increase annual revenue to the
Storm Drainage Fund by approximately $194,000 and, if recommended, will be
included in the Public Works Department Storm Drainage Fund FY 2017 proposed
operating budget. When the storm drain rates approved by property owners via
the 2005 ballot measure sunset on June 1, 2017, rates will revert to $4.25 per
month per ERU unless higher rates are approved through a new ballot measure
process. Staff has been working with a city manager-appointed blue ribbon
committee of Palo Alto residents to develop the scope and timing of a storm drain
ballot measure to be presented to property owners later this year.
Timeline
The Storm Drainage Fee increase will take effect on July 1, 2016. Storm drain
rates will revert to $4.25 per month per ERU on June 1, 2017 unless higher rates
are approved through a new ballot measure process.
Environmental Review
Adoption of changes to utility rate schedules does not represent a project under
the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
Courtesy Copies
Storm Drain Oversight Committee
Palo Alto Chamber of Commerce
Attachments:
A - Resolution Amending Utility Rate Schedule D-1 (Storm and Surface Water Drainage)
(PDF)
City of Palo Alto Page 4
B - Overview of Projected City of Palo Alto Utility Rate Increases (PDF)
NOT YET APPROVED
1
160229 sh 0140157
Resolution No. ______
Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending Utility Rate
Schedule D-1 (Storm and Surface Water Drainage) to Increase Storm
Drain Rates by 3.2% Per Month Per Equivalent Residential Unit for
Fiscal Year 2017
The Council of the City of Palo Alto RESOLVES, as follows:
SECTION 1. Pursuant to Section 12.20.010 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code, Utility
Rate Schedule D-1 (Storm and Surface Water Drainage) is hereby amended to read in
accordance with sheet D-1-1, attached hereto and incorporated herein. The foregoing Utility
Rate Schedule, as amended, shall become effective July 1, 2016.
SECTION 2. The Council finds that this rate increase is being imposed to offset the
effects of inflation on labor and material costs pursuant to the annual inflationary fee escalator
provision of the Storm Drainage Fee ballot measure, which was approved by a majority of Palo
Alto property owners on April 26, 2005.
SECTION 3. The Council finds that the revenue derived from the authorized
adoption enumerated herein shall be used only for the purpose set forth in Article VII, Section
2, of the Charter of the City of Palo Alto.
//
//
//
//
//
//
//
//
//
//
//
NOT YET APPROVED
2
160229 sh 0140157
SECTION 4. The Council finds that modification and approval of this change to the
Utility Rate Schedule D-1 (Storm and Surface Water Drainage) for the purpose of meeting
operating expenses is statutorily exempt from California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)
review, pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 15273(a).
INTRODUCED AND PASSED:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTENTIONS:
ATTEST:
__________________________ _____________________________
City Clerk Mayor
APPROVED AS TO FORM: APPROVED:
___________________________ _____________________________
City Attorney City Manager
_____________________________
Director of Public Works
_____________________________
Director of Administrative
Services
GENERAL STORM AND SURFACE WATER DRAINAGE
UTILITY RATE SCHEDULE D-1
CITY OF PALO ALTO UTILITIES
Issued by the City Council
Effective 7-1-2016
Supersedes Sheet No.D-1-1 dated 7-1-2015 Sheet No. D-1-1
A. APPLICABILITY:
This schedule applies to all storm and surface water drainage service, excepting only those
users and to the extent that they are constitutionally exempt under the Constitution of the
State of California or who are determined to be exempt pursuant to Rule and Regulation 25. B. TERRITORY:
Inside the incorporated limits of the city of Palo Alto and land owned or leased by the city.
C. RATES: Per Month:
Storm Drainage Fee per Equivalent Residential Unit (ERU) ........................................................ $13.03
D. SPECIAL NOTES:
1. An Equivalent Residential Unit (ERU) is the basic unit for computation of storm
drainage fees for residential and non-residential customers. All single-family residential
properties shall be billed the number of ERUs specified in the following table, based on
an analysis of the relationship between impervious area and lot size for Palo Alto
properties.
RESIDENTIAL RATES (Single-Family Residential Properties
PARCEL SIZE (sq.ft.) ERU
<6,000 sq.ft. 0.8 ERU
6,000 - 11,000 sq.ft. 1.0 ERU
>11,000 sq.ft. 1.4 ERU
All other properties will have ERU's computed to the nearest 1/10 ERU using the
following formula:
No. of ERU = Impervious Area (Sq. Ft.)
2,500 Sq. Ft. 2. For more details on the storm drainage fee, refer to Utilities Rule and Regulation 25.
{End}
Attachment B
Rate Adjustments for All Utilities: FY 2017 Proposed, FY 2018 to FY 2021 Projected
Utility FY 2017 FY 2018 FY 2019 FY 2020 FY 2021
Electric Utility 11% 10% 2% 0% 1%
Gas Utility 8% 9% 7% 1% 1%
Wastewater 9% 10% 9% 7% 6%
Water Utility 6% 9% 9% 6% 2%
Refuse1 9% 8% 5% 3% 3%
Storm Drain 3.2% 2% to 3% 2% to 3% 2% to 3% 2% to 3%
Bill Change (%) 8% 9% 6% 4% 2%
($/mo) $20.80 $23.45 $18.49 $11.16 $7.77
City of Palo Alto (ID # 6690)
Finance Committee Staff Report
Report Type: Action Items Meeting Date: 4/19/2016
City of Palo Alto Page 1
Summary Title: FY 2017 Wastewater Financial Plan and Rate Proposals
Title: Utilities Advisory Committee Recommendation that the City Council
Adopt: (1) a Resolution Approving the Fiscal Year 2017 Wastewater Collection
Utility Financial Plan; and (2) a Resolution Increasing Wastewater Collection
Rates by Amending Rate Schedules S-1 (Residential Wastewater Collection
and Disposal), S-2 (Commercial Wastewater Collection and Disposal), S-6
(Restaurant Wastewater Collection and Disposal) and S-7 (Commercial
Wastewater Collection and Disposal – Industrial Discharger)
From: City Manager
Lead Department: Utilities
Recommendation
Staff and the Utilities Advisory Commission (UAC) recommend that the Finance Committee
recommend that the City Council:
1. Adopt a resolution (Attachment A) approving the fiscal year (FY) 2017 Wastewater
Collection Financial Plan (Attachment B); and
2. Adopt a resolution (Attachment C) increasing wastewater rates by amending Rate
Schedules S-1 (Residential Wastewater Collection and Disposal), S-2 (Commercial
Wastewater Collection and Disposal), S-6 (Restaurant Wastewater Collection and
Disposal) and S-7 (Commercial Wastewater Collection and Disposal – Industrial
Discharger) (Attachment D).
Executive Summary
The FY 2017 Wastewater Collection Utility Financial Plan includes projections of the utility’s
costs and revenues through FY 2026. Expenses have been higher than revenues for several
years, depleting reserves. In addition, costs are projected to rise substantially for the next
several years due primarily to increasing treatment costs. As a result, staff recommends a 9%
wastewater rate increase in FY 2017 and forecasts the need for rate increases ranging from 6%
to 10% through FY 2021. Rates for FY 2022 and beyond are projected to increase by 4%
annually.
City of Palo Alto Page 2
The UAC reviewed the FY 2017 Wastewater Collection Financial Plan and proposed rates at its
meeting on March 2, 2016 and unanimously recommended that Council approve staff’s
recommendations.
Background
Every year staff presents Financial Plans for its Electric, Gas, Water, and Wastewater Collection
Utilities and recommends any rate adjustments required to maintain their financial health.
These Financial Plans include a comprehensive overview of the utility’s operations, both
retrospective and prospective, and are intended to be a reference for UAC, Finance Committee
and Council members as they review the budget and staff’s rate recommendations. Each
Financial Plan also contains a set of Reserves Management Practices describing the financial
reserves for each utility and the management practices for those reserves.
The Finance Committee reviewed preliminary financial forecasts and rate projections for the
four Utilities funds at its March 1, 2016 meeting.
Discussion
Staff’s annual assessment of the financial position of the City’s Wastewater Collection Utility is
completed to ensure adequate revenue to fund operations in compliance with the cost of
service requirements set forth in the California Constitution (Proposition 218). This includes
making long-term projections of market conditions, the physical condition of the system, and
other factors that could affect utility costs, and projecting revenues and retail rates adequate to
recover these costs. The recommended rate adjustments are based on the methodology
described in the 2011 Wastewater Collection Utility cost of Service and Rate Study completed
by Utility Financial Solutions (Staff Report 1399).
Proposed Actions for FY 2016
1. Increase to $3.95 million the Transfer from the Rate Stabilization Reserve to the
Operations Reserve ($2 million was proposed in the FY2016 Financial Plan).
Proposed Actions for FY 2017
1. Transfer the remaining $394,000 from the Rate Stabilization Reserve to the Operations
Reserve.
These proposed actions are described in more detail in the FY 2017 Wastewater Collection
Financial Plan (Attachment B). These transfers will enable staff to maintain adequate
Operations Reserve levels while spreading the required rate increases for the wastewater
collection utility over several years.
Staff proposes to increase wastewater rates, as shown in Table 1 below, effective July 1, 2016.
The adjustments will increase the system average rate by roughly 9%. These rate changes are
included in the amended rate schedules (Attachment D).
City of Palo Alto Page 3
Table 1: Current and Proposed Wastewater Collection Charges
Current
(7/1/2015)
Proposed
(7/1/2016)
Change
$/mo. %
Monthly Service and Minimum Charges ($/month) 1
S-1 (Residential) Service charge $31.95 $34.83 $2.88 9%
S-2 (Commercial),
S-6 (Restaurant)
Minimum
charge
31.95 34.83 $2.88 9%
Quantity Rates
S-1 (Residential) $/CCF N/A N/A - -
S-2 (Commercial) $/CCF 6.16 6.71 0.55 9%
S-6 (Restaurant) $/CCF 9.52 10.38 0.86 9%
S-7 (Industrial) 2 $/CCF 2.83 3.08 0.25 9%
1 Monthly charges for S-1 are fixed monthly charges, and those for S-2 and S-6 are
minimum monthly charges.
2 Currently there are no customers on the S7 rate schedule; however, CPAU continues
to maintain it in case there is a need for the rate schedule in the future.
Actual Rate Adjustments for the Last Five Fiscal Years
Table 2 shows the actual rate adjustments implemented, the residential bill, and the impact on
the residential bill over the last five fiscal years.
Table 2: Actual Rate Adjustments and Residential Bill Impact, FY 2012 to FY 2016
FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016
Wastewater Utility Rate Change 0% 1 5% 0% 0% 9%
Residential Bill $27.91 $29.31 $29.31 $29.31 $31.95
Estimated Bill Impact for
Residential Customers ($/mo) $3.26 $1.40 $0 $0 $2.64
1 Overall revenue neutral rate change implemented in FY 2012, but changes included
a cost of service alignment resulting in a 13% residential bill increase.
FY 2017 Financial Plan’s Projected Rate Adjustments for the Next Five Fiscal Years
Table 3 shows the projected rate adjustments included in the Wastewater Collection Utility
Financial Plans and their impact on a residential wastewater bill.
Table 3: Projected Rate Adjustments and Residential Bill Impact, FY 2017 to FY 2021
FY 2017 FY 2018 FY 2019 FY 2020 FY 2021
Wastewater Utility 9% 10% 9% 7% 6%
Estimated Bill Impact for
Residential Customers ($/mo) $2.88 $3.48 $3.45 $2.92 $2.68
The main drivers for the increase in the Wastewater Collection Utility’s costs (and therefore
rates) over the next several years are the costs for wastewater treatment, which are projected
to go up by 6% to 7% per year as the Regional Water Quality Control Plant makes several facility
City of Palo Alto Page 4
upgrades, as well as capital improvement costs for the wastewater collection system.
Operating and CIP costs are projected to rise roughly 2%-4% annually.
There is uncertainty related to capital costs for the Wastewater Collection Utility in coming
years. Wastewater main replacement costs have risen substantially in recent years, and it is
possible higher CIP expenditures will be required in the future. Staff plans to perform an
updated master plan for the wastewater collection system, and expects better information
about future main replacement costs when that plan is completed. Staff does not anticipate
this study to commence until sometime in 2016.
Wastewater Bill Comparison with Surrounding Cities
The annual sewer bill for a Palo Alto resident is $383 under current rates, 32% lower than the
average neighboring community. Table 4 shows the monthly sewer bills for residential
customers compared to what they would be in surrounding communities.
Table 4: Residential Monthly Sewer Bill Comparison (based on rates as of February 1, 2016)
Palo Alto
Neighboring Communities Neighboring
Community
Average
Menlo
Park
Redwood
City
Mountain
View Los Altos
Santa
Clara Hayward
31.95 81.08 74.95 28.80 32.01 37.94 28.93 47.29
If the proposed wastewater rate change is adopted by Council, and assuming other agencies do
not change their sewer rates, Palo Alto would be 26% lower than the average neighboring
community. Staff has no information at this time as to whether or when the surrounding
communities are planning wastewater rate changes.
Changes from Prior Financial Forecasts
For the last several years, staff has projected wastewater rate increases for FY 2017 through FY
2019. Table 5 compares current long-term rate projections to those projected in the last two
year’s Financial Plans. As shown, the FY 2017 rate projections are the same as projected last
year. In the FY 2015 Financial Plan, the rate increase projections were lower than current
projections, but the FY 2017 projections reflect current information available regarding the cost
of capital improvements at the Regional Water Quality Control Plant.
Table 5: Projected Wastewater Rate Trajectory for FY 2017 to FY 2026
Projection FY
2017
FY
2018
FY
2019
FY
2020
FY
2021
FY
2022
FY
2023
FY
2024
FY
2025
FY
2026
Current
(FY 2017 Financial Plan) 9% 10% 9% 7% 6% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4%
Last year
(FY 2016 Financial Plan) 9% 9% 9% 6% 6% N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Two years ago
(FY 2015 Financial Plan) 7% 7% 7% N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
City of Palo Alto Page 5
Commission Review and Recommendation
The UAC reviewed the staff proposal at its March 1, 2016 meeting. When the UAC reviewed the
preliminary financial forecasts at its February 3, 2016 meeting, the UAC requested a more in
depth discussion of treatment costs as these are a major cost driver in the wastewater
collection utility. Jamie Allen, Manager of the Regional Water Quality Control Plant, described
the components of the treatment plant costs that are passed on the plant partners, including
Palo Alto. He explained that treatment plan operations costs are expected to grow at the same
rate they have for the last 5 years—about 5.5% per year—and that CIP costs grow at the rate of
inflation, about 2.6% per year. Debt service for major CIP projects is for planned plant upgrades
and is expected to increase from about $500,000 per year to $2 million per year in FY 2019
when the dewatering and sludge haul-off facility will be built allowing the destruction of the
incinerator.
Much discussion centered on the fact that Wastewater Collection Utility expenses were
abnormally low for FY 2014 (due to a hiatus in new funding for CIP expenses to allow staff to
catch up with CIP projects in process) and FY 2015 (due to a one-time change in accounting for
allocated charges). Staff explained that despite costs increasing at about 4.5% per year from FY
2016 to FY 2021, rate increases of 9%, 10%, 9%, 7% and 6% were required for each of these
years. Staff provided a detailed discussion of the cost drivers, reserve levels, and actual
revenues and expenses over the last five years, demonstrating hat, excluding the two
anomalous years of FY 2014 and FY 2015, costs have risen over time and rate increases have
been able to be deferred while financial reserves were drawn down to cover the difference
between revenues and expenses. However, at this point, rates must rise so that revenues begin
to catch up with projected expenses. The UAC noted that the public has been largely insulated
from the increasing costs as reserves have cushioned the impact.
The UAC voted to recommend that Council adopt resolutions to approve the proposed
Wastewater Collection Financial Plan and to increase wastewater rates by amending Rate
Schedules S-1, S-2, S-6 and S-7 as proposed. The vote was unanimous (5-0) with Chair Foster,
Commissioners Ballantine, Danaher, Eglash, and Schwartz voting yes and Vice Chair Cook and
Commissioner Hall absent. The draft excerpted minutes from the UAC’s March 2, 2016 meeting
are provided as Attachment E.
Timeline
Assuming the Finance Committee supports the proposed rate adjustments, notification of the
potential rate increases will be sent to customers as required by Article XIIID of the State
Constitution (added by Proposition 218). The proposed Financial Plans and amended rate
schedules will be considered by the City Council with the FY 2017 budget, at which time the
public hearing required by Article XIIID of the State Constitution will be held. All residents and
other interested persons may submit written or oral testimony at the hearing, and may also
submit written protests to any or all of the proposed rate increases. Council may adopt the
proposed rates unless written protests are filed by a majority of the affected customers.
City of Palo Alto Page 6
Resource Impact
Normal year revenues for the Wastewater Collection Utility are projected to increase by
roughly 9% ($1.45 million) in FY 2017 as a result of the proposed rate increases. See the FY 2017
Wastewater Collection Utility Financial Plan (Attachment B) for a more comprehensive
overview of projected cost and revenue changes for the next ten years.
Policy Implications
The proposed water rate adjustments are consistent with Council-adopted Reserve
Management Practices that are part of the Financial Plans and are developed using a cost of
service study and methodology that is consistent with the cost of service requirements of
Proposition 218.
Environmental Review
The Finance Committee’s review and recommendation to Council on the proposed FY 2017
Wastewater Collection Financial Plan and rate adjustments do not meet the definition of a
project, pursuant to Section 21065 of the California Environmental Quality Act, thus no
environmental review is required.
Attachments:
Attachment A: Resolution Approving the FY 2017 Wastewater Collection Financial Plan
(PDF)
Attachment B: Proposed FY 2017 Wastewater Collection Utility Financial Plan (PDF)
Attachment C: Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Adopted a Wastewater
Collection Rate Increase and Amending Rate Schedules S-1, S-2, S-6 and S-7 (PDF)
Attachment D: Proposed Amendments to Rate Schedules S-1, S-2, S-6 and S-7, effective
7-1-2016 (PDF)
Attachment E: Excerpted UAC Minutes of March 2, 2016 (PDF)
Attachment A
* NOT YET APPROVED *
Resolution No. _________
Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Approving the
FY 2016 Wastewater Utility Financial Plan
R E C I T A L S
A. Each year the City of Palo Alto (“City”) assesses the financial position of its
utilities with the goal of ensuring adequate revenue to fund operations. This includes making
long-term projections of market conditions, the physical condition of the system, and other
factors that could affect utility costs, and setting rates adequate to recover these costs. It does
this with the goal of providing safe, reliable, and sustainable utility services at competitive
rates. The City adopts Financial Plans to summarize these projections.
B. The City uses reserves to protect against contingencies and to manage other
aspects of its operations, and regularly assesses the adequacy of these reserves and the
management practices governing their operation. The status of utility reserves and their
management practices are included in Reserves Management Practices attached to and made a
part of the Financial Plans.
The Council of the City of Palo Alto does hereby RESOLVE as follows:
SECTION 1. The Council hereby approves the FY 2017 Wastewater Utility Financial
Plan.
SECTION 2. The Council hereby approves the transfer of $3.95 million in FY 2016 from
the Rate Stabilization Reserve to the Operations Reserve, as described in the FY 2017
Wastewater Utility Financial Plan approved via this resolution.
/ /
/ /
/ /
/ /
/ /
/ /
160322 sdl 6053686
Attachment A
* NOT YET APPROVED *
SECTION 3. The Council finds that the adoption of this resolution does not meet the
California Environmental Quality Act’s definition of a project under Public Resources Code
Section 21065, and therefore, no environmental assessment is required.
INTRODUCED AND PASSED:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTENTIONS:
ATTEST:
___________________________ ___________________________
City Clerk Mayor
APPROVED AS TO FORM: APPROVED:
___________________________ ___________________________
Senior Deputy City Attorney City Manager
___________________________
Director of Utilities
___________________________
Director of Administrative Services
160322 sdl 6053686
FY 2017 WASTEWATER
COLLECTION UTILITY
FINANCIAL PLAN
FY 2017 TO FY 2026
ATTACHMENT B
WASTEWATER COLLECTION UTILITY FINANCIAL PLAN
F e b r u a r y 2 0 1 6 2 | P a g e
FY 2017 WASTEWATER COLLECTION
UTILITY FINANCIAL PLAN
FY 2017 TO FY 2026
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section 1: Definitions and Abbreviations................................................................................ 4
Section 2: Executive Summary and Recommendations ........................................................... 4
Section 2A: Overview of Financial Position .................................................................................. 4
Section 2B: Summary of Proposed Actions .................................................................................. 5
Section 3: Detail of FY 2017 Rate and Reserves Proposals ....................................................... 5
Section 3A: Rate Design ............................................................................................................... 5
Section 3B: Current and Proposed Rates ..................................................................................... 6
Section 3C: Bill Impact of Proposed Rate Changes ...................................................................... 7
Section 3D: Proposed Reserve Transfers ..................................................................................... 7
Section 4: Utility Overview .................................................................................................... 7
Section 4A: Wastewater Utility History ....................................................................................... 7
Section 4B: customer base ........................................................................................................... 8
Section 4C: Collection System ...................................................................................................... 9
Section 4D: Cost Structure and Revenue Sources ........................................................................ 9
Section 4E: Reserves Structure ................................................................................................... 10
Section 4F: Competitiveness ...................................................................................................... 11
Section 5: Utility Financial Projections ................................................................................. 11
Section 5A: FY 2011 to FY 2015 Cost and Revenue Trends ........................................................ 11
Section 5B: FY 2015 Results ....................................................................................................... 12
Section 5C: FY 2016 Projections ................................................................................................. 13
Section 5D: FY 2017 – FY 2026 Projections ................................................................................ 13
Section 5E: Risk Assessment and Reserves Adequacy ............................................................... 14
WASTEWATER COLLECTION UTILITY FINANCIAL PLAN
F e b r u a r y 2 0 1 6 3 | P a g e
Section 5F: Alternate Scenarios ................................................................................................. 16
Section 5G: Long-Term Outlook ................................................................................................. 18
Section 6: Details and Assumptions ..................................................................................... 18
Section 6A: Wastewater Treatment Costs ................................................................................. 18
Section 6B: Operations .............................................................................................................. 18
Section 6C: Capital Improvement Program (CIP) ....................................................................... 19
Section 6D: Debt Service ............................................................................................................ 21
Section 6E: Other Revenues ....................................................................................................... 22
Section 7: Communications Plan .......................................................................................... 22
Appendices ......................................................................................................................... 23
Appendix A: Wastewater Collection Financial Forecast Detail .................................................. 24
Appendix B: Wastewater Collection Utility Capital Improvement Program (CIP) Detail .......... 25
Appendix C: Wastewater Collection Utility Reserves Management Practices .......................... 26
Appendix D: Sample of Wastewater Collection Outreach Materials......................................... 29
WASTEWATER COLLECTION UTILITY FINANCIAL PLAN
F e b r u a r y 2 0 1 6 4 | P a g e
SECTION 1: DEFINITIONS AND ABBREVIATIONS
CCF The standard unit of measurement for water delivered to water customers, equal to
one hundred cubic feet, or roughly 748 gallons. When water usage is used to assess
wastewater charges for commercial customers, it is measured in CCF.
CIP Capital Improvement Program
CPAU City of Palo Alto Utilities Department
FOG Fats, oils, and grease. When flushed into the sewer system, these materials
accumulate in parts of the sewer system and create blockages.
O&M Operations and Maintenance
RWQCP Regional Water Quality Control Plant, the wastewater treatment plant owned and
operated by the City of Palo Alto that serves Palo Alto and several surrounding
communities.
UAC Utilities Advisory Commission
SECTION 2: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS
This document presents a Financial Plan for the City of Palo Alto’s Wastewater Collection Utility
for the next ten years. It provides revenues to cover the costs of operating the utility safely
over that time while adequately investing for the future. It also addresses the financial risks
facing the utility over the short term and long term, and includes measures to mitigate and
manage those risks.
SECTION 2A: OVERVIEW OF FINANCIAL POSITION
Overall costs in the Wastewater Collection Utility are expected to rise by about 5% per year
from fiscal year (FY) 2016 to FY 2026. The primary driver is wastewater treatment costs, which
are projected to rise by 7% in FY 2017 and 6% per year thereafter, with other costs rising at
roughly 3% to 4% per year. The costs for the Wastewater Collection Utility are shown in Table 1
below.
Table 1: Expenses for FY 2015 to FY 2026
Expenses
($000)
FY
2015
(act.)
FY
2016
FY
2017
FY
2018
FY
2019
FY
2020
FY
2021
FY
2022
FY
2023
FY
2024
FY
2025
FY
2026
Treatment
Costs 8,589 9,012 9,855 10,446 11,073 11,737 12,442 13,188 13,980 14,818 15,707 16,650
Operations 3,684 6,044 6,261 6,466 6,670 6,881 7,097 7,320 7,795 7,904 8,150 8,404
Capital
Projects 4,067 4,985 4,852 4,996 5,144 5,297 5,455 5,617 5,784 5,955 6,132 6,315
TOTAL 16,340 20,041 20,968 21,908 22,887 23,916 24,993 26,125 27,558 28,678 29,990 31,368
Expenses continue to be higher than revenues, and the Rate Stabilization Reserve has been
drawn down in lieu of having larger rate increases. To ensure that revenues cover these rising
costs and reserves remain healthy, the financial plan includes the rate trajectory shown in Table
WASTEWATER COLLECTION UTILITY FINANCIAL PLAN
F e b r u a r y 2 0 1 6 5 | P a g e
2. The table also shows rate projections from last year’s Financial Plan. Note that the rate
increase for FY 2017 is the same as projected in the FY 2016 Financial Plan.
Table 2: Projected Wastewater Collection Rate Trajectory for FY 2017 to FY 2026
FY
2017
FY
2018
FY
2019
FY
2020
FY
2021
FY
2022
FY
2023
FY
2024
FY
2025
FY
2026
Current Plan 9% 10% 9% 7% 6% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4%
FY 2016 Plan 9% 9% 9% 6% 6% N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
The FY 2016 Financial Plan projected that reserves would fall nearly to the minimum reserve
levels. However, as costs are increasing faster than projected last year, higher rate increases are
required to keep pace.
The Wastewater Collection Utility’s Rate Stabilization Reserve is being used to spread the
projected cost increases over several years. The FY 2016 Financial Plan proposed a $2 million
transfer from the Rate Stabilization Reserve, but staff recommends increasing this to $3.95
million. This Financial Plan projects that the Rate Stabilization Reserve will be exhausted by FY
2017.
Table 3: Transfers To/(From) Reserves for FY 2016 to FY 2026 ($000)
Reserve FY 2016 FY 2017 FY 2018 to FY 2026
Rate Stabilization (3,950) (342) -
Operations 3,950 342 -
SECTION 2B: SUMMARY OF PROPOSED ACTIONS
Staff proposes the following actions for the Wastewater Collection Utility in FY 2016:
1. Transfer $3.95 million from the Rate Stabilization Reserve to the Operations Reserve.
See Section 3D: Proposed Reserve Transfers for more details.
Staff proposes the following actions for the Wastewater Collection Utility in FY 2017:
1. Increase the Wastewater Collection rates as shown in Section 3B: Current and Proposed
Rates. The changes are projected to increase average system revenues by 9% effective
July 1, 2016.
2. Transfer $342,000 from the Rate Stabilization Reserve to the Operations Reserve. See
Section 3D: Proposed Reserve Transfers for more details.
SECTION 3: DETAIL OF FY 2017 RATE AND RESERVES PROPOSALS
SECTION 3A: RATE DESIGN
The Wastewater Collection Utility’s rates are evaluated and implemented in compliance with
the cost of service requirements and procedural rules set forth in the California Constitution
(Proposition 218). Current rates were structured based on staff’s annual assessment of the
wastewater utility’s financial position, as well as the methodology from the January 2011
WASTEWATER COLLECTION UTILITY FINANCIAL PLAN
F e b r u a r y 2 0 1 6 6 | P a g e
Wastewater Collection Utility Cost of Service & Rate Study completed by Utility Financial
Solutions (Staff Report 1399). Staff plans to review and update this cost of service study in 2 to
3 years, unless any major changes occur to the utility’s operations or customer base that would
necessitate an earlier study. Before conducting any new cost of service study, staff will review
current rates and the scope of the study with the Utilities Advisory Commission (UAC) and
Council to determine the City’s policy priorities.
SECTION 3B: CURRENT AND PROPOSED RATES
The current rates were adopted July 1, 2015, when the City increased sewer rates by 9%.
CPAU’s sewer rates for commercial customers are based on the previous winter’s water use.
This closely approximates non-irrigation water consumption, which represents actual sewer use.
CPAU has three sewer rate schedules: one for residents (S-1), one for commercial customers
(S-2), and a special schedule for restaurants (S-6), which discharge higher than average amounts
of grease and oil and, therefore, have a greater impact on the sewer system. Residential
customers are billed a monthly service charge, while commercial customers are billed based on
their dry month water usage (January through March). Restaurant customers are billed monthly
based on water usage. CPAU also maintains a rate schedule for industrial dischargers (S-7), but
there are currently no customers required to be on this rate schedule.
Table 4, below, summarizes the current and proposed rates for all customer classes.
Comparisons with neighboring communities are discussed in Section 4F: Competitiveness.
Table 4: Sewer Rates (Current and Proposed)
Current
(7/1/2015)
Proposed
(7/1/2016)
Change
$/mo. %
Monthly Service and Minimum Charges ($/month)
S-1 (Residential) Service charge $31.95 $34.83 $2.88 9%
S-2 (Commercial),
S-6 (Restaurant)
Minimum $31.95 $34.83 $2.88 9%
Quantity Rates: based on winter water usage (average for January - March bill
period)
S-2 (Commercial) $/CCF 6.16 6.71 0.55 9%
S-6 (Restaurant) $/CCF 9.52 10.38 0.86 9%
S-7 (Industrial) $/CCF 2.83 3.08 0.25 9%
WASTEWATER COLLECTION UTILITY FINANCIAL PLAN
F e b r u a r y 2 0 1 6 7 | P a g e
SECTION 3C: BILL IMPACT OF PROPOSED RATE CHANGES
Table 5 below shows the impact of the proposed July 1, 2016 rate changes.
Table 5: Impact of Proposed Sewer Changes
Current
(7/1/2015)
Proposed
(7/1/2016)
Change
$/mo. %
Residential $ 31.95 $ 34.83 $ 2.88 9%
General Commercial (14 CCF) 86.24 93.94 7.70 9%
Restaurant (56 CCF) 533.12 581.28 48.16 9%
SECTION 3D: PROPOSED RESERVE TRANSFERS
In the FY 2016 Financial Plan, several transfers between reserves were approved. Funds related
to CIP’s in the Reappropriations Reserve were transferred to the CIP reserve, to comply with
updated accounting practices. Staff also proposed a $2 million transfer from the Rate
Stabilization Reserve to the Operations Reserve.
In this FY 2017 Financial Plan, staff recommends an additional $1.95 million transfer from the
Rate Stabilization Reserve in FY 2016. This will leave a small amount, $342,000, to transfer in FY
2017, which will result in a zero balance in the Rate Stabilization Reserve at the end of FY 2017.
These transfers are included in the financial projections in this Financial Plan, and will enable
CPAU to maintain adequate Operations Reserve levels while moderating the pace of increase in
Wastewater Collection rates. The impact of these transfers on reserves levels can be seen in
Appendix A: Wastewater Collection Financial Forecast Detail.
SECTION 4: UTILITY OVERVIEW
This section provides an overview of the utility and its operations. It is intended as general
background information and to help readers better understand the forecasts in later sections.
