HomeMy WebLinkAboutStaff Report 5951
City of Palo Alto (ID # 5951)
City Council Staff Report
Report Type: Action Items Meeting Date: 8/17/2015
City of Palo Alto Page 1
Summary Title: Resolution to Adopt Drought Surcharges and a 4% Water Rate
Increase
Title: PUBLIC HEARING AND PROPOSITION 218 HEARING: Finance Committee
Recommendation that the City Council Adopt two Resolutions: 1) Amending
Rate Schedules W-1 (General Resi dential 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) to Increase Rates 4% and Add Drou ght
Surcharges Effective September 1, 2015; and 2) Activating Drought
Surcharges at the 20% Level Effective September 1, 2015 in Response to
Mandatory Potable Water Use Restrictions Imposed by the State Water
Resources Control Board
From: City Manager
Lead Department: Utilities
Recommendation
Staff, the Utilities Advisory Commission (UAC), and the Finance Committee recommend that
Council:
1) Adopt a resolution (Attachment A) amending rate schedules (Attachment A, Exhibit 1):
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) to
increase rates 4% and add drought surcharges effective September 1, 2015; and
2) Adopt a resolution (Attachment B) activating the drought surcharges at the 20%
reduction level effective September 1, 2015.
Executive Summary
The City Council approved the Fiscal Year (FY) 2016 Water Financial Plan, which included a 12%
water rate increase in FY 2016. However, as a result of an update to the water cost of service
analysis that was completed subsequent to the Financial Plan, Council adopt ed an 8% water
rate increase effective July 1, 2015 with the expectation that an additional 4% water rate
increase, which is necessary to cover increasing costs in the Water Fund, would be
City of Palo Alto Page 2
implemented when the proper customer notification was complete . Meanwhile, on May 5,
2015, the State Water Resources Control Board mandated that Palo Alto reduce water use by
24%. This state mandate and the continuing drought prompted staff to propose that the
Council impose drought surcharges to be added to the City’s water rates effective September 1,
2015. These surcharges would not apply in a normal year, but could be imposed by action of
the City Council in the event of a drought, water shortage or other local water use restriction.
The primary purpose of the surcharges is to recover some or all of the largely fixed costs of
providing water service that will be lost due to water consumption reductions. They are not
intended to be the primary tool for achieving conservation goals during a drought. The 4%
water rate increase and the addition of drought surcharges to the rate schedules are proposed
to be effective September 1, 2015.
In summary, staff, the UAC, and the Finance Committee recommend that the Council adopt the
two attached resolutions to accomplish three objectives:
1. Complete the 12% rate increase in the Council-approved Water Financial Plan. On June
15, Council approved an 8% increase effective July 1, 2015. This action implements the
remaining 4% increase effective September 1, 2015;
2. Add drought surcharges to the water rate schedules. These surcharges cannot become
active unless Council activates them by resolution; and
3. Activate the drought surcharges at the 20% reduction level, effective September 1,
2015.
The effect of the 4% rate increase is an increase of $2.89 per month for the median residential
customer using 9 CCF/month. The impact of the imposition of the drought surcharges will
depend on whether a customer reduces water use.
A full discussion of these rate proposals is included in June 16, 2015 report to the Finance
Committee (Staff Report 5825), which is provided as Attachment C.
Impact of 4% Water Rate Increase on Customer Bills
Table 1 shows the impact of the proposed September 1, 2015 rate changes (excluding any
drought surcharges) on the median residential bill. This comparison assumes that customers do
not reduce their consumption. Historically, however, customers have looked for ways to
conserve after their bills have increased, so not all customers will experience the same bill
increase. The average increase is roughly 4% compared to the July 1, 2015 prop osed rates, and
roughly 12% compared to the current rates.
City of Palo Alto Page 3
Table 1: Impact of Proposed Water Rate Changes on Residential Bills
Usage
(CCF/month)
Bill under
Existing Rates
Bill under
Proposed
7/1/15 Rates
Bill under
Proposed
9/1/15 Rates
Change from July 2015
(Proposed)
$/mo %
4 34.63 38.34 39.75 1.41 4%
(Winter median) 7 52.19 57.82 59.99 2.17 4%
(Annual median) 9 67.35 73.98 76.75 2.77 4%
(Summer median) 14 105.25 114.38 118.65 4.27 4%
25 188.63 203.26 210.83 7.57 4%
Table 2 shows the impact of the proposed September 1, 2015 rate changes (excluding any
drought surcharges) on various representative commercial customer bills. As with residents,
this comparison assumes that customers do not decrease consumption.
Table 2: Impact of Proposed Water Rate Changes on Commercial Bills
Usage
(CCF/month)
Bill under
Existing
Rates
Bill under
Proposed 7/1/15
Rates
Bill under
Proposed
9/1/15 Rates
Change from July 2015
(Proposed)
$/mo %
Commercial (W-4) (5/8” meters)
(Annual median) 12 88.47 95.46 99.07 3.61 4%
(Annual average) 64 408.27 441.78 458.91 17.13 4%
Irrigation (W-7) (1 ½” meters)
(Winter median) 9 121 130 134 4 3%
(Summer median) 37 332 354 367 13 4%
(Winter average) 56 474 506 524 18 4%
(Summer average) 199 1,550 1,648 1710 62 4%
Impact of Drought Surcharge on Customer Bills
Tables 3 and 4 show the impact the proposed surcharges, if activated at the 20% reduction
level, would have on various sample customer bills. Customers who conserve1 would see a
lower bill compared to a normal year, while customers who do not conserve would see an
increased bill. High use customers see greater savings when they conserve and higher costs
when they do not. This is because higher users are expected to reduce consumption more than
lower users, an expectation that is factored into the consumption projections underpinning the
rate design. Additional tables are included in Attachment E showing the bill impacts for other
reduction scenarios.
Customers who are already conserving may see increases to their bills as a result of the
surcharges. Some customers may perceive this as “being punished for conserving,” even though
they will still save money relative to a normal year. Staff intends to communicate the reason for
1 Bills shown in Tables 3 & 4 assume that conserving customers use 10% less water under the drought surcharges.
City of Palo Alto Page 4
the surcharges (that the utility’s cost to deliver water is mainly fixed), and that the impact of
the surcharges will be felt more dearly by those customers who are not reducing consumption.2
Table 3: Impact of Proposed Drought Surcharges (20% Reduction Level) on Residential Bills for
both Conserving and Non-Conserving Customers
Usage
(CCF/month)
Bill under
Normal
Year Rates*
Bill with Surcharges,
Conserving Customer
Bill with Surcharges,
Non-Conserving Customer
Bill
Change in Bill
Bill
Change in Bill
% $/mo % $/mo
4 39.75 39.03 -2% -0.72 41.31 4% 1.56
(Winter median) 7 59.99 58.15 -3% -1.84 63.47 6% 3.48
(Annual median) 9 76.75 73.39 -4% -3.36 82.51 8% 5.76
(Summer median) 14 118.65 111.47 -6% -7.18 130.11 10% 11.46
25 210.83 186.20 -12% -24.63 234.83 11% 24.00
* Proposed rates effective September 1, 2015
Table 4: Impact of Proposed Drought Surcharges (20% Reduction Level) on Non-Residential
Bills for both Conserving and Non-Conserving Customers
Usage
(CCF/month)
Bill under
Normal
Year Rates*
Bill with Surcharges,
Conserving Customer
Bill with Surcharges,
Non-Conserving Customer
Bill
Change in Bill
Bill
Change in Bill
% $/mo % $/mo
Commercial (W-4) (5/8” meters)
(Annual median) 12 99.07 96.95 -2% -2.12 104.95 6% 5.88
(Annual average) 64 458.91 447.59 -2% -11.32 490.27 7% 31.36
Irrigation (W-7) (1 ½” meters)
(Winter median) 9 134 124 -8% -11 145 8% 11
(Summer median) 37 367 323 -12% -44 410 12% 43
(Winter average) 56 524 458 -13% -66 590 13% 66
(Summer average) 199 1710 1473 -14% -236 1944 14% 234
* Proposed rates effective September 1, 2015
Commission and Committee Review and Recommendations
The UAC reviewed this proposal at its June 3, 2015 meeting. After a brief discussion as to why
the rate increase had to be broken into two separate rate increases, the UAC passed the
proposal unanimously (4-0 with Commissioners Cook, Danaher, Foster, and Schwartz voting yes
and Commissioners Eglash, Hall and Van Dusen absent). Excerpted minutes of the UAC meeting
are provided as Attachment D.
2 These bill calculations assume the SFPUC does not raise rates to recover lost revenue. This assumption may hold
in the short term, but in an extended drought the SFPUC will increase rates as needed. In this event, the City would
adjust rates to pass the cost through to customers.
City of Palo Alto Page 5
The Finance Committee reviewed the proposal at its June 16, 2015 meeting. Committee
members had questions as to a recent California Court of Appeal decision3 and its impact, if
any, on Palo Alto’s rates. Staff and the City Attorney discussed how the decision clarified rate
setting practices and why it prompted a review of the 12% rate proposal. Based on the review,
splitting the rate increase into separate 8% and 4% increases was deemed the best course. At
the same time, the consultant’s study of drought rates had been completed, and actions taken
by the Governor and State Water Resources Control Board merited their inclusion. Committee
members commented that the drought surcharges were potentially confusing, and that
effective communications with customers is critical.
Committee members also asked about the overall effect on reserves, and staff said that the
Operations reserve would remain above minimum guideline levels. The Finance Committee
recommended that Council approve the proposal unanimously (3-0 with Council Member
Scharf absent). The excerpted draft minutes of the Finance Committee meeting are included as
Attachment E.
Resource Impact
The attached rate schedules include a 4% increase over the rates that were adopted for July 1,
2015. The additional 4% increase will generate an additional $1.5 million per year, though it will
generate less in FY 2016 (about $1.1 million) since the proposed effective date is September 1,
2015. In addition, since sales volumes are lower due to drought restrictio ns, the actual revenue
increase will be less. The revenue increase for both the 8% increase effective July 1, 2015 and
the proposed 4% increase effective September 1, 2015 will be offset by an increase in
wholesale water supply costs, as discussed in the FY 2016 Water Utility Financial Plan (Staff
Report 5881).
In addition to the 4% rate increase, the attached rate schedules include the addition of drought
surcharges that could be imposed by Council as needed. Table 5 shows the estimated revenue
that would be recovered by the attached drought surcharges under various drought scenarios,
if they were kept in place for an entire fiscal year. Note that this revenue is not extra revenue
above the utility’s cost of operation. It only replaces revenue lost due to decreased sales
associated with the drought. Activation of the drought surcharges at the 20% level effective
September 1, 2015 would result in revenue recovery of $2.7 million per year.
3 On April 20, 2015, the 4th District Court of Appeal invalidated the City of San Juan Capistrano's tiered water rates
for being in violation of Proposition 218’s cost of service requirements. While tiered rates are still generally
permissible, the Court noted that rates must still correspond to the actual cost of providing service at a given level
of usage.
City of Palo Alto Page 6
Table 5 Revenue Recovered by Drought Surcharges
10/15% $1.3 million
20% $2.7 million
25% $4.1 million
The FY 2016 Proposed Budget assumes a rate increase of 12% consistent with the approved
Water Utility Financial Plan. Due to the two-step process to achieve a 12% rate increase to
cover the utilities costs and the uncertainty of water usage due to the drought and drought
rates, staff anticipates returning to the City Council as part of the FY 2016 Midyear Budget
review report with a recommendation to adjust the water fund’s revenues and align it with
actual experience during the first six months of FY 2016. Reserves for the Water fund are
projected to remain above minimum guideline levels. In addition, should it b e needed, the CIP
Reserve has additional $4 million that could be utilized in the case of emergency, as discussed
in the FY 2016 Water Financial Plan.
Policy Implications
As discussed above, the proposed drought surcharges and underlying rates are consist ent with
the Design Guidelines for the 2014 Water Utility Drought Rate Cost of Service Study and
Appendix G of the Urban Water Management Plan. In addition, they are consistent with Article
XIIID of the State Constitution (Proposition 218) in that they reflect only the cost to serve
customers.
Environmental Review
Adoption of these rate changes is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act,
pursuant to California Public Resources Code Sec. 21080(b)(8), (adoption of rates to meet
operating expenses, purchase supplies, meet reserve needs and obtain capital improvement
funds), thus no environmental review is required.
Attachments:
Attachment A: Resolution Adopting Water Rate Changes Including a 4% Rate Increase
and the Addition of Drought Surcharges (PDF)
Attachment A, Exhibit 1: Proposed Water Rate Schedules to be Effective September 1,
2015 (in redline/strikeout text) (PDF)
Attachment B: Resolution Activating Drought Surcharges at the 20% Reduction Level
Effective September 1, 2015 (PDF)
Attachment C: Finance Committee Staff Report 5825 Resolutions to Adopt Drought
Surcharges and 4% Water Rate Increase and Impose Drought Surcharges at the 20%
Reduction Level (PDF)
Attachment D: Draft UAC Minutes of June 3, 2015 Meeting (PDF)
Attachment E: Draft minutes of the June 16, 2015 Finance Committee meeting (TXT)
Attachment A
* NOT YET APPROVED *
052615 sdl 6053336 1
Resolution No. _________
Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto 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) to Increase Water Rates 4%
and Add Drought Surcharges
R E C I T A L S
A. On January 17, 2014 the Governor of the State of California proclaimed a State of
Emergency due to severe drought conditions. On April 1, 2015 the Governor issued Executive Order
proclaiming that severe drought conditions continue to exist, and ordering the State Water Resources
Control Board to adopt regulations imposing mandatory water use restrictions on water suppliers to
achieve a 20% reduction in statewide potable water use through February 28, 2016.
B. On May 5, 2015, the State Water Resources Control Board adopted regulations
imposing upon Palo Alto a mandatory 24% reduction in potable water consumption from June 1, 2015
through February 28, 2016, compared to 2013 consumption levels.
C. The City's costs of distributing water and managing its operations are mostly fixed, and
will not decrease despite decreases in water consumption during a drought. Customer response to
this call for mandatory reductions will result in reductions in water sales revenue.
D. The City, on June 15, adopted the FY 2016 Water Utility Financial Plan (Staff Report
5881), which determined an additional 12% increase in revenue was needed for FY 2016 due to
increased water supply costs. On June 15 the City adopted an 8% increase to its water rates effective
July 1, 2015 (Staff Report 5814).
E. Based on an analysis conducted by an independent water rate consultant, staff has
determined that an additional 4% increase to normal year water rates is necessary to achieve
adequate revenue to fund operations for FY 2016. Staff has also recommended that a structure of
drought surcharges be adopted that can be activated by a Council determination of the existence of a
drought, water shortage, or other restriction on local water use.
F. 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.
G. On August 17, 2015, the City Council held a full and fair public hearing regarding the
proposed rate increase and drought surcharge and considered all protests against the proposals.
H. As required by Article XIII D, Section 6 of the California Constitution and applicable law,
notice of the August 17, 2015 public hearing was mailed to all City of Palo Alto Utilities water
customers by July 1, 2015.
Attachment A
* NOT YET APPROVED *
052615 sdl 6053336 2
I. The City Clerk has tabulated the written protests received and it is determined that 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 September 1, 2015.
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 September 1, 2015.
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 September 1, 2015.
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 September 1, 2015.
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 September 1, 2015.
SECTION 6. The revenue derived from the adoption of this resolution shall be used only for
the purpose set forth in Article VII, Section 2, of the Charter of the City of Palo Alto.