SECTION 4A: WASTEWATER UTILITY HISTORY
The Wastewater Utility commenced operation in 1899 to serve Palo Alto and Stanford. In its
first three decades the system grew to 60 miles of sewers. Raw sewage was discharged into
Mayfield Slough at the edge of the Bay. In the 1930s, at the behest of the State Department of
Health, Palo Alto built the South Bay’s first wastewater treatment plant. At that time the sewer
system served 20,500 Stanford and Palo Alto residents and a cannery. The plant was upgraded
twice in the 1940s and 1950s to increase capacity.1 At the same time, the postwar population
and industrial boom in the 1950s required rapid expansion of the sewer system. In the first half
of the 1960s Palo Alto’s area doubled, as did wastewater flows, overwhelming the capacity of
several of the utility’s “trunk lines,” which are the largest diameter main sewer lines carrying
wastewater to the treatment plant. This prompted the City, in 1965, to perform the first of its
1 Long Range Facilities Plan for the Regional Water Quality Control Plant, August 2012, Carollo Engineers, pp 2-1
through 2-2
WASTEWATER COLLECTION UTILITY FINANCIAL PLAN
F e b r u a r y 2 0 1 6 8 | P a g e
sewer master plans to identify needed capacity improvements. At that point the Wastewater
Utility’s system comprised more than 150 miles of sewer mains.2
In 1968 the City signed agreements with the Cities of Mountain View and Los Altos to build a
new regional treatment plant, the RWQCP, which is still in operation today. Since 1940 the City
had been providing treatment services to the East Palo Alto Sanitary District through an existing
agreement, and was also serving Stanford University by transporting wastewater across the
City’s sewer system to the treatment plant. Both of these organizations became partners in the
RWQCP as well. At the same time the Town of Los Altos Hills became the sixth partner as it
signed an agreement with the City to connect the Town’s sewer system to the City’s sewer
system to carry wastewater to the new RWQCP. The current agreements for the RWQCP
extend through 2035.3
In the 1980s the City directed increased attention to the condition of its sewer system,
performing a series of studies of groundwater inflow and infiltration into the system. The study
found high rates of infiltration, estimating that as much as 40% of the water going to the
RWQCP from Palo Alto’s system was groundwater and stormwater rather than wastewater.4 In
some parts of Palo Alto the land surface had subsided due to groundwater pumping by the
water utility, and though that practice had ceased many years earlier as the water utility
switched to the Hetch Hetchy Regional Water System, parts of the city had already subsided
two to five feet. This subsidence had damaged several parts of the sewer collection system,
leading to reduced slopes for sewer mains that caused reductions in capacity. In response to
these studies the City commenced an accelerated sewer system rehabilitation program.5 At
that point the sewer system comprised over 190 miles of mains.6
A Master Plan study in 1988 recommended a variety of capacity expansions, and in the 1990s
the City completed about half of them. However, a 2004 Master Plan update found that the
accelerated sewer rehabilitation plan started in the early 1990s had substantially reduced
infiltration, easing the capacity problems that had led the to the recommended capacity
increases in the 1988 study. Several of the outstanding projects were canceled and replaced
with a different set of projects.7 At the same time the City updated its hydraulic model and
developed greater capacity to do system planning in house.
SECTION 4B: CUSTOMER BASE
The City of Palo Alto’s Wastewater Collection Utility provides sewer service to the residents and
businesses of Palo Alto. It is distinct from the Wastewater Treatment Utility, which provides
treatment services for surrounding communities in addition to Palo Alto. Nearly 23,300
customers are connected to the sewer system, approximately 21,450 (92%) of which are
residential and 1,850 (8%) of which are non-residential. Residential customers pay a flat fee for
2 Wastewater Collection and Storm Drainage, 1965, Brown and Caldwell Consulting Engineers, pp 4, 6-7, 143
3 Long Range Facilities Plan for the Regional Water Quality Control Plant, August 2012, Carollo Engineers, pg 2-2
4 Wastewater Collection System Master Plan – Capacity Assessment, January 2004, MWH Americas, Inc., pg ES-2
5 CMR 183:90, Infrastructure Review and Update, March 1, 1990
6 Master Plan of the Wastewater Collection System, December 1988, Camp Dresser & McKee, Inc., pg 1-2
7 Wastewater Collection System Master Plan – Capacity Assessment, January 2004, MWH Americas, Inc., pg ES-3
WASTEWATER COLLECTION UTILITY FINANCIAL PLAN
F e b r u a r y 2 0 1 6 9 | P a g e
service. Non-residential customers are billed for sewer service based on their metered winter
water usage. There is little variability in revenues for this utility.
SECTION 4C: COLLECTION SYSTEM
The Wastewater Collection Utility delivers all the wastewater it collects to the Regional Water
Quality Control Plant (RWQCP) operated by the City of Palo Alto under a partnership agreement
with several surrounding communities. Palo Alto is responsible for 37% to 40% of the
wastewater sent to the RWQCP. The cost of running the RWQCP is contained in the
Wastewater Treatment Utility and is not described in detail in this Financial Plan, but since
these costs are a major driver of CPAU’s sewer rates, there is some discussion of future trends
in treatment costs in Section 6A: Wastewater Treatment Costs. Treatment costs make up
nearly half of the Wastewater Collection Utility’s expenses as shown in Table 1 above.
To collect wastewater from its customers and deliver it to the RWQCP, CPAU owns roughly
18,100 sewer laterals (which collect wastewater from customers’ plumbing systems) and 217
miles of sewer mains (which transport the waste to the treatment plant). These laterals and
mains, along with the associated manholes and cleanouts, represent the vast majority of
infrastructure used to collect wastewater in Palo Alto. CPAU conducts a sewer rehabilitation
and replacement program to replace mains over time as they deteriorate or to increase
capacity. For more discussion of this program, see Section 6C: Capital Improvement Program
(CIP). CIP expense accounts for roughly a quarter of the utility’s expenditures.
In addition to its CIP, CPAU performs various maintenance activities on the sewer system.
These include inspecting and repairing sewer laterals, responding to sewer overflows, regularly
cleaning sections of the system heavily impacted by fats, oils, and grease (FOG), and building
and replacing sewer laterals for new or redeveloped buildings. The utility also shares the costs
of other operational activities (such as customer service, billing, equipment maintenance, and
street restoration) with the City’s other utilities. These maintenance and operations expenses,
as well as associated administration, debt service, rent, and other costs, make up another
quarter of the utility’s expenses.
SECTION 4D: COST STRUCTURE AND REVENUE SOURCES
In FY 2015, treatment costs represented nearly half of the Wastewater Collection Utility’s costs
(53%), followed by Operations (25%) and Capital costs (22%). These expenditures are shown in
Figure 1. The utility’s revenue in FY 2015, shown in Figure 2, came primarily from sewer charges
(86%), with the remainder coming mainly from capacity and connection fees and other sources
(14%).
WASTEWATER COLLECTION UTILITY FINANCIAL PLAN
F e b r u a r y 2 0 1 6 10 | P a g e
Figure 1: Cost Structure (FY 2015) Figure 2: Revenue Structure (FY 2015)
SECTION 4E: RESERVES STRUCTURE
CPAU maintains six reserves for its Wastewater Collection Utility to manage various types of
contingencies. These are summarized below, but see Appendix C: Wastewater Collection Utility
Reserves Management Practices for more detailed definitions and guidelines for reserve
management:
Reserve for Commitments: A reserve equal to the utility’s outstanding contract
liabilities for the current fiscal year. Most City funds, including the General Fund, have a
Commitments Reserve.
Reserve for Reappropriations: A reserve for funds dedicated to projects reappropriated
by the City Council, nearly all of which are capital projects. Most City funds, including
the General Fund, have a Reappropriations Reserve.
Capital Improvement Program (CIP) Reserve: The CIP reserve can be used to
accumulate funds for future expenditure on CIP projects and is anticipated to be empty
unless a major one-time CIP expenditure is expected in future years. It also acts as a
contingency reserve for the CIP. This type of reserve is used in other utility funds
(Electric, Gas, and Water) as well.
Rate Stabilization Reserve: This reserve is intended to be empty unless one or more
large rate increases are anticipated in the forecast period. In that case, funds can be
accumulated to spread the impact of those future rate increases across multiple years.
This type of reserve is used in other utility funds (Electric, Gas, and Water) as well.
Operations Reserve: This is the primary contingency reserve for the Wastewater
Collection Utility, and is used to manage yearly variances from budget for operational
costs. This type of reserve is used in other utility funds (Electric, Gas, and Water) as well.
Unassigned Reserve: This reserve is for any funds not assigned to the other reserves
and is normally empty.
WASTEWATER COLLECTION UTILITY FINANCIAL PLAN
F e b r u a r y 2 0 1 6 11 | P a g e
SECTION 4F: COMPETITIVENESS
Table 6 shows the monthly sewer bills for residential customers compared to what they would
be in surrounding communities. The annual sewer bill for a Palo Alto customer is $383 under
current rates, 32% lower than the average neighboring community. Palo Alto has the third
lowest bill of the group.
Table 6: Residential Monthly Sewer Bill Comparison
Palo Alto
Neighboring Communities Neighboring
Community
Average
Menlo
Park
Redwood
City
Mountain
View Los Altos
Santa
Clara Hayward
31.95 81.08 74.95 28.80 32.01 37.94 28.93 47.29
Based on rates as of February 2016
If the proposed rate change discussed in Section 3B: Current and Proposed Rates is adopted by
Council, and assuming other agencies do not change their sewer rates, Palo Alto would be 26%
lower than the average neighboring community and retain the third lowest bill.
Table 7 compares the sewer bills for two classes of commercial customers to what they would
be under surrounding communities’ rate schedules. Note that other communities often have
specific rates for industrial customers that discharge high intensity wastewater, such as food
processors or chemical or electronics manufacturers, but Palo Alto does not currently have any
customers that require these special rates. Palo Alto is less competitive with surrounding cities
with regards to commercial sewer rates, but is not the most expensive jurisdiction.
Table 7: Commercial Monthly Sewer Bill Comparison
Palo Alto
Neighboring Communities Neighboring
Community
Average
Menlo
Park
Redwood
City
Mountain
View Los Altos
Santa
Clara Hayward
General
Commercial
$86.24 $125.58 $74.95 $52.78 $44.82 $60.06 $61.18 $69.90
Restaurant $533.12 $626.08 $686.78 $412.16 $121.68 $537.60 $463.12 $474.57
Based on rates as of February 2016
SECTION 5: UTILITY FINANCIAL PROJECTIONS
SECTION 5A: FY 2011 TO FY 2015 COST AND REVENUE TRENDS
Figure 3 shows the Wastewater Collection Utility’s actual expenses and revenues for the past
five years and projections through FY 2026. For FY 2011 through FY 2015, Operations costs
grew at about the pace of inflation, at around 2% per year. Capital Investment expenses
actually saw a slight contraction over this period, but this was partially due to backlogged
projects necessitating a short term lowering of CIP budgets. Treatment costs during this time
rose by 4% annually on average.
WASTEWATER COLLECTION UTILITY FINANCIAL PLAN
F e b r u a r y 2 0 1 6 12 | P a g e
Since the revenue for this utility is very stable, revenue changes closely follow rate changes. The
other large revenue item of note is the continued connection and capacity fees from new
construction. These fees have grown dramatically since FY 2010, and it is uncertain when this
trend may dampen.
Figure 3: Wastewater Collection Utility Expenses, Revenues and Rate Changes
Actual Costs through FY 2015 and Projections through FY 2026
SECTION 5B: FY 2015 RESULTS
Forecast sources of funds for FY 2015 were higher than projected by $137,000, but expenses
related to Administration and Customer Service activities came in well below expected budget.
Total FY 2015 expenses were $16.15 million compared to projections of $18.64 million in the FY
2016 Financial Plan. Table 8 summarizes the variances from forecast.
WASTEWATER COLLECTION UTILITY FINANCIAL PLAN
F e b r u a r y 2 0 1 6 13 | P a g e
Table 8: FY 2015, Actual Results vs. Financial Plan Forecast
Net Cost/
(Benefit)
Type of
change
Admin and customer service costs lower than projected (1,985,000) Cost savings
Connection, capacity fees and other revenues were
higher than forecasted
(489,000) Revenue increase
Sales revenues lower than forecast 352,000 Revenue decrease
Operations, capital and other cost savings (502,000) Cost savings
Net Cost / (Benefit) of Variances ($2,625,000)
SECTION 5C: FY 2016 PROJECTIONS
There are no notable changes from the FY 2016 budget identified at this time.
SECTION 5D: FY 2017 – FY 2026 PROJECTIONS
Staff has prepared a forecast of costs and revenues through FY 2026. As shown in Figure 3
above (and, in more detail, in Appendix A: Wastewater Collection Financial Forecast Detail), the
Wastewater Collection Utility’s total costs are projected to increase by roughly 4.4% per year on
average for FY 2016 through FY 2026. The majority of this increase is borne by projected
treatment cost increases. The treatment plant itself is facing the need for major upgrades in
coming years, both due to age of equipment and constantly changing environmental
regulations. While the costs of the plant are shared among member agencies, Palo Alto is still
expected to see average cost increases of 6.3% per year over the forecast horizon.
Revenues are shown by the red line in Figure 3, and what is notable here is that costs have
been generally higher than revenue. While some relief was experienced during times of lower
CIP expenditures, this trend of under-collection continues into the future, resulting in a rapid
reduction of reserves. A path of 9% and 10% annual rate increases in the near term, decreasing
to more inflationary increases in outer years, is required to keep reserves from dropping too
low. Figure 4 below shows the relative drop in reserves, only showing slowing replenishment
after the projected 10% increase in FY 2018.
WASTEWATER COLLECTION UTILITY FINANCIAL PLAN
F e b r u a r y 2 0 1 6 14 | P a g e
Figure 4: Wastewater Collection Reserves Projections
SECTION 5E: RISK ASSESSMENT AND RESERVES ADEQUACY
The Wastewater Collection Utility currently has one contingency reserve, the Operations
Reserve, and this Financial Plan maintains reserves within the approved guideline levels
throughout the forecast period, as shown in Figure 5 below. Reserve levels also exceed the
short term risk assessment for the utility.
WASTEWATER COLLECTION UTILITY FINANCIAL PLAN
F e b r u a r y 2 0 1 6 15 | P a g e
Figure 5: Operations Reserve Adequacy
Staff performs an annual assessment of risks for the Wastewater Collection Utility. For this
evaluation, staff estimates the revenue shortfall due to:
1.the maximum observed budget-to-actual variance in one year during the past five years;
2.an increase of 10% in system improvement CIP expenditures for the year; and
3.an increase of 10% in treatment costs.
Table 9 summarizes the risk assessment calculation for the Wastewater Collection Utility
through FY 2021. The Operations Reserve is projected to be adequate to manage these levels
of risk over the entire forecast period.
Table 9: Wastewater Collection Risk Assessment
FY 2017 FY 2018 FY 2019 FY 2020 FY 2021
Total Revenue ($000) 17,505 19,249 20,989 22,474 23,832
Max. Historical Budget-to-Actual variance 3% 3% 3% 3% 3%
Budget-to-Actual Risk ($000) 525 577 630 674 715
System Rehabilitation CIP Budget ($000) 4,458 4,590 4,726 4,867 5,011
CIP Contingency @10% ($000) 446 459 473 487 501
Treatment Budget ($000) 9,855 10,446 11,073 11,737 12,442
Treatment Cost Contingency @10% ($000) 986 1,045 1,107 1,174 1,244
Total risk assessment value ($000) 1,957 2,081 2,210 2,335 2,460
Projected Operations Reserve Level ($000) 3,386 2,837 3,048 3,780 4,793
WASTEWATER COLLECTION UTILITY FINANCIAL PLAN
F e b r u a r y 2 0 1 6 16 | P a g e
SECTION 5F: ALTERNATE SCENARIOS
At its February 2016 meeting, the UAC suggested that staff prepare two alternate scenarios for
rate increases. The first (“Target”) scenario keeps the Operations Reserve at or near the Target
level during the forecast period. The second (“Minimum”) scenario tries to mitigate rate
increases and get as near to the minimum reserve level as possible for five years before moving
to Target level. Rate trajectories for both alternate scenarios as well as the proposed rate
adjustments are shown in Table 10 below.
Staff also modeled a scenario with no wastewater rate increase in FY 2017. This scenario
decreases the Operations Reserve to the Risk Assessment value, and requires a 25% in FY 2018
to keep reserves at that value for one more year, before net revenue growth starts.
Table 10: Projected Wastewater Rate Trajectory for FY 2017 to FY 2026
FY
2017
FY
2018
FY
2019
FY
2020
FY
2021
FY
2022
FY
2023
FY
2024
FY
2025
FY
2026
Proposed 9% 10% 9% 7% 6% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4%
Target 16% 9% 4% 4% 5% 5% 4% 6% 4% 4%
Minimum 5% 19% 4% 4% 6% 6% 6% 6% 5% 4%
The Target scenario, represented in Figure 6 below, requires a 16% rate increase (larger than
the proposed 9% increase) in FY 2017, but reduces the rate increase slightly in FY 2018. The
Minimum scenario, represented in Figure 7 below, allows a lower rate increase in FY 2017, but
requires a significant rate increase (19%) in FY 2018.
Staff recommends a 9% wastewater rate increase in FY 2017 to smooth the rate increases over
the next two years while keeping the Wastewater Collection Operations Reserve at healthy
levels.
WASTEWATER COLLECTION UTILITY FINANCIAL PLAN
F e b r u a r y 2 0 1 6 17 | P a g e
Figure 6: Operations Reserve at Target Level
Figure 7: Operations Reserve at Minimum for FY 2017 through FY 2021
WASTEWATER COLLECTION UTILITY FINANCIAL PLAN
F e b r u a r y 2 0 1 6 18 | P a g e
SECTION 5G: LONG-TERM OUTLOOK
In the longer term (5 to 35 years) the primary factor that could lead to increased costs for the
Wastewater Collection Utility are major upgrades at the RWQCP, a share of which will be
allocated to the utility as part of treatment costs. These upgrades includes replacement or
rehabilitation of the parts of the facility that pump raw sewage to the main treatment works
(the headworks), separate out primary sludge (the primary settling tank), process sludge (the
bio-solids facility), and treat wastewater (the fixed film reactors). Upgrades to the laboratories
and operational buildings are planned as well. In addition, the 72-inch regional trunk sewer line
flowing into the plant needs to be evaluated and rehabilitated.
SECTION 6: DETAILS AND ASSUMPTIONS
SECTION 6A: WASTEWATER TREATMENT COSTS
Treatment expenses represent the Wastewater Collection Utility’s share of the costs of
operating the RWQCP. Per the partnership agreements between Palo Alto and its partner
agencies, these charges are assessed based on a formula that takes into account the total
amount of wastewater delivered, the amount of organic material in it, its ammonia content,
and the total suspended solids it is carrying. The Wastewater Collection Utility’s assessed share
of the RWQCP’s revenue requirement fluctuates in the 38% to 40% range. Mountain View is
the other large agency served by the RWQCP (39% of the revenue requirement for FY 2014)
with the smaller agencies (Stanford, Los Altos, East Palo Alto, and Los Altos Hills) making up the
remainder of the flow to the treatment plant.
Due to the ongoing drought and reduced wastewater flows to the plant, concentrations of
chemicals and solids have increased. The amount of chemicals needed to counteract and treat
this more concentrated wastewater increases and the cost of those chemicals has gone up in
recent years. Therefore, FY 2017 treatment costs are projected to increase by 7%, while over
the forecast horizon in general treatment costs are expected to rise by 6% per year. The longer
term cost increases are primarily due to increased CIP spending by the RWQCP.
Based on detailed project cost projections provided by RWQCP staff, treatment costs are likely
to continue to increase by roughly 5% per year through at least 2030. Two of Palo Alto’s
comparison cities, Mountain View and Los Altos, are partners in the RWQCP and will see similar
increases, but other comparison agencies may not.
SECTION 6B: OPERATIONS
Operations costs include the Customer Service, Distribution Operations, Engineering, and
Allocated Charges categories in Appendix A: Wastewater Collection Financial Forecast Detail.
Debt service, rent, and transfers are also included in this category. Customer Service costs are
primarily related to the call center and collections on delinquent accounts. The Distribution
Operations category includes preventative and corrective maintenance on sewer mains and
laterals, investigation of sewer overflows, regular cleaning of heavily impacted sections of the
sewer system, and services shared with other utilities (such as street restoration and
WASTEWATER COLLECTION UTILITY FINANCIAL PLAN
F e b r u a r y 2 0 1 6 19 | P a g e
equipment maintenance). Allocated Charges include the costs of accounting, purchasing, legal,
and other administrative functions provided by the City’s General Fund staff, as well as shared
communications services and Utilities Department administrative overhead and billing system
maintenance costs.
Operations costs are projected to increase by 3% per year, on average, over the forecast period.
Underlying these projections are salary and benefit, consumer price index, and other cost
projections used in the City’s long-range financial forecast.
SECTION 6C: CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM (CIP)
The Wastewater Collection Utility’s CIP consists of the following programs:
The Sewer System Replacement/Rehabilitation Program, under which the Wastewater
Collection Utility replaces aging sewer mains.
Customer Connections, which covers the cost when the Wastewater Collection Utility
installs new services or upgrades existing services at a customer’s request in response
to development or redevelopment. CPAU charges a fee to these customers to cover
the cost of these projects.
Ongoing Projects, which covers the cost of replacing degraded manholes and sewer
laterals, as well as the cost of capitalized tools and equipment.
The Sewer System Replacement and Rehabilitation Program funds the replacement of
deteriorating sewer mains and projects to increase capacity in various parts of the sewer
system. The sewer system consists of over 217 miles of mains, and CPAU uses a variety of tools
to establish which sections are in need of replacement. Maintenance statistics (such as records
of the location and number of sewer overflows on the system) and videotape of sewer mains
during regular cleaning can reveal areas with large amounts of deteriorating pipe. CPAU uses a
scoring system to prioritize which mains to replace first, and coordinates with the Public Works
street maintenance program to avoid cutting into newly repaved streets. A major goal of the
program is to minimize groundwater and rainwater infiltration. As mains deteriorate they
begin to allow groundwater and rainwater to infiltrate the system. Some level of infiltration is
expected on any sewer system, but if there is too much, the combined flow of wastewater and
groundwater/rainwater can overwhelm the capacity of various parts of the sewer system.
Reducing infiltration can reduce the need to expand the system to accommodate increased
flow. To achieve this goal, deteriorating mains are either repaired with a plastic lining or
replaced. CPAU replaces or repairs approximately 25,000 feet of main per year, or 2.5% of the
system.
The CIP program also funds sewer capacity improvements. CPAU uses a hydraulic model, data
from various flow meters on the system, and land use data to identify sections of the system
that are being overloaded. When sewer mains are operating at or above their capacity on a
regular basis it will increase the likelihood of sewer overflows. CPAU also does occasional
comprehensive master planning studies to identify necessary capacity improvements. The most
recent study, in 2004, identified eight projects, three of which have been completed. The
WASTEWATER COLLECTION UTILITY FINANCIAL PLAN
F e b r u a r y 2 0 1 6 20 | P a g e
remaining four projects are low priority projects and will be scheduled and planned as the need
arises.
Over the last few years, main replacement costs have been increasing for Wastewater as well
as the Gas and Water utilities. The replacement cost per linear foot has increased by between
25 and 50% in some cases. Several factors may be contributing to this. Economic recovery in
the Bay Area, as well as a greater focus on infrastructure improvement by many municipal
agencies and utilities could be creating high demand for contractors in this field. There may be
ongoing greater costs for newer, more leak resistant pipe materials. Should these trends prove
to be less than short-term phenomena, wastewater main replacement budgets may need to be
increased by $1.5 to $1.7 million more per year to maintain the current pace of replacement.
Since the last master plan study was updated over a decade ago, and due to these escalating
costs, staff is considering a new wastewater collection system master plan study, tentatively
planned for 2016, to evaluate the current state of the sewer system and determine the optimal
rate of main replacement in future years. The process may reveal a need for a higher or lower
replacement, or possibly target areas for more urgent focus. In the case that prices remain high
and the updated plan shows a need for similar rates of replacement that CPAU had previously
planned, CIP costs will rise.
Customer Connections costs are projected to increase steadily by around 3% each year through
the end of the forecast period. Ongoing projects are seeing a temporary surge in FY 2016 but
are expected to drop by $200,000 in FY 2017, then resume a path of cost increases similar to
Customer Connections. Actual expenses for these projects fluctuate annually depending on
how many defective laterals and manholes are discovered during routine maintenance, as well
as how much development and redevelopment is going on that prompts the replacement or
upgrade of sewer laterals. It is worth noting that property owners pay a fee for sewer lateral
replacement or expansion during redevelopment, so when the number of projects increases, so
does fee revenue.
Projected CIP spending is displayed in Table 11 for the 5-year financial forecast period.
Table 11: Projected CIP Spending
Aside from Customer Connections, the CIP plan for FY 2017 to FY 2021 is funded by sewer rates
and capacity fees. The details of the plan are shown in Appendix B: Wastewater Collection
Utility Capital Improvement Program (CIP) Detail.
WASTEWATER COLLECTION UTILITY FINANCIAL PLAN
F e b r u a r y 2 0 1 6 21 | P a g e
SECTION 6D: DEBT SERVICE
The Wastewater Collection Utility currently pays its share of one bond issuance, the 1999 Utility
Revenue Bonds, Series A, which is due to be retired in 2024. This $17.7 million issuance
refinanced various earlier Storm Drain, Wastewater Treatment, and Wastewater Collection
Utility bond issuances. The Wastewater Collection Utility’s share of the issuance was roughly
$1.9 million. This amount represented the second refinancing of the remaining principal of a
1990 bond issuance which itself was a refinancing of a 1985 issuance that financed a variety of
improvements to the sewer system. The cost of debt service for the Wastewater Collection
Utility’s share of this bond issuance for the financial forecast period is roughly $128,000 per
year as shown in Table 12 below.
Table 12: Wastewater Collection Utility Debt Service ($000)
FY
2017
FY
2018
FY
2019
FY
2020
FY
2021
FY
2022
1999 Utility Revenue Bonds, Series A 128 128 128 128 128 128
The 1999 Utility Revenue Bonds include two covenants stating that 1) the Wastewater
Collection Utility will maintain a debt coverage ratio of 125% of debt service, and 2) that the
City will maintain “Available Reserves”8 equal to five times the annual debt service. The current
financial plan maintains compliance with both covenants throughout the forecast period.
Compliance with covenant one is shown below in Table 13, below. Due to the small size of the
annual debt service payment for these bonds, the Wastewater Collection Utility’s Operations
Reserve alone more than satisfies the second covenant at more than 30 times annual debt
service throughout the forecast period.
Table 13: Debt Service Coverage Ratio ($000)
FY 2017 FY 2018 FY 2019 FY 2020 FY 2021 FY 2022
Revenues 19,565 21,359 23,099 24,647 26,007 27,026
Expenses (Excl. CIP
and Debt Service) (16,388) (17,184) (18,015) (18,891) (19,810) (20,779)
Net Revenues 3,177 4,175 5,084 5,756 6,197 6,247
Debt Service 128 128 128 128 128 128
Coverage Ratio 2482% 3262% 3972% 4497% 4841% 4880%
The Wastewater Collection Utility’s reserves (but not its net revenues) are also considered
security for the Storm Drain and Wastewater Treatment Utilities’ shares of the debt service on
the 1999 bonds. Throughout the term of the bonds there remains a small risk that the
Wastewater Collection Utility’s reserves could be called upon to make a debt service payment
on behalf of one of those utilities if it cannot meet its debt service obligations. Staff does not
foresee this occurring based on the current financial condition of those utilities. If the
Wastewater Collection Utility’s reserves were used this way, any amounts advanced would
have to be repaid by the borrowing utility.
8 Available Reserves as defined in the 1999 Utility Revenue Bonds included reserves for the Water, Wastewater
Treatment, Wastewater Collection, Refuse, Storm Drain, Electric, and Gas Utilities
WASTEWATER COLLECTION UTILITY FINANCIAL PLAN
F e b r u a r y 2 0 1 6 22 | P a g e
One other bond series is secured by the net revenues (but not the reserves) of the Wastewater
Collection Utility. The 1995 Series A Utility Revenue Bonds issued for the Storm Drain utility
was secured by the net revenues of the City’s “Enterprise,” which was defined as the City’s
water, gas, wastewater, storm drain, and electric utilities, and are senior to the 1999 bonds
referenced above. Debt service payments of roughly $680,000 per year are made on the 1995
Series A bonds by the City’s Storm Drain Utility, and staff does not currently foresee any risk of
that utility being unable to make payment.
SECTION 6E: OTHER REVENUES
The utility has seen substantial increases in connection and capacity fee revenues in recent
years, offsetting the need for increased sales revenue in the past, and these are assumed to
continue, albeit slightly reduced from current levels. Income from interest and transfers in are
projected to remain steady through the forecast horizon.
SECTION 7: COMMUNICATIONS PLAN
The FY 2017 Wastewater Collection Utility communications strategy covers three primary areas:
rates, operations and infrastructure, and safety. Communication about wastewater rate
adjustments will highlight the important infrastructure and operations upgrades that are
occurring at the Regional Water Quality Control Plant to improve wastewater collection utility
services. To keep customers apprised of the status and accomplishments of CIP projects, a
network of project web pages are maintained and updated as needed. Traffic is driven to the
website via ads in publications, newspaper inserts, social media and email blasts.
An important communications topic for the wastewater utility is avoiding sewer back-ups due
to FOG (fats, oil and grease) and trash being dumped down drains and toilets. Safety topics are
emphasized year-round. Staff continues its outreach goal of educating customers about the
utility’s gas-sewer line cross-bore inspection program, including the importance of calling
Utilities first when there is a sewer back-up.
Promotional activity about wastewater utility maintenance and safety operations includes use
of bill inserts, ads in local print publications, website pages, email blasts and social
media. While print materials and website pages feature prominently, CPAU is increasing the
outreach emphasis on use of direct mail, social media and digital advertising including videos
and short commercials on the local television channels. Staff is also attending more community
safety/emergency preparation events and neighborhood meetings.
WASTEWATER COLLECTION UTILITY FINANCIAL PLAN
F e b r u a r y 2 0 1 6 23 | P a g e
APPENDICES
Appendix A: Wastewater Collection Financial Forecast Detail
Appendix B: Wastewater Collection Utility Capital Improvement Program (CIP) Detail
Appendix C: Wastewater Collection Utility Reserves Management Practices
Appendix D: Sample of Wastewater Collection Outreach Materials
WASTEWATER COLLECTION UTILITY FINANCIAL PLAN
F e b r u a r y 2 0 1 6 24 | P a g e
APPENDIX A: WASTEWATER COLLECTION FINANCIAL FORECAST DETAIL
WASTEWATER COLLECTION UTILITY FINANCIAL PLAN
F e b r u a r y 2 0 1 6 25 | P a g e
APPENDIX B: WASTEWATER COLLECTION UTILITY CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM (CIP) DETAIL
WASTEWATER COLLECTION UTILITY FINANCIAL PLAN
F e b r u a r y 2 0 1 6 26 | P a g e
APPENDIX C: WASTEWATER COLLECTION UTILITY RESERVES
MANAGEMENT PRACTICES
The following reserves management practices shall be used when developing the Wastewater
Collection Utility Financial Plan:
Section 1. Definitions
a) “Financial Planning Period” – The Financial Planning Period is the range of future fiscal
years covered by the Financial Plan. For example, if the Financial Plan delivered in
conjunction with the FY 2015 budget includes projections for FY 2015 to FY 2019, FY
2015 to FY 2019 would be the Financial Planning Period.
b) “Fund Balance” – As used in these Reserves Management Practices, Fund Balance refers
to the Utility’s Unrestricted Net Assets.
c) “Net Assets” - The Government Accounting Standards Board defines a Utility’s Net
Assets as the difference between its assets and liabilities.
d) “Unrestricted Net Assets” - The portion of the Utility’s Net Assets not invested in capital
assets (net of related debt) or restricted for debt service or other restricted purposes.
Section 2. Reserves
The Wastewater Collection Utility’s Fund Balance is reserved for the following purposes:
a) For existing contracts, as described in Section 3 (Reserve for Commitments)
b) For operating and capital budgets re-appropriated from previous years, as described in
Section 4 (Reserve for Re-appropriations)
c) For cash flow management and contingencies related to the Wastewater Collection
Utility’s Capital Improvement Program (CIP), as described in Section 5 (CIP Reserve)
d) For rate stabilization, as described in Section 6 (Rate Stabilization Reserve)
e) For operating contingencies, as described in Section 7 (Operations Reserve)
f) Any funds not included in the other reserves will be considered Unassigned Reserves
and shall be returned to ratepayers or assigned a specific purpose as described in
Section 8 (Unassigned Reserves).