SECTION 7. 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 will not be used for any
purpose other than providing water service.
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 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, the City Council has adopted not only the surcharge
Attachment A
* NOT YET APPROVED *
052615 sdl 6053336 3
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. A drought
surcharge will be collected if, by resolution, the City Council determines that a drought, period of
water shortage or restriction on local water use exists, necessitating or causing the existence of
citywide water reduction efforts at the 10/15%, 20% or 25% level. The collection of the surcharge at
any of the levels approved by this resolution does not, in itself, constitute an “increase” of water
charges above the rates approved by this resolution and considered at the August 17, 2015 public
hearing.
SECTION 9. The Council finds that the adoption of this resolution changing water rates to
meet operating expenses, purchase supplies and materials, meet financial reserve needs and obtain
funds for capital improvements necessary to maintain service is not subject to the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), pursuant to California Public Resources Code Sec. 21080(b)(8) and
Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations Sec. 15273(a). After reviewing the staff report and all
attachments presented to Council, the Council incorporates these documents herein and finds that
sufficient evidence has been presented setting forth with specificity the basis for this claim of CEQA
exemption.
INTRODUCED AND PASSED:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTENTIONS:
ATTEST:
___________________________ ___________________________
City Clerk Mayor
APPROVED AS TO FORM: APPROVED:
___________________________ ___________________________
Senior Deputy City Attorney City Manager
___________________________
Director of Utilities
___________________________
Director of Administrative Services
GENERAL RESIDENTIAL WATER SERVICE
UTILITY RATE SCHEDULE W-1
CITY OF PALO ALTO UTILITIES
Issued by the City Council
Supersedes Sheet No W-1-1 Effective 7-1-20159-1-2015
dated 7-1-20137-1-2015 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 ..................................................................................................... $ 15.5416.03
For 3/4 inch meter ..................................................................................................... 20.8821.50
For 1 inch meter ........................................................................................................ 31.5832.45
For 1 1/2 inch meter .................................................................................................. 58.3259.83
For 2-inch meter ........................................................................................................ 90.4092.67
For 3-inch meter ........................................................................................................ 192.01196.70
For 4-inch meter ........................................................................................................ 341.74350.00
For 6-inch meter ........................................................................................................ 700.04716.82
For 8-inch meter ........................................................................................................1,288.281,319.07
For 10-inch meter ......................................................................................................2,036.962,085.57
For 12-inch meter .......................................................................................................2,678.682,742.56
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 ........................................................................................................................$5.705.93
Tier 2 usage (All usage over 100% of Tier 1) ........................................................................8.088.38
ATTACHMENT A, EXHIBIT 1
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 7-1-20159-1-2015
dated 7-1-20137-1-2015 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).
Tier 1 0.19 0.39 0.59
Tier 2 0.55 1.14 1.76
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 7-1-20159-1-2015
dated 7-1-20137-1-2015 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 7-1-20159-1-2015
dated 7-1-20137-1-2015 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) ................................................................ $6.666.92
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).
Surcharge 0.24 0.49 0.72
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 7-1-20159-1-2015
dated 7-1-20137-1-2015 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 7-1-2015
dated 7-1-2013 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 .......................................................................................................$3.383.43
4-inch connection .......................................................................................................20.9421.22
6-inch connection ....................................................................................................... 60.8261.63
8-inch connection .......................................................................................................129.61131.34
10-inch connection .....................................................................................................233.09236.20
12-inch connection .....................................................................................................376.51381.52
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 7-1-2015
dated 7-1-2013 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 7-1-20159-1-2015
dated 7-1-20137-1-2015 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 .................................................................................... $ 15.5416.03
For 3/4-inch meter .................................................................................... 20.8821.50
For 1-inch meter .................................................................................... 31.5832.45
For 1 ½-inch meter .................................................................................... 58.3259.83
For 2-inch meter .................................................................................... 90.4092.67
For 3-inch meter .................................................................................... 192.01196.70
For 4-inch meter .................................................................................... 341.74350.00
For 6-inch meter .................................................................................... 700.04716.82
For 8-inch meter ....................................................................................1,288.281,319.07
For 10-inch meter ....................................................................................2,036.962,085.57
For 12-inch meter ....................................................................................2,678.682,742.56
Commodity Rates: (to be added to Service Charge)
Per Hundred Cubic Feet (ccf)
Per Month All Pressure Zones
Per ccf ............................................................................................................ $ 6.666.92
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 7-1-20159-1-2015
dated 7-1-20137-1-2015 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).
Surcharge 0.24 0.49 0.72
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 7-1-2015
dated 7-1-2013 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 .................................................................................... $ 15.5416.03
For 3/4-inch meter .................................................................................... 20.8821.50
For 1-inch meter .................................................................................... 31.5832.45
For 1 1/2 inch meter .................................................................................... 58.3259.83
For 2-inch meter .................................................................................... 90.4092.67
For 3-inch meter .................................................................................... 192.01196.70
For 4-inch meter .................................................................................... 341.74350.00
For 6-inch meter .................................................................................... 700.04716.82
For 8-inch meter ....................................................................................1,288.281,319.07
For 10-inch meter ....................................................................................2,036.962,085.57
For 12-inch meter ....................................................................................2,678.682,742.56
Commodity Rates: (to be added to Service Charge)
Per Hundred Cubic Feet (ccf)
Per Month All Pressure Zones
Per ccf ............................................................................................................ $ 8.088.29
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 7-1-2015
dated 7-1-2013 Sheet No W-7-2
Surcharge 0.51 1.18 1.93
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}
Attachment B
NOT YET APPROVED
150526 sdl 6053575 1
Resolution No. _________
Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Activating Drought
Surcharges at the 20% Reduction Level in Response to Mandatory
Potable Water Use Restrictions Imposed by the State Water
Resources Control Board
R E C I T A L S
A. The state of California is experiencing record dry conditions. On January 17,
2014 the Governor of the State of California proclaimed a State of Emergency due to severe
drought conditions. On April 1, 2015 the Governor issued an Executive Order proclaiming that
severe drought conditions continue to exist, and ordering the State Water Resources Control
Board to adopt regulations imposing mandatory water use restrictions on water suppliers to
achieve a 20% reduction in statewide potable water use through February 28, 2016.
B. On May 5, 2015, the State Water Resources Control Board adopted regulations
imposing upon Palo Alto a mandatory 24% reduction in potable water consumption from
June 1, 2015 through February 28, 2016, compared to 2013 consumption levels.
C. Mandated reductions in water use will result in reductions in the City’s water
sales revenue. Because the City’s costs of distributing water and managing its operations are
mostly fixed, these reductions in revenue will not be fully offset by reductions in operating
costs.
D. On August 17, 2015 following a properly noticed public hearing, the City Council
adopted a water rate schedules that included a framework of drought surcharges.
E. Collection of these surcharges is triggered by a Council determination that a
period of drought, water shortage or restriction on local water use exists, necessitating or
causing the existence of citywide water reduction efforts at the 10/15%, 20% or 25% level.
F. As a consequence of the state water conservation mandate, the City Council
desires to makes such a determination.
The Council of the City of Palo Alto does hereby RESOLVE as follows:
SECTION 1. The City Council hereby determines that a period of water shortage or
restrictions on local water use exists, necessitating or causing the existence of citywide water
reduction efforts at the 20% level. Consequently, 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.
SECTION 2. The declaration made by this resolution shall continue in effect until
rescinded or modified by the City Council.
Attachment B
NOT YET APPROVED
150526 sdl 6053575 2
SECTION 3. This resolution activates water rates previously adopted by resolution of
the City Council and does not constitute an “increase” of the City’s water rates. The City
Council declares that even if the adoption of this resolution does constitute an increase, it
would have imposed the water surcharge at the Level 2 (20%) rate based upon testimony at the
August 17, 2015 public hearing regarding water rates.