Section 3. Reserve for Commitments
At the end of each fiscal year the Reserve for Commitments will be set to an amount equal
to the total remaining spending authority for all contracts in force for the Wastewater
Collection Utility at that time.
Section 4. Reserve for Re-appropriations
At the end of each fiscal year the Reserve for Re-appropriations will be set to an amount
equal to the amount of all remaining capital and non-capital budgets, if any, that will be re-
appropriated to the following fiscal year in accordance with Palo Alto Municipal Code
Section 2.28.090.
WASTEWATER COLLECTION UTILITY FINANCIAL PLAN
F e b r u a r y 2 0 1 6 27 | P a g e
Section 5. CIP Reserve
The CIP Reserve is used to manage cash flow for capital projects and acts as a reserve for
capital contingencies. Staff will manage the CIP Reserve according to the following
practices:
a) The following guideline levels are set forth for the CIP Reserve. These guideline levels
are calculated for each fiscal year of the Financial Planning Period based on the levels of
CIP expense budgeted for that year.
Minimum Level 12 months of budgeted CIP expense
Maximum Level 24 months of budgeted CIP expense
b) Changes in Reserves: Staff is authorized to transfer funds between the CIP Reserve and
the Reserve for Commitments when funds are added or removed from to that reserve
as a result of a change in contractual commitments related to CIP projects. Any other
additions to or withdrawals from the CIP reserve require Council action.
c) Minimum Level:
i) Funds held in the Reserve for Commitments may be counted as part of the CIP
Reserve for the purpose of determining compliance with the CIP Reserve minimum
guideline level.
ii) If, at the end of any fiscal year, the minimum guideline is not met, staff shall present
a plan to the City Council to replenish the reserve. The plan shall be delivered by the
end of the following fiscal year, and shall, at a minimum, result in the reserve
reaching its minimum level by the end of the next fiscal year. For example, if the CIP
Reserve is below its minimum level at the end of FY 2017, staff must present a plan
by June 30, 2018 to return the reserve to its minimum level by June 30, 2019. In
addition, staff may present, and the Council may adopt, an alternative plan that
takes longer than one year to replenish the reserve, or that does so in a shorter
period of time.
d) Maximum Level: If, at any time, the CIP Reserve reaches its maximum level, no funds
may be added to this reserve. If there are funds in this reserve in excess of the
maximum level staff must propose to transfer these funds to another reserve or return
them to ratepayers in the next Financial Plan. Staff may also seek City Council to
approve holding funds in this reserve in excess of the maximum level if they are held for
a specific future purpose related to the CIP.
Section 6. Rate Stabilization Reserve
Funds may be added to the Rate Stabilization Reserve by action of the City Council and held
to manage the trajectory of future year rate increases. Withdrawal of funds from the Rate
Stabilization Reserve requires Council action. If there are funds in the Rate Stabilization
Reserve at the end of any fiscal year, any subsequent Wastewater Collection Utility
Financial Plan must result in the withdrawal of all funds from this Reserve by the end of the
Financial Planning Period.
WASTEWATER COLLECTION UTILITY FINANCIAL PLAN
F e b r u a r y 2 0 1 6 28 | P a g e
Section 7. Operations Reserve
The Operations Reserve is used to manage normal variations in costs and as a reserve for
contingencies. Any portion of the Wastewater Collection Utility’s Fund Balance not
included in the reserves described in Section 3-Section 6 above will be included in the
Operations Reserve unless this reserve has reached its maximum level as set forth in Section
7(d) below. Staff will manage the Operations Reserve according to the following practices:
a) The following guideline levels are set forth for the Operations Reserve. These guideline
levels are calculated for each fiscal year of the Financial Planning Period based on the
levels of Operations and Maintenance (O&M) and commodity expense forecasted for
that year in the Financial Plan.
Minimum Level 60 days of O&M and commodity expense
Target Level 105 days of O&M and commodity expense
Maximum Level 150 days of O&M and commodity expense
b) Minimum Level: If, at the end of any fiscal year, the funds remaining in the Operations
Reserve are lower than the minimum level set forth above, staff shall present a plan to
the City Council to replenish the reserve. The plan shall be delivered within six months
of the end of the fiscal year, and shall, at a minimum, result in the reserve reaching its
minimum level by the end of the following fiscal year. For example, if the Operations
Reserve is below its minimum level at the end of FY 2014, staff must present a plan by
December 31, 2014 to return the reserve to its minimum level by June 30, 2015. In
addition, staff may present, and the Council may adopt, an alternative plan that takes
longer than one year to replenish the reserve.
c) Target Level: If, at the end of any fiscal year, the Operations Reserve is higher or lower
than the target level, any Financial Plan created for the Wastewater Collection Utility
shall be designed to return the Operations Reserve to its target level within four years.
d) Maximum Level: If, at any time, the Operations Reserve reaches its maximum level, no
funds may be added to this reserve. Any further increase in the Wastewater Collection
Utility’s Fund Balance shall be automatically included in the Unassigned Reserve
described in Section 8, below.
Section 8. Unassigned Reserve
If the Operations Reserve reaches its maximum level, any further additions to the
Wastewater Collection Utility’s Fund Balance will be held in the Unassigned Reserve. If
there are any funds in the Unassigned Reserve at the end of any fiscal year, the next
Financial Plan presented to the City Council must include a plan to assign them to a specific
purpose or return them to the Wastewater Collection Utility ratepayers by the end of the
first fiscal year of the next Financial Planning Period. For example, if there were funds in the
Unassigned Reserves at the end of FY 2015, and the next Financial Planning Period is
FY 2016 through FY 2020, the Financial Plan shall include a plan to return or assign any
funds in the Unassigned Reserve by the end of FY 2016. Staff may present an alternative
plan that retains these funds or returns them over a longer period of time.
WASTEWATER COLLECTION UTILITY FINANCIAL PLAN
F e b r u a r y 2 0 1 6 29 | P a g e
APPENDIX D: SAMPLE OF WASTEWATER COLLECTION OUTREACH
MATERIALS
Attachment C
* NOT YET APPROVED *
Resolution No. _________
Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Increasing
Wastewater Rates by Amending Rate Schedules S-1 (Residential
Wastewater Collection and Disposal), S-2 (Commercial Wastewater
Collection and Disposal), S-6 (Restaurant Wastewater Collection and
Disposal) and S-7 (Commercial Wastewater Collection and Disposal –
Industrial Discharger)
R E C I T A L S
A. Pursuant to Chapter 12.20.010 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code, the Council of
the City of Palo Alto may by resolution adopt rules and regulations governing utility services,
fees and charges.
B. On ____, 2016, the City Council held a full and fair public hearing regarding the
proposed rate increase and considered all protests against the proposals.
C. As required by Article XIII D, Section 6 of the California Constitution and
applicable law, notice of the ________ 2016 public hearing was mailed to all City of Palo Alto
Utilities wastewater customers by _______, 2016.
D. The City Clerk has tabulated the total number of written protests presented by
the close of the public hearing, and determined that it was less than fifty percent (50%) of the
total number of customers and property owners subject to the proposed wastewater rate
amendments, therefore a majority protest does not exist against the proposal.
The Council of the City of Palo Alto does hereby RESOLVE as follows:
SECTION 1. Pursuant to Section 12.20.010 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code, Utility
Rate Schedule S-1 (Residential Wastewater Collection and Disposal) is hereby amended to read
as attached and incorporated. Utility Rate Schedule S-1, as amended, shall become effective
July 1, 2016.
/ /
/ /
/ /
160322 sdl 6053687
Attachment C
* NOT YET APPROVED *
SECTION 2. Pursuant to Section 12.20.010 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code, Utility
Rate Schedule S-2 (Commercial Wastewater Collection and Disposal) is hereby amended to read
as attached and incorporated. Utility Rate Schedule S-2, as amended, shall become effective
July 1, 2016.
SECTION 3. Pursuant to Section 12.20.010 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code, Utility
Rate Schedule S-6 (Restaurant Wastewater Collection and Disposal) is hereby amended to read
as attached and incorporated. Utility Rate Schedule S-6, as amended, shall become effective
July 1, 2016.
SECTION 4. Pursuant to Section 12.20.010 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code, Utility
Rate Schedule S-7 (Commercial Wastewater Collection and Disposal – Industrial Discharger) is
hereby amended to read as attached and incorporated. Utility Rate Schedule S-7, as amended,
shall become effective July 1, 2016.
SECTION 5. The Council finds that the revenue derived from the wastewater rates
approved by this resolution do not exceed the funds required to provide water service, and the
revenue derived from the adoption of this resolution shall be used only for the purposes set
forth in Article VII, Section 2, of the Charter of the City of Palo Alto.
SECTION 6. The Council finds that the fees and charges adopted by this resolution
are charges imposed for a specific government service or product provided directly to the payor
that are not provided to those not charged, and do not exceed the reasonable costs to the City
of providing the service or product.
SECTION 7. The Council finds that the adoption of this resolution changing
wastewater collection rates to meet operating expenses, purchase supplies and materials, meet
financial reserve needs and obtain funds for capital improvements necessary to maintain
service is not subject to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), pursuant to California
Public Resources Code Sec. 21080(b)(8) and Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations Sec.
/ /
/ /
/ /
/ /
160322 sdl 6053687
Attachment C
* NOT YET APPROVED *
15273(a). After reviewing the staff report and all attachments presented to Council, the
Council incorporates these documents herein and finds that sufficient evidence has been
presented setting forth with specificity the basis for this claim of CEQA exemption.
INTRODUCED AND PASSED:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTENTIONS:
ATTEST:
___________________________ ___________________________
City Clerk Mayor
APPROVED AS TO FORM: APPROVED:
___________________________ ___________________________
Senior Deputy City Attorney City Manager
___________________________
Director of Utilities
___________________________
Director of Administrative Services
160322 sdl 6053687
RESIDENTIAL WASTEWATER COLLECTION AND DISPOSAL
UTILITY RATE SCHEDULE S-1
CITY OF PALO ALTO UTILITIES
Issued by the City Council
Supersedes Sheet No S-1-1 Effective 7-1-20156
dated 7-1-20125 Sheet No S-1-1
A. APPLICABILITY:
This schedule applies to each occupied residential dwelling unit.
B. TERRITORY:
This schedule applies everywhere the City of Palo Alto provides wastewater service.
C. RATES:
Per Month
Each domestic dwelling unit ..................................................................................................
$3134.8395
D. SPECIAL NOTES:
1. Any dwelling unit being individually served by a water, gas, or electric meter will be
considered continuously occupied.
2. For two or more occupied dwelling units served by one water meter, the monthly wastewater
charge will be calculated by multiplying the current wastewater rate by the number of
dwelling units.
3. Each developed separate lot shall have a separate service lateral to a sanitary main or
manhole.
{End}
ATTACHMENT D
COMMERCIAL WASTEWATER COLLECTION AND DISPOSAL
UTILITY RATE SCHEDULE S-2
CITY OF PALO ALTO UTILITIES
Issued by the City Council
Supersedes Sheet No S-2-1 Effective 7-1-20156
dated 7-1-20125 Sheet No S-2-1
A. APPLICABILITY:
This schedule applies to all commercial establishments other than those served under Utility Rate
Schedule S-1 (Domestic Residential Wastewater Collection and Disposal), Rate Schedule S-6
(Restaurant Wastewater Collection and Disposal) or Rate Schedule S-7 (Commercial
Establishments Wastewater Disposal – Industrial Discharger).
B. TERRITORY:
This schedule applies everywhere the City of Palo Alto provides wastewater services.
C. RATES:
1. Minimum Charge per connection per month .............................................................$3134.8395
2. Quantity Rates, per 100 cubic feet (See Section D.1) ............................................. $6.7116
D. SPECIAL NOTES:
1. The monthly charge for the quantity rate set forth in Section C.2 of this rate schedule will
be based upon the average water usage for the months of January, February and March,
and applied in the following July. If a water meter is identified as exclusively serving
irrigation landscaping, such meter will be exempted from wastewater charge calculations.
Customers without an applicable usage history will be charged at the minimum monthly
charge until such time as such usage may reasonably be established by the City of Palo
Alto Utilities Department.
2. The City of Palo Alto Utilities Department may require wastewater metering facilities, in
which case service will be governed by terms of a special agreement between the City
and the Customer.
{End}
RESTAURANT WASTEWATER COLLECTION AND DISPOSAL
UTILITY RATE SCHEDULE S-6
CITY OF PALO ALTO UTILITIES
Issued by the City Council
Supersedes Sheet No S-6-1 Effective 7-1-20156
dated 7-1-20125 Sheet No S-6-1
A. APPLICABILITY:
This schedule applies to all restaurants.
B. TERRITORY:
This schedule applies everywhere the City of Palo Alto provides wastewater services.
C. RATES:
1. Minimum charge per connection per month ......................................................... $3134.8395
2. Quantity Rates, per 100 cubic feet of monthly metered water usage ......................... $
910.5238
D. SPECIAL NOTES:
1. The City of Palo Alto Utilities Department may require wastewater metering facilities, in
which case service will be governed by terms of a special agreement between the City and
the Customer.
{End}
COMMERCIAL WASTEWATER COLLECTION AND DISPOSAL
–INDUSTRIAL DISCHARGER
UTILITY RATE SCHEDULE S-7
CITY OF PALO ALTO UTILITIES
Issued by the City Council
Supersedes Sheet No S-7-1 Effective 7-1-20156
dated 7-1-20125 Sheet No S-7-1
A. APPLICABILITY:
This schedule applies to any establishment requiring sampling of industrial discharges in excess
of 25,000 gallons per day, or special discharge monitoring, as defined in Rule and Regulation 23,
Section D.
B. TERRITORY:
This schedule applies everywhere the City of Palo Alto provides wastewater services.
C. RATES:
1. Collection System Operation, Maintenance, and Infiltration Inflow:
$1.7894 per 100 cubic feet of metered water use.
2. Advanced Waste Treatment Operations and Maintenance Charge:
$1.1405 per 100 cubic feet of metered water use
3. $ 247.56 per 1000 pounds (lbs) of COD (Chemical Oxygen Demand)
4. $ 596.62 per 1000 lbs of SS (Suspended Solids)
5. $ 3,983.85 per 1000 lbs of NH3 (Ammonia)
6. $ 14,781.25 per 1000 lbs of toxics (chromium, copper, cyanide, lead, nickel, silver, and zinc)
D. SPECIAL NOTES:
1. Water usage will be determined as defined in Rule and Regulation 23, Section D. If a
water meter is identified as exclusively serving irrigation landscaping, such meter will be
exempted from wastewater charge calculations.
2. The City of Palo Alto Utilities Department may require wastewater metering facilities, in
which case service will be governed by terms of a special agreement between the City of
Palo Alto and the Customer.
3. Charges for large discharges will be determined on the basis of sampling as outlined in
Utilities Rule and Regulation 23, Section D. However, for purposes of arriving at an
accurate flow estimate, discharge meters, if installed, can be utilized to measure outflow
for billing purposes. Annual charges will be determined and allocated monthly for billing
purposes.
{End}
EXCERPTED DRAFT MINUTES OF THE MARCH 2, 2016
UTILITIES ADVISORY COMMISSION MEETING
ITEM 1: ACTION: Staff Recommendation that the Utilities Advisory Commission Recommend
that the City Action Council Adopt: (1) a Resolution Approving the Fiscal Year 2017 Wastewater
Collection Financial Plan; and (2) a Resolution Increasing Wastewater Rates by Amending Rate
Schedules S-1 (Residential Wastewater Collection and Disposal), S-2 (Commercial Wastewater
Collection and Disposal), S-6 (Restaurant Wastewater Collection and Disposal) and S-7
(Commercial Wastewater Collection and Disposal – Industrial Discharger)
Acting Rates Manager Eric Keniston provided a summary of the written report. He said that the
forecast of costs and rate changes has not changed from what the UAC saw last month when it
reviewed the preliminary financial projections. He said that the primary driver for the 9% rate
increase requested as well as the rate increases projected for the next several years is that the
costs of wastewater treatment are rising quickly. He noted that the Rate Stabilization Reserve
would be exhausted by the end of fiscal year (FY 2016 and that the Operations Reserve is being
drawn down as well. He said that the long-term rate projections assumed continuing increases
in treatment costs as well as operational costs.
Keniston noted that the 9% rate increase proposed is exactly what was projected in last year’s
Financial Plan. He noted that the rate trajectory in this year’s Financial Plan result in the
Operations Reserve going down to the minimum level in FY 2018 and FY 2019 before increasing
to the target level by FY 2022. He said that the 9% increase is the same for all customer groups
and that the increase for residential customers is $2.88 per month.
Keniston said that at its meeting last month, the UAC asked for scenarios showing the
Operations Reserve held to the minimum level and at the target level. He showed the in the
minimum reserve scenario, the FY 2017 rate increase could be held to 5% instead of 9%, but
that the rate increase for FY 2018 would be 19%. For the target reserve scenario, the FY 2017
rate increase would have to be 16% for FY 2017, following by a 9% increase in FY 2018 with
somewhat lower rate increases in the following years. After developing these alternate
scenarios, staff did not change its recommendation for a 9% rate increase for FY 2017.
Commissioner Danaher, noting that the reserve minimum is only about $2 million, asked what
would be done if the revenues were not sufficient and more money was needed. Keniston said
that a rate increase would be pursued if that ever arose. Such a mid-year rate increase would
need to go through the normal review process starting with the UAC, then consideration by the
ATTACHMENT E
Finance Committee—and the Proposition 218 45-day noticing process—with final decision by
the Council. Commissioner Ballantine asked if there is always enough notice of what its needs
are going to be. Keniston noted that in the Wastewater Collection Utility, the expense profile is
fairly flat and known ahead of the year and there shouldn’t be a surprise need for extra money.
Commissioner Ballantine asked if revenues could fall due to drought due to lowered water
usage. Keniston said that rates for this fund are generally independent of water usage with
only the commercial wastewater collection customers having revenues depend on relatively
steady wintertime water usage. Residential revenues are the majority of the fund’s revenues
and are based on a flat monthly charge so there is no variability due to changes in water usage.
Commissioner Danaher asked, if usage falls, do costs go down. Keniston responded that the
costs are fixed and revenues are also mostly fixed in the Wastewater Collection Utility and,
therefore, not dependent on the flow rate. Keniston said that the residential rates have no
element that is based on water flows.
Commissioner Eglash noted that the real cause for the dramatic rate increase seems to be the
wastewater treatment costs. He asked why those costs rose so much from FY 2014 to FY 2015
and from FY 2015 to FY 2016.
Keniston introduced Jamie Allen, Regional Water Quality Control Plant Manager, to describe
the components of the treatment plant costs that are passed on the plant partners, including
Palo Alto. Allen explained that there was an accounting change that lowered the costs for one
year in FY 2014 so that year’s costs are anomalous. He said that the majority of the wastewater
treatment costs are operations costs with two categories of capital improvement program (CIP)
costs—“minor”, or rate-funded CIP and major CIP debt service. Operations costs are expected
to grow at the same rate it has for the last 5 years—at about 5.5% per year and CIP costs are
discussed with the plant partners and minor CIP costs grow at about the rate of inflation, about
2.6% per year. Major CIP debt service is for planned plant upgrades.
Allen showed a breakdown of the FY 2017 wastewater treatment costs: 47% for salaries and
benefits for operators, engineers, chemists, etc.; 12% for allocated charges for services
provided by the City such as HR, attorney, IT, finance, etc.; 9% for utilities expenses (electric,
gas, water); 11% for minor CIP projects; 7% for contract services; 3% for debt service for major
CIP projects; and 10% for general expense and supplies and materials.
Commissioner Eglash summarized this to say that minor CIP are only modestly growing, major
CIP expenses are growing from about $0.5 million per year to $2 million per year and that
operations expenses are growing by 5.5% per year, a modest and steady rate. He noted that the
charts showed that expenses were lower than revenues for FY 2014 and FY 2015, which
replenished the reserves. In FY 2016, costs were above revenues. He said that rate increases on
the order of 9% per year for the forecast horizon period don’t make sense and are impossible to
explain to the public when treatment costs are only rising 5.5% per year. Keniston said that CIP
expenditures were lower for the wastewater collection (not for wastewater treatment) in FY
2014 and FY 2015, but that CIP costs are projected to increase over the forecast period.
Commissioner Eglash concluded that, based on the numbers, an increase in treatment cost is
not the real cause of the high rate increases forecast, but instead there was a period of time
when costs were rising, but no rate increases were put into place, which resulted in a drawing
down of reserves. Keniston said that reserves will be drawn down in FY 2016 through FY 2018
until revenues balance expenses. Commissioner Eglash agreed that reserves have been
depleted over time.
Commissioner Danaher asked for an explanation of the difference between wastewater
treatment costs and wastewater collection costs. Keniston said that the wastewater treatment
fund’s expenses are paid by the plant partners including Palo Alto and that those wastewater
treatment costs are an expense for the wastewater collection utility. Interim Utilities Director
Shikada said that the wastewater conveyance is a Utilities activity and that wastewater
treatment is a Public Works activity and that the combined costs are paid for by ratepayers.
Wastewater Collection Utility expenses include the treatment costs, which are a pass through
expense from the wastewater treatment plant.
Commissioner Schwartz noted that the wastewater collection operations costs increased
significantly from FY 2015 to FY 2016. Keniston said that this was due to a one-year accounting
anomaly. Assistant Director Jane Ratchye said that the three primary costs buckets for the
wastewater collection fund include: 1) operations costs for wastewater collection, which are
rising at 2-3% per year; 2) CIP costs for wastewater collection, which are rising at 2-3% per year;
and 3) wastewater treatment costs, which are rising at 5-6% per year. The treatment costs that
are passed through to the wastewater collection utility are the main driver for increasing
costs—and, therefore, rates.
Allen pointed out that his breakdown of the wastewater treatment expenses showed the costs
in terms of operations, minor CIP and major CIP debt service. He noted that there was a major
jump in major CIP debt service in FY 2019 when the dewatering facility would go on line.
Commissioner Eglash reiterated the difficulty in explaining that total wastewater collection
expenses are rising at 4-5% per year, but we are asking for rate increases of 9-10% per year
without driving the reserves below the minimum. He said that a better explanation must be
forthcoming or the projected expenses should be reduced.
Public Comment
Herb Borock said that wastewater treatment plant costs estimates for the future are increasing
dramatically, but that no explanation has been provided for the CIP plans at the treatment
plant. He said that Council has approved a plan to replace the incinerator with a dewatering
and load-out facility and that the current plan is to have an anaerobic digester at the plant. He
said that the cost for the anaerobic digester keep increasing dramatically. He said it’s unclear
what assumption is in the cost projections regarding what happens after the incinerator is
dismantled – will we keep using the haul out facility, or will something be built on site to handle
the sludge. Trying to predict future costs depends on the plan and how easy it would be for
Council to change direction. He said that the long-term facilities plan at treatment plant should
be reviewed again by Council since there are choices about what to do that have impacts on
greenhouse gas emissions. He also commented on the Proposition 218 noticing process saying
that the Council should support the rate proposals prior to staff issuing the Proposition 218
notices.
Commissioner Eglash said that in order to support the proposal, he would need a better
understanding of the revenues and expenses over the years. Ratchye pointed to page 24 of the
Wastewater Collection Financial Plan (Appendix A: Wastewater Collection Financial Forecast
Detail) that is attached to the UAC memo and reminded the UAC that the reserve structure was
changed in FY 2015 to lower the reserve amounts and that at the time of the change, there was
significant money in the reserves that was placed initially in the new Rate Stabilization Reserve,
which would normally have a zero balance. Over FY 2015 and FY 2016, all the funds in the Rate
Stabilization Reserve will be drawn down to zero. She said that reserves were being drawn
down in FY 2011, FY 2012, and FY 2013, then there were two anomalous lower cost years—in
FY 2014 when there was a one-year hiatus in new CIP budgeting and in FY 2015 when reduced
operations expenses due to an accounting anomaly—when reserves were somewhat
replenished. However, underlying those anomalies, costs were rising and revenues were not
keeping pace. As shown on page 24 of the plan, reserves will be drawn down again in FY 2016,
FY 2017 and FY 2018 before revenues catch up with expenses. She said that rate increases
need to be significant to get revenues to the levels that are needed to cover expenses.
Commissioner Eglash said that his understanding from that explanation is that we’ve allowed
revenues to fall below expenses during the last few years and we did that because costs were
increasing steadily and we chose not to increase rates. The reason we did not increase rates is
that reserves were available to draw on. In addition, there were two years with anomalously
low cost that somewhat replenished reserves, but we are now at the point when we must
increase revenues. He said that he can now see this on page 24 of the plan (line 20: into/(out
of) reserves), which shows that reserves were drawn down in FY 2011 through FY 2013, were
replenished in the anomalous years of FY 2014 and FY 2015, but that reserves will be drawn
down again in FY 2016, FY 2017 and FY 2018 before revenues cover expenses. He said that
reviewing line 18: (total uses of funds) shows that expenses increased slightly from FY 2012 to
FY 2013, but increased about $3.6 million from FY 2013 to FY 2016 ignoring the anomalous
years of FY 2014 and FY 2015. Then costs increase by about 5% from FY 2017 and onward. He
said that the costs increases have been hidden from customers. He said that even with adding
$4 million to reserves in FY 2014 and FY 2015, that a 9% increase in revenue is needed. He said
that it seems like with costs increasing at about 5% per year, we should be fine with 5% per
year rate increases. Ratchye pointed out that a one-time adjustment into reserves doesn’t help
much with ongoing cost increases whereas a 9% rate increase raises revenue to a new base
level upon with a subsequent 9-10% rate increase will increase revenues even more with the
power of compounding.
Commissioner Eglash said that he was beginning to understand the issue by examining the lines
on page 24 of the plan showing the “Total Sources of Funds” and the “Total Uses of Funds,”
which show that revenues have not been keeping up with expenses for years. Keniston says
that revenues have not kept up with expenses for a period beyond the years shown on the
chart on page 24 and was the case in FY 2009 and FY 2010 as well. Commissioner Eglash said
that we have been in a long period when rates provided insufficient revenues to cover normal
year expenses (ignoring FY 2014 and FY 2015). He asked how revenues could lag expenses for
up to 7 years. Ratchye said that the answer to that question is that reserves were high and that
the anomalous two years of lower expenses made calling for rate increases hard to justify. In
addition, the change to the reserve structure in FY 2015 lowered the amount of reserves that
were considered sufficient—and this is the case for all funds, not just the Wastewater
Collection Fund.
Commissioner Eglash said that the reserves were reduced when we realized that we had more
than we needed and we’ve been slowing consuming them over the years and that all customers
have been the beneficiaries for several years of holding the line on rates by using the financial
reserves. The day of reckoning has been delayed due to the two anomalous years of low
expenses. He said that with no rate increase, we would have a $3 million deficit and we don’t
have enough reserves to cover that and we need to get back to a place where income covers
expenses and staff’s proposal phases in rate increases so that we don’t get to that place until FY
2019.
Commissioner Schwartz agreed that the public has been insulated from the increasing costs so
now we need to raise rates to cover costs. This can be presented as saving the customers over
the last several years when rate increases were low.
Commissioner Eglash said that a chart comparing revenues to costs would show the years when
there was a deficit and costs were not covered by revenues and for how long this went on. It is
the same as if your salary was staying the same, but rent climbs and when you deplete your
savings, you have a problem and can’t afford the rent.
Chair Foster said that the Council made decisions in past to delay rate increases and now the
rates must increase. He said that he recalls that in the past several years, moderate rate
increases could have been proposed, but the case for them was somewhat borderline and that
there was value in a zero rate increase for the community knowing that, sooner or later, the
rates would have to increase. Ratchye agreed and recalled that these conversations occurred
every year; for example, last year, staff proposed a 3% gas rate increase followed by a 4%
increase the following year, but the feedback was that a 3% increase was so low that it’s not
worth it and would be better to have no rate increase and a 7% in the following year. Chair
Foster said that there is a desire to insulate customers from rate increases and that, even with a
delayed higher rate increase, the customers are not actually paying more over the whole
period.
Commissioner Ballantine noted that (on the chart on page 24) the allocated charges (line 12)
are anomalously low in FY 2015 and that for FY 2016 and forward, those costs are rising. He
said that the low cost in FY 2015 could be due to an operational cost saving that year that could
be found in future years, but the future forecasts do not include any cost savings that may
actually accrue.
Commissioner Eglash pointed out the reduced cost for FY 2014 could be repeated in the future,
but that the projections show costs only increasing, which may not reflect reality. Ratchye
pointed out that the reduced CIP costs in FY 2014 was a cause for consternation in the past as
the UAC and Council was concerned that it signaled a slowdown in infrastructure replacement.
However, it was only a pause in new funding for CIP to allow staff to catch up to CIP projects in
the queue. She also pointed out that the allocated cost line item referred to by Commissioner
Ballantine is not related to operational cost savings, but are the costs allocated from the
services provided by the City such as HR, City attorney, finance department, etc. and that the
reduced charges in FY 2015 were related to an accounting anomaly. Both these one-time cost
reductions are not related to finding efficiencies were found and that these efficiencies won’t
be found in the future.
Commissioner Eglash said that he was now adequately satisfied with the explanations for the
need for the rate increase and supports going forward with the staff recommendation.
ACTION:
Commissioner Danaher made a motion that the UAC recommend that the Council adopt
resolutions approving the FY 2017 Wastewater Collection Financial Plan and increasing
wastewater rates by amending Rate Schedules S-1 (Residential Wastewater Collection and
Disposal), S-2 (Commercial Wastewater Collection and Disposal), S-6 (Restaurant Wastewater
Collection and Disposal) and S-7 (Commercial Wastewater Collection and Disposal – Industrial
Discharger). Commissioner Schwartz seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously
(5-0) with Chair Foster, Commissioners Ballantine, Danaher, Eglash, and Schwartz voting yes
and Vice Chair Cook and Commissioner Hall absent.
City of Palo Alto (ID # 6689)
Finance Committee Staff Report
Report Type: Action Items Meeting Date: 4/19/2016
City of Palo Alto Page 1
Summary Title: FY 2017 Water Financial Plan and Rate Proposals
Title: Utilities Advisory Committee Recommendation that the City Council
Adopt: (1) a Resolution Approving the Fiscal Year 2017 Water Utility Financial
Plan; and (2) a Resolution Increasing Water Rates by Amending Rate
Schedules W-1 (General Residential Water Service), W-2 (Water Service from
Fire Hydrants), W-3 (Fire Service Connections), W-4 (Residential Master-
Metered and General Non-Residential Water Service), and W-7 (Non-
Residential Irrigation Water Service)
From: City Manager
Lead Department: Utilities
Recommendation
Staff and the Utilities Advisory Commission (UAC) request that the Finance Committee
recommend that the Council:
1. Adopt a resolution (Attachment A) approving the fiscal year (FY) 2017 Water Utility
Financial Plan (Attachment B); and
2. Adopt a resolution (Attachment C) increasing water rates by amending Rate Schedules
W-1 (General Residential Water Service), W-2 (Water Service from Fire Hydrants), W-3
(Fire Service Connections), W-4 (Residential Master-Metered and General Non-
Residential Water Service), and W-7 (Non-Residential Irrigation Water Service).
Executive Summary
The FY 2017 Water Utility Financial Plan includes projections of the utility’s costs and revenues
for FY 2017 through FY 2026. Costs are projected to rise substantially for the next several years
due primarily to increasing water supply costs. As a result, staff recommends a 6% water rate
increase effective on July 1, 2016 and projects the need for 9% rate increases in FY 2018 and
FY 2019. The 6% increase is needed to recover costs due to an expected 7% increase for the
cost of water from the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission (SFPUC) as well as increased
local operations costs.