SECTION 4. The Council finds that the adoption of this resolution changing water
rates to meet operating expenses, purchase supplies and materials, meet financial reserve
needs and obtain funds for capital improvements necessary to maintain service is not subject to
the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), pursuant to California Public Resources Code
Sec. 21080(b)(8) and Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations Sec. 15273(a). After
reviewing the staff report and all attachments presented to Council, the Council incorporates
these documents herein and finds that sufficient evidence has been presented setting forth
with specificity the basis for this claim of CEQA exemption.
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
City of Palo Alto (ID # 5825)
Finance Committee Staff Report
Report Type: Action Items Meeting Date: 6/16/2015
City of Palo Alto Page 1
Summary Title: Resolution to Adopt Drought Surcharges and 4% Water Rate
Increase
Title: Staff Recommendation that the City Council Adopt two Resolutions
Effective September 1, 2015: 1) 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) to Increase Rates 4% and Add Drought Surcharges; and 2) Activat ing
Drought Surcharges at the 20% Level in Response to Mandatory Potable
Water Use Restrictions Imposed by the State Water Resources Control Board
From: City Manager
Lead Department: Utilities
Recommendation
Staff recommends that the Finance Committee recommend that Council:
1)Adopt a resolution (Attachment A) 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) to add drought surcharges
and increase rates 4% effective September 1, 2015; and
2)Adopt a resolution (Attachment C) activating the drought surcharges at the 20%
reduction level effective September 1, 2015.
Executive Summary
The Fiscal Year (FY) 2016 Water Financial Plan recommended for Council approval by the
Finance Committee on April 7, 2015 concluded that a 12% water rate increase was necessary in
FY 2016. However, as a result of an update to the water cost of service analysis that was
completed subsequent to the Financial Plan, Council is only able to adopt an 8% water rate
increase effective July 1, 2015 (see Staff Report #5814 on the June 8, 2014 Council agenda). An
ATTACHMENT C
City of Palo Alto Page 2
additional 4% water rate increase, which is necessary to cover increasing costs in the Water
Fund, is proposed for implementation on September 1, 2015.
At the same time, staff proposes that the Council amend the rate schedules to add drought
surcharges. These surcharges would not apply in a normal year, but could be imposed by action
of the City Council in the event of a drought or other local water shortage situation. The
primary purpose of the surcharges is to recover some or all of the revenue lost due to water
consumption reductions. They are not intended to be the primary tool for achieving
conservation goals during a drought.
Given the 24% water use reduction mandate established for Palo Alto by the State Water
Resources Control Board, staff expects that customers will reduce their water use, requiring a
rate increase to recover the largely fixed costs of providing water service. Staff recommends
activating the new drought surcharges on September 1, 2015, the same day that the proposed
4% rate increase would be effective.
In summary, the two attached resolutions are intended to accomplish three objectives:
1. Complete the 12% rate increase recommended to Council by the Finance Committee on
April 7, 2015. Staff has recommended to Council that this 12% increase be broken into
two parts, with an 8% increase effective July 1, 2015 and the remaining 4% increase
effective September 1, 2015. The 8% increase will be considered by the Council during
the water rate hearings on June 8 and continuing if needed to June 15. The first
resolution (Attachment A) implements the remaining 4% increase.
2. Add drought surcharges to the water rate schedules. These surcharges cannot become
active unless Council activates them by resolution. Three levels of surcharge are
included, one for the 10/15% reduction level, one for a 20% reduction level, and one for
a 25% reduction level. The first resolution (Attachment A) includes all three potential
surcharges as part of the proposed rate schedule amendments , but does not seek
Council authorization to apply them.
3. Activate the drought surcharges at the 20% reduction level, effective September 1,
2015. The second resolution (Attachment C) implements this action by activating the
drought surcharges at the 20% reduction level.
The increase to the underlying rate schedules (12% total, 8% on July 1, 2015 and 4% on
September 1, 2015) is intended to generate additional revenue required to fund daily
operations. The drought surcharges are only intended to be used temporarily under drought
conditions or other water shortage situations to recover revenue lost due to temporarily low
sales volumes.
The effect of the 4% rate increase is an increase of $2.89 per month for the median residential
customer using 9 CCF/month. Note that the changes will take effect on Sep tember 1, after the
City of Palo Alto Page 3
summer irrigation season, when water usage is normally reduced. The impact of the imposition
of the drought surcharges will depend on whether a customer reduces water use .
Background
Last year, in response to the ongoing drought, staff began the process of developing drought
surcharges. The City’s current rate setting methodology is based on the 2012 Palo Alto Water
Cost of Service and Rate Study by Raftelis Financial Consultants, Inc. (RFC) (Staff Report 2676).
Prior to updating the 2012 Water Utility Cost of Service Analysis (COSA) to include additional
rates or surcharges for use in an extended drought, staff sought policy direction in the form of
guidelines for the COSA. The guidelines (Attachment D) were approved by Council on
November 10, 2014 (Staff Report 5171) and state that:
Surcharges should be based on the cost to serve customers. This was the overriding
principle for the analysis.
The demand targets and indoor and outdoor use reductions underlying the rate design
should be consistent with the water shortage response plan evaluation criteria in
Appendix G of the City’s 2010 Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP).
Staff should evaluate the feasibility of adding a third tier to the residential rate (W -1)
and a second tier to the general non-residential rate (W-4).
Water purchase costs should be passed through directly on the bill as a separate rate
component.
Variances should be evaluated for customers needing additional water for medical
necessity, health and safety, and other critical needs.
At the same time that staff was completing the COSA for the drought surcharges, the annual
budgeting and financial forecasting process was in progress. The FY 2016 Water Utility Financial
Plan projected the need for a 12% rate increase on July 1, 2015. The primary driver for this
increase is wholesale water rate increases. On March 4, 2015 the Utilities Advisory Commission
recommended that the Council approve th e 12% rate increase, and on April 7, 2015 the Finance
Committee also unanimously recommended approval (Staff Report 5591). Staff mailed notices
of the rate increase to all water utility customers, as required by Article XIIID of the State
Constitution (added by Proposition 218 in 1996).
Shortly after the City mailed the notices, the California Court of Appeal published a decision
providing additional guidance on constitutionally compliant water rate design.
Staff asked RFC to review the City’s water rate methodology and structure to ensure that they
continued to equitably recover the City’s costs to provide water service. RFC examined and
validated both the City’s methodology and rate structure as fundamentally sound, and
recommended minor adjustments to ensure that peaking costs are equitably allocated to each
customer class and residential rate tier.
City of Palo Alto Page 4
Since Council may not adopt rates higher than those in the Proposition 218 notice that was sent
to customers, staff recommended that Council approve an 8% rate increase effective July 1,
2015, the maximum rate increase that both aligned with the updated COSA and was within the
notice requirements. Council will consider the recommendation for the 8% rate increase at its
budget hearings on June 8, 2015 and June 15, 2015 meetings (Staff Report 5814). The
remaining 4% rate increase needed can be adopted along with the drought surcharges. This
increase is included in the attached rate schedules, and a Prop 218 notice of the 4% increase
and the range of potential drought surcharges Council may activate will be sent to customers in
July.
Discussion
Overview of 4% Rate Increase
As discussed earlier, the attached rate schedules include a 4% rate increase, effective
September 1, 2015. The rates are summarized in Tables 1 through 3, below. The tables show
the existing rates, the rates proposed for July 1, 2015 (an 8% increase from existing rates), the
rates proposed for September 1, 2015 (a 4% increase), and the change in rates. Note that the
proposed rates for July 1, 2015 shown in Tables 1 through 3 are an 8% overall rate increase, not
the 12% rate increase proposed at the March 3, 2015 UAC meeting. The 4% rate increase
effective September 1, 2015, when combined with the 8% increase effective July 1, 2015, will
result in an overall 12% rate increase, in line with the proposal in the FY 2016 Water Utility
Financial Plan.
All rate increases are based on the cost of service methodology established in the 2012 “Palo
Alto Water Cost of Service and Rate Study” by Raftelis Financial Consultants as modified by the
attached memo titled “Proposed Water Rates” by Raftelis Financial Consultants (Attachment F).
Table 1: Water Commodity Charges (Current and Proposed)
Current Rates
(7/1/13)
Proposed Rates
(7/1/15)1
Proposed Rates
(9/1/15)
Change from July 2015
(Proposed) Rates
$/CCF %
W-1 (Residential) Volumetric Rates ($/CCF)
Tier 1 Rates 4.99 5.70 5.93 0.23 4%
Tier 2 Rates 7.58 8.08 8.38 0.30 4%
W-2 (Construction) Volumetric Rates ($/CCF)
Uniform Rate 6.15 6.66 6.92 0.26 4%
W-4 (Commercial) Volumetric Rates ($/CCF)
Uniform Rate 6.15 6.66 6.92 0.26 4%
W-7 (Irrigation) Volumetric Rates ($/CCF)
Uniform Rate 7.52 7.99 8.29 0.30 4%
1 The July 1, 2015 proposed rates shown in Tables 1 through 3 are for the 8% overall rate increase, that staff
recommends be effective on July 1, 2015, instead of the 12% rate increase proposed earlier.
City of Palo Alto Page 5
Table 2: Current and Proposed Monthly Water Service Charge
Meter
Size
Monthly Service Charge
($/month based on meter size)
Change from July 2015
(Proposed) Rates
Current (7/1/13) Proposed (7/1/15)1 Proposed (9/1/15) $/mo %
5/8” 14.67 15.54 16.03 0.49 3%
3/4” 19.51 20.88 21.50 0.62 3%
1” 29.18 31.58 32.45 0.87 3%
1 ½” 53.37 58.32 59.83 1.51 3%
2” 82.39 90.40 92.67 2.27 3%
3” 174.29 192.01 196.70 4.69 2%
4” 309.72 341.74 350.00 8.26 2%
6” 633.80 700.04 716.82 16.78 2%
8” 1,165.86 1,288.28 1,319.07 30.79 2%
10” 1,843.02 2,036.96 2,085.57 48.61 2%
12” 2,423.45 2,678.68 2,742.56 63.88 2%
Table 3: Current and Proposed Monthly Fire Service Charges
Meter
Size
Monthly Fire Service Charge
($/month based on meter size)
Change from July 2015
(Proposed) Rates
Current (7/1/13) Proposed (7/1/15)1 Proposed (9/1/15) $/mo %
2” 3.03 3.38 3.43 0.05 1%
4” 18.78 20.94 21.22 0.28 1%
6” 54.55 60.82 61.63 0.81 1%
8” 116.24 129.61 131.34 1.73 1%
10” 209.03 233.09 236.20 3.11 1%
12” 337.65 376.51 381.52 5.01 1%
Table 4 shows the impact of the proposed September 1, 2015 rate changes (excluding any
drought surcharges) on the median residential bill. This comparison assumes that customers do
not reduce their consumption. Historically, however, customers have looked for ways to
conserve after their bills have increased, so not all customers will experience the same bill
increase. The average increase is roughly 4% compared to the July 1, 2015 proposed rates and
roughly 12% compared to the current rates, but residential customers with lower usage will see
higher percentage increases, due to the adjustment to peaking factors in the proposed July 1,
2015 rate schedules.
Table 4: Impact of Proposed Water Rate Changes on Residential Bills
Usage
(CCF/month)
Bill under
Existing
Rates
Bill under
Proposed 7/1/15
Rates
Bill under
Proposed 9/1/15
Rates
Change from July 2015
(Proposed)
$/mo %
City of Palo Alto Page 6
4 34.63 38.34 39.75 1.41 4%
(Winter median) 7 52.19 57.82 59.99 2.17 4%
(Annual median) 9 67.35 73.98 76.75 2.77 4%
(Summer median) 14 105.25 114.38 118.65 4.27 4%
25 188.63 203.26 210.83 7.57 4%
Table 5 shows the impact of the proposed September 1, 2015 rate changes (excluding any
drought surcharges) on various representative commercial customer bills. As with residents,
this comparison assumes that customers do not decrease consumption.
Table 5: Impact of Proposed Water Rate Changes on Commercial Bills
Usage
(CCF/month)
Bill under
Existing
Rates
Bill under
Proposed 7/1/15
Rates
Bill under
Proposed 9/1/15
Rates
Change from July 2015
(Proposed)
$/mo %
Commercial (W-4) (5/8” meters)
(Annual median) 12 88.47 95.46 99.07 3.61 4%
(Annual average) 64 408.27 441.78 458.91 17.13 4%
Irrigation (W-7) (1 ½” meters)
(Winter median) 9 121 130 134 4 3%
(Summer median) 37 332 354 367 13 4%
(Winter average) 56 474 506 524 18 4%
(Summer average) 199 1,550 1,648 1710 62 4%
Overview of the Drought Surcharge Proposal
The proposed drought surcharges for each rate schedule are shown in Table 6. The drought
surcharges are based on the cost of service methodology established in the 2012 “Palo Alto
Water Cost of Service and Rate Study” by Raftelis Financial Consultants as modified by the
attached memo titled “Proposed Drought Surcharges” by Raftelis Financial Consultants
(Attachment G).
Table 6: Recommended Drought Surcharges ($/CCF)
Rate Class 10%/15%2 Reduction 20% Reduction 25% Reduction
W-1 Residential (Tier 1) 0.19 0.39 0.59
W-1 Residential (Tier 2) 0.55 1.14 1.76
W-4 (Non-residential and Master
Metered Multi-Family, General Use) 0.24 0.49 0.72
W-7 (Non-residential and Master
Metered Multi-Family, Irrigation) 0.51 1.18 1.93
2 Water use reduction targets for the 10% and 15% reduction targets are identical because of CPAU’s supply
guarantee under its 2009 Water Supply Agreement with the SFPUC. The supply guarantee, which is higher than
CPAU’s normal year demand, is a factor in the water use reduction targets.
City of Palo Alto Page 7
As set forth in the attached rate schedules, these surcharges may be activated by Council ’s
adoption of a resolution. The Council may opt to activate the surcharge at a lower level than
necessary to fully recover all lost revenue. For example, if the City’s water supplier imposed a
mandatory reduction of 20% on Palo Alto, the City Council could adopt surcharges at a 10/15%
level or a 20% level. This gives the Council the freedom to adopt a lower surcharge to make up
part of the lost revenue, and offset any remai ning revenue shortfall by making temporary cost
reductions or drawing down reserves. Once adopted, the surcharges will remain in effect until
Council takes action to remove or amend them.
Since the State has imposed a 24% mandatory reduction on Palo Alt o effective June 1, 2015
staff recommends that Council adopt a resolution activating the drought surcharges. In the FY
2016 Water Utility Financial Plan, staff projected a continuation of SFPUC’s request for a 10%
voluntary water use reduction, but no mandatory reductions. The financial plan anticipated
that the revenue loss associated with the 10% reduction in water sales would be offset by
drawing down reserves, with no activation of drought surcharges. Now that Palo Alto is subject
to a 24% mandatory water use reduction, staff recommends activating the drought surcharges
at the 20% reduction level. Because they will take effect at the end of the summer irrigation
season, the surcharges are only estimated to recover roughly 80% of the projected $2.8 million
in lost revenue for FY 2016. The remaining lost revenue will be offset by drawing down
reserves.