City of Palo Alto Page 2
Costs are increasing by 24% from FY 2016 to FY 2026 and these increases are mostly due to
water supply costs. Current projections are that water supply costs will increase by 7% in FY
2017, but with the recent continuing drought, the trajectory of future water supply cost
increases is uncertain. To keep the Operations Reserve healthy while minimizing the impact to
customers, staff proposes spreading the rate increases required to match projected costs over
several years. This is possible with transfers to the Operations Reserve: $4 million from the CIP
Reserve in FY 2017 and $4.7 million and $1.87 million from the Rate Stabilization Reserve in FY
2016 and FY 2017, respectively. These actions will reduce the Rate Stabilization Reserve to zero
by the end of FY 2017.
The UAC reviewed the Water Financial Plan and Rate Proposals at its meeting on March 2,
2016, and unanimously recommended approval of the proposed rates and financial plan.
Background
Every year staff presents the Financial Plans for its Electric, Gas, Water, and Wastewater
Collection Utilities and recommends any rate adjustments required to maintain their financial
health. These Financial Plans include a comprehensive overview of the utility’s operations, both
retrospective and prospective, and are intended to be a reference for UAC, Finance Committee
and Council members as they review the budget and rate recommendations. Each Financial
Plan also contains a set of Reserves Management Practices describing the reserves for each
utility and the management practices for those reserves.
The Finance Committee reviewed preliminary financial forecasts and rate projections for all
Utilities funds at its March 1, 2016 meeting. Staff has made revisions to those preliminary
projections (but not for the Water Utility).
Discussion
Staff’s annual assessment of the financial position of the City’s water utility is completed to
ensure adequate revenue to fund operations, in compliance with the cost of service
requirements set forth in the California Constitution (Proposition 218). This includes making
long-term projections of market conditions, the physical condition of the system, and other
factors that could affect utility costs, and setting rates adequate to recover these costs. The
current rate proposals are also based on the cost of service methodology described in the 2012
Palo Alto Water Cost of Service & Rate Study, the 2015 Study update and Drought Rate
memorandum completed by Raftelis Financial Consultants.
Proposed Actions for FY 2016
This year’s Water Utility Financial Plan includes the following proposed actions for FY 2016:
1. Reduce the $5.5 million transfer from the Rate Stabilization Reserve to the Operations
Reserve proposed in the FY 2016 Water Financial Plan to $4.7 million.
City of Palo Alto Page 3
Proposed Actions for FY 2017
This year’s Water Utility Financial Plan also includes the following proposed actions for FY 2017:
1. Transfer $1.87 million from the Rate Stabilization Reserve to the Operations Reserve.
2. Transfer $4 million from the CIP Reserve to the Operations Reserve
These transfers will enable staff to maintain Operations Reserve levels while spreading the
required rate increases for the water utility over several years. These proposed actions are
described in more detail in the FY 2017 Water Financial Plan (Attachment B).
In addition, staff proposes to adjust water rates to the levels shown in Tables 1 through 4,
below, effective July 1, 2016. These changes are projected to increase the system average
water rate by roughly 6%. These rate changes are included in the proposed amended rate
schedules in Attachment D.
Table 1: Water Consumption Charges in $/CCF (Current and Proposed)
Current
(9/1/15)
Proposed
(7/1/16)
Change
$/CCF %
W-1 (Residential) Volumetric Rates ($/CCF)
Tier 1 Rates 5.93 6.30 0.37 6%
Tier 2 Rates 8.38 8.82 0.44 5%
W-2 (Construction) Volumetric Rates ($/CCF)
Uniform Rate 6.92 7.32 0.40 6%
W-4 (Commercial) Volumetric Rates ($/CCF)
Uniform Rate 6.92 7.32 0.40 6%
W-7 (Irrigation) Volumetric Rates ($/CCF)
Uniform Rate 8.29 8.72 0.43 5%
City of Palo Alto Page 4
Table 2: Current and Proposed Monthly Service Charge
Meter
Size
Monthly Service Charge
($/month based on meter size) Change
Current
(9/1/15)
Proposed
(7/1/16) $/mo %
5/8” $16.03 $16.77 $0.74 5%
3/4” $21.50 $22.60 $1.10 5%
1” $32.45 $34.26 $1.81 6%
1 ½” $59.83 $63.40 $3.57 6%
2” $92.67 $98.37 $5.70 6%
3” $196.70 $209.11 $12.41 6%
4” $350.00 $372.31 $22.31 6%
6” $716.82 $762.81 $45.99 6%
8” $1,319.07 $1,403.94 $84.87 6%
10” $2,085.57 $2,219.92 $134.35 6%
12” $2,742.56 $2,919.34 $495.89 6%
Table 3: Current and Proposed Monthly Fire Service Charges
Meter
Size
Monthly Service Charge
($/month based on meter size) Change
Current
(9/1/15)
Proposed
(7/1/16) $/mo %
2” $3.43 $3.79 $0.36 10%
4” $21.22 $23.42 $2.20 10%
6” $61.63 $68.03 $6.40 10%
8” $131.34 $144.97 $13.63 10%
10” $236.20 $260.70 $24.50 10%
12” $381.52 $421.11 $39.59 10%
City of Palo Alto Page 5
Table 4: Drought Surcharges in $/CCF (Current and Proposed)
Current
(9/1/15)
Proposed
(7/1/16)
Change
$/CCF %
10%/15% Reduction
W-1 Residential (Tier 1) 0.19 0.20 $0.01 5%
W-1 Residential (Tier 2) 0.55 0.58 0.03 5%
W-4 (Non-residential and
Master Metered Multi-Family) 0.24 0.26 0.02 8%
W-7 (Irrigation) 0.51 0.53 0.02 4%
20% Reduction
W-1 Residential (Tier 1) 0.39 0.43 0.04 10%
W-1 Residential (Tier 2) 1.14 1.21 0.07 6%
W-4 (Non-residential and
Master Metered Multi-Family) 0.49 0.53 0.04 8%
W-7 (Irrigation) 1.18 1.25 0.07 6%
25% Reduction
W-1 Residential (Tier 1) 0.59 0.64 0.05 8%
W-1 Residential (Tier 2) 1.76 1.85 0.09 5%
W-4 (Non-residential and
Master Metered Multi-Family) 0.72 0.77 0.05 7%
W-7 (Irrigation) 1.93 2.02 0.09 5%
Bill Impact of Proposed Rate Changes
Table 5 shows the impact of the proposed July 1, 2016 rate changes on residential bills. The
average increase is roughly 6%, but some customers may see variations due to slight changes in
the composition of the utility’s costs and how that affects the first tier and fixed charges under
the cost of service methodology. The bill comparison also includes continued activation of the
drought surcharge at the 20% reduction level.
Table 5: Impact of Proposed Rate Changes on Residential Bills
Usage
(CCF/month)
Bill under
Existing Rates
(9/1/15)
Bill under
Proposed Rates
(7/1/16)
Change
$/mo. %
4 41.31 43.69 2.38 6%
(Winter median) 7 63.47 67.18 3.71 6%
(Annual median) 9 82.51 87.24 4.73 6%
(Summer median) 14 130.11 137.39 7.28 6%
25 234.83 247.72 12.89 5%
City of Palo Alto Page 6
Table 6 shows the impact of the proposed July 1, 2016 rate changes on various representative
commercial customer bills. As with residents, this comparison includes the 20% drought
surcharge level.
Table 6: Impact of Proposed Rate Changes on Commercial Bills
Usage
(CCF/month)
Bill under
Current Rates
(9/1/15)
Bill under
Proposed Rates
(7/1/16)
Change
$/mo. %
Commercial (W-4) (5/8” meters)
(Annual median) 12 104.95 110.97 6.02 6%
(Annual average) 64 490.27 519.17 28.90 6%
Irrigation (W-7) (1 ½” meters)
(Winter median) 9 145 153 8 6%
(Summer median) 37 410 432 22 5%
(Winter average) 56 590 622 32 5%
(Summer average) 199 1,944 2047 103 5%
FY 2017 Financial Plan’s Projected Rate Adjustments for the Next Five Fiscal Years
Table 7 shows the projected rate adjustments over the next five years and their impact on the
annual median residential water bill.
Table 7: Projected Rate Adjustments, FY 2016 to FY 2020
FY 2017 FY 2018 FY 2019 FY 2020 FY 2021
Water Utility 6% 9% 9% 6% 2%
Estimated Bill Impact ($/mo)* $4.73 $7.85 $8.56 $6.22 $2.20
* estimated impact on median residential water bill, which is currently $82.51.
The main driver for the increase in the water utility’s costs (and therefore rates) over the next
several years is the cost of water. Wholesale water costs are projected to rise 7% in FY 2017,
but due to the ongoing drought, future increases are uncertain. What is certain is that the
SFPUC’s costs to operate the Regional Water System are primarily fixed costs, so the water rate
is highly dependent on usage by users of the Regional Water System.
The Water Utility may also see a $1 million increase in operating costs for a capital lease for
emergency generators for wells and pump stations. Aside from that, operating and CIP costs
are projected to rise roughly 2% to 4% annually over that time. The FY 2017 Water Utility
Financial Plan assumes the current drought ends in 2017, but based on CPAU’s experience,
consumption is not anticipated to return to pre-drought levels.
Last year, staff discussed uncertainty in the forecasts of capital costs for the water utility in
coming years. Water main replacement costs have risen substantially in recent years, and it is
possible higher CIP expenditures will be required in the future. Staff is in the process of
reviewing a recently completed master plan for the water distribution system, and expects
City of Palo Alto Page 7
better information about future main replacement costs when that plan is completed. The
review is expected to be completed during 2016.
Water Bill Comparison with Surrounding Cities
Table 8 compares water bills under current rates as of February 1, 2016 for residential
customers to those in surrounding communities. CPAU has the highest monthly bills of the
group, although bills for smaller water users are less than in some surrounding communities. It
is unclear at this time what water rate changes may be implemented in these communities in
2016.
Table 8: Residential Monthly Water Bill Comparison
Usage
(CCF/month)
Residential monthly bill comparison ($/month)*
As of February 2016
Palo
Alto
Menlo
Park
Mountain
View Hayward
Redwood
City
Santa
Clara
4 41.31 44.11 31.46 28.68 43.69 16.64
(Winter median) 7 63.47 62.25 48.77 48.42 57.13 29.12
(Annual median) 9 82.51 74.36 60.31 61.58 66.77 37.44
(Summer median) 14 130.11 106.12 89.16 96.24 95.46 58.24
25 234.83 176.80 187.23 181.49 182.14 104.00
Based on the FY 2013 BAWSCA survey, the fraction of SFPUC as the source of potable water supply was
100% for Palo Alto, 95% for Menlo Park, 100% for Redwood City, 87% for Mountain View, 10% for Santa
Clara and 100% for Hayward.
Changes from Preliminary Financial Forecast
After presenting the preliminary financial forecast to the UAC on February 3, 2016, SFPUC
updated its wholesale water rate increase estimate. The wholesale rate is now forecast to
increase from $3.75/per hundred cubic feet (CCF) to $4.05/CCF for FY 2017 instead of the
previously projected $4.50/CCF. This updated projection was provided to the Finance
Committee on March 1 when it reviewed the preliminary financial projections. The change in
the wholesale cost of water allowed for a 6% retail rate increase for FY 2017, rather than the
9% increase in the preliminary financial forecast presented to the UAC. However, SFPUC’s
wholesale water rates for FY 2017 will not be finalized until June 2016.
Changes from Last Year’s Financial Forecast
Staff has projected future water rate increases for several years. Table 9 compares current rate
projections to those projected in the last two year’s Financial Plans. As shown, the FY 2017 rate
projections are somewhat lower than projected last year. In the FY 2015 Financial Plan, the
drought was not known to be as long or severe as it has been so the rate increase projections
are generally lower than current projections.
City of Palo Alto Page 8
Table 9: Projected Water Rate Trajectory for FY 2017 to FY 2026
Projection FY
2017
FY
2018
FY
2019
FY
2020
FY
2021
FY
2022
FY
2023
FY
2024
FY
2025
FY
2026
Current
(FY 2017 Financial Plan) 6% 9% 9% 6% 2% 2% 2% 3% 5% 3%
Last year
(FY 2016 Financial Plan) 8% 8% 8% 3% 1% 2% 3% N/A N/A N/A
Two years ago
(FY 2015 Financial Plan) 6% 6% 6% 5% 1% N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Commission Review and Recommendation
The UAC reviewed this proposal at its March 2, 2016 meeting. Staff noted that the rate
projection had changed since the February 3, 2016 meeting as a result of updated wholesale
water rate projections from the SFPUC. The UAC discussed the factors that require a rate
increase noting that expenses rose 15% from FY 2015 to FY, but revenues actually dropped by
4% despite a 12% water rate increase (plus the imposition of drought surcharges), a
phenomenon that occurred since customers used much less water in response to the State’s
call for dramatic water use reductions due to the severe drought.
After discussion the UAC voted to recommend that the Council adopt resolutions approving the
FY 2017 Water Financial Plan and increasing water rates by amending Rate Schedules W-1, W-2,
W-3, W-4 and W-7. The vote was unanimous (5-0) with Chair Foster, Commissioners Ballantine,
Danaher, Eglash, and Schwartz voting yes and Vice Chair Cook and Commissioner Hall absent.
The draft excerpted minutes from the UAC’s March 2, 2016 meeting are provided as
Attachment E.
Timeline
Assuming the Finance Committee supports staff’s recommendation, notification of the rate
increases will be sent to customers as required by Article XIIID of the State Constitution (added
by Proposition 218). The Financial Plans and amended rate schedules will then go to the City
Council with the FY 2017 budget for adoption, at which time the public hearing required by
Article XIIID of the State Constitution will be held. All residents and other interested persons
may submit written or oral testimony at the hearing, and may also submit written protests to
any or all of the proposed rate increases. Council may adopt the proposed rates unless written
protests are filed by a majority of the affected customers.
Resource Impact
Normal year sales revenues for the Water Utility are projected to increase by roughly 6% ($1.9
million) as a result of these rate increases. See the FY 2017 Water Financial Plan (Attachment B)
for a more comprehensive overview of projected cost and revenue changes for the next ten
years.
City of Palo Alto Page 9
Policy Implications
The proposed water rate adjustments are consistent with the Council-adopted Reserve
Management Practices that are part of the Financial Plans, and were developed using a cost of
service study and methodology consistent with the cost of service requirements of Proposition
218.
Environmental Review
The Finance Committee’s review and recommendation to Council on the FY 2017 Water
Financial Plans and rate adjustments does not meet the California Environmental Quality Act’s
definition of a project, pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21065, thus no
environmental review is required.
Attachments:
Attachment A: Resolution Approving the FY 2017 Water Financial Plan (PDF) (PDF)
Attachment B: Proposed FY 2017 Water Financial Plan (PDF)
Attachment C: Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Increasing Water Rates
and Amending Rate Schedules W-1, W-2, W-3, W-4 and W-7 (PDF)
Attachment D: Proposed Amendments to Rate Schedules W-1, W-2, W-3, W-4, and W-
7, effective 7-1-2016 (PDF)
Attachment E: Excerpted UAC Draft Minutes of March 2, 2016 (PDF)
Attachment A
* NOT YET APPROVED *
Resolution No. _________
Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Approving the
FY 2017 Water Utility Financial Plan
R E C I T A L S
A. Each year the City of Palo Alto (“City”) regularly assesses the financial position of
its utilities with the goal of ensuring adequate revenue to fund operations. This includes
making long-term projections of market conditions, the physical condition of the system, and
other factors that could affect utility costs, and setting rates adequate to recover these costs. It
does this with the goal of providing safe, reliable, and sustainable utility services at competitive
rates. The City adopts Financial Plans to summarize these projections.
B. The City uses reserves to protect against contingencies and to manage other
aspects of its operations, and regularly assesses the adequacy of these reserves and the
management practices governing their operation. The status of utility reserves and their
management practices are included in Reserves Management Practices attached to and made
part of the Financial Plans.
The Council of the City of Palo Alto does hereby RESOLVE as follows:
SECTION 1. The Council hereby adopts the FY 2017 Water Utility Financial Plan.
SECTION 2. The Council hereby approves the transfer of $4.7 million in FY 2016 from
the Rate Stabilization Reserve to the Operations Reserve, as described in the FY 2017 Water
Utility Financial Plan approved via this resolution.
/ /
/ /
/ /
/ /
/ /
//
060322 sdl 6053681
Attachment A
* NOT YET APPROVED *
SECTION 3. The Council finds that the adoption of this resolution does not meet the
California Environmental Quality Act’s (CEQA) definition of a project under Public Resources
Code Section 21065, and therefore, no environmental assessment is required.
INTRODUCED AND PASSED:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTENTIONS:
ATTEST:
___________________________ ___________________________
City Clerk Mayor
APPROVED AS TO FORM: APPROVED:
___________________________ ___________________________
Senior Deputy City Attorney City Manager
___________________________
Director of Utilities
___________________________
Director of Administrative Services
060322 sdl 6053681
FY 2017 WATER
UTILITY
FINANCIAL PLAN
FY 2017 TO FY 2026
ATTACHMENT B
WATER UTILITY FINANCIAL PLAN
February 2016 2 | Page
FY 2017 WATER UTILITY
FINANCIAL PLAN
FY 2017 TO FY 2026
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section 1: Definitions and Abbreviations................................................................................ 4
Section 2: Executive Summary and Recommendations ........................................................... 4
Section 2A: Overview of Financial Position .................................................................................. 4
Section 2B: Summary of Proposed Actions .................................................................................. 5
Section 3: Detail of FY 2017 Rate and Reserves Proposals ....................................................... 5
Section 3A: Rate Design ............................................................................................................... 5
Section 3B: Current and Proposed Rates ..................................................................................... 6
Section 3C: Bill Impact of Proposed Rate Changes ...................................................................... 8
Section 3D: Proposed Reserve Transfers ..................................................................................... 9
Section 4: Utility Overview .................................................................................................... 9
Section 4A: Water Utility History ................................................................................................. 9
Section 4B: Customer Base ........................................................................................................ 10
Section 4C: Distribution System ................................................................................................. 11
Section 4D: Cost Structure and Revenue Sources ...................................................................... 11
Section 4E: Reserves Structure ................................................................................................... 12
Section 4F: Competitiveness ...................................................................................................... 12
Section 5: Utility Financial Projections ................................................................................. 13
Section 5A: Load Forecast .......................................................................................................... 13
Section 5B: FY 2011 to FY 2015 Cost and Revenue Trends ........................................................ 14
Section 5C: FY 2015 Results ....................................................................................................... 15
Section 5D: FY 2016 Projections ................................................................................................ 16
Section 5E: FY 2017-FY 2026 Projections ................................................................................... 16
Section 5F: Risk Assessment and Reserves Adequacy ............................................................... 18
Section 5G: Alternate Scenarios................................................................................................. 19
WATER UTILITY FINANCIAL PLAN
February 2016 3 | Page
Section 5H: Long-Term Outlook ................................................................................................. 21
Section 6: Details and Assumptions ..................................................................................... 21
Section 6A: Water Purchase Costs ............................................................................................. 21
Section 6B: Operations .............................................................................................................. 23
Section 6C: Capital Improvement Program (CIP) ....................................................................... 24
Section 6D: Debt Service ............................................................................................................ 27
Section 6E: Other Revenues ....................................................................................................... 28
Section 6F: Sales Revenues ........................................................................................................ 28
Section 7: Communications Plan .......................................................................................... 28
Appendices ......................................................................................................................... 30
Appendix A: Water Utility Financial Forecast Detail ................................................................. 31
Appendix B: Water Utility Capital Improvement Program (CIP) Detail ..................................... 33
Appendix C: Water Utility Reserves Management Practices ..................................................... 35
Appendix D: Description of Water Utility Operational Activities ............................................... 38
Appendix E: Sample of Water Utility Outreach Communications ............................................. 39
WATER UTILITY FINANCIAL PLAN
February 2016 4 | Page
SECTION 1: DEFINITIONS AND ABBREVIATIONS
BAWSCA Bay Area Water Supply and Conservation Agency
CCF The standard unit of measurement for water delivered to water customers, equal to
one hundred cubic feet, or roughly 748 gallons.
CIP Capital Improvement Program
CPAU City of Palo Alto Utilities Department
O&M Operations and Maintenance
RFC Raftelis Financial Consultants, Inc.
SFPUC San Francisco Public Utilities Commission
SFWD San Francisco Water Department
UAC Utilities Advisory Commission
WSIP The SFPUC’s Water System Improvement Program to seismically strengthen the
transmission lines of the Hetch Hetchy regional water system.
SECTION 2: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS
This document presents a Financial Plan for the City’s Water Utility for the next ten years. This
Financial Plan provides revenues to cover the costs of operating the utility safely over that time
while adequately investing for the future. It also addresses the financial risks facing the utility
over the short term and long term, and includes measures to mitigate and manage those risks.
SECTION 2A: OVERVIEW OF FINANCIAL POSITION
By FY 2026, costs for the Water Utility will increase 24% over FY 2016 levels, as shown in Table
1. Most of increase is related to the cost of water supplied by the San Francisco Public Utilities
Commission (SFPUC), which is projected to rise 34% in that time due to the issuance of long
term debt to finance major seismic improvements to the Hetch Hetchy transmission system.
The cost of replacing the water mains in the City’s water distribution system has also increased
substantially from the low costs seen during the recent recession, but is projected to remain
relatively level during the forecast horizon. Staff projects only inflationary increases to most
other costs over the forecast period.
Table 1: Expenses for FY 2015 to FY 2026 (Thousand $’s)
Expenses
($000)
FY
2015
(act.)
FY
2016
(est.)
FY
2017
FY
2018
FY
2019
FY
2020
FY
2021
FY
2022
FY
2023
FY
2024
FY
2025
FY
2026
Water
Purchases
15,670
17,645
18,899
19,976
21,177
21,259
21,475
21,697
21,915
22,302
23,652
23,426
Operations 15,826 17,442 17,065 17,509 17,960 18,429 18,863 19,276 19,703 20,135 20,578 21,033
Capital
Projects 8,580 11,039 10,216 10,012 10,252 10,555 10,867 11,189 11,519 11,860 12,211 12,572
TOTAL
40,077
46,127
46,180
47,498
49,390
50,243
51,205
52,161
53,137
54,297
56,441
57,031
To cover these increases in costs, revenues (and therefore rates) need to increase over the next
several years to balance costs and revenues. The rate trajectory shown in Table 2 assumes that
WATER UTILITY FINANCIAL PLAN
February 2016 5 | Page
the drought continues through 2017 and that consumption does not return to its pre-drought
levels. Table 2 also compares current rate projections to those projected in last year’s Financial
Plan.
Table 2: Projected Water Rate Trajectory for FY 2017 to FY 2026
Projection FY
2017
FY
2018
FY
2019
FY
2020
FY
2021
FY
2022
FY
2023
FY
2024
FY
2025
FY
2026
Current 6% 9% 9% 6% 2% 2% 2% 3% 5% 3%
Last year 8% 8% 8% 3% 1% 2% 3% N/A N/A N/A
The Water Utility has a Rate Stabilization Reserve that can be used to smooth rate increases
over several years. This Financial Plan projects that these reserves will be exhausted by the end
of FY 2017. The Water Utility also has a Capital Improvement Program (CIP) Reserve that can be
used to offset one-time unanticipated capital costs. This Financial Plan assumes that the CIP
Reserve will be used for unanticipated capital expenses or returned to the Operations Reserve
by the end of FY 2017. At that point the Emergency Water Supply and Storage Project and the
Water System Master Plan will have been completed, so capital costs will be known with more
certainty. Table 3 shows the projected reserve transfers over the forecast period.
Table 3: Transfers To/(From) Reserves for FY 2016 to FY 2026 ($000)
Reserve FY 2016 FY 2017 FY 2018 to FY 2026
Capital Improvement - (4,000) -
Rate Stabilization (4,700) (1,867) -
Operations 4,700 5,867 -
SECTION 2B: SUMMARY OF PROPOSED ACTIONS
Staff proposes the following actions for the Water Utility in FY 2016:
1. Transfer $4.7 million from the Rate Stabilization Reserve to the Operations Reserve. See
Section 3D: Proposed Reserve Transfers for more details.
Staff proposes the following actions for the Water Utility in FY 2017:
1. Increase rates as shown in Section 3B: Current and Proposed Rates. These changes are
projected to increase the system average rate by roughly 6%.
2. Transfer $1.867 million from the Rate Stabilization Reserve to the Operations Reserve.
See Section 3D: Proposed Reserve Transfers for more details.
3. Transfer $4 million from the CIP Reserve to the Operations Reserve.
SECTION 3: DETAIL OF FY 2017 RATE AND RESERVES PROPOSALS
SECTION 3A: RATE DESIGN
The Water Utility’s rates are evaluated and implemented in compliance with the cost of service
requirements and procedural rules set forth in the California Constitution under Article 13 (per
Proposition 218). Current rates were structured based on staff’s assessment of the financial
WATER UTILITY FINANCIAL PLAN
February 2016 6 | Page
position of the Water Utility, and updated using the methodology from the March 2012 Palo
Alto Water Cost of Service & Rate Study by Raftelis Financial Consultants, Inc., as well as
Raftelis’ 2015 memoranda updating the 2012 Study and analyzing drought rates (Staff Report
2676). Staff plans to review and update this cost of service study in 2 to 3 years, unless any
major changes occur to the utility’s operations or customer base that would necessitate an
earlier study. Before conducting any new cost of service study, staff will review current rates
and the scope of the study with the Utilities Advisory Commission (UAC) and Council to
determine the City’s policy priorities.
SECTION 3B: CURRENT AND PROPOSED RATES
The current rates and surcharges were effective on September 1, 2015. Rates were re-aligned
to the results of an updated cost of service study, performed by Raftelis Financial Consultants,
Inc. (RFC), which both developed the drought surcharges and reviewed the City’s water rate
methodology and structure in light of recent court decisions interpreting the state
constitution’s cost of service requirements. RFC examined and validated both the City’s
methodology and rate structure as fundamentally sound, recommending only minor
adjustments to ensure that peaking costs were equitably allocated to each customer class and
residential rate tier.
CPAU has five rate schedules: one for separately metered residential customers (W-1), one for
commercial and master-metered multi-family residential customers (W-4), and specific
schedules for irrigation-only services (W-7), services to fire sprinkler systems in buildings and
private hydrants (W-3), and for service to fire hydrant rental meters used for construction (W-
2). All customers pay a monthly service charge, based on the size of their inlet meter. This
charge represents meter reading, billing, and other customer service costs, but also the cost of
maintaining the capability to deliver a peak flow for that customer corresponding to their meter
size. All customers are also charged for each CCF (one hundred cubic feet) of water used.
Separately metered residential customers are charged on a tiered basis, with the first 0.2 CCF
per day (6 CCF for a 30 day billing period) charged a base price per CCF, and all additional units
charged a higher price per CCF. Commercial customers pay a uniform price for each CCF used,
and a higher price for separately metered irrigation service.
Table 4 and Table 6 show the current and proposed monthly service charges for all rate
schedules. Staff evaluated grouping the smallest meter sizes (5/8”, 3/4” and 1” meters) into
one charge category, but confirmed that there is a significant variation in actual demand on the
water distribution system among customers using each of these water sizes. As such, staff is
not recommending a change to the monthly service charge schedule.
Table 5 shows the consumption charges. Table 7 shows the current and proposed drought
surcharge levels. The basis for calculating these charges is staff’s annual assessment of the
water utility’s financial position, as well as the cost of service methodology from the 2012 Palo
Alto Water Cost of Service & Rate Study and 2015 update, prepared by RFC.
WATER UTILITY FINANCIAL PLAN
February 2016 7 | Page
Table 4: Current and Proposed Monthly Service Charges
Meter
Size
Monthly Service Charge
($/month based on meter size) Change
Current (9/1/15) Proposed (7/1/16) $/mo %
5/8” $16.03 $16.77 $0.74 5%
3/4” $21.50 $22.60 $1.10 5%
1” $32.45 $34.26 $1.81 6%
1 ½” $59.83 $63.40 $3.57 6%
2” $92.67 $98.37 $5.70 6%
3” $196.70 $209.11 $12.41 6%
4” $350.00 $372.31 $22.31 6%
6” $716.82 $762.81 $45.99 6%
8” $1,319.07 $1,403.94 $84.87 6%
10” $2,085.57 $2,219.92 $134.35 6%
12” $2,742.56 $2,919.34 $495.89 6%
Table 5: Current and Proposed Water Consumption Charges
Current
(9/1/15)
Proposed
(7/1/16)
Change
$/CCF %
W-1 (Residential) Volumetric Rates ($/CCF)
Tier 1 Rates 5.93 6.30 0.37 6%
Tier 2 Rates 8.38 8.82 0.44 5%
W-2 (Construction) Volumetric Rates ($/CCF)
Uniform Rate 6.92 7.32 0.40 6%
W-4 (Commercial) Volumetric Rates ($/CCF)
Uniform Rate 6.92 7.32 0.40 6%
W-7 (Irrigation) Volumetric Rates ($/CCF)
Uniform Rate 8.29 8.72 0.43 5%
Table 6: Current and Proposed Monthly Fire Service Charges
Meter
Size
Monthly Service Charge
($/month based on meter size) Change
Current (9/1/15) Proposed (7/1/16) $/mo %
2” $3.43 $3.79 $0.36 10%
4” $21.22 $23.42 $2.20 10%
6” $61.63 $68.03 $6.40 10%
8” $131.34 $144.97 $13.63 10%
10” $236.20 $260.70 $24.50 10%
12” $381.52 $421.11 $39.59 10%
WATER UTILITY FINANCIAL PLAN
February 2016 8 | Page
Table 7: Current and Proposed Drought Surcharge Charges
Current
(9/1/15)
Proposed
(7/1/16)
Change
$/CCF %
10%/15% Reduction ($/CCF)
W-1 Residential (Tier 1) 0.19 0.20 $0.01 5%
W-1 Residential (Tier 2) 0.55 0.58 0.03 5%
W-4 (Non-residential and Master
Metered Multi-Family) 0.24 0.26 0.02 8%
W-7 (Irrigation) 0.51 0.53 0.02 4%
20% Reduction ($/CCF)
W-1 Residential (Tier 1) 0.39 0.43 0.04 10%
W-1 Residential (Tier 2) 1.14 1.21 0.07 6%
W-4 (Non-residential and Master
Metered Multi-Family) 0.49 0.53 0.04 8%
W-7 (Irrigation) 1.18 1.25 0.07 6%
25% Reduction ($/CCF)
W-1 Residential (Tier 1) 0.59 0.64 0.05 8%
W-1 Residential (Tier 2) 1.76 1.85 0.09 5%
W-4 (Non-residential and Master
Metered Multi-Family) 0.72 0.77 0.05 7%
W-7 (Irrigation) 1.93 2.02 0.09 5%
SECTION 3C: BILL IMPACT OF PROPOSED RATE CHANGES
Table 8 shows the impact of the proposed July 1, 2016 rate changes on the median residential
bill. The average increase is roughly 6%, but some customers may see slightly higher or lower
increases due to slight changes in the composition of the utility’s costs. Table 8 is presented
assuming continued activation of the drought surcharge at the 20% reduction level.
Table 8: Impact of Proposed Water Rate Changes on Residential Bills
Usage
(CCF/month)
Bill under
Current Rates
(9/15/15)
Bill under
Proposed
Rates (7/1/16)
Change
$/mo. %
4 $ 41.31 $ 43.69 $ 2.38 6%
(Winter median) 7 63.47 67.18 3.71 6%
(Annual median) 9 82.51 87.24 4.73 6%
(Summer median) 14 130.11 137.39 7.28 6%
25 234.83 247.72 12.89 5%
Table 9 shows the impact of the proposed July 1, 2016 rate changes on various representative
commercial customer bills. This comparison includes continuation of the drought surcharge at
the 20% reduction level.
WATER UTILITY FINANCIAL PLAN
February 2016 9 | Page
Table 9: Impact of Proposed Water Rate Changes on Commercial Bills
Usage
(CCF/month)
Bill under
Current Rates
(9/15/15)
Bill under
Proposed Rates
(7/1/16)
Change
$/mo. %
Commercial (W-4) (5/8” meters)
(Annual median) 12 $ 104.95 110.97 6.02 6%
(Annual average) 64 490.27 519.17 28.90 6%
Irrigation (W-7) (1 ½” meters)
(Winter median) 9 145 153 8 6%
(Summer median) 37 410 432 22 5%
(Winter average) 56 590 622 32 5%
(Summer average) 199 1,944 2,047 103 5%
SECTION 3D: PROPOSED RESERVE TRANSFERS
In the FY 2016 Financial Plan, several transfers between reserves were discussed for FY 2016.