Impact on Customer Bills
Tables 7 and 8 show the impact the proposed surcharges, if activated at the 20% reduction
level, would have on various sample customer bills. Customers who conserve3 would see a
lower bill compared to a normal year, while customers who do not conserve would see an
increased bill. High use customers see greater savings when they conserve and higher costs
when they do not. This is because higher users are expected to reduce consumption more than
lower users, an expectation that is factored into the consumption projections underpinning the
rate design. Additional tables are included in Attachment E showing the bill impacts for other
reduction scenarios.
Customers who are already conserving may see increases to their bills as a result of the
surcharges. Some customers may perceive this as “being punished for conserving,” even though
they will still save money relative to a normal year. Staff intends to communicate the reason for
the surcharges (that the utility’s cost to deliver water is mainly fixed), and that the impact of
the surcharges will be felt more dearly by those customers who are not reducing consumption.4
3 Bills shown in Tables 7 and 8 assume that conserving customers use 10% less water under the drought
surcharges.
4 These bill calculations assume the SFPUC does not raise rates to recover lost revenue. This assumption may hold
in the short term, but in an extended drought the SFPUC will increase rates as needed. In this event, the City would
adjust rates to pass the cost through to customers.
City of Palo Alto Page 8
Table 7: Impact of Proposed Drought Surcharges (20% Reduction Level) on Residential Bills for
both Conserving and Non-Conserving Customers
Usage
(CCF/month)
Bill under
Normal
Year Rates*
Bill with Surcharges,
Conserving Customer
Bill with Surcharges,
Non-Conserving Customer
Bill
Change in Bill
Bill
Change in Bill
% $/mo % $/mo
4 39.75 39.03 -2% -0.72 41.31 4% 1.56
(Winter median) 7 59.99 58.15 -3% -1.84 63.47 6% 3.48
(Annual median) 9 76.75 73.39 -4% -3.36 82.51 8% 5.76
(Summer median) 14 118.65 111.47 -6% -7.18 130.11 10% 11.46
25 210.83 186.20 -12% -24.63 234.83 11% 24.00
* Proposed rates effective September 1, 2015
Table 8: Impact of Proposed Drought Surcharges, Non-Residential Bills,
20% Reduction Level
Usage
(CCF/month)
Bill under
Normal
Year Rates*
Bill with Surcharges,
Conserving Customer
Bill with Surcharges,
Non-Conserving Customer
Bill
Change in Bill
Bill
Change in Bill
% $/mo % $/mo
Commercial (W-4) (5/8” meters)
(Annual median) 12 99.07 96.95 -2% -2.12 104.95 6% 5.88
(Annual average) 64 458.91 447.59 -2% -11.32 490.27 7% 31.36
Irrigation (W-7) (1 ½” meters)
(Winter median) 9 134 124 -8% -11 145 8% 11
(Summer median) 37 367 323 -12% -44 410 12% 43
(Winter average) 56 524 458 -13% -66 590 13% 66
(Summer average) 199 1710 1473 -14% -236 1944 14% 234
* Proposed rates effective September 1, 2015
Drought Surcharge Rate Design, Alignment With Design Guidelines
The design for the drought surcharges are mostly in line with the rate design guidelines
adopted by Council, with deviations from Guidelines 5, 6, and 7 as discussed below.
Guideline 1: Rates to be based on the cost of service
The drought surcharges are based on the memo titled “Proposed Drought Surcharges” by
Raftelis Financial Consultants (Attachment G). The surcharges use the same cost of service
methodology as the City’s normal year rates, but assume reductions in sales commensurate
with the water use reductions required. The model assumes that, during a drought, greater
water use reductions occur in the rate classes more associated with irrigation (Tier 2 W-1, W-7),
which results in higher increases in the rates. These surcharges are not “penalty rates” designed
to punish overuse; instead, they are intended only to recover revenue lost due to water use
reductions, although they may have the side effect of sending a price signal to encourage
City of Palo Alto Page 9
conservation. While the surcharges may have some impact on customer conservation, they are
not the primary tool for the City to achieve drought reduction targets, nor is that thei r intended
purpose.
Guidelines 2 through 4: Consistency of Overall Demand Targets and Indoor and Outdoor Use
Reductions with Design Criteria in Appendix G of the UWMP
The UWMP lists several criteria to use when evaluating the water allocations that form t he
basis for any rate design. These are included in Attachment H and are summarized below. They
state that the allocations underlying any rate design should:
a. Reduce overall City consumption to the reduction target required
b. Provide sufficient water available for personal use
c. Have a design that is acceptable to the community
d. Be designed to minimize unemployment and business loss
e. Minimize landscaping investment losses
f. Be cost-effective, enforceable, and achievable in the given timeline
g. Allow for flexibility
h. Take into account for new water services
i. Recover penalties applied by suppliers
The proposed rate design accomplishes these goals. The demand targets and allocations used
as the basis for the rate design are shown in Attachment E. By assuming greater cuts in outdoor
use than indoor use, and designing rates on that basis, the demand targets and indoor/outdoor
allocations preserve sufficient water for personal use and minimize the impacts on business
use. However, no individual allocations are established, whi ch means people have the
opportunity to choose whether they focus their savings goals on indoor or outdoor use. This
provides flexibility to the consumer, allowing them the flexibility to allocate their water use as
needed to minimize landscape investment losses, and makes it more likely the rate design will
be acceptable to the community. Since individual allocations are not established, the rate
design automatically takes into account new water services.
Guidelines 5 and 6: Adding a Tier to the Residential (W-1) and General Non-residential (W-4)
Rate Schedules
As part of this study staff evaluated a three tier system for residential rates (W -1) and a two tier
system for general non-residential consumption (W-4), but does not recommend adopting
additional tiers at this time. Staff’s analysis of customer usage suggests that such an approach
may be feasible and cost-justified, but it requires more legal and technical analysis than staff
can currently accommodate given the June 1 effective date of the state’s mandatory 24% use
reduction.
Guideline 7: Create a Separate Water Supply Rate Component
Staff recommends against proceeding with this rate design feature at this time. Staff is
currently projecting little change to the SFPUC’s water rates over the next three years given the
large rate increase that will go into effect July 1, 2015. However, if the drought continues
City of Palo Alto Page 10
beyond the upcoming winter, the SFPUC may increase its rates higher than anticipated,
prompting staff to revisit this feature as part of a future rate change.
Guideline 8: Evaluate the Need for Variance Processes
The proposed cost-based surcharges do not include extraordinarily large increases or penalty
rates for second tier users, so staff is recommending against creating a variance process at this
time. However, if it becomes apparent that a variance process is necessary, staff will
re-evaluate the feasibility of such a process.
Commission Review
The Utilities Advisory Commission (UAC) reviewed this proposal at its June 3, 2015 meeting.
Because of the proximity of the UAC meeting to the June 16, 2015 Finance Committee meeting,
the outcome is not available for this report and will be provided at the June 16, 2015 Finance
meeting.
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, 1996). The rate schedules will then go to the City Council in August, at
which time the public hearing required by Article XIIID of the State Constitution will be held.
Assuming the Council adopts the rate changes, they will become effective September 1, 2015.
Resource Impact
The attached rate schedules include a 4% increase over the rates that are proposed to be
adopted July 1, 2015. The proposed July 1, 2015 rates are 8% higher than the existing rates and
will generate roughly $3 million in additional revenue during a normal year. The additional 4%
increase will generate an additional $1.5 million during a normal year, though it will generate
less in FY 2016 due to the late adoption date. Actual revenue from both rate changes will be
lower in the short term because sales volumes are lower due to drought restrictions. The entire
revenue increase will be offset by an increase in wholesale water supply costs, as discussed in
the FY 2016 Water Utility Financial Plan.
In addition to the 4% rate increase, the attached rate schedules include the addition of drought
surcharges that could be imposed by Council as needed. Table 9 shows the estimated revenue
that would be recovered by the attached drought surcharges under various drought scenarios,
if they were kept in place for an entire fiscal year. Note that this revenue is not extra revenue
above the utility’s cost of operation. It only replaces revenue lost due to decreased sales
associated with the drought. Staff is recommending activation of the drought surcharges at the
20% level effective September 1, 2015.