CIP related funds were transferred out of the Reappropriations Replacement into the CIP
Reserve, and $5.5 million was proposed to be transferred from the Rate Stabilization Reserve
into the Operations Reserve.
Due to the long running drought in California, and as lower expenses in FY 2015 resulted in
higher ending reserve balances than initially projected, staff recommends reducing the $5.5
million transfer from the Rate Stabilization Reserve in FY 2016 to $4.7 million, and proposes
transferring $1.87 million in FY 2017. This transfer will exhaust the Rate Stabilization Reserve, as
planned for and discussed in Section 4E: Reserves Structure, and is included in the financial
projections in this Financial Plan. It will enable CPAU to maintain adequate Operations Reserve
levels while moderating the pace of increase in water rates.
A proposed $4 million transfer from the CIP Reserve to the Operations Reserve was also
discussed in the FY 2016 Financial Plan. This transfer will help fund the Operations Reserve, as
well as bring the CIP Reserve closer to its target reserve level. The impact of these transfers on
reserves levels can be seen in Section 4E: Reserves Structure and Appendix A: Water Utility
Financial Forecast Detail.
SECTION 4: UTILITY OVERVIEW
This section provides an overview of the utility and its operations. It is intended as general
background information and to help readers better understand the forecasts in Section 5:
Utility Financial Projections and Section 6: Details and Assumptions.
SECTION 4A: WATER UTILITY HISTORY
The Water Utility was established on May 9, 1896, two years after the city was incorporated.
Voters of the 750 person community approved a $40,000 bond to buy local, private water
companies who operated one or more shallow wells to serve the nearby residents. The city
grew and the well system expanded until nine wells were in operation in 1932. Palo Alto began
WATER UTILITY FINANCIAL PLAN
February 2016 10 | Page
receiving water from the San Francisco Water Department (SFWD) in 1937 to supplement these
sources.
A 1950 engineering report noted, “the capricious alternation of well waters and the San
Francisco Water Department water…has made satisfactory service to the average customer
practically impossible”. By 1950, only eight wells were still in operation. Despite this,
groundwater production increased in the 1950’s leading to lower groundwater tables and water
quality concerns. In 1962, a survey of water softening costs to CPAU customers determined that
CPAU should purchase 100% of its water supply needs from the SFWD. A 20-year contract was
signed with San Francisco, and CPAU’s wells were placed in standby condition. The SFWD later
became known as the SFPUC. Since 1962 (except for some very short periods) CPAU’s entire
supply of potable water has come from the SFPUC.
As the city grew, so did the number of mains in the water system. The system of mains
expanded along with the town, while existing sections of the system continued to age. In the
mid-1980s, the number of breaks in cast iron mains installed during the 1940s and earlier
started to accelerate. In FY 1994, to combat deterioration of older sections of the system, an
analysis of cost effective system improvements was performed and the rate of main
replacement was increased from one mile per year to three. A plan to replace 75 miles of
deficient mains within 25 years was begun.
In 1999, a study of system reliability concluded that major upgrades were needed to the
distribution system to provide adequate water supply during a natural disaster. This ultimately
resulted in the $40 million Emergency Water Supply and Storage Project, nearly completed,
which involved a new underground reservoir in El Camino Park, the siting and construction of
several emergency supply wells, and the upgrade of several existing wells and the Mayfield
pump station.
At the same time that CPAU was evaluating the reliability of its own system, the SFPUC, in
consultation with BAWSCA members, was evaluating the reliability of the Hetch Hetchy water
system, which crosses two major fault lines between the Sierras and the Bay Area. That
evaluation concluded that major upgrades to the system were required. This planning process
culminated in the SFPUC’s $4.8 billion Water System Improvement Project (WSIP), which is
ongoing.
SECTION 4B: CUSTOMER BASE
CPAU’s Water Utility provides water service to the residents and businesses of Palo Alto, plus a
handful of residential customers not in Palo Alto (Los Altos Hills, primarily). Nearly 20,300
customers are connected to the water system, approximately 16,500 (81%) of which are
separately metered residential customers and 3,800 (19%) of which are commercial, master-
metered residential, irrigation and fire service customers.
Judging from seasonal consumption patterns, between 35% and 50% of Palo Alto’s water is
used for irrigation, and that consumption is heavily weather dependent. It also varies
significantly by season. As a result of these two factors, there is significant variability in the
amount of water that is demanded from the system month to month and year to year.
WATER UTILITY FINANCIAL PLAN
February 2016 11 | Page
Figure 1: Cost Structure (FY 2015)
39%
40%
21%
Water Purchases
Operations
Capital
Figure 2: Revenue Structure (FY 2015)
93%
7%
Sales of Water
Other Revenue
SECTION 4C: DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM
To deliver water to its customers, the utility owns roughly 233 miles of mains (which transport
the water from the SFPUC meters at the city’s borders to the customer’s service laterals and
meters), eight wells (to be used in emergencies), five water storage reservoirs (also for
emergency purposes) and several tanks used to moderate pressure and deal with peaks in flow
and demand (due to fire suppression, heavy usage times, etc.). These represent the vast
majority of the infrastructure used to distribute water in Palo Alto.
SECTION 4D: COST STRUCTURE AND REVENUE SOURCES
As shown in Figure 1, water purchase
costs accounted for roughly 39% of the
Water Utility’s costs in FY 2015.
Operational costs represented roughly
40%, and capital investment was
responsible for the remaining 21%.
Water purchase costs are projected to
rise to roughly 41% of costs by FY 2026.
The Water Utility receives 93% of its
revenue from sales of water and the
remainder from capacity and connection
fees, interest on reserves, and other
sources. As rates increase over the next
several years, the percentage of revenue
from sales of water is expected to
increase as well. Appendix A: Water
Utility Financial Forecast Detail shows
more detail on the utility’s cost and
revenue structures. Roughly 15% of the
utility’s revenues come from fixed
service charges, though most of its costs
are fixed. This is typical for California
water utilities, and conforms to the Best
Management Practices (BMPs) of the
California Urban Water Conservation Council (CUWCC), a statewide conservation council of
environmental groups, state agencies, and water utilities to which the City is a signatory. One
of CUWCC’s BMPs is that a utility’s revenue from fixed service charges constitutes at most 30%
of the utility’s total revenue from all charges1.
1 See http://www.cuwcc.org/Resources/Memorandum-of-Understanding/Exhibit-1-BMP-Definitions-Schedules-
and-Requirements/BMP-1-Utility-Operations-Programs
WATER UTILITY FINANCIAL PLAN
February 2016 12 | Page
SECTION 4E: RESERVES STRUCTURE
CPAU maintains six reserves for its Water Utility to manage various types of contingencies.
These are summarized below, but see Appendix C: Water Utility Reserves Management
Practices for more detailed definitions and guidelines for reserve management:
• Reserve for Commitments: A reserve equal to the utility’s outstanding contract
liabilities for the current fiscal year. Most City funds, including the General Fund, have a
Commitments Reserve.
• Reserve for Reappropriations: A reserve for funds dedicated to projects reappropriated
by the City Council, nearly all of which are capital projects. Most City funds, including
the General Fund, have a Reappropriations Reserve.
• Capital Improvement Program (CIP) Reserve: The CIP reserve can be used to
accumulate funds for future expenditure on CIP projects and is anticipated to be empty
unless a major one-time CIP expenditure is expected in future years. This CIP can also
act as a contingency reserve for the CIP. This type of reserve is used in other utility funds
(Electric, Gas, and Wastewater Collection) as well.
• Rate Stabilization Reserve: This reserve is intended to be empty unless one or more
large rate increases are anticipated in the forecast period. In that case, funds can be
accumulated to spread the impact of those future rate increases across multiple years.
This type of reserve is used in other utility funds (Electric, Gas, and Wastewater
Collection) as well.
• Operations Reserve: This is the primary contingency reserve for the Water Utility, and is
used to manage yearly variances from budget for operational water supply costs. This
type of reserve is used in other utility funds (Electric, Gas, and Wastewater Collection)
as well.
• Unassigned Reserve: This reserve is for any funds not assigned to the other reserves
and is normally empty.
SECTION 4F: COMPETITIVENESS
Table 10 shows the current water bills for residential customers compared to what they would
be under surrounding communities’ rate schedules. CPAU has the highest monthly bills of the
group, although bills for smaller water users are less than in some surrounding communities.
WATER UTILITY FINANCIAL PLAN
February 2016 13 | Page
Table 10: Residential Monthly Water Bill Comparison
Usage
(CCF/month)
Residential monthly bill comparison ($/month)*
As of February 2016
Palo
Alto
Menlo
Park
Mountain
View Hayward
Redwood
City
Santa
Clara
4 41.31 44.11 31.46 28.68 43.69 16.64
(Winter median) 7 63.47 62.25 48.77 48.42 57.13 29.12
(Annual median) 9 82.51 74.36 60.31 61.58 66.77 37.44
(Summer median) 14 130.11 106.12 89.16 96.24 95.46 58.24
25 234.83 176.80 187.23 181.49 182.14 104.00
* All comparisons use the 5/8” meter size.
SECTION 5: UTILITY FINANCIAL PROJECTIONS
SECTION 5A: LOAD FORECAST
Figure 3 shows 40 years of water consumption history. Average water use has trended
downward over time even as Palo Alto’s population has grown. Significant water use reductions
over the 40-year history were in response to requests to reduce water use in the 1976-77 and
1988-92 drought periods. During these periods, customers invested in efficient equipment and
modified behavior to achieve the water reduction goals. More recently, water sales decreased
substantially during the 2007-2009 recession and during the current drought. Water use is
down by similar amounts among both commercial and residential customers. Both summertime
and wintertime use have decreased for all customer classes.
Figure 3: Historical Water Consumption
WATER UTILITY FINANCIAL PLAN
February 2016 14 | Page
Figure 4 shows the forecast of water consumption through FY 2026, as denoted by the dotted
line.
Figure 4: Forecast Water Consumption
Palo Alto is currently experiencing drought conditions with State mandated 24% water use
restrictions in effect. The current forecast assumes current conditions continue through FY
2017, with the drought easing in spring of 2017. It also assumes consumption only returns to
50% of its pre-drought levels, which is consistent with patterns experienced in prior droughts.
SECTION 5B: FY 2011 TO FY 2015 COST AND REVENUE TRENDS
Figure 5 and the tables in Appendix A: Water Utility Financial Forecast Detail show how costs
have changed during the last five years as well as how they are projected to change over the
next decade.
The annual expenses for the water utility rose substantially between 2011 and 2015. The
increases were primarily related to water purchase costs, which increased 47% from $10.7
million in FY 2011 to $15.7 million in FY 2014. A more in-depth discussion of water purchase
costs will be found in Section 6A: Water Purchase Costs. Operations cost increased by about 3%
annually, while CIP costs stayed relatively flat, except in FY 2013 when there was a hold on new
CIP spending to permit completion of a backlog of projects. This budgetary hold allowed for
backlogged water main replacement projects to be started, which consumed surplus capital
reserves.
WATER UTILITY FINANCIAL PLAN
February 2016 15 | Page
Figure 5: Water Utility Expenses, Revenues, and Rate Changes:
Actual Costs through FY 2015 and Projections through FY 2026
SECTION 5C: FY 2015 RESULTS
In early 2014, when proposing rate adjustments to be effective on July 1, 2014, staff forecast
the need for a 4% rate increase. However, higher sales in FY 2014, and projected increased
sales in FY 2015 increased reserves such that no rate change was needed for FY 2015. Forecast
revenues for FY 2015 were actually $41.2 million instead of the projected revenues of $36.4
million. The largest reason for this was a return of funds related to a return of CIP funds.
Connection and capacity fees were, and have continued to be, higher than forecast. Actual
expenses for FY 2015 were $40.1 million compared to the projected expenses of $38.7 million.
Table 11 summarizes the variances from forecast.
Actual Projected
WATER UTILITY FINANCIAL PLAN
February 2016 16 | Page
Table 11: FY 2015, Actual Results vs. 2014 Forecast
Net Cost/
(Benefit)
Type of
change
Return of capital project funds ($2,667,000) Revenue increase
Connection and capacity fees higher than forecast ($1,043,000) Revenue increase
Water supply costs lower than expected (700,000) Cost savings
Other revenues (interest income, etc.) were higher than
forecasted
($1,152,000) Revenue increase
Operations costs lower than expected (1,300,000) Cost savings
Capital project costs higher than projected 3,500,000 Cost increase
Net Cost / (Benefit) of Variances ($3,362,000)
SECTION 5D: FY 2016 PROJECTIONS
Several factors have contributed to changes between last year’s forecast and this year’s
projections. Most notably, the ongoing drought has reduced projected FY 2016 sales by around
12%. The activation of a drought rate surcharge in September 2015, however, means that FY
2016 revenues are projected to be only 4.6% lower than forecast. On the cost side, reduced
purchases and lower than forecast wholesale supply rates from the SFPUC are expected to
result in supply cost decreases of 13.7% for FY 2016. Notable are projected CIP cost increases of
$2.3 million, or 26%, mainly due to general cost increases and completing some projects. Table
12 summarizes the changes from last year’s forecast.
Table 12: FY 2016 Change in Projected Results, 2016 Forecast vs 2017 Forecast
Net Cost/
(Benefit)
Type of
change
Lower purchase costs ($2,809,000) Cost savings
Higher misc. revenues (interest income, fees) ($111,000) Revenue increase
Lower sales revenue $2,039,000 Revenue decrease
Capital project costs higher than projected $2,315,000 Cost increase
Higher Operations budgets $163,000 Cost increase
Net Cost / (Benefit) of Variances $1,507,000
SECTION 5E: FY 2017-FY 2026 PROJECTIONS
As can be seen in Figure 5 above, costs for the Water Utility are not projected to change
significantly between FY 2016 and FY 2017. However, as discussed earlier, water supply costs
are the main reason for the cost increases. Water supply costs are projected to increase by 7%
in FY 2017 and grow steadily over the coming years. Operations costs include will increase by $1
million in FY 2017 for emergency generator leasing and maintenance, but will otherwise
roughly match inflation through the forecast period. Capital investment costs are also expected
to increase at the same rate of inflation used in the City’s long-term financial plans (2.5 to
3%/year), though there is still uncertainty with regard to the utility’s future costs for main
replacement. See Section 6: Details and Assumptions for more detail on the costs that make up
these projections, as well as the various assumptions underlying the projections.
WATER UTILITY FINANCIAL PLAN
February 2016 17 | Page
Revenues are below expenses and will require annual rate increases between 6% and 9%
through FY 2020 to keep up with these cost increases even with the use of the Rate
Stabilization Reserve to spread the increases over multiple years. Costs have already increased
substantially over the last few years, and revenues have not kept pace. Sales revenues were
adequate in FY 2014 due to lower than average CIP expenditures in that year, but starting in FY
2015 deficits are forecast. To help close this gap, revenues were increased by 12% in FY 2016.
Reserves trends based on these revenue projections are shown in Figure 6 below. The Rate
Stabilization Reserve is projected to have a zero balance by the end of FY 2017, and the CIP
Reserve is projected to decrease by $4 million by the end of FY 2017. Assuming these increases
in revenue, the Operations Reserve, the main contingency reserve, is expected to remain above
the minimum reserve level and will be adequate to meet all identified risks, as discussed in
Section 5F: Risk Assessment and Reserves Adequacy.
These projections assume that drought restrictions end in FY 2017, and that the request for
water usage reductions remains at 24%. If the drought worsens or continues longer than
projected, the level of the drought surcharge currently in place may need to be reviewed. The
forecast also assumes that water main replacement project costs do not increase by more than
inflation. This is a major uncertainty as staff awaits the results of the Water Master Plan study
to determine the advisable water main replacement strategy.
Figure 6: Water Utility Reserves
Actual Reserve Levels through FY 2015 and Projections through FY 2026
WATER UTILITY FINANCIAL PLAN
February 2016 18 | Page
SECTION 5F: RISK ASSESSMENT AND RESERVES ADEQUACY
The Water Utility currently has one contingency reserve, the Operations Reserve, and this
Financial Plan maintains reserves within the approved reserve maximum and minimum
guidelines throughout the forecast period, as shown in Figure 7. Reserve levels also exceed the
short term risk assessment for the utility. Note that while the Operations Reserve is above the
target level in FY 2017, it falls to below the target (but above the minimum) in FY 2018 through
FY 2020.
Figure 7: Operations Reserve Adequacy
Table 13 summarizes the risk assessment calculation for the Water Utility through FY 2021. The
same methodology is used for FY 2022 through FY 2026 as well. The risk assessment includes
the revenue shortfall that could accrue due to:
1. Lower than forecasted sales revenue; and
2. An increase of 10% of planned system improvement CIP expenditures for the budget
year.
WATER UTILITY FINANCIAL PLAN
February 2016 19 | Page
Table 13: Water Risk Assessment ($000)
FY 2017 FY 2018 FY 2019 FY 2020 FY 2021
Total non-commodity revenue $18,406 $20,744 $23,233 $24,976 $25,226
Max. revenue variance, previous ten years 13% 13% 13% 13% 13%
Risk of revenue loss $1,819 $2,050 $2,296 $2,468 $2,492
CIP Budget $10,216 $10,012 $10,252 $10,555 $10,867
CIP Contingency @10% $1,022 $1,001 $1,025 $1,056 $1,087
Total Risk Assessment value $2,840 $3,051 $3,321 $3,523 $3,579
SECTION 5G: ALTERNATE SCENARIOS
At the UAC’s February 2016 meeting, it was suggested that staff prepare two alternate
scenarios for rate increases. The first (“Target”) scenario keeps the Operations Reserve at or
near the Target level throughout the forecast period as shown in Figure 8 below. The second
(“Minimum”) has no rate change in FY 2017 and lets the Operations Reserve stay at minimum
for five years as shown in Figure 9 below. Both options as well as the proposed rate
adjustments are shown in Table 14.
Table 14: Projected Water Rate Trajectory for FY 2017 to FY 2026
FY
2017
FY
2018
FY
2019
FY
2020
FY
2021
FY
2022
FY
2023
FY
2024
FY
2025
FY
2026
Proposed 6% 9% 9% 6% 2% 2% 2% 3% 5% 3%
Target 3% 20% 3% 2% 3% 3% 2% 4% 2% 4%
Minimum 0% 18% 7% 3% 3% 4% 3% 4% 3% 4%
The Target scenario requires a 3% rate increase (smaller than the proposed 6% increase) in FY
2017, but requires a very large rate increase (20%) in FY 2018 to make up for another year with
a significant deficit with revenues not covering costs. The level of the Operations Reserve in the
target scenario is shown in Figure 8 below.
The Minimum scenario also requires a significant rate increase (18%) in FY 2018 if no rate
change is implemented in FY 2017 with a large (7%) rate increase required for FY 2019. The
level of the Operations Reserve in the target scenario is shown in Figure 9 below.
Staff recommends a 6% water rate increase in FY 2017 to moderate the rate increases that are
projected in FY 2018 while keeping the Water Operations Reserve at healthy levels.
WATER UTILITY FINANCIAL PLAN
February 2016 20 | Page
Figure 8: Operations Reserve at Target Level
Figure 9: Operations Reserve at Minimum for FY 2018 through FY 2021
WATER UTILITY FINANCIAL PLAN
February 2016 21 | Page
SECTION 5H: LONG-TERM OUTLOOK
CPAU has put its Water Utility on strong footing by investing in its distribution system
infrastructure and emergency water facilities over the last 20 years. The Water System Master
Plan, currently under review, will give CPAU a better picture of the long-term outlook for its
infrastructure and will result in a plan for an appropriate schedule for infrastructure
replacement and upgrades. In addition, CPAU’s water supplier, the SFPUC, has replaced and
seismically strengthened its water transmission infrastructure, which will benefit Palo Alto and
all Hetch Hetchy customers over the long term.
The opportunities for CPAU’s Water Utility over the long term may be in alternative water
supplies such as recycled water, groundwater, and water from the Santa Clara Valley Water
District. These alternatives have been analyzed in the past, and will be analyzed again in an
upcoming update to the Water Integrated Resource Plan. Some of these alternatives may
provide cost savings or increased drought protection.
Climate change may begin to present challenges for the Water Utility over the next 20 to 40
years. Availability of water from SFPUC’s Regional Water System may change with changing
seasonal precipitation patterns. Water consumption patterns may change. Consumption could
increase due to drier weather or decrease as customers become even more focused on water
conservation. Droughts may become more frequent. The risk of wildfire in the foothills could
increase, possibly threatening utility infrastructure or placing greater demands on it. Sea level
rise could result in greater exposure of utility infrastructure to saltwater intrusion or the need
to protect infrastructure from inundation, possibly resulting in higher maintenance and
replacement costs. It could also affect the groundwater aquifer that the utility relies on in
emergencies. Any of these could result in increases to the costs of operating the Water Utility.
As part of the Sustainability/Climate Action Plan, CPAU is currently working on a Climate
Change Adaptation Roadmap that will begin to assess some of these risks.
SECTION 6: DETAILS AND ASSUMPTIONS
SECTION 6A: WATER PURCHASE COSTS
CPAU purchases all of the potable water supplies from the SFPUC, which owns and operates the
Hetch Hetchy Regional Water System. CPAU is one of several agencies that purchase water
from the SFPUC, all of whom are members of the Bay Area Water Supply and Conservation
Agency (BAWSCA). Palo Alto uses roughly 7% of the water delivered by the SFPUC to BAWSCA
member agencies.
The Hetch Hetchy Regional Water System system begins with a system of reservoirs and
tunnels in the high Sierra in Yosemite County and is transported by a gravity-fed pipeline to the
Bay Area. Currently, the SFPUC is in the midst of a $4.8 billion bond-financed capital
improvement program (the Water System Improvement Program, or WSIP) to seismically
retrofit the facilities that transport water to the Bay Area. This has resulted in large increases in
the annual debt service costs assigned to wholesale customers like Palo Alto. The wholesale
customer debt service share of the WSIP is increasing from $53 million in FY 2010 to over $200
WATER UTILITY FINANCIAL PLAN
February 2016 22 | Page
million in FY 2020. As a result, the SFPUC’s wholesale water rate has already increased from
$1.43 per CCF in FY 2009 to $3.75 per CCF in FY 2016, and is forecasted to increase to over
$5.00 per CCF by FY 2025. Figure 10 shows the SFPUC’s actual wholesale water rate since FY
2009 and a projection through FY 2026. Note that the wholesale water rate decreased in FY
2014, but the apparent rate decrease is due to a part of the debt being directly paid by the
BAWSCA agencies. This cost is paid in addition to the wholesale water rate and add about
$0.35 to $0.45 per CCF to the wholesale rate.
The SFPUC’s water rate projections show a less steeply increasing rate trajectory after all of the
debt for the WSIP has been issued. Parts of SFPUC’s system not included in the WSIP also may
need rehabilitation. Some of these projects are already included in the SFPUC’s rate
projections, but the SFPUC is conducting condition assessments of other “up-country” facilities,
located in the Sierras in the coming years. If the these assessments identify other facilities that
need replacement, it may result in additional rate increases beyond FY 2020 as new debt is
issued to finance the projects.
In January 2016, the SFPUC provided a range for FY 2017 wholesale water rates of between $4
and $5 per CCF. In February, the SFPUC updated its estimate for FY 2017 to $4.05/CCF, but
there is much uncertainty surrounding the length of the drought and water usage by the
BAWSCA agencies. Since the State has mandated water use reductions for most BAWSCA
agencies by 20% or more, SFPUC’s rates will invariably need to increase since its costs are
almost entirely fixed with no relation to the quantity of water that delivered by the system.
As shown in Figure 10, this year’s projection of SFPUC wholesale rates has increased from the
previous year’s projection. If the drought ends in FY 2017 and sales increase (or at least don’t
decline further), then rate projections may level out. However, if snow and rain do not
materialize, current calls for restricted usage may continue or even be increased.
WATER UTILITY FINANCIAL PLAN
February 2016 23 | Page
Figure 10: Historical and Projected SFPUC Wholesale Water Rate
SECTION 6B: OPERATIONS
CPAU’s Water Utility operations include the following activities:
• Administration, a category that includes charges allocated to the Water Utility for
administrative services provided by the General Fund and for Utilities Department
administration, as well as debt service and other transfers. Additional detail on Water
Utility debt service is provided in Section 6D: Debt Service
• Customer Service
• Engineering work for maintenance activities (as opposed to capital activities)
• Operations and Maintenance of the distribution system; and
• Resource Management
Appendix D: Description of Water Utility Operational Activities includes detailed descriptions of
the work associated with each of these activities.
From FY 2011 to FY 2015 Operations costs (excluding debt service, rent, and transfers)
increased 3.5% per year on average (see Figure 11). The increases were driven by allocated
charges, which increased by 7% per year on average and increases in other Operations costs,
which increased by roughly 4% per year. Debt service costs increased by $2.4 million per year as
a result of a bond issued to finance the Emergency Water Supply and Storage Project. Transfers
WATER UTILITY FINANCIAL PLAN
February 2016 24 | Page
have varied from year to year, but are expected to remain relatively low and stable through the
forecast period.
In FY 2017 Operations costs are projected to increase by $1 million for a capital lease of
emergency generators for various wells and pump stations. This is a new ongoing cost. Aside
from that, only inflationary increases are projected for Operations costs. Underlying these
projections are assumptions for salary and benefit costs, consumer price index, and other cost
projections that match the City’s long-range financial forecast.
Figure 11: Historical and Projected Operational Costs
SECTION 6C: CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM (CIP)
The Water Utility’s CIP consists of the following types of projects:
• Customer connections, which represents the cost when the Water Utility installs new
services or upgrades existing services at a customer’s request in response to
development or redevelopment. CPAU charges a fee to these customers to cover the
cost of these projects.
• Ongoing projects, which represent the cost of replacing aging and under-recording
meters and degraded boxes and covers, minor replacements of various types of
distribution system equipment, and the cost of capitalized tools and equipment.
Actual
Projected
WATER UTILITY FINANCIAL PLAN
February 2016 25 | Page
• One time projects, or large, non-recurring replacement of system assets (such as
reservoir rehabilitation)
• Water main replacement, which represents the ongoing replacement of aging water
mains, and sometimes the services associated with those mains.
Table 15 shows the FY 2016 adopted budget, with actual spending and remaining budget as of
December 31, 2015. Also included is the five year CIP spending plan, although these figures are
preliminary pending budget discussions starting in May. The ‘committed’ column represents
funds committed to contracts for which work has not yet been completed or invoices paid.
Table 15: Budgeted Water Utility CIP Spending ($000)
*Includes unspent funds from previous years carried forward or reappropriated into the current
fiscal year
**Equal to Reserve for Reappropriations + Reserve for Commitments.
The water main replacement program funds the replacement of deteriorating water mains. The
water system consists of over 236 miles of mains, approximately 2000 fire hydrants, and over
20,000 metered service connections spanning 9 pressure zones over a 26 square mile service
area. CPAU utilizes an asset management database in conjunction with hydraulic modeling
software to prioritize capital improvements. Mains are selected by researching the
maintenance history of the system and identifying those that are undersized, corroded, and
subject to recurring breaks. CPAU uses a scoring system based on criticality in order to
prioritize which mains to replace first, and coordinates with the Public Works street
maintenance program to avoid cutting into newly repaved streets. CPAU replaces
approximately 3 miles of main per year, or 1.3% of the system.
Costs for the water main replacement program are increasing for a variety of reasons:
• Fire Code regulations now mandate fire sprinklers for new residential units. To
accommodate increased fire flows, new main replacement projects require larger
diameter pipe.
• CPAU has switched to high-density polyethylene (HDPE) for its mains. Installation costs
for this material are slightly higher, though lifecycle costs are lower, and the material
performs better. Joints in distribution mains are the most likely place for failure, and
sections of HDPE pipe can be fused together rather than connected with fittings. In the
long run, this will reduce losses and maintenance costs.
• To take full advantage of HDPE’s fusibility, CPAU is now replacing the services along
with the water mains with new HDPE services. In the past, the existing services were
reconnected, regardless of the material. This new practice costs more in the short run,
but will provide long term benefits.
• Lastly, costs have escalated after the recession.
WATER UTILITY FINANCIAL PLAN
February 2016 26 | Page
These factors have created some uncertainty in future water main replacement costs. If the
cost of water main replacement continues at its current levels, water main replacement
budgets will need to be increased by $1M to $2M per year to keep up the current pace of main
replacement. However, CPAU is nearing the end of a long term water main replacement
program initiated in 1993 to replace the oldest and most degraded parts of the system. Roughly
25% of the system has been replaced, and the rate of water leaks has decreased 50%. This
makes it a good time to re-evaluate the program. CPAU initiated a master planning process in
FY 2015 to evaluate the current state of the distribution system and determine the necessary
rate of main replacement in future years. Currently the utility replaces about 1.3% of the
system each year, which is an 80-year replacement cycle. The master planning process may
reveal a need for a higher main replacement rate, or may reveal that pipes are currently in good
condition and a lower rate of replacement is sufficient. Results are being reviewed and follow
up questions prepared.
If this study determines that a lower rate of main replacement is acceptable, increases to water
main replacement project budgets may not be necessary. Likewise, if the per-mile costs of main
replacement come down, that would also reduce or eliminate the need to increase main
replacement budgets. A combination of reduced costs and a reduced rate of main replacement
could even allow CPAU to reduce those budgets. However, if per-mile main replacement costs
stay at their current levels and the study reveals the need to maintain the same rate of main
replacement (or a higher rate), CPAU’s CIP costs would rise.
One project not included in this forecast is the seismic strengthening of a large water
transmission line in the foothills. Staff has engaged a consultant to investigate alternatives for
this project. The consultant is analyzing an alternative that involves installing a valve and hose
system that could be used to bypass breaks in the line while they are repaired after an
earthquake. This is a relatively low cost alternative that would not substantially affect the
financial forecast. The study is not finalized yet, however, and if it is determined that the entire
pipeline needs to be replaced, it could cost between $15 million and $20 million, which would
likely require bond financing and would substantially affect the financial forecast. The final
report with recommendations is expected to be available in 2016.
Ongoing Projects and Customer Connections are projected to cost approximately $1.9 million in
FY 2016 and increase by 3.5% per year through the end of the forecast period. Actual expenses
for these projects fluctuate annually depending on how many defective meters are discovered
and replaced during routine maintenance, as well as how much development and
redevelopment is going on that prompts the replacement or upgrade of water services. It is
worth noting that property owners pay a fee for water service replacement or expansion during
redevelopment, so when the number of projects go up (meaning higher costs for this activity),
so does fee revenue.
Aside from customer connections, the CIP plan for FY 2016 to FY 2020 is funded by utility rates
and capacity fees. The details of the plan are shown in Appendix B: Water Utility Capital
Improvement Program (CIP) Detail.
WATER UTILITY FINANCIAL PLAN
February 2016 27 | Page
SECTION 6D: DEBT SERVICE
The Water Utility’s annual debt service is roughly $3.2 million per year. This is related to two
bond issuances, one requiring payments through 2026, the other through 2035. CPAU is in
compliance with all covenants on both bonds.
The first bond is the 2009 Water Revenue Bond, Series A, issued for $35 million to finance
construction of the Emergency Water Supply and Storage project (the El Camino Reservoir, new
wells, rehabilitation of existing wells and tanks, etc.) and to be retired by 2035. As part of the
‘Build America’ bond program, there is an interest payment subsidy from the Federal
Government of 35%. There is always the possibility that the federal government will choose to
stop payment on this subsidy. The automatic federal spending cuts under the Budget Control
Act (BCA) of 2011 have already reduced the subsidy by $50,000 per year, and if planned cuts
through 2021 proceed without amendment, staff estimates that the subsidy would be reduced
by over $200,000 per year by 2021. The Bipartisan Budget Act of 2013, which relieved some of
the discretionary spending cuts in the 2011 BCA, did not affect automatic cuts to the subsidy,
and actually extended the automatic cuts through 2023.
The second bond issuance is the 2011 Utility Revenue Refunding Bond, Series A, which is to be
retired in 2026. This $17.2 million issuance refinanced an earlier Water and Gas Utility bond
issuance, the 2002 Utility Revenue Bonds, Series A, which was issued to finance various capital
improvements for both systems. The Water Utility’s share of the issuance was roughly $7.8
million.
The cost of debt service for the Water Utility’s share of these bond issuances for the financial
forecast period is shown in Table 16:
Table 16: Water Utility Debt Service ($000)
FY 2016 FY 2017 FY 2018 FY 2019 FY 2020 FY 2021 FY 2022 FY 2023
2009 Water Revenue Bonds,
Series A (net of grants) 2,002 2,012 2,031 2,046 2,064 2,079 2,101 2,151
2011 Utility Revenue Bonds,
Series A 657 657 656 654 656 657 657 657
Both the 2009 and 2011 Bonds include the following covenants: 1) net revenues plus Available
Reserves shall at least equal 125% of the maximum annual debt service, and 2) Available
Reserves shall be at least 5 times the maximum annual debt service. Note that “Available
Reserves,” as defined for both bonds, include the reserves for the Gas and Electric systems, not
just the Water system. This Financial Plan maintains compliance with these covenants
throughout the forecast period, as shown in Appendix A: Water Utility Financial Forecast Detail.
The net revenues (but not the reserves) of the Water Utility are also pledged for one other
bond as shown in Table 17 below, even though the Water Utility is not responsible for the debt
service payments. The Water Utility’s reserves or net revenues would only be called upon if the
responsible utilities are unable to make their debt service payments. Staff does not currently
foresee this occurring. Requirements of the California Constitution require that any amounts
advanced from one utility to pay debt service for another utility must be repaid by the
borrowing fund.
WATER UTILITY FINANCIAL PLAN
February 2016 28 | Page
Table 17: Other Issuances Secured by the Water Utility’s Revenues or Reserves
Bond Issuance Responsible
Utilities
Annual Debt
Service ($000)
Secured by Water Utility’s:
Net Revenues Reserves
1995 Series A Utility
Revenue Bonds Storm Drain $680 Yes No
SECTION 6E: OTHER REVENUES
The Water Utility receives most of its revenues from sales of water, but about 7% comes from
other sources. The largest revenue source in FY 2015 was a one-time return of previously
budgeted CIP dollars (36%). The next largest source is connection and capacity fees, which in FY
2015 represented 29% of revenue from sources other than water sales. The remainder
consisted of a variety of miscellaneous charges and transfers.
Revenues from connection and capacity fees have more than doubled since FY 2009.
Connection fees are charged to new developments that need new or replacement service
connections, while capacity fees are charged to development that put additional demands on
the water distribution system. Revenue from these sources decreased slightly during the
recession, but has increased substantially since then. Staff is forecasting lower revenue from
these sources in subsequent years, but has increased connection fees that are expected to
offset these reductions to some extent.
Other revenue sources are projected to stay stable through the forecast period, though interest
income always fluctuates depending on changes in interest rates. Some uncertainty also exists
related to the Federal government’s commitment to continuing to pay the interest subsidy on
the Build America Bonds.
SECTION 6F: SALES REVENUES
Sales revenue projections are based on the load forecast in Section 5A: Load Forecast and the
projected rate changes shown in Figure 5. Except where stated otherwise, these load forecasts
are based on normal precipitation. Precipitation can vary substantially, however, even in non-
drought years, and this can affect revenues substantially. In dry years customers use more
water, increasing revenues, and in wet years they use less. These variations happen in the
winter, since summers have virtually no local precipitation regardless of whether it is a dry or
wet year. The variations are most likely related to winter irrigation demand.
SECTION 7: COMMUNICATIONS PLAN
In FY 2017, communications will continue to focus on water utility rate increases, including the
reasons why and how rates may change contingent upon continued drought conditions. The
City will also communicate how infrastructure costs and rising rates from our wholesale water
supplier, the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission, increases CPAU costs and must be
recovered through rate increases. Rates communications will include a substantial update to
information on a webpage dedicated to Utilities rates, “breaking news” on the Utility home
webpage, discussion in the Proposition 218 rate adjustment notice, bill inserts, print ads, videos
WATER UTILITY FINANCIAL PLAN
February 2016 29 | Page
for web and television, social media posts and frequent educational updates to internal and
external stakeholders (customer service, marketing, City Manager’s Office, UAC, City Council,
business and residential customers). Other communications vehicles will include financial plans,
presentations to UAC, Finance Committee, City Council and any media coverage as a result of
the rate increases. CPAU will continue its outreach about drought conditions and importance of
water use efficiency, tying in the message that although rates are increasing, efficient usage
should mean that a customer should not see a significant increase in water utility costs on their
bills.
Water conservation outreach will include bill inserts, web updates, email blasts, videos for the
web and television, presentations to customer groups and the use of social media. To keep
customers apprised of the status and accomplishments of CIP projects, a network of project
web pages are maintained. Traffic is driven to the website via ads in publications, newspaper
inserts, and through the comprehensive portfolio of outreach strategies as outlined above.
Safety topics are also emphasized year-round. For all utility outreach, while print materials and
website pages still feature prominently, CPAU is placing more emphasis on digital advertising
content, direct mail, community safety/emergency preparation events and presentations.
WATER UTILITY FINANCIAL PLAN
February 2016 30 | Page
APPENDICES
Appendix A: Water Utility Financial Forecast Detail
Appendix B: Water Utility Capital Improvement Program (CIP) Detail
Appendix C: Water Utility Reserves Management Practices
Appendix D: Description of Water Utility Operational Activities
Appendix E: Sample of Water Utility Outreach Communications
APPENDIX A: WATER UTILITY FINANCIAL FORECAST DETAIL
1 FISCAL YEAR FY 2011 FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017 FY 2018 FY 2019 FY 2020 FY 2021 FY 2022 FY 2023 FY 2024 FY 2025 FY 2026
2
3 WATER SUPPLY
4 Purchases 5,416,220 5,538,305 5,532,947 5,507,153 4,671,433 4,127,085 4,172,372 4,353,850 4,556,414 4,486,307 4,448,095 4,410,865 4,372,643 4,328,601 4,285,924 4,231,873
5 Sales 4,992,473 5,062,873 5,097,392 5,047,148 4,433,016 3,858,825 3,859,444 4,027,311 4,214,683 4,149,834 4,114,488 4,080,051 4,044,695 4,003,956 3,964,480 3,914,482
6 (530,686) -12.1%
7 BILL AND RATE CHANGES
8 Variable Charge (Supply)15%38%11%-16%25%22%7%2%2%2%2%2%2%3%3%3%
9 Variable Charge (Distribution)-7%-12%17%30%-16%10%5%15%14%9%2%2%2%3%3%6%
10 Change in System Average Rate 0%12%22%8%0%11%6%9%9%6%2%2%2%3%3%5%
11
12 STARTING RESERVES
13 Reappropriations (Non-CIP)54,000 20,000 - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
14 Commitments (Non-CIP)40,000 765,000 714,000 2,000 347,000 347,000 347,000 347,000 347,000 347,000 347,000 347,000 347,000 347,000 347,000 347,000
15 Restricted for Debt Service 3,348,000 3,348,000 3,225,000 3,225,000 3,331,000 3,316,000 3,316,000 3,316,000 3,316,000 3,316,000 3,316,000 3,316,000 3,316,000 3,316,000 3,316,000 3,316,000
16 Emergency Plant Replacement 1,000,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 - - - - - - - - - - -
17 Capital Reserve - - - - - 4,000,000 13,256,000 9,256,000 9,256,000 9,256,000 9,256,000 9,256,000 9,256,000 9,256,000 9,256,000 9,256,000
18 Rate Stabilization Reserve 17,037,000 10,639,000 7,996,000 17,272,000 20,133,000 6,567,000 1,867,000 - - - - - - - - -
19 Operations Reserve - - - - - 11,663,836 9,807,734 11,017,309 7,655,292 7,759,702 9,208,904 10,185,947 10,710,850 10,890,498 10,976,735 10,969,473
20 Unassigned - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
21 TOTAL STARTING RESERVES 21,479,000 15,772,000 12,935,000 21,499,000 24,811,000 25,893,836 28,593,734 23,936,309 20,574,292 20,678,702 22,127,904 23,104,947 23,629,850 23,809,498 23,895,735 23,888,473
22
23 REVENUES
24 Net Sales 26,133,998 30,673,882 36,647,924 39,029,262 33,654,549 36,263,267 38,159,141 40,715,075 46,016,043 48,155,815 48,584,946 49,023,735 49,587,825 50,566,700 51,576,926 53,401,555
25 Other Revenues and Transfers In 2,812,063 5,892,133 6,811,461 4,053,920 7,504,848 3,307,155 3,363,253 3,420,419 3,478,285 3,536,762 3,597,449 3,662,424 3,728,765 3,816,351 3,906,270 3,998,583
26 TOTAL REVENUES 28,946,061 36,566,015 43,459,385 43,083,182 41,159,397 39,570,422 41,522,394 44,135,494 49,494,328 51,692,577 52,182,395 52,686,158 53,316,590 54,383,051 55,483,196 57,400,138
27
28 EXPENSES 26.4%
29 Water Purchases 10,677,914 14,889,399 16,605,351 15,705,288 15,669,935 17,644,669 18,899,310 19,976,217 21,177,479 21,259,327 21,475,294 21,696,607 21,914,567 22,302,108 22,701,664 23,050,946
30 Operating Expenses
31 Administration
32 Allocated Charges 1,798,630 2,003,116 2,422,880 2,366,077 2,342,985 2,343,499 2,402,461 2,462,917 2,524,882 2,588,411 2,653,298 2,719,668 2,787,709 2,857,466 2,928,969 3,002,261
33 Rent 2,122,405 2,156,887 1,911,963 2,192,454 2,249,457 2,677,106 2,757,419 2,840,142 2,925,346 3,013,106 3,103,500 3,196,605 3,292,503 3,391,278 3,493,016 3,597,807
34 Debt Service 3,341,781 3,385,986 3,219,165 3,220,208 3,218,869 3,222,606 3,219,316 3,222,669 3,220,858 3,220,638 3,222,843 3,223,563 3,224,553 3,224,553 3,224,553 3,224,553
35 Transfers and Other Adjustments 200,286 301,963 2,241,793 335,808 63,612 376,108 383,630 391,302 399,129 407,111 415,253 423,558 432,030 432,030 432,030 432,030
36 Subtotal, Administration 7,463,102 7,847,952 9,795,801 8,114,546 7,874,923 8,619,319 8,762,826 8,917,030 9,070,214 9,229,266 9,394,893 9,563,393 9,736,794 9,905,326 10,078,567 10,256,650
37 Resource Management 575,834 552,972 557,910 570,040 488,331 601,238 621,475 642,529 664,121 686,511 706,216 724,410 743,231 762,742 782,766 803,316
38 Operations and Mtc 4,885,428 4,900,606 4,944,064 4,986,274 5,283,426 5,345,288 5,529,766 5,721,935 5,919,070 6,123,705 6,301,710 6,464,531 6,633,106 6,808,061 6,987,630 7,171,936
39 Engineering (Operating)247,488 301,278 338,659 381,502 358,128 447,404 463,096 479,457 496,243 513,680 528,735 542,422 556,602 571,328 586,444 601,959
40 Customer Service 1,476,175 1,544,608 1,584,759 1,677,926 1,821,447 2,027,659 2,098,960 2,173,305 2,249,589 2,328,837 2,397,182 2,459,257 2,523,568 2,590,368 2,658,935 2,729,318
41 Allowance for Unspent Budget - - - - - 401,476 (411,505) (424,995) (438,832) (453,167) (465,976) (477,939) (490,301) (503,100) (516,234) (529,711)
42 Subtotal, Operating Expenses 14,648,027 15,147,415 17,221,192 15,730,288 15,826,254 17,442,384 17,064,620 17,509,261 17,960,405 18,428,832 18,862,761 19,276,075 19,702,999 20,134,724 20,578,108 21,033,467
43 Capital Program Contribution 9,327,120 9,366,201 1,068,841 8,335,605 8,580,372 11,039,470 10,215,889 10,012,033 10,252,034 10,555,216 10,867,297 11,188,574 11,519,375 11,859,984 12,210,686 12,571,782
44 TOTAL EXPENSES 34,653,061 39,403,015 34,895,385 39,771,182 40,076,561 46,126,524 46,179,819 47,497,511 49,389,918 50,243,375 51,205,352 52,161,256 53,136,941 54,296,815 55,490,458 56,656,195
45
46 ENDING RESERVES
47 Reappropriations (Non-CIP)20,000 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
48 Commitments (Non-CIP)765,000 714,000 2,000 347,000 347,000 347,000 347,000 347,000 347,000 347,000 347,000 347,000 347,000 347,000 347,000 347,000
49 Restricted for Debt Service 3,348,000 3,225,000 3,225,000 3,331,000 3,316,000 3,316,000 3,316,000 3,316,000 3,316,000 3,316,000 3,316,000 3,316,000 3,316,000 3,316,000 3,316,000 3,316,000
50 Emergency Plant Replacement 1,000,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 - - - - - - - - - - - -
51 Capital Reserve - - - - 4,000,000 13,256,000 9,256,000 9,256,000 9,256,000 9,256,000 9,256,000 9,256,000 9,256,000 9,256,000 9,256,000 9,256,000
52 Rate Stabilization Reserve 10,639,000 7,996,000 17,272,000 20,133,000 6,567,000 1,867,000 - - - - - - - - - -
53 Operations Reserve - - - - 11,663,836 9,807,734 11,017,309 7,655,292 7,759,702 9,208,904 10,185,947 10,710,850 10,890,498 10,976,735 10,969,473 11,713,415
54 Unassigned - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
55 TOTAL ENDING RESERVES 15,772,000 12,935,000 21,499,000 24,811,000 25,893,836 28,593,734 23,936,309 20,574,292 20,678,702 22,127,904 23,104,947 23,629,850 23,809,498 23,895,735 23,888,473 24,632,415
56
57 OPERATIONS RESERVE
58 Min (60 days of non-capital expenses)- - - - 5,230,611 6,082,017 6,232,446 6,488,975 6,767,143 6,864,270 6,977,906 7,089,168 7,202,255 7,336,928 7,475,494 7,607,764
59 Target (90 days of non-capital expenses)- - - - 9,395,240 9,166,903 9,395,593 9,783,548 10,204,079 10,353,171 10,527,111 10,697,594 10,870,947 11,085,459 11,306,122 11,517,661
60 Max (120 days of non-capital expenses)- - - - 13,559,870 12,251,790 12,558,739 13,078,120 13,641,014 13,842,072 14,076,317 14,306,020 14,539,639 14,833,990 15,136,750 15,427,559
61 Risk Assessment Value 2,481,768 2,873,181 2,840,361 3,050,960 3,320,931 3,523,428 3,579,316 3,636,369 3,704,694 3,794,916 3,892,600 4,062,286
Appendix A (continued)
1 FISCAL YEAR FY 2011 FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017 FY 2018 FY 2019 FY 2020 FY 2021 FY 2022 FY 2023 FY 2024 FY 2025 FY 2026
2
3 REVENUES
4 Net Sales 90%84%84%91%82%92%92%92%93%93%93%93%93%93%93%93%
5 Other Revenues and Transfers In 10%16%16%9%18%8%8%8%7%7%7%7%7%7%7%7%
6 TOTAL REVENUES 100%100%100%100%100%100%100%100%100%100%100%100%100%100%100%100%
7
8 EXPENSES
9 Water Purchases 31%38%48%39%39%38%41%42%43%42%42%42%41%41%41%41%
10 Operating Expenses
11 Administration
12 Allocated Charges 5%5%7%6%6%5%5%5%5%5%5%5%5%5%5%5%
13 Rent 6%5%5%6%6%6%6%6%6%6%6%6%6%6%6%6%
14 Debt Service 10%9%9%8%8%7%7%7%7%6%6%6%6%6%6%6%
15 Transfers and Other Adjustments 1%1%6%1%0%1%1%1%1%1%1%1%1%1%1%1%
16 Subtotal, Administration 22%20%28%20%20%19%19%19%18%18%18%18%18%18%18%18%
17 Resource Management 2%1%2%1%1%1%1%1%1%1%1%1%1%1%1%1%
18 Operations and Mtc 14%12%14%13%13%12%12%12%12%12%12%12%12%13%13%13%
19 Engineering (Operating)1%1%1%1%1%1%1%1%1%1%1%1%1%1%1%1%
20 Customer Service 4%4%5%4%5%4%5%5%5%5%5%5%5%5%5%5%
21 Allowance for Unspent Budget 0%0%0%0%0%1%-1%-1%-1%-1%-1%-1%-1%-1%-1%-1%
22 Subtotal, Operating Expenses 42%38%49%40%39%38%37%37%36%37%37%37%37%37%37%37%
23 Capital Program Contribution 27%24%3%21%21%24%22%21%21%21%21%21%22%22%22%22%
24 TOTAL EXPENSES 100%100%100%100%100%100%100%100%100%100%100%100%100%100%100%100%
25
26 RISK ASSESSMENT DETAIL
27 Distribution Revenue Variance 1,623,731 1,769,234 1,818,772 2,049,757 2,295,727 2,467,907 2,492,586 2,517,512 2,552,757 2,608,918 2,671,532 2,805,108
28 10% CIP Program Contingency 858,037 1,103,947 1,021,589 1,001,203 1,025,203 1,055,522 1,086,730 1,118,857 1,151,938 1,185,998 1,221,069 1,257,178
29 Total Risk Asssessment Value 2,481,768 2,873,181 2,840,361 3,050,960 3,320,931 3,523,428 3,579,316 3,636,369 3,704,694 3,794,916 3,892,600 4,062,286
30 Projected Operations Reserve 11,663,836 9,807,734 11,017,309 7,655,292 7,759,702 9,208,904 10,185,947 10,710,850 10,890,498 10,976,735 10,969,473 11,713,415
31 Operations Reserve, % of Risk Value 470%341%388%251%234%261%285%295%294%289%282%288%
32
33 OPERATIONS RESERVE
34 Min (60 days of non-capital expenses)- - - - 5,230,611 6,082,017 6,232,446 6,488,975 6,767,143 6,864,270 6,977,906 7,089,168 7,202,255 7,336,928 7,475,494 7,607,764
35 Target (90 days of non-capital expenses)- - - - 9,395,240 9,166,903 9,395,593 9,783,548 10,204,079 10,353,171 10,527,111 10,697,594 10,870,947 11,085,459 11,306,122 11,517,661
36 Max (120 days of non-capital expenses)- - - - 13,559,870 12,251,790 12,558,739 13,078,120 13,641,014 13,842,072 14,076,317 14,306,020 14,539,639 14,833,990 15,136,750 15,427,559
37 Risk Assessment Value 2,481,768 2,873,181 2,840,361 3,050,960 3,320,931 3,523,428 3,579,316 3,636,369 3,704,694 3,794,916 3,892,600 4,062,286
38
39 DEBT SERVICE COVERAGE RATIO
40 Net Revenues (125% of Debt Service)658%787%951%876%878%989%1017%1063%1115%1132%1152%1171%1191%1216%1242%1267%
41 Available Reserves (5x Debt Service)*3.5 2.7 5.7 6.6 6.9 7.7 6.3 5.2 5.3 5.7 6.0 6.2 6.2 6.3 6.3 6.5
WATER UTILITY FINANCIAL PLAN
June 16, 2014 33 | Page
APPENDIX B: WATER UTILITY CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM (CIP) DETAIL
WATER UTILITY FINANCIAL PLAN
June 16, 2014 34 | Page
Appendix B: Water Utility Capital Improvement Program (CIP) Detail (Continued)
WATER UTILITY FINANCIAL PLAN
June 16, 2014 35 | Page
APPENDIX C: WATER UTILITY RESERVES MANAGEMENT PRACTICES
The following reserves management practices shall be used when developing the Water Utility
Financial Plan:
Section 1. Definitions
a) “Financial Planning Period” – The Financial Planning Period is the range of future fiscal
years covered by the Financial Plan. For example, for the Water Utility Financial Plan
delivered in conjunction with the FY 2015 budget, FY 2015 to FY 2021 is the Financial
Planning Period.
b) “Fund Balance” – As used in these Reserves Management Practices, Fund Balance refers
to the Utility’s Unrestricted Net Assets.
c) “Net Assets” - The Government Accounting Standards Board defines a Utility’s Net
Assets as the difference between its assets and liabilities.
d) “Unrestricted Net Assets” - The portion of the Utility’s Net Assets not invested in capital
assets (net of related debt) or restricted for debt service or other restricted purposes.
Section 2. Reserves
The Water Utility’s Fund Balance is reserved for the following purposes:
a) For existing contracts, as described in Section 3 (Reserve for Commitments)
b) For operating and capital budgets re-appropriated from previous years, as described in
Section 4 (Reserve for Re-appropriations)
c) For cash flow management and contingencies related to the Water Utility’s Capital
Improvement Program (CIP), as described in Section 5 (CIP Reserve)
d) For rate stabilization, as described in Section 6 (Rate Stabilization Reserve)
e) For operating contingencies, as described in Section 7 (Operations Reserve)
f) Any funds not included in the other reserves will be considered Unassigned Reserves
and shall be returned to ratepayers or assigned a specific purpose as described in
Section 8 (Unassigned Reserves).
Section 3. Reserve for Commitments
At the end of each fiscal year the Reserve for Commitments will be set to an amount equal
to the total remaining spending authority for all contracts in force for the Water Utility at
that time.
Section 4. Reserve for Re-appropriations
At the end of each fiscal year the Reserve for Re-appropriations will be set to an amount
equal to the amount of all remaining capital and non-capital budgets, if any, that will be re-
appropriated to the following fiscal year in accordance with Palo Alto Municipal Code
Section 2.28.090.
WATER UTILITY FINANCIAL PLAN
June 16, 2014 36 | Page
Section 5. CIP Reserve
The CIP Reserve is used to manage cash flow for capital projects and acts as a reserve for
capital contingencies. Staff will manage the CIP Reserve according to the following
practices:
a) The following guideline levels are set forth for the CIP Reserve. These guideline levels
are calculated for each fiscal year of the Financial Planning Period based on the levels of
CIP expense budgeted for that year.
Minimum Level 12 months of budgeted CIP expense
Maximum Level 24 months of budgeted CIP expense
b) Changes in Reserves: Staff is authorized to transfer funds between the CIP Reserve and
the Reserve for Commitments when funds are added or removed from to that reserve
as a result of a change in contractual commitments related to CIP projects. Any other
additions to or withdrawals from the CIP reserve require Council action.
c) Minimum Level:
i) Funds held in the Reserve for Commitments may be counted as part of the CIP
Reserve for the purpose of determining compliance with the CIP Reserve minimum
guideline level.
ii) If, at the end of any fiscal year, the minimum guideline is not met, staff shall present
a plan to the City Council to replenish the reserve. The plan shall be delivered by the
end of the following fiscal year, and shall, at a minimum, result in the reserve
reaching its minimum level by the end of the next fiscal year. For example, if the CIP
Reserve is below its minimum level at the end of FY 2017, staff must present a plan
by June 30, 2018 to return the reserve to its minimum level by June 30, 2019. In
addition, staff may present, and the Council may adopt, an alternative plan that
takes longer than one year to replenish the reserve, or that does so in a shorter
period of time.
d) Maximum Level: If, at any time, the CIP Reserve reaches its maximum level, no funds
may be added to this reserve. If there are funds in this reserve in excess of the
maximum level staff must propose to transfer these funds to another reserve or return
them to ratepayers in the next Financial Plan. Staff may also seek City Council to
approve holding funds in this reserve in excess of the maximum level if they are held for
a specific future purpose related to the CIP.
Section 6. Rate Stabilization Reserve
Funds may be added to the Rate Stabilization Reserve by action of the City Council and
held to manage the trajectory of future year rate increases. Withdrawal of funds from
the Rate Stabilization Reserve requires Council action. If there are funds in the Rate
Stabilization Reserve at the end of any fiscal year, any subsequent Water Utility
Financial Plan must result in the withdrawal of all funds from this Reserve by the end of
the next Financial Planning Period.
WATER UTILITY FINANCIAL PLAN
June 16, 2014 37 | Page
Section 7. Operations Reserve
The Operations Reserve is used to manage normal variations in costs and as a reserve for
contingencies. Any portion of the Water Utility’s Fund Balance not included in the reserves
described in Section 3-Section 6 above will be included in the Operations Reserve unless this
reserve has reached its maximum level as set forth in Section 7(d) below. Staff will manage
the Operations Reserve according to the following practices:
a) The following guideline levels are set forth for the Operations Reserve. These guideline
levels are calculated for each fiscal year of the Financial Planning Period based on the
levels of Operations and Maintenance (O&M) and commodity expense forecasted for
that year in the Financial Plan.
Minimum Level 60 days of O&M and commodity expense
Target Level 90 days of O&M and commodity expense
Maximum Level 120 days of O&M and commodity expense
b) Minimum Level: If, at the end of any fiscal year, the funds remaining in the Operations
Reserve are lower than the minimum level set forth above, staff shall present a plan to
the City Council to replenish the reserve. The plan shall be delivered within six months
of the end of the fiscal year, and shall, at a minimum, result in the reserve reaching its
minimum level by the end of the following fiscal year. For example, if the Operations
Reserve is below its minimum level at the end of FY 2014, staff must present a plan by
December 31, 2014 to return the reserve to its minimum level by June 30, 2015. In
addition, staff may present, and the Council may adopt, an alternative plan that takes
longer than one year to replenish the reserve.
c) Target Level: If, at the end of any fiscal year, the Operations Reserve is higher or lower
than the target level, any Financial Plan created for the Water Utility shall be designed
to return the Operations Reserve to its target level within four years.
d) Maximum Level: If, at any time, the Operations Reserve reaches its maximum level, no
funds may be added to this reserve. Any further increase in the Water Utility’s Fund
Balance shall be automatically included in the Unassigned Reserve described in Section
8, below.
Section 8. Unassigned Reserve
If the Operations Reserve reaches its maximum level, any further additions to the Water
Utility’s Fund Balance will be held in the Unassigned Reserve. If there are any funds in the
Unassigned Reserve at the end of any fiscal year, the next Financial Plan presented to the
City Council must include a plan to assign them to a specific purpose or return them to the
Water Utility ratepayers by the end of the first fiscal year of the next Financial Planning
Period. For example, if there were funds in the Unassigned Reserves at the end of FY 2015,
and the next Financial Planning Period is FY 2016 through FY 2021, the Financial Plan shall
include a plan to return or assign any funds in the Unassigned Reserve by the end of
FY 2016. Staff may present an alternative plan that retains these funds or returns them over
a longer period of time.
WATER UTILITY FINANCIAL PLAN
June 16, 2014 38 | Page
APPENDIX D: DESCRIPTION OF WATER UTILITY OPERATIONAL ACTIVITIES
This appendix describes the activities associated with the various operational activities referred
to in Section 6B: Operations of this Financial Plan.
Administration: Accounting, purchasing, legal, and other administrative functions provided by
the City’s General Fund staff, as well as shared communications services, CPAU administrative
overhead, and billing system maintenance costs. This category also includes Water Utility debt
service and rent paid to the General Fund for the land associated with reservoirs and various
other facilities.
Customer Service: This category includes the Water Utility’s share of the call center, meter
reading, collections, and billing support functions. Billing support encompasses staff time
associated with bill investigations and quality control on certain aspects of the billing process. It
does not include maintenance of the billing system itself, which is included in Administration.
This category also includes CPAU’s key account representatives, who work with large
commercial customers who have more complex requirements for their water services.
Engineering (Operating): The Water Utility’s engineers focus primarily on the CIP, but a small
portion of their time is spent assisting with distribution system maintenance.
Operations and Maintenance: This category includes the costs of a variety of distribution
system maintenance activities, including:
• investigating reports of damaged mains or services and performing emergency repairs;
• testing and operating valves;
• monitoring water quality and reservoir levels;
• monitoring the status of the different pressure zones;
• flushing water at hydrants and other closed end points of the system;
• building and replacing water services for new or redeveloped buildings; and
• testing and replacing meters to ensure accurate sales metering.
This category also includes a variety of functions the utility shares with other City utilities,
including:
• the Field Services team (which does field research of various customer service issues);
• the Cathodic Protection team (which monitors and maintains the systems that prevent
corrosion in metal tanks and reservoirs); and
• the General Services team (which manages and maintains equipment, paves and
restores streets after gas, water, or sewer main replacements, and provides welding
services)
Resource Management: This category includes water procurement, contract management,
water resource planning, interaction with BAWSCA, the SFPUC, and the SCVWD, and tracking of
legislation and regulation related to the water industry.
June 16, 2014 39 | Page
APPENDIX E: SAMPLE OF WATER UTILITY OUTREACH COMMUNICATIONS
Attachment C
* NOT YET APPROVED *
Resolution No. _________
Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Increasing Water
Rates by Amending Rate Schedules W-1 (General Residential Water
Service), W-2 (Water Service from Fire Hydrants), W-3 (Fire Service
Connections), W-4 (Residential Master-Metered and General Non-
Residential Water Service), and W-7 (Non-Residential Irrigation
Water Service)
R E C I T A L S
A. Pursuant to Chapter 12.20.010 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code, the Council of
the City of Palo Alto may by resolution adopt rules and regulations governing utility services,
fees and charges.
B. On ____, 2016, the City Council held a full and fair public hearing regarding the
proposed rate increase and considered all protests against the proposals.
C. As required by Article XIII D, Section 6 of the California Constitution and
applicable law, notice of the ________ 2016 public hearing was mailed to all City of Palo Alto
Utilities water customers by _______, 2016.
D. The City Clerk has tabulated the total number of written protests presented by
the close of the public hearing, and determined that it was less than fifty percent (50%) of the
total number of customers and property owners subject to the proposed water rate
amendments, therefore a majority protest does not exist against the proposal.
The Council of the City of Palo Alto does hereby RESOLVE as follows:
SECTION 1. Pursuant to Section 12.20.010 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code, Utility
Rate Schedule W-1 (General Residential Water Service) is hereby amended to read as attached
and incorporated. Utility Rate Schedule W-1, as amended, shall become effective July 1, 2016.
SECTION 2. Pursuant to Section 12.20.010 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code, Utility
Rate Schedule W-2 (Water Service from Fire Hydrants) is hereby amended to read as attached
and incorporated. Utility Rate Schedule W-2, as amended, shall become effective July 1, 2016.
SECTION 3. Pursuant to Section 12.20.010 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code, Utility
Rate Schedule W-3 (Fire Service Connections) is hereby amended to read as attached and
incorporated. Utility Rate Schedule W-3, as amended, shall become effective July 1, 2016.
160322 sdl 6053683
Attachment C
* NOT YET APPROVED *
SECTION 4. Pursuant to Section 12.20.010 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code, Utility
Rate Schedule W-4 (Residential Master-Metered and General Non-Residential Water Service) is
hereby amended to read as attached and incorporated. Utility Rate Schedule W-4, as amended,
shall become effective July 1, 2016.
SECTION 5. Pursuant to Section 12.20.010 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code, Utility
Rate Schedule W-7 (Non-Residential Irrigation Water Service) is hereby amended to read as
attached and incorporated. Utility Rate Schedule W-7, as amended, shall become effective
July 1, 2016.
SECTION 6. The City Council finds as follows:
a. Revenues derived from the water rates approved by this resolution do not exceed
the funds required to provide water service.
b. Revenues derived from the water rates approved by this resolution shall not be used
for any purpose other than providing water service, and the purposes set forth in
Article VII, Section 2, of the Charter of the City of Palo Alto.
c. The amount of the water rates imposed upon any parcel or person as an incident of
property ownership shall not exceed the proportional cost of the water service
attributable to the parcel.