City of Palo Alto Page 11
Table 9: Revenue Recovered by Drought Surcharges
Reduction in Available Supply
Estimated Lost Revenue Recovered
by Drought Surcharges
10/15% $1.3 million
20% $2.7 million
25% $4.1 million
The Fiscal Year 2016 Proposed Budget assumes a rate increase of 12% consistent with the
approved Water Utility Financial Plan. Due to the two-step process to achieve a 12% rate
increase to cover the utilities costs and the uncertainty of water usage due to the drought and
drought rates, staff anticipates returning to the City Council as part of the Fiscal Year 20 16
Midyear Budget review report with a recommendation to adjust the water fund’s revenues and
align it with actual experience during the first six months of fiscal year 2016.
Policy Implications
As discussed above, the proposed drought surcharges and unde rlying rates are consistent with
the Design Guidelines for the 2014 Water Utility Drought Rate Cost of Service Study and
Appendix G of the UWMP, except as noted above. In addition, they are consistent with Article
XIIID of the State Constitution in that they reflect only the cost to serve customers under
normal conditions and under various drought scenarios.
Environmental Review
Adoption of these rate changes is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act,
pursuant to California Public Resources Code Sec. 21080(b)(8), (adoption of rates to meet
operating expenses, purchase supplies, meet reserve needs and obtain capital improvement
funds), thus no environmental review is required.
Attachments:
Attachment A: Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Adopting Drought
Surcharges, a Water Rate Increase, and Amending Rate Schedules W-1, W-2, W-3, W-4,
and W 7 (PDF)
Attachment B: Amended Rate Schedules W-1, W-2, W-3, W-4, and W 7 (PDF)
Attachment C: Resolution Activating Drought Surcharges Effect ive September 1, 2015
(PDF)
Attachment D: Adopted Design Guidelines for Drought Rate Cost of Service Analysis
(DOCX)
Attachment E: Bill Impacts of Drought Surcharges Under Various Reduction Scenarios
(PDF)
Attachment F: May 20, 2015 Memo from Raftelis Financial Consultants, "Proposed
Water Rates" (PDF)
Attachment G: May 20, 2015 Memo from Raftelis Financial Consultants, "Proposed
Drought Surcharges" (PDF)
Attachment H: Appendix G of the Urban Water Management Plan (PDF)
Attachment A
* NOT YET APPROVED *
1
052615 sdl 6053336
Resolution No. _________
Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto 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) to
Increase Water Rates 4% and Add Drought Surcharges
R E C I T A L S
A. On January 17, 2014 the Governor of the State of California proclaimed a State
of Emergency due to severe drought conditions. On April 1, 2015 the Governor issued
Executive Order proclaiming that severe drought conditions continue to exist, and ordering t he
State Water Resources Control Board to adopt regulations imposing mandatory water use
restrictions on water suppliers to achieve a 20% reduction in statewide potable water use
through February 28, 2016.
B. On May 5, 2015, the State Water Resources Control Board adopted regulations
imposing upon Palo Alto a mandatory 24% reduction in potable water consumption from
June 1, 2015 through February 28, 2016.
C. The City's costs of distributing water and managing its operations are mostly
fixed, and will not decrease despite decreases in water consumption during a drought.
Customer response to this call for mandatory reductions will result in reductions in water sales
revenue. The City intends to add drought surcharges to its rate schedules that may be used to
recover these fixed costs during current and future droughts.
D. The City, on June 15, adopted the FY 2016 Water Utility Financial Plan (Staff
Report #5813), which determined an additional 12% increase in revenue was needed for
FY 2016 due to increased water supply costs. On June 15 the City adopted an 8% increase to its
water rates effective July 1, 2015. An additional 4% increase to normal year water rates is
necessary to achieve adequate revenue to fund operations for FY 2016.
E. 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.
F. On July _____, 2015, the City mailed notice of the proposed water rate
amendments and drought surcharges to all City of Palo Alto Utilities water customers. The
notice contained a description of the 4% overall increase in water rates, as well as each of the
three levels of drought surcharges that Council may activate in response to a drought or other
water shortage situation.
Attachment A
* NOT YET APPROVED *
2
052615 sdl 6053336
G. Pursuant to Article XIIID Sec. 6 of the California Constitution, on August 17, 2015,
the City of Palo Alto held a public hearing to consider all protests against the proposed water
rate amendments, including the drought surcharges.
H. The total number of written protests presented by the close of the public
hearing was __________ fifty percent (50%) of the total number of customers and property
owners subject to the proposed water rate amendments.
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 September 1,
2015.
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 September 1,
2015.
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 September 1,
2015.
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 September 1, 2015.
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
September 1, 2015.
SECTION 6. The Council finds that the revenue derived from the adoption of this
resolution shall be used only for the purpose set forth in Article VII, Section 2, of the Charter of
the City of Palo Alto.
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.
Attachment A
* NOT YET APPROVED *
3
052615 sdl 6053336
SECTION 8. Council may later find it necessary to activate one of the drought surcharge
levels described in the August 2015 public notice. Pursuant to Government Code
53750(h)(2)(B), Council’s later activation of any one of the properly noticed and Council -
approved drought surcharge levels is not a rate increase for purposes of Article XIII C and
Article XIII D of the California Constitution and Government Code 53750 .
SECTION 9. The Council finds that the adoption of this resolution changing water
rates to meet operating expenses, purchase supplies and materials, meet financial reserve
needs and obtain funds for capital improvements necessary to maintain service is not subject to
the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), pursuant to California Public Resources Code
Sec. 21080(b)(8) and Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations Sec. 15273(a). After
reviewing the staff report and all attachments presented to Council, the Council incorporates
these documents herein and finds that sufficient evidence has been presented setting forth
with specificity the basis for this claim of CEQA exemption.
INTRODUCED AND PASSED:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTENTIONS:
ATTEST:
___________________________ ___________________________
City Clerk Mayor
APPROVED AS TO FORM: APPROVED:
___________________________ ___________________________
Senior Deputy City Attorney City Manager
___________________________
Director of Utilities
___________________________
Director of Administrative Services
GENERAL RESIDENTIAL WATER SERVICE
UTILITY RATE SCHEDULE W-1
CITY OF PALO ALTO UTILITIES
Issued by the City Council
Supersedes Sheet No W-1-1 Effective 7-1-20159-1-2015
dated 7-1-20137-1-2015 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 ..................................................................................................... $ 15.5416.03
For 3/4 inch meter ..................................................................................................... 20.8821.50
For 1 inch meter ........................................................................................................ 31.5832.45
For 1 1/2 inch meter .................................................................................................. 58.3259.83
For 2-inch meter ........................................................................................................ 90.4092.67
For 3-inch meter ........................................................................................................ 192.01196.70
For 4-inch meter ........................................................................................................ 341.74350.00
For 6-inch meter ........................................................................................................ 700.04716.82
For 8-inch meter ........................................................................................................1,288.281,319.07
For 10-inch meter ......................................................................................................2,036.962,085.57
For 12-inch meter .......................................................................................................2,678.682,742.56
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 ........................................................................................................................$5.705.93
Tier 2 usage (All usage over 100% of Tier 1) ........................................................................8.088.38
ATTACHMENT B
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 7-1-20159-1-2015
dated 7-1-20137-1-2015 Sheet No W-1-2
Drought Surcharges:
If adopted by City Council resolution as described in Section D.3, one of the three designated
drought surcharge reduction levels will be added to the Customer’s applicable Commodity Rate for
Tier 1 and Tier 2 water usage. The drought surcharges in the table below are measured in dollars per
hundred cubic feet (ccf).