SECTION 7. The Council finds that the fees and charges adopted by this resolution are
charges imposed for a specific government service or product provided directly to the payor
that are not provided to those not charged, and do not exceed the reasonable costs to the City
of providing the service or product.
SECTION 8. Each of the rate schedules adopted by this resolution includes a structure of
drought surcharges that correspond to different levels of water use reduction in the City. In
order to charge the lowest drought surcharge possible, each rate schedule includes not only the
surcharge required to meet the 25% reduction level, but also surcharges reflecting two lower
levels of water use reduction. At any time, no more than one of these three surcharges will be
applicable. On August 17, 2015, Council adopted Resolution 9542 which established that the
Level 2 (20%) drought surcharges set forth on the City's schedule of water rates will be
collected on all City of Palo Alto Utilities water customer bills as of September 1, 2015 and
declared that the surcharge shall remain in effect until rescinded or modified by the City
Council.
SECTION 9. The Council finds that the adoption of this resolution changing water
rates to meet operating expenses, purchase supplies and materials, meet financial reserve
needs and obtain funds for capital improvements necessary to maintain service is not subject to
the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), pursuant to California Public Resources Code
160322 sdl 6053683
Attachment C
* NOT YET APPROVED *
Sec. 21080(b)(8) and Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations Sec. 15273(a). After
reviewing the staff report and all attachments presented to Council, the Council incorporates
these documents herein and finds that sufficient evidence has been presented setting forth
with specificity the basis for this claim of CEQA exemption.
INTRODUCED AND PASSED:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTENTIONS:
ATTEST:
___________________________ ___________________________
City Clerk Mayor
APPROVED AS TO FORM: APPROVED:
___________________________ ___________________________
Senior Deputy City Attorney City Manager
___________________________
Director of Utilities
___________________________
Director of Administrative Services
160322 sdl 6053683
GENERAL RESIDENTIAL WATER SERVICE
UTILITY RATE SCHEDULE W-1
CITY OF PALO ALTO UTILITIES
Issued by the City Council
Supersedes Sheet No W-1-1 Effective 97-1-20156
dated 79-1-2015 Sheet No W-1-1
A. APPLICABILITY:
This schedule applies to all separately metered single family residential water services.
B. TERRITORY:
This schedule applies everywhere the City of Palo Alto provides water services.
C. RATES:
Per Meter
Monthly Service Charge: Per Month
For 5/8-inch meter ..................................................................................................... $ 16.7703
For 3/4 inch meter ..................................................................................................... 2122.6050
For 1 inch meter ........................................................................................................ 3234.2645
For 1 1/2 inch meter .................................................................................................. 5963.4083
For 2-inch meter ........................................................................................................ 9298.3767
For 3-inch meter ........................................................................................................ 196209.1170
For 4-inch meter ........................................................................................................ 350372.3100
For 6-inch meter ........................................................................................................ 716762.8182
For 8-inch meter ........................................................................................................1,3191,403.9407
For 10-inch meter ......................................................................................................2,0852,219.9257
For 12-inch meter .......................................................................................................2,7422,919.3456
Commodity Rate: (To be added to Service Charge and applicable to all pressure zones.)
Per Hundred Cubic Feet (ccf)
Per Month All Pressure Zones
Tier 1 usage ........................................................................................................................$56.3093
Tier 2 usage (All usage over 100% of Tier 1) ........................................................................ 8.8238
ATTACHMENT D
GENERAL RESIDENTIAL WATER SERVICE
UTILITY RATE SCHEDULE W-1
CITY OF PALO ALTO UTILITIES
Issued by the City Council
Supersedes Sheet No W-1-2 Effective 97-1-20156
dated 79-1-2015 Sheet No W-1-2
Drought Surcharges:
A drought surcharge will be added to the Customer’s applicable Commodity Rate for Tier 1 and Tier
2 water usage when the City Council has determined that a water reduction level is in effect for the
City as described in Section D.3. The drought surcharges in the table below are measured in dollars
per hundred cubic feet (ccf).
Water Usage
Reduction level Level 1 (10/15%) Level 2 (20%) Level 3 (25%)
Tier 1 0.2019 0.4339 0.6459
Tier 2 0.5855 1.2114 1.8576
Temporary unmetered service to residential
subdivision developers, per connection ........................................................................ $6.00
D. SPECIAL NOTES:
1. Calculation of Cost Components
The actual bill amount is calculated based on the applicable rates in Section C above and
adjusted for any applicable discounts, surcharges and/or taxes. On a customer’s bill
statement, the bill amount may be broken down into appropriate components as
calculated under Section C.
2. Calculation of Usage Tiers
Tier 1 water usage shall be calculated and billed based upon a level of 0.2 ccf per day
rounded to the nearest whole ccf, based on meter reading days of service. As an example,
for a 30 day bill, the Tier 1 level would be 0 through 6 ccf. For further discussion of bill
calculation and proration, refer to Rule and Regulation 11.
GENERAL RESIDENTIAL WATER SERVICE
UTILITY RATE SCHEDULE W-1
CITY OF PALO ALTO UTILITIES
Issued by the City Council
Supersedes Sheet No W-1-3 Effective 97-1-20156
dated 79-1-2015 Sheet No W-1-3
3. Drought Surcharge
During period of water shortage or restrictions on local water use, the City Council may,
by resolution, declare the need for citywide water conservation at the 10/15%, 20% or
25% level. While such a resolution is in effect, a drought surcharge will apply. The
purpose of the Drought Surcharge is to recover revenues lost as a result of reduced
consumption.
{End}
WATER SERVICE FROM FIRE HYDRANTS
UTILITY RATE SCHEDULE W-2
CITY OF PALO ALTO UTILITIES
Issued by the City Council
Supersedes Sheet No W-2-1 Effective 97-1-20156
dated 79-1-2015 Sheet No W-2-1
A. APPLICABILITY:
This schedule applies to all water taken from fire hydrants for construction, maintenance, and
other uses in conformance with provisions of a Hydrant Meter Permit.
B. TERRITORY:
This schedule applies everywhere the City of Palo Alto provides water services.
C. RATES:
1. Monthly Service Charge.
METER SIZE
5/8 inch ........................................................................................................................... 50.00
3 inch ........................................................................................................................... 125.00
2. Commodity Rate: (per hundred cubic feet) ................................................................ $67.3292
3. Drought Surcharges:
A drought surcharge will be added to the Customer’s applicable Commodity Rate when the
City Council has determined that a water reduction level is in effect for the City as described in
Section D.5. The drought surcharges in the table below are measured in dollars per hundred
cubic feet (ccf).
Water Usage
Reduction level Level 1 (10/15%) Level 2 (20%) Level 3 (25%)
Surcharge 0.2624 0.5349 0.7772
D. SPECIAL NOTES:
1. Monthly charges shall include the applicable monthly service charge in addition to usage billed at
the commodity rate.
2. Any applicant using a hydrant without obtaining a Hydrant Meter Permit or any permittee using a
hydrant without a Hydrant Meter Permit shall pay a fee of $50.00 for each day of such use in
WATER SERVICE FROM FIRE HYDRANTS
UTILITY RATE SCHEDULE W-2
CITY OF PALO ALTO UTILITIES
Issued by the City Council
Supersedes Sheet No W-2-2 Effective 97-1-20156
dated 79-1-2015 Sheet No W-2-2
addition to all other costs and fees provided in this schedule. A hydrant permit may be denied or
revoked for failure to pay such fee.
3. A meter deposit of $750.00 may be charged any applicant for a Hydrant Meter Permit as a
prerequisite to the issuance of a permit and meter(s). A charge of $50.00 per day will be added for
delinquent return of hydrant meters. A fee will be charged for any meter returned with missing or
damaged parts.
4. Any person or company using a fire hydrant improperly or without a permit, or who draws water
from a hydrant without a meter installed and properly recording usage shall, in addition to all other
applicable charges be subject to criminal prosecution pursuant to the Palo Alto Municipal Code.
5. During period of water shortage or restrictions on local water use, the City Council may, by
resolution, declare the need for citywide water conservation at the 10/15%, 20% or 25% level.
While such a resolution is in effect, a drought surcharge will apply. The purpose of the Drought
Surcharge is to recover revenues lost as a result of reduced consumption.
{End}
WATER SERVICE FROM FIRE HYDRANTS
UTILITY RATE SCHEDULE W-2
CITY OF PALO ALTO UTILITIES
Issued by the City Council
Supersedes Sheet No W-2-1 Effective 97-1-20156
dated 79-1-2015 Sheet No W-2-1
A. APPLICABILITY:
This schedule applies to all water taken from fire hydrants for construction, maintenance, and
other uses in conformance with provisions of a Hydrant Meter Permit.
B. TERRITORY:
This schedule applies everywhere the City of Palo Alto provides water services.
C. RATES:
1. Monthly Service Charge.
METER SIZE
5/8 inch ........................................................................................................................... 50.00
3 inch ........................................................................................................................... 125.00
2. Commodity Rate: (per hundred cubic feet) ................................................................ $67.3292
3. Drought Surcharges:
A drought surcharge will be added to the Customer’s applicable Commodity Rate when the
City Council has determined that a water reduction level is in effect for the City as described in
Section D.5. The drought surcharges in the table below are measured in dollars per hundred
cubic feet (ccf).
Water Usage
Reduction level Level 1 (10/15%) Level 2 (20%) Level 3 (25%)
Surcharge 0.2624 0.5349 0.7772
D. SPECIAL NOTES:
1. Monthly charges shall include the applicable monthly service charge in addition to usage billed at
the commodity rate.
2. Any applicant using a hydrant without obtaining a Hydrant Meter Permit or any permittee using a
hydrant without a Hydrant Meter Permit shall pay a fee of $50.00 for each day of such use in
WATER SERVICE FROM FIRE HYDRANTS
UTILITY RATE SCHEDULE W-2
CITY OF PALO ALTO UTILITIES
Issued by the City Council
Supersedes Sheet No W-2-2 Effective 97-1-20156
dated 79-1-2015 Sheet No W-2-2
addition to all other costs and fees provided in this schedule. A hydrant permit may be denied or
revoked for failure to pay such fee.
3. A meter deposit of $750.00 may be charged any applicant for a Hydrant Meter Permit as a
prerequisite to the issuance of a permit and meter(s). A charge of $50.00 per day will be added for
delinquent return of hydrant meters. A fee will be charged for any meter returned with missing or
damaged parts.
4. Any person or company using a fire hydrant improperly or without a permit, or who draws water
from a hydrant without a meter installed and properly recording usage shall, in addition to all other
applicable charges be subject to criminal prosecution pursuant to the Palo Alto Municipal Code.
5. During period of water shortage or restrictions on local water use, the City Council may, by
resolution, declare the need for citywide water conservation at the 10/15%, 20% or 25% level.
While such a resolution is in effect, a drought surcharge will apply. The purpose of the Drought
Surcharge is to recover revenues lost as a result of reduced consumption.
{End}
FIRE SERVICE CONNECTIONS
UTILITY RATE SCHEDULE W-3
CITY OF PALO ALTO UTILITIES
Issued by the City Council
Supersedes Sheet No W-3-1 Effective 97-1-20156
dated 79-1-2015 Sheet No W-3-1
A. APPLICABILITY:
This schedule applies to all public fire hydrants and private fire service connections.
B. TERRITORY:
This schedule applies everywhere the City of Palo Alto provides water services.
C. RATES:
1. Monthly Service Charges
Public Fire Hydrant .................................................................................................... $5.00
Private Fire Service:
2-inch connection .......................................................................................................$3.7943
4-inch connection .......................................................................................................2123.4222
6-inch connection ....................................................................................................... 6168.0363
8-inch connection .......................................................................................................131144.9734
10-inch connection .....................................................................................................236260.7020
12-inch connection .....................................................................................................381421.1152
2. Commodity (To be added to Service Charge unless water is used for fire extinguishing or
testing purposes.)
Per Hundred Cubic Feet
All water usage........................................................................................................... $10.00
D. SPECIAL NOTES:
1. Service under this schedule may be discontinued if water is used for any purpose other
than fire extinguishing or testing and repairing the fire extinguishing facilities. Using
hydrants and fire services for other purposes is illegal and will be subject to the
commodity charge as noted above, fines, and criminal prosecution pursuant to the Palo
Alto Municipal Code.
2. For a combination water and fire service, the general water service schedule shall apply.
FIRE SERVICE CONNECTIONS
UTILITY RATE SCHEDULE W-3
CITY OF PALO ALTO UTILITIES
Issued by the City Council
Supersedes Sheet No W-3-2 Effective 97-1-20156
dated 79-1-2015 Sheet No W-3-2
3. Utilities Rule and Regulation No. 21 provides additional information on Automatic Fire
Services.
4. Repairs and testing of fire extinguishing facilities are not considered unauthorized use of
water if records and documentation are supplied by the customer.
{End}
RESIDENTIAL MASTER-METERED AND
GENERAL NON-RESIDENTIAL WATER SERVICE
UTILITY RATE SCHEDULE W-4
CITY OF PALO ALTO UTILITIES
Issued by the City Council
Supersedes Sheet No W-4-1 Effective 97-1-20156
dated 79-1-2015 Sheet No W-4-1
A. APPLICABILITY:
This schedule applies to non-residential water service in the City of Palo Alto and its distribution
area. This schedule is also applicable to multi-family residential customers served through a master
meter.
B. TERRITORY:
This schedule applies everywhere the City of Palo Alto provides water services.
C. RATES:
Per Meter
Monthly Service Charge Per Month
For 5/8-inch meter .................................................................................... $ 16.7703
For 3/4-inch meter .................................................................................... 2122.6050
For 1-inch meter .................................................................................... 3234.2645
For 1 ½-inch meter .................................................................................... 5963.4083
For 2-inch meter .................................................................................... 9298.3767
For 3-inch meter .................................................................................... 196209.1170
For 4-inch meter .................................................................................... 350372.3100
For 6-inch meter .................................................................................... 716762.8182
For 8-inch meter ....................................................................................1,319403.9407
For 10-inch meter ....................................................................................2,085219.9257
For 12-inch meter ....................................................................................2,742919.3456
Commodity Rates: (to be added to Service Charge)
Per Hundred Cubic Feet (ccf)
Per Month All Pressure Zones
Per ccf ............................................................................................................ $ 67.3292
RESIDENTIAL MASTER-METERED AND
GENERAL NON-RESIDENTIAL WATER SERVICE
UTILITY RATE SCHEDULE W-4
CITY OF PALO ALTO UTILITIES
Issued by the City Council
Supersedes Sheet No W-4-2 Effective 97-1-20156
dated 79-1-2015 Sheet No W-4-2
Drought Surcharges:
A drought surcharge will be added to the Customer’s applicable Commodity Rate when the City
Council has determined that a water reduction level is in effect for the City as described in Section
D.2. The drought surcharges in the table below are measured in dollars per hundred cubic feet
(ccf).
Water Usage
Reduction level Level 1 (10/15%) Level 2 (20%) Level 3 (25%)
Surcharge 0.2624 0.4953 0.7772
D. SPECIAL NOTES:
1. Calculation of Cost Components
The actual bill amount is calculated based on the applicable rates in Section C above and
adjusted for any applicable discounts, surcharges and/or taxes. On a customer’s bill
statement, the bill amount may be broken down into appropriate components as
calculated under Section C.
2. Drought Surcharge
During period of water shortage or restrictions on local water use, the City Council may,
by resolution, declare the need for citywide water conservation at the 10/15%, 20% or
25% level. While such a resolution is in effect, a drought surcharge will apply. The
purpose of the Drought Surcharge is to recover revenues lost as a result of reduced
consumption.
{End}
NON-RESIDENTIAL IRRIGATION WATER SERVICE
UTILITY RATE SCHEDULE W-7
CITY OF PALO ALTO UTILITIES
Issued by the City Council
Supersedes Sheet No W-7-1 Effective 97-1-20156
dated 79-1-2015 Sheet No W-7-1
A. APPLICABILITY:
This schedule applies to non-residential water service supplying dedicated irrigation meters in the
City of Palo Alto and its distribution area.
B. TERRITORY:
This schedule applies everywhere the City of Palo Alto provides water services.
C. RATES:
Per Meter
Monthly Service Charge Per Month
For 5/8-inch meter .................................................................................... $ 16.7703
For 3/4-inch meter .................................................................................... 2122.6050
For 1-inch meter .................................................................................... 3234.2645
For 1 1/2 inch meter .................................................................................... 5963.4083
For 2-inch meter .................................................................................... 9298.3767
For 3-inch meter .................................................................................... 196209.1170
For 4-inch meter .................................................................................... 350372.3100
For 6-inch meter .................................................................................... 716762.8182
For 8-inch meter ....................................................................................1,319403.9407
For 10-inch meter ....................................................................................2,085219.9257
For 12-inch meter ....................................................................................2,742919.3456
Commodity Rates: (to be added to Service Charge)
Per Hundred Cubic Feet (ccf)
Per Month All Pressure Zones
Per ccf ............................................................................................................ $ 8.7229
Drought Surcharges:
A drought surcharge will be added to the Customer’s applicable Commodity Rate when the City
Council has determined that a water reduction level is in effect for the City as described in Section
D.2. The drought surcharges in the table below are measured in dollars per hundred cubic feet (ccf).
NON-RESIDENTIAL IRRIGATION WATER SERVICE
UTILITY RATE SCHEDULE W-7
CITY OF PALO ALTO UTILITIES
Issued by the City Council
Supersedes Sheet No W-7-2 Effective 97-1-20156
dated 79-1-2015 Sheet No W-7-2
Water Usage
Reduction level Level 1 (10/15%) Level 2 (20%) Level 3 (25%)
Surcharge 0.5351 1.2518 12.0293
D. SPECIAL NOTES:
1. Calculation of Cost Components
The actual bill amount is calculated based on the applicable rates in Section C above and
adjusted for any applicable discounts, surcharges and/or taxes. On a customer’s bill
statement, the bill amount may be broken down into appropriate components as
calculated under Section C.
2. Drought Surcharge
During period of water shortage or restrictions on local water use, the City Council may,
by resolution, declare the need for citywide water conservation at the 10/15%, 20% or
25% level. While such a resolution is in effect, a drought surcharge will apply. The
purpose of the Drought Surcharge is to recover revenues lost as a result of reduced
consumption.
{End}
EXCERPTED DRAFT MINUTES OF THE MARCH 2, 2016
UTILITIES ADVISORY COMMISSION MEETING
ITEM 3. ACTION: Staff Recommendation that the Utilities Advisory Commission Recommend
that the City Council Adopt: (1) a Resolution Approving the Fiscal Year 2017 Water Utility
Financial Plan; and (2) a Resolution Increasing Water Rates by Amending Rate Schedules W-1
(General Residential Water Service), W-2 (Water Service from Fire Hydrants), W-3 (Fire Service
Connections), W-4 (Residential Master-Metered and General Non-Residential Water Service),
and W-7 (Non-Residential Irrigation Water Service)
Interim Rates Manager Eric Keniston summarized the written report and noted that the
wholesale cost of water from the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission (SFPUC) for FY 2017
was reduced since the February meeting when the UAC reviewed the preliminary financial
forecast. That means that the rate increase proposed for FY 2017 is 6%, rather than the 9%
projected in the preliminary forecast.
Keniston noted that, as in wastewater collection, expenses have been lower than revenues for
several years and that there was a hiatus in new CIP funding in FY 2013, which lowered overall
costs that year. The biggest driver for increasing water costs is the cost of SFPUC water due
both to higher SFPUC costs and the impact of the drought. Reserves have been reduced over
the last several years, but the Rate Stabilization Reserve will be exhausted by the end of Fy
2016. Staff’s rate proposal is to continue the drought surcharge that Council imposed as of
September 1, 2015. The plan to separate out the cost of water supply is not being proposed this
year, but will be revisited next year.
Keniston noted that the proposed 6% rate change for FY 2017 is less than the 8% rate
adjustment that was projected in last year’s financial plan, but a rate adjustment of 9% is
projected for FY 2018, which is higher than the 8% FY 2018 rate increase projected in last year’s
financial plan. However, he cautioned that the rate projections are very dependent on the
drought situation. The plan results in the Water Operations Reserve being above the minimum
reserve level over the entire forecast period. The bill impact for the proposed rate increase will
be almost the same for all customer classes and will add about $4.73 per month for the median
residential customer.
Keniston said that staff evaluated an alternate scenario with the Operations Reserve held at the
minimum level. This would allow for no rate increase in FY 2017, but that would require an
18% rate increase in FY 2018, which staff does not recommend. A scenario with the Operations
ATTACHMENT E
Reserve held at the target level would require a 3% rate increase in FY 2017 followed by a 20%
rate increase in FY 2018, which staff does not recommend.
Public comment
Herb Borock said that under Proposition 218, residents can object to rate increases and,
therefore, Council should be the one making a decision as to whether the rate proposal is the
one that is noticed to property owners. Now this notice is sent out after Finance Committee
weighs in, rather than before returning to Council. This comment goes to when the process
should start. Now Council does not see the proposal until it’s the final decision. An extra step
of going to Council should be figured into the process and timing.
Commissioner Danaher referred to Appendix A of the FY 2017 Water Financial Plan and asked
why line 25 (Other Revenues and Transfers in) was so variable over time. Keniston said that
these transfers come from a large variety of sources and can range from reimbursement from
other funds for projects or grant funds and that there can be large swings year to year for that
line item. Pointing to line 29 (Water Purchases), Commissioner Danaher asked if this is for the
water purchased from the SFPUC and asked if these costs were rising as the wholesale cost of
water increased. Keniston confirmed that understanding. Commissioner Danaher noted that
line 43 (Capital Program Contribution) rose in FY 2016 and asked if this was planned. Keniston
confirmed that understanding. Commissioner noted that even after the proposed 6% rate
increase, revenues would still be over $5 million less than expenses in FY 2017. Keniston
confirmed that conclusion. Commissioner Danaher asked if staff is comfortable with a 6%
increase in FY 2017. Keniston said that staff is comfortable with the proposal at this point.
Commissioner Schwartz said that since this situation has been years in the making, it would be
best to show more historical years on the charts. Also, is there a chance to time the rate
increases so that they don’t all come into place at the same time. She said that implementing a
water rate increase in the summer when people use more water is more painful and
implementing a gas rate increase in the winter when people use more gas is more painful and
that, if there is some flexibility, timing the increases could be beneficial. Interim Director
Shikada explained that the budgetary timing is important since the budgets are built on the idea
of a full budget year of revenues as well as expenses. He said that the impact on the customers
as well as the funds need to be considered, since if a rate increase is delayed, a larger increase
may be required in the future. Commissioner Schwartz said that we need to be responsible and
cover our expenses, but timing could be considered. How does our water rates compare to
other neighbors. Keniston referred to the bill comparisons in the Financial Plan (page 13) which
shows that Palo Alto’s current rates are higher than in the neighboring communities.
Commissioner Schwartz said that, given the experience of Flint Michigan, we want to make sure
to spend the money to continue to have the top quality water. We don’t want to reduce
expenses dramatically in this area. At the State of the City address by Mayor Burt,
Commissioner Schwartz talked to someone who perceived that there have been large rate
increases over the last several years, but when told that the increases were not large and
sometimes zero, we are making sure costs are covered—this is something people can
understand since it’s something we have to responsibly do.
Commissioner Eglash asked why we have the highest monthly water bill. Keniston referred to a
benchmark study done a couple of years ago, which showed that CPAU does more
infrastructure improvements and system maintenance than other agencies. A recent large
expense was the emergency water supply and storage project to rehabilitate wells, drill new
wells and construct a new water storage reservoir increased costs as well. These proactive
measures make a reliable system, but cause our rates to be higher.
Commissioner Eglash said that expenses rose 15% from FY 2015 to FY 2016 and rates did rise
12%, but revenues actually dropped by 4% since customers used much less water in response
to the State’s call for water use reductions in the drought. So, clearly, a significant gap is
developing and this supports the recommendation for the 6% rate increase, which would avoid
the problem we have with wastewater collection where we let a too large deficit develop
requiring large continued rate increases. In the case of the water utility, this is exacerbated by
the loss in revenue associated with reduced usage.
Commissioner Ballantine asked if the City has any lead pipe in its distribution system. Keniston
said that the City has no lead pipes in its system.
Commissioner Ballantine asked why the bill impact shown in Table 8 of the Financial Plan (page
8) shows a smaller impact for the largest water users, but he did the math and found that the
difference is not actually very in percentage terms. The 6% bill impacts shown actually range
from 5.6% to 5.8% and the 5% impact for the largest users is actually 5.49%. Keniston
confirmed that the chart rounds off the bill impact to the nearest whole number percentage
value. Commissioner Ballantine asked if the difference from low users to high users is due to
the fact that all customers must pay a fixed monthly service charge. Keniston confirmed that
this is the case.
ACTION:
Chair Foster made a motion that the UAC recommend that the Council adopt resolutions
approving the FY 2017 Water Financial Plan and increasing water rates by amending Rate
Schedules W-1 (General Residential Water Service), W-2 (Water Service from Fire Hydrants), W-
3 (Fire Service Connections), W-4 (Residential Master-Metered and General Non-Residential
Water Service), and W-7 (Non-Residential Irrigation Water Service). Commissioner Danaher
seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously (5-0) with Chair Foster, Commissioners
Ballantine, Danaher, Eglash, and Schwartz voting yes and Vice Chair Cook and Commissioner
Hall absent. The motion carried unanimously (5-0) with Chair Foster, Commissioners Ballantine,
Danaher, Eglash, and Schwartz voting yes and Vice Chair Cook and Commissioner Hall absent.
City of Palo Alto (ID # 6723)
Finance Committee Staff Report
Report Type: Action Items Meeting Date: 4/19/2016
City of Palo Alto Page 1
Council Priority: Environmental Sustainability
Summary Title: Finance Committee Recommendation to Adopt the Refuse
Rates for FY 2017
Title: Finance Committee Discussion and Recommendation that Council
Adopt (as part of the Fiscal Year 2017 Annual Budget) a Resolution Amending
the Refuse Rates for Fiscal Year 2017 to Cover Program Costs for Both the
Residential and Commercial Sectors and to Provide a Reduced Cost for
Commercial Compost Collection
From: City Manager
Lead Department: Public Works
Recommendation
Staff recommends the Finance Committee:
Recommend the Council’s adoption (as part of the Fiscal Year 2017 Annual
Budget) of the attached resolution (Attachment A) amending Utility Rate
Schedule R-1 (Residential Refuse Rates) (Attachment B), and reorganizing
Utility Rate Schedules R-2 and R-3 (Commercial Refuse Rates) into a new
Utility Rate Schedule designated “R-C” (Commercial Refuse Rates)
(Attachment C)
Executive Summary
Staff recommends modifying the refuse customer rate schedule in FY17 by:
1) Increasing the City’s Residential Refuse rates by 9%;
2) Increasing the commercial garbage and construction and demolition (C&D)
waste rates by 5%;
3) Reducing the commercial compost rate by approximately 7% to achieve a
relative 20% discount compared to the garbage rates;
4) Adding commercial fees for litter reduction and overflowing containers;
City of Palo Alto Page 2
5) Modifying or deleting miscellaneous ancillary fees in the rate schedules;
and
6) Creating a new Utility Rate Schedule R-C that replaces R-2 and R-3 to
enable greater streamlining of Utility bills.
The proposed residential rate increase of 9% is consistent with year-two
projections of a three-year plan presented to the Finance Committee on April 7,
2015, to balance residential sector revenues with expenses (Finance Committee
SR #5566). Along with the first year increases in FY16 (9% increase for most
residential customers), the City implemented a residential food scraps collection
program that enabled single-family customers to divert compostables from their
garbage to their green carts. This change has resulted in approximately 10% of all
residential customers decreasing the size of their garbage cart sizes with many
customers getting significant savings on their refuse bills.
Commercial garbage and C&D rates have not increased since October 2010. Staff
recommends a 5% increase to the garbage rate and a 7% reduction in commercial
compost rates. Commercial compost service is currently priced at a 10% discount
relative to garbage. Staff recommends the discount be increased to a 20%
discount relative to garbage. This change will more closely align garbage and
composting with the specific costs of providing those services, and will incentivize
waste reduction.
For the commercial sector, staff projects that the 5% increase in garbage rates
and 7% reduction in compost rates will maintain current revenue levels.1 Many
individual commercial customers may save money on their refuse bill by sorting
their waste properly, which will allow customers to downsize their current
garbage service. Depending on the choices they make, other customers may see
increases in their bill.
1 The exception is C&D customers, who will be affected by the garbage rate
increase without the corresponding decrease in the compost rate. C&D activity is
highly variable, and in particular is sensitive to economic conditions. Any FY 17
revenues from C&D customers that exceed FY 17 costs will be allocated to
addressing the current negative reserve and rebuilding appropriate reserve levels.
This addresses one of the key functions of the refuse fund reserve, which is to
smooth impacts from the volatile C&D subsector.
City of Palo Alto Page 3
Background
Refuse Services
Residential and commercial refuse rates pay for more than just garbage
collection, including the following:
Garbage service –Curbside collection of the black garbage cart, processing
the garbage at the Sunnyvale Material and Recovery Transfer (SMaRT)
Station and landfilling the residual material at Kirby Canyon Landfill in San
Jose.
Recycling service – Curbside collection of the blue recycling cart, sorting the
recyclables into saleable commodities at the GreenWaste Recovery Charles
Street Material Recovery Facility (MRF).
Compost service – Curbside collection of the green cart; processing and
anaerobic digestion of the yard trimmings and food scraps at the Zero
Waste Energy Development (ZWED) facility in north San Jose to produce
compost and green energy.
Street Sweeping service – Weekly street sweeping services during the leaf
season and bi-weekly sweeping during other months of the year.
Annual Clean Up Day – Once a year each single-family residential refuse
customer can contact GreenWaste to pick up large items that cannot fit in
the black garbage cart, in addition to contained recyclables and yard
trimmings.
Zero Waste Palo Alto support – Residents and businesses can contact Zero
Waste Palo Alto City staff to gain valuable information on home
composting, reducing food waste, and zero waste events.
Household Hazardous Waste (HHW) service – Weekly collection program at
the HHW Station located at the Palo Alto Regional Water Quality Control
Plant.
Palo Alto Landfill post closure maintenance and monitoring – Ongoing
maintenance and monitoring at the now-closed Palo Alto Landfill.
The cost of refuse services for each program area is listed in Table 1 below. Zero
waste support is included in the “Solid Waste” category.
City of Palo Alto Page 4
Table 1: Refuse Program Costs Preliminary Budget FY 2017 $30.8 million
Solid Waste Recycling Compost Landfill Hazardous
Waste
Street
Sweeping
$15.3 m $4.2 m $5.5 m $3.8 m $0.6 m $1.4 m
Single-Family Residential Refuse Rates
In 2015, the City contracted with a consultant to prepare a Solid Waste Rate
Structure and Analysis Report. The report noted the revenue collected from
residential refuse customers was less than the cost to service the residential
customers. The Finance Committee approved staff’s proposed plan to increase
residential rates 28% (for most customers) over three years to provide for
sufficient revenues in the residential sector to cover all residential expenses by FY
2018. Residential rates were increased 9% in FY 2016 and staff currently proposes
another 9% in FY 2017 and estimate another 8% increase will be needed in FY
2018, consistent with the three-year 28% plan. There were no rate increases in FY
2014 or FY 2015.
Commercial Refuse Rates
The City’s municipal code requires commercial customers, including multifamily
residential complexes with 5 or more units, to subscribe to the appropriate level
of garbage, recycling, and compost service to contain waste. GreenWaste of Palo
Alto, the City’s contract refuse hauler, offers service one to six times per week.
Cart service includes 32 gallon, 64 gallon, and 96 gallon carts. Bin service includes
1 to 8 cubic yards (yd3) in size. Debris boxes are 7 yd3, 15 yd3, 20 yd3, 30 yd3, and
40 yd3 size. GreenWaste also collects commercial compactors. Currently, compost
service is priced at a 10% discount relative to the garbage price. Recycling service
is included as part of the garbage service and not a separate charge. Commercial
Refuse Rates have not increased since October 2010.
Discussion
Single-Family Residential Rates
In FY 2016, the City implemented the recommended first-year rate increase of 9%
for most customers. This proposed single-family residential rate increase is a
second year adjustment consistent with a three-year plan to balance residential
sector revenues with expenses presented to the Finance Committee on April 7,
2015 (Finance Committee SR #5566). On July 1, 2015, the City also began curbside
City of Palo Alto Page 5
collection of residential food scraps and soiled paper allowing residents to divert
compostables from their garbage to their green carts. Realizing that they now
produce very little garbage, some residential customers – around 10% – reduced
the size of their garbage cart and lowered the refuse portion of their Utility bill.
The recommended 9% rate increase in FY 2017 likely will lead to additional
residents “downsizing” their garbage cart, which is projected to result in a net 6%
revenue increase to the Refuse Fund. Table 2 lists the various garbage cart sizes
available and current corresponding rates and recommended rate increases.
Table 2: Recommended FY 2017 Adjustments (R-1 Single-Family Residential Rate
Schedule – Monthly Rates)
Cart Size Current Rates Recommended
FY 2017 Rates
Dollar Increase Percentage
Increase
20 gal $24.30 $26.48 $2.18 9%
32 gal $43.75 $47.69 $3.94 9%
64 gal $87.51 $95.38 $7.87 9%
96 gal $131.26 $143.07 $11.81 9%
To cover projected expenses through FY 2021, staff project rate increases of: 8%
in FY 2018, 5% in FY 2019, 3% in FY 2020, and 3% in FY 2021 (see Table 3 which
shows Refuse rate increases in the context of the other Utility rates)
City of Palo Alto Page 6
Table 3 Refuse Rate Increase in the Context of Other Utility Rate Increases
FY 2017 FY 2018 FY 2019 FY 2020 FY 2021
Electric (preliminary
projection) 11% 10% 3% 0% 1%
Gas1 Utility 8% 9% 7% 1% 1%
Wastewater 9% 10% 9% 7% 6%
Water Utility 6% 9% 9% 6% 2%
Residential Refuse Rates
(FY17 proposed, FY18-20
projected)
9% 8% 5% 3% 3%
Storm Drain2 3.2% 2% to 3% 2% to 3% 2% to 3% 2% to 3%
Total Bill
Change3
(%) 8% 9% 6% 4% 2%
($/mo.) $20.80 $23.45 $18.49 $11.16 $7.77
(1) Gas rate changes are shown with commodity rates held constant. Actual gas commodity rates will
vary monthly with wholesale market fluctuations
(2) Storm Drain Rates increase annually by CPI; existing rates sunset in June 2017 unless reauthorized by
a majority vote of property owners.
(3) Change in estimated median residential bill, $245.23 as of June 30, 2015
The City offers one of the most comprehensive Refuse and Zero Waste programs
in the region. Nonetheless, the City’s least expensive rate option, a mini-can, is
priced within the range of neighboring cities (Table 3). The other cities’ rates are
the rates as of March 2016. The Palo Alto rates are proposed for July 1, 2016.
Cities with lower monthly rates generally offer fewer services.
Table 3: Regional Single-Family Residential Monthly Rate Comparison
City Least Expensive Rate
Palo Alto $26.48
Menlo Park $13.99
Mountain View $18.20
San Jose $32.07*
Santa Clara $18.93
Sunnyvale $36.94*
* Does not offer a minican/20 gallon cart
Commercial Rates
Commercial Refuse Rates have not increased since October 2010. Staff proposes a
5% across-the-board rate increase for all garbage and construction and
demolition (C&D) material collection and to increase the relative discount of
City of Palo Alto Page 7
compost service to garbage service from a current level of discount of 10% to 20%
relative to garbage (Tables 4 and 5). Decreasing the rate on commercial compost
may result in customer cost savings on Utility bills when they add compost service
and sort waste properly as required by the newly adopted Recycling and
Composting Ordinance.
Table 4: Recommended FY 2017 Adjustments (Commercial Garbage Rates)
Collection Frequency
Size 1 day/week 2 days/week 3 days/week 4 days/week 5 days/week 6 days/week Bin
Rental
32 gal $35.48 $3.15
64 gal $73.25 $163.66 $254.08 $344.49 $434.91 $525.33 $3.15
96 gal $109.87 $236.91 $363.95 $490.99 $618.03 $745.07 $3.15
1 CY $178.54 $363.95 $549.36 $733.62 $919.03 $1,103.30 $40.95
1.5 CY $243.78 $501.29 $759.95 $1,017.46 $1,274.97 $1,532.49 $40.95
2 CY $309.02 $638.63 $970.54 $1,301.30 $1,630.91 $1,961.67 $52.50
3 CY $437.20 $913.31 $1,388.28 $1,864.39 $2,341.65 $2,817.76 $67.20
4 CY $581.41 $1,174.26 $1,825.48 $2,448.09 $3,068.40 $3,689.87 $67.20
5 CY $709.59 $1,477.55 $2,243.22 $3,011.18 $3,779.14 $4,545.95 $81.90
6 CY $853.80 $1,768.25 $2,679.27 $3,592.59 $4,505.90 $5,418.06 $81.90
8 CY $1,113.60 $2,315.32 $3,519.34 $4,724.50 $5,928.51 $7,132.52 $107.10
Note: Customers with multiple cans or carts will be charged for the number of cans or carts.
Table 5: Recommended FY 2017 Adjustments (Commercial Compost Rates)
Collection Frequency
Size 1 day/week 2 days/week 3 days/week 4 days/week 5 days/week 6 days/week Bin
Rental
32 gal $28.38 $3.15
64 gal $58.60 $130.93 $203.26 $275.60 $347.93 $420.26 $3.15
96 gal $87.90 $189.53 $291.16 $392.79 $494.42 $596.06 $3.15
1 CY $142.83 $291.16 $439.49 $586.90 $735.25 $882.64 $40.95
1.5 CY $195.02 $401.03 $607.96 $813.97 $1,019.98 $1,225.99 $40.95
2 CY $247.21 $510.90 $776.43 $1,041.04 $1,304.73 $1,569.34 $52.50
3 CY $349.76 $730.65 $1,110.62 $1,491.51 $1,873.32 $2,254.21 $67.20
4 CY $465.12 $939.41 $1,460.38 $1,958.47 $2,454.72 $2,951.89 $67.20
5 CY $567.67 $1,182.04 $1,794.58 $2,408.94 $3,023.31 $3,636.76 $81.90
6 CY $683.04 $1,414.60 $2,143.42 $2,874.07 $3,604.72 $4,334.45 $81.90
City of Palo Alto Page 8
Cost Impact
The impact for customers who currently do not subscribe to compost service will
vary depending on how they change their service levels. Many customers, when
they begin sorting their waste properly, find that they can increase the size of
their recycling in addition to adding compost service. This shift can significantly
reduce the size of the customer’s garbage container. Customers with a 64 gallon
cart serviced once a week, that shift to 32 gallon garbage and 32 gallon compost
will see a 5% reduction in their Refuse bill. Some customers may see an increase
in their Refuse bill. For example, customers currently subscribing to a 2 cubic yard
garbage bin once a week who shift to a 1 cubic yard garbage bin and a 1 cubic
yard compost bin will see a 10% increase in their Refuse bill. For these customers,
it would be important to identify if they can further reduce the size of their
garbage service by increasing recycling and sorting properly. City and GreenWaste
staff will work with commercial customers, especially multifamily managers and
residents, to assist with sorting properly and providing solutions that could reduce
or minimize any cost increases. Overall, staff anticipates total commercial revenue
to remain the same.
Table 6: Recommended FY 2017 Adjustments (Debris Boxes)*
Category A includes garbage, mixed construction and demolition (C&D);
Category B includes single-source separated materials and can be directly marketed as a single
commodity.
On-Call Service
7 CY 15 CY 20 CY 30 CY 40 CY
Delivery (A or B) $132.30 $132.30 $132.30 $132.30 $132.30
Service (Cat A) $676.40 $676.40 $785.13 $1,004.87 $1,095.29
Service (Cat B) $344.40 $344.40 $399.84 $512.40 $558.60
Permanent Service
Category A
1x/week $2,638.07 $3,209.18 $4,121.34 $4,490.67
2x/week $5,276.15 $6,418.36 $8,241.54 $8,981.35
3x/week $7,915.36 $9,626.39 $12,362.89 $13,472.02
4x/week $10,552.29 $12,836.71 $16,485.38 $17,962.70
5x/week $13,190.36 $16,045.89 $20,606.72 $22,453.37
Rental $147.00 $195.30 $292.95 $390.60
City of Palo Alto Page 9
Category B
1x/week $1,419.49 $1,656.07 $1,776.18 $1,896.29
2x/week $2,838.92 $3,312.15 $3,552.37 $3,792.59
3x/week $4,258.47 $4,968.22 $5,332.19 $5,688.88
4x/week $5,677.96 $6,624.29 $7,104.73 $7,585.18
5x/week $7,097.45 $8,280.36 $8,880.92 $9,481.47
Rental $147.00 $195.30 $292.95 $390.60
*See R-C Utility Rate Schedule (Attachment C) for other debris box related charges NOTE:
GreenWaste of Palo Alto has the exclusive rights to haul any and all mixed material (garbage,
generic C&D, or mixed recycling) generated in Palo Alto.
Other Commercial Rate Modifications
As of April 1, 2016, the Recycling and Composting Ordinance requires all
commercial customers with 8 yd3 or more of weekly garbage service, food service
establishments, and multifamily complexes to subscribe to compost service and
sort waste properly (www.cityofpaloalto.org/rc-ordinance). The new rate
schedule is adjusted to contain the “extra solid waste pick-up” fee, which is the
difference in cost between a recycle or compost container and a garbage
container, and a “return trip” fee ($80.00) included as part of the ordinance.
These fees will only be charged after a multi-step process focused around
education and outreach to assist commercial customers with ordinance
compliance. Multifamily complexes will not be subject to these fees if they
provide appropriate education and signage for residents.
Staff propose adding an “overflowing cart” ($30.00) and “overflowing bin”
($50.00) fee and a “Whole cardboard box” fee ($25.00 for carts, $50.00 for bins)
to recover costs associated with overflowing containers and resultant litter. The
intent is to induce commercial customers to subscribe to the appropriate sized
containers, lessening the overflow and keeping the community clean. Breaking
down boxes also will reduce overflowing carts by increasing customer container
capacity.
Other fees, including “pull-out” charges have been modified to reflect current
costs and only apply to commercial customers.
The Commercial Refuse Collection Utility Rate Schedules R-2 and R-3 have been
consolidated into one Utility Rate Schedule R-C. This consolidation will reduce the
potential for billing errors and improve customer service.
City of Palo Alto Page 10
Timeline Refuse Rate Implementation Schedule
Task Schedule
Finance Committee final rate approval as part
of the budget process
April 19, 2016
Proposition 218 notices mailed May 1, 2016
Council approval June 13 and 20, 2016
New Refuse Rates take effect July 1, 2016
Resource Impact
The impacts of the proposed FY 2017 refuse rate increases will implement the
second year of a three-year phased program to realign rates between the
residential, commercial and roll-off sectors so that residential revenues are
sufficient to cover expenses and continue to rebuild the refuse reserve towards
appropriate levels.
1. Residential Program Revenue and Costs
The recommended rate increases will move Palo Alto closer to having the
residential program revenues fully cover the residential program expenses. The
Solid Waste Rate Structure and Analysis Report found residential rates needed to
be raised 28% (for most customers) over three years to provide sufficient
revenues in the residential sector to cover all residential expenses by FY 2018.
Residential rates were increased by 9% in FY 2016 and staff proposes another 9%
in FY 2017 and 8% in FY2018, consistent with the three-year plan. There were no
rate increases in FY 2014 or FY 2015.
City of Palo Alto Page 11
Chart 8: FY 2017 Residential Revenue Needs
The residential revenue shortfall should be eliminated with the recommended 8%
increase for FY 2018.
2. Continue Rebuilding the RSR
As mentioned above, the Refuse Fund is continuing the process of rebuilding its
financial reserves from a deficit of $5 million in FY 2011 to a target reserve of $3
million, which is approximately 10% of sales revenue. At the end of FY 2015, the
RSR had a negative balance of $777,000. This negative balance is attributable to
long-term liabilities associated with both (1) maintaining and monitoring the
City’s closed landfill, as mandated by state law; and (2) a long-term unfunded
pension liability known as “GASB 68 Pension” (Finance Committee ID #6144,
10/20/2015). As revenues are realized and maintenance and monitoring activities
completed, and as the pension liability is addressed, the liabilities will be reduced
and RSR balance will become positive. The FY 2017 proposed rate modifications
should result in a positive RSR by FY 2018 (Chart 9). The reserve target is
projected to be reached by the close of FY 2021.
City of Palo Alto Page 12
Chart 9: Historic and Projected Refuse Fund Reserves
To minimize the need for rate increases, staff implemented several significant
cost saving measures in recent years, including but not limited to (1) accelerating
the filling and closing the City’s landfill; (2) contracting out street sweeping
operations and moving to less frequent sweeping during the non-leaf season; and
(3) improvements and efficiencies gained in the City’s household hazardous waste
collection program.
Staff also notes that approximately two-thirds of the Refuse Program’s expenses
are based on agreements with built-in CPI increases. The projections for FY 2017
and the near-term future are based on 3% CPI increases for these agreements.
These increases are addressed in the recommended rates for both the residential
and commercial sectors.
Policy Implications
There are no policy changes contained in the adoption of the proposed new
Refuse Rates. New steps are being taken to more fully implement the Zero Waste
policies already adopted by Council in the Zero Waste Plan and Zero Waste
Operations Plan.
City of Palo Alto Page 13
Attachments:
Attachment A - Resolution (DOCX)
Attachment B - R-1 FY2017 Residential Refuse Rates (DOCX)
Attachment C - R-C FY2017 Commercial Refuse Rates (DOCX)
Attachment A
Resolution No. XXXX Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending the Utility Rate Schedule R-l and
Consolidating the Utility Rate Schedules R-2 and R-3 with the Utility Rate Schedule R-C for
a Refuse Rate Increase
RECITIALS
A. Pursuant to Chapter 12.20.010 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code, the City Council may by resolution
adopt rules and regulations governing utility services and the fees and charges therefore; and
B. The Council has considered the need for an adjustment in refuse collection rates to avoid a decrease
in the Refuse Fund Rate Stabilization Reserve levels; and
C. Pursuant to Article XIIID Sec. 6 of the California Constitution, on June XX, 2016 the Council of the
City of Palo Alto held a public hearing to consider all protests against the proposed refuse rate fee increases; and
D. The total number of written protests presented by the close of the public hearing was less than fifty
percent (50%) of the total number of customers subject to the proposed refuse rate fee increases.
The Council of the City of Palo Alto RESOLVES as follows:
SECTION 1. Pursuant to Section 12.20.010 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code, Utility Rate Schedule R-l
(Domestic Refuse Collection) is hereby amended to read in accordance with Sheets R-l-l, R-1-2, and the Utility Rate
Schedules R-2 and R-3 is hereby consolidated into Utility Rate Schedule R-C (Commercial Refuse Collection) to
read in accordance with Sheets R-C-1, R-C-2, R-C-3, R-C-4, R-C-5, R-C-6, R-C-7, and R-C-8, attached hereto and
incorporated herein. The foregoing Utility Rate Schedules, as amended, shall become effective on July 1, 2016.
SECTION 2. The rates contained in the attached Rate Schedules shall be in effect until Council adopts
a new rate structure.
SECTION 3. The Council finds that the revenue derived from the authorized adjustments of the refuse
collection rates shall be used only for the purposes set forth in Article VII, Section 2, of the Charter of the City of
Palo Alto.
SECTION 4. The Council finds that the adoption of this resolution does not constitute a project under the
California Environmental Quality Act, California Public Resources Code section 21080, subdivision (b)(8).
DOMESTIC REFUSE COLLECTION
UTILITY RATE SCHEDULE R-1
CITY OF PALO ALTO UTILITIES Issued by the City Council
Effective 7-01-16
Supersedes Rate Schedule R-1 dated
7-01-15 Sheet No. R-1-1
A. APPLICABILITY:
This schedule applies to each occupied domestic dwelling as required by City ordinance,
including separate single-family domestic dwelling and multi-unit dwellings (4 units or less). An occupied dwelling unit is defined as any home, apartment unit, cottage, flat or duplex unit, having kitchen, bath, and sleeping facilities, and to which gas or electric service is being rendered.
B. TERRITORY:
Within the incorporated limits of the City of Palo Alto and on land owned or leased by the City.
C. RATES:
The refuse rates below provide weekly collection, processing and disposal of materials properly deposited in the number of garbage containers indicated below, as well as weekly collection and processing of recyclables from blue carts (standard service includes one 64-gallon blue cart),
weekly collection and processing of compostables (yard trimmings, food scraps, and food soiled
paper) from green carts (standard service includes one 96-gallon green cart), ongoing
maintenance of the closed Palo Alto Landfill, zero waste programs, street sweeping service, the household hazardous waste program, and the annual Clean Up Day.
Monthly Refuse Services Cost
Garbage Cart Sizes
Mini-can/20-gallon cart * 26.48
1 32-gallon cart** 47.69
1 64-gallon cart 95.38
1 96-gallon cart 143.07
*Mini-can service cannot be combined with any other cart service
**Standard cart service is one 32-gallon cart.
D. SPECIAL ITEM CHARGES:
1. Stove/washer/dryer/water heater pick up * ...................................................................... 25.00 2. Freezer/refrigerator/air conditioner/garbage compactor pick up * .................................. 40.00
CITY OF PALO ALTO UTILITIES
Issued by the City Council
Effective 7-01-15
Supersedes Rate Schedule R-1 dated
11-01-14 Sheet No. R-1-2
3. Upholstered furniture pick up (per unit) * ....................................................................... 15.00 4. Mattress pick up * ............................................................................................................ 15.00 5. Tire pick up (per tire, limit of 4 tires) * ........................................................................... 20.00 6. Pallet pick up *................................................................................................................. 5.00 * “Surcharge special” fee (see E5. below) applies when special item is not collected under the annual Clean Up Day Program guidelines.
E. SPECIAL LABOR CHARGES:
1. Return trip (next day service)……………………………………………………. ......... 24.00 2. Return trip (same day service) ……………………………………………………. ....... 36.00 3. Extra collection (for service of additional material; charged per cubic yard) ................ 60.00 4. Miscellaneous 1 person service rate (pull out service) ............................................. 2.50/min 5. Surcharge special (one time pick up of large or non-standard items; or delivery of containers for special events) ………….... ................................................................................. 80.00 6. Repair rate ................................................................................................ 2.50/min + material 7. Back/side yard collection of garbage (monthly charge per residence – available to current back/side yard service customer only) ………………. ................................................... 3.66
F. SPECIAL CART CHARGES: 1. 32-gallon cart rental*** …………………………… .........................................................3.00 2. 64-gallon cart rental*** …………………………… .........................................................3.00 3. 96-gallon cart rental*** …………………………… .........................................................3.00 4. 20-gallon cart purchase ......................................................................................................60.00 5. 32-gallon cart purchase…………………………………………………………… ........ 51.00 6. 64-gallon cart purchase……………………………………………………………. ...... 57.00 7. 96-gallon cart purchase…………………………………………………………….. ...... 62.00 8. Cart wash ………………………………………………………………………….. ...... 30.00 9. Compost cart contamination (entire cart dumped) ........................................................... 30.00 10. Recycling cart contamination (entire cart dumped)……………………………….. ....... 30.00 11. Damaged cart exchange (one allowed per customer each calendar year at no cost). ...... 20.00 12. Monthly key service (customer provided lock) ………………………………………. . 15.00 13. Lock (Collector provided) …………………………………………………………....... 25.00 14. Cart lock installation………………………………………………………………. ....... 40.00 *** Monthly charge for each additional cart of service above three carts for the compostable materials or recycling cart.
COMMERCIAL REFUSE COLLECTION
UTILITY RATE SCHEDULE R-C
CITY OF PALO ALTO UTILITIES Issued by the City Council
Effective 7-01-16
Supersedes Sheets .R-2-1&2 and R-3-1 through R-3-5
dated 10-01-11 Sheet No. R-C-1
A. APPLICABILITY: This schedule applies to all occupied establishments other than residential premises as required
by City ordinance.
B. TERRITORY: Within the incorporated limits of the City of Palo Alto and on land owned or leased by the City.
C. RATES:
The refuse rates below provide collection, processing and disposal of materials properly
deposited in the number of refuse containers indicated below, as well as collection and processing of recyclables from special blue carts. The refuse rates below also provide hazardous waste programs, zero waste programs, ongoing maintenance of the closed Palo Alto Landfill, and street sweeping programs.
(1) MONTHLY GARBAGE CAN/CARTS
Collection Frequency
Cart Sizes 1x/week 2x/week 3x/week 4x/week 5x/week 6x/week Cart Rental
32-gal. can or cart $35.48 $3.15
64-gal. cart* 73.25 163.66 254.08 344.49 434.91 525.33 3.15
96-gal. cart 109.87 236.91 363.95 490.99 618.03 745.07 3.15
* Standard service is one 64-gallon cart.
COMMERCIAL REFUSE COLLECTION
UTILITY RATE SCHEDULE R-C
CITY OF PALO ALTO UTILITIES Issued by the City Council
Effective 7-01-16
Supersedes Sheets .R-2-1&2 and R-3-1 through R-3-5
dated 10-01-11 Sheet No. R-C-2
(2) MONTHLY GARBAGE BINS
Size (cubic
yards)
Collection Frequency
Bin Rental 1x/week 2x/week 3x/week 4x/week 5x/week 6x/week
1 $178.54 $363.95 $549.36 $733.62 $919.03 $1,103.30 $40.95
1.5 243.78 501.29 759.95 1,017.46 1,274.97 1,532.49 40.95
2 309.02 638.63 970.54 1,301.30 1,630.91 1,961.67 52.50
3 437.20 913.31 1,388.28 1,864.39 2,341.65 2,817.76 67.20
4 581.41 1,174.26 1,825.48 2,448.09 3,068.40 3,689.87 67.20
5 709.59 1,477.55 2,243.22 3,011.18 3,779.14 4,545.95 81.90
6 853.80 1,768.25 2,679.27 3,592.59 4,505.90 5,418.06 81.90
8 1,113.60 2,315.32 3,519.34 4,724.50 5,928.51 7,132.52 107.10
(3) MONTHLY COMPOST CARTS*
Collection Frequency
Cart Sizes 1x/week 2x/week 3x/week 4x/week 5x/week 6x/week Bin Rental
32-gal. cart $28.38 $3.15
64-gal. cart 58.60 130.93 203.26 275.60 347.93 420.26 3.15
96-gal. cart 87.90 189.53 291.16 392.79 494.42 596.06 3.15
*Multi-unit dwellings with five (5) to ten (10) units may receive up to one 96-gallon compostables cart collected once per week at no charge. Service over 96 gallons will be charged
as described in G-7 below. Note: “Cart wash” (see G-1) is available and the additional cost of $30 will be assessed to account holders if odors become a public nuisance.
COMMERCIAL REFUSE COLLECTION
UTILITY RATE SCHEDULE R-C
CITY OF PALO ALTO UTILITIES Issued by the City Council
Effective 7-01-16
Supersedes Sheets .R-2-1&2 and R-3-1 through R-3-5
dated 10-01-11 Sheet No. R-C-3
(4) MONTHLY COMPOST BINS
Size (cubic
yards)
Collection Frequency Monthly
Bin Rental 1x/week 2x/week 3x/week 4x/week 5x/week 6x/week
1 $142.83 $291.16 $439.49 $586.90 $735.25 $882.64 $40.95
1.5 195.02 401.03 607.96 813.97 1,019.98 1,225.99 40.95
2 247.21 510.90 776.43 1,041.04 1,304.73 1,569.34 52.50
3 349.76 730.65 1,110.62 1,491.51 1,873.32 2,254.21 67.20
4 465.12 939.41 1,460.38 1,958.47 2,454.72 2,951.89 67.20
5 567.67 1,182.04 1,794.58 2,408.94 3,023.31 3,636.76 81.90
6 683.04 1,414.60 2,143.42 2,874.07 3,604.72 4,334.45 81.90
Note: “Bin wash” (see G-2) is available and the additional cost of $40 will be assessed to account holders if odors become a public nuisance.
(5) DEBRIS BOXES
NOTE: GreenWaste of Palo Alto has the exclusive rights to haul any and all mixed material (garbage, generic C&D, or mixed recycling) generated in Palo Alto.
Category A: Includes garbage, mixed construction and demolition (C&D).
Category B: Includes single-source separated materials and can be and directly marketed as a single commodity.
Debris Box On-Call Service*
7 CY 15 CY 20 CY 30 CY 40 CY
Delivery (A or B) $132.30 $132.30 $132.30 $132.30 $132.30
Service (Cat A) 676.40 676.40 785.13 1,004.87 1,095.29
Service (Cat B) 344.40 344.40 399.84 512.40 558.60
Non-use ** $76.00 $76.00 $76.00 $76.00 $76.00
* Additional “Contaminated charge” of $185.30 (see I-5) may apply on debris boxes used for construction and demolition materials.
**Within a fourteen (14) day period.
COMMERCIAL REFUSE COLLECTION
UTILITY RATE SCHEDULE R-C
CITY OF PALO ALTO UTILITIES Issued by the City Council
Effective 7-01-16
Supersedes Sheets .R-2-1&2 and R-3-1 through R-3-5
dated 10-01-11 Sheet No. R-C-4
Debris Box Category A
Permanent Service
15 CY 20 CY 30 CY 40 CY
1x/week $2,638.07 $3,209.18 $4,121.34 $4,490.67
2x/week 5,276.15 6,418.36 8,241.54 8,981.35
3x/week 7,915.36 9,626.39 12,362.89 13,472.02
4x/week 10,552.29 12,836.71 16,485.38 17,962.70
5x/week 13,190.36 16,045.89 20,606.72 22,453.37
Rental 147.00 195.30 292.95 390.60
Debris Box Category B
Permanent Service
15 CY 20 CY 30 CY 40 CY
1x/week $1,419.49 $1,656.07 $1,776.18 $1,896.29
2x/week 2,838.92 3,312.15 3,552.37 3,792.59
3x/week 4,258.47 4,968.22 5,332.19 5,688.88
4x/week 5,677.96 6,624.29 7,104.73 7,585.18
5x/week 7,097.45 8,280.36 8,880.92 9,481.47
Rental 147.00 195.30 292.95 390.60
COMMERCIAL REFUSE COLLECTION
UTILITY RATE SCHEDULE R-C
CITY OF PALO ALTO UTILITIES Issued by the City Council
Effective 7-01-16
Supersedes Sheets .R-2-1&2 and R-3-1 through R-3-5
dated 10-01-11 Sheet No. R-C-5
D. SPECIAL ITEM CHARGES*: 1. Stove/washer/dryer/heater pick up ................................................................................... 25.00 2. Freezer/refrigerator/air conditioner (residential only) ..................................................... 40.00 3. Upholstered furniture pick up ......................................................................................... 15.00 4. Mattress pick up .............................................................................................................. 15.00 5. Tire pick up (per tire, limit of 4 tires) ............................................................................. 20.00 6. Pallet pick up ................................................................................................................... 5.00 * Requests for pick up of special items must be made scheduled in advance of regular pick up days. If no request is made, am “Extra collection” fee (see E-1) will be applied.
E. SPECIAL LABOR CHARGES: 1. Extra collection (for service of additional material; charged per cubic yard) ................ 60.00 2. Miscellaneous 1 person service rate ……………………………………….. ........... 2.50/min 3. Repair rate …………………………………………. ..................................2.50/min + material 4. Return trip/Special trip…….…………………………………………………… ............ 80.00 5. Special Events Delivery....................................................................................................................... 30.00 Materials and Service (per waste station) ................................................................... 20.00
(6) Pullout Service (per container)
Carts Bins
1x/week $50.00 $200.00
2x/week 100.00 400.00
3x/week 150.00 600.00
4x/week 200.00 800.00
5x/week 250.00 1,000.00 6x/week 300.00 1,200.00
7. Whole cardboard box (boxes that have not been broken down) Cart .............................................................................................................................. 25.00 Bin ............................................................................................................................... 50.00 8. Overflowing container Cart .............................................................................................................................. 30.00 Bin ............................................................................................................................... 50.00
COMMERCIAL REFUSE COLLECTION
UTILITY RATE SCHEDULE R-C
CITY OF PALO ALTO UTILITIES Issued by the City Council
Effective 7-01-16
Supersedes Sheets .R-2-1&2 and R-3-1 through R-3-5
dated 10-01-11 Sheet No. R-2-6
F. RECYCLING AND COMPOST ORDINANCE CHARGES: If contamination is identified in a recycling or compost cart or bin, the customer will have an opportunity to remove the contamination and will only be charged a “Return trip” fee. If the customer chooses to not remove the contamination, the customer will be charged an “Extra solid waste pick-up” fee in addition to a “Return trip” fee. 1. Return trip…….…………………………………………………………………………. 80.00
(2) EXTRA SOLID WASTE PICK UP (for contaminated recycling or compost containers
only. Additional charges will apply to any materials left outside of the containers)
Cart/Bin
Size Contaminated Recycling Contaminated Compost
32-gal. $8.19 $1.64
64-gal. 16.92 3.38
96-gal 25.37 5.07
1 CY 41.23 8.25
1.5 CY 56.30 11.26
2 CY 71.37 14.27
3 CY 100.97 20.19
4 CY 134.27 26.85
5 CY 163.88 32.78
6 CY 197.18 39.44
8 CY 257.18 51.44
3. De minimus (no garbage service but subscribes to both compost and recycling) ............. 25.00
G. SPECIAL CART AND BIN CHARGES: 1. Cart wash …………………………………………………………………………. ....... 30.00 2. Bin wash........................................................................................................................... 40.00 3. Cart exchange ….............................................................................................................. 20.00 4. Monthly key service (customer provided lock) per lock………………………………… 15.00 5. Lock (Contractor provided)………………………………………………………….... . 25.00 6. Cart lock installation………………………………………………………………. ....... 40.00 7. Each additional 32-gallon increment of weekly compostables cart service (in excess of 96 gallons per week) for multi-unit dwellings with five (5) to ten (10) units (monthly
COMMERCIAL REFUSE COLLECTION
UTILITY RATE SCHEDULE R-C
CITY OF PALO ALTO UTILITIES Issued by the City Council
Effective 7-01-16
Supersedes Sheets .R-2-1&2 and R-3-1 through R-3-5
dated 10-01-11 Sheet No. R-2-7
charge).............................................................................................................................. 20.00 8. Temporary bin-delivery (per bin)………………………………………………… ........ 80.00 9. Temporary bin non-use fee (within a fourteen (14) day period) ………………………25.00 10. Auto-bar lock installation ……………………………………………………… ........... 200.00
H. SPECIAL DEBRIS BOX CHARGES: 1. Debris box delivery …………………………………….. ............................................... 132.30 2. Debris box non-use (within a fourteen (14) day period)…………………………….. 76.00 3. Special debris box service between 12 PM to 6 PM ………………………………. ...... 100.00 4. Special debris box service between 6 PM to 12 AM ……………………………. ........ 200.00 5. Special debris box service on Saturday before 12 PM ……………………………. ...... 100.00 6. Special debris box service on Sunday before 6 PM ……………………………. ........... 300.00 7. Special debris box service on Sunday, 6 PM to 12 AM ……………………….. ........... 400.00 8. Contaminated loads of construction and demolition recycling materials………. ........... 185.30 9. Overweight: 8 ton weight limit .......................................................................... 60.00 per ton (or fraction thereof) over 8 tons, up to 10 tons. Note: GreenWaste cannot transport a debris box that is greater than 10 tons.
I. SPECIAL COMPACTOR CHARGES: 1. Compacted garbage (per compacted cubic yard) …………………………………… .... 73.25 2. Compacted compostables (per compacted cubic yard) ……………………………… ... 58.60 3. Compacted recyclables (transportation) ……………………………… ......................... 200.00 4. Overweight (per ton) ........................................................................................................ 60.00 5. Contaminated loads of construction and demolition recycling materials ........................ 185.30 {End}