Tier 1 0.19 0.39 0.59
Tier 2 0.55 1.14 1.76
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 7-1-20159-1-2015
dated 7-1-20137-1-2015 Sheet No W-1-3
3. Drought Surcharge
During periods of water shortage or restrictions on local water use, the City Council may
adopt a resolution activating a Drought Surcharge at the 10/15%, 20% or 25% level, as
needed to recover the water utility’s costs of providing water service. 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 7-1-20159-1-2015
dated 7-1-20137-1-2015 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) ................................................................ $6.666.92
3. Drought Surcharges:
If adopted by City Council resolution as described in Section D.5, one of the three designated
drought surcharge reduction levels will be added to the Customer’s Commodity Rate.
Surcharge (dollars per
hundred cubic feed) 0.24 0.49 0.72
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
addition to all other costs and fees provided in this schedule. A hydrant permit may be denied or
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 7-1-20159-1-2015
dated 7-1-20137-1-2015 Sheet No W-2-2
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 periods of water shortage or restrictions on local water use, the City Council may adopt a
resolution activating a Drought Surcharge at the 10/15%, 20% or 25% level, as needed to recover
the water utility’s costs of providing water service. 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 7-1-2015
dated 7-1-2013 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 .......................................................................................................$3.383.43
4-inch connection .......................................................................................................20.9421.22
6-inch connection ....................................................................................................... 60.8261.63
8-inch connection .......................................................................................................129.61131.34
10-inch connection .....................................................................................................233.09236.20
12-inch connection .....................................................................................................376.51381.52
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 7-1-2015
dated 7-1-2013 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 7-1-20159-1-2015
dated 7-1-20137-1-2015 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 .................................................................................... $ 15.5416.03
For 3/4-inch meter .................................................................................... 20.8821.50
For 1-inch meter .................................................................................... 31.5832.45
For 1 ½-inch meter .................................................................................... 58.3259.83
For 2-inch meter .................................................................................... 90.4092.67
For 3-inch meter .................................................................................... 192.01196.70
For 4-inch meter .................................................................................... 341.74350.00
For 6-inch meter .................................................................................... 700.04716.82
For 8-inch meter ....................................................................................1,288.281,319.07
For 10-inch meter ....................................................................................2,036.962,085.57
For 12-inch meter ....................................................................................2,678.682,742.56
Commodity Rates: (to be added to Service Charge)
Per Hundred Cubic Feet (ccf)
Per Month All Pressure Zones
Per ccf ............................................................................................................ $ 6.666.92
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 7-1-20159-1-2015
dated 7-1-20137-1-2015 Sheet No W-4-2
Drought Surcharges:
If adopted by City Council resolution as described in Section D.2, one of the three designated
drought surcharge reduction levels will be added to the Customer’s Commodity Rate.
Surcharge (dollars per
hundred cubic feed) 0.24 0.49 0.72
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 periods of water shortage or restrictions on local water use, the City Council may
adopt a resolution activating a Drought Surcharge at the 10/15%, 20% or 25% level, as
needed to recover the water utility’s costs of providing water service. 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 7-1-2015
dated 7-1-2013 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 .................................................................................... $ 15.5416.03
For 3/4-inch meter .................................................................................... 20.8821.50
For 1-inch meter .................................................................................... 31.5832.45
For 1 1/2 inch meter .................................................................................... 58.3259.83
For 2-inch meter .................................................................................... 90.4092.67
For 3-inch meter .................................................................................... 192.01196.70
For 4-inch meter .................................................................................... 341.74350.00
For 6-inch meter .................................................................................... 700.04716.82
For 8-inch meter ....................................................................................1,288.281,319.07
For 10-inch meter ....................................................................................2,036.962,085.57
For 12-inch meter ....................................................................................2,678.682,742.56
Commodity Rates: (to be added to Service Charge)
Per Hundred Cubic Feet (ccf)
Per Month All Pressure Zones
Per ccf ............................................................................................................ $ 8.088.29
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 7-1-2015
dated 7-1-2013 Sheet No W-7-2
Drought Surcharges:
If adopted by City Council resolution as described in Section D.2, one of the three designated
drought surcharge reduction levels will be added to the Customer’s Commodity Rate.
Surcharge (dollars per
hundred cubic feed) 0.51 1.18 1.93
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 periods of water shortage or restrictions on local water use, the City Council may
adopt a resolution activating a Drought Surcharge at the 10/15%, 20% or 25% level, as
needed to recover the water utility’s costs of providing water service. The purpose of the
Drought Surcharge is to recover revenues lost as a result of reduced consumption.
{End}
****NOT YET APPROVED*****
Attachment C
1
150526 sdl 6053335
Resolution No. _________
Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Adopting Drought
Surcharges at the 20% Reduction Level in Response to Mandatory
Potable Water Use Restrictions Imposed by the State Water
Resources Control Board
R E C I T A L S
A. The state of California is experiencing record dry conditions. On January 17,
2014 the Governor of the State of California proclaimed a State of Emergency due to severe
drought conditions. On April 1, 2015 the Governor issued an Executive Order proclaiming that
severe drought conditions continue to exist, and ordering the State Water Resources Control
Board to adopt regulations imposing mandatory water use restrictions on wa ter suppliers to
achieve a 20% reduction in statewide potable water use through February 28, 2016.
B. On May 5, 2015, the State Water Resources Control Board adopted regulations
imposing upon Palo Alto a mandatory 24% reduction in potable water consumption from
June 1, 2015 through February 28, 2016.
C. Customer response to this call for mandatory reductions will result in reductions
in water sales revenue. The City’s costs of distributing water and managing its operations are
mostly fixed, and will not decrease despite decreases in water consumption. The drought
surcharges are necessary to recover these fixed costs.
D. The City wishes to activate the drought surcharges for all of its water rate
schedules at the 20% level. In light of the State’s mandate that Palo Alto reduce its overall
potable water consumption by 24%, activation of local surcharges at the 20% level is projected
to recover no more than the City’s fixed costs of operations, and is not projected to collect
revenue above and beyond the cost to serve the City’s water customers under drought
conditions.
E. 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.
F. On July _____, 2015, the City mailed notice of the proposed water rate
amendments and drought surcharges to all City of Palo Alto Utilities water customers. The
notice contained a description of the 4% overall increase in water rates, as well as each of the
three levels of drought surcharges that Council may activate in response to a drought or other
water shortage situation. The notice further informed customers that in August 2015, staff
plans to recommend that Council activate the 20% drought surcharge level.
****NOT YET APPROVED*****
Attachment C
2
150526 sdl 6053335
G. Pursuant to Article XIIID Sec. 6 of the California Constitution, on August 17, 2015,
the City of Palo Alto held a public hearing to consider all protests against the proposed water
rate amendments, including the drought surcharges.
H. The total number of written protests presented by the close of the public
hearing was _______ fifty percent (50%) of the total number of customers and property owners
subject to the proposed water rate amendments.
The Council of the City of Palo Alto does hereby RESOLVE as follows:
SECTION 1. As authorized by Chapter 12.20.010 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code, the
drought surcharges listed in Section C under the 20% reduction level for the W -1 (General
Residential Water Service), W-2 (Water Service from Fire Hydrants), W-4 (Residential Master-
Metered and General Non-Residential Service), W-7 (Non-residential Irrigation Water Service)
will apply to all City of Palo Alto Utilities water customer bills as of September 1, 2015,.
SECTION 2. In light of the State’s mandate that Palo Alto reduce its overall potable
water consumption by 24%, activation of local drought surcharges at the 20% level is projected
to recover no more than the City’s fixed costs of operations, and is not projected to colle ct
revenue above and beyond the cost to serve the City’s water customers under drought
conditions.
SECTION 3. The drought surcharges will continue to apply until the City Council acts to
remove or amend them. Council may later find it necessary to activate one of the other
drought surcharge levels described in the August 2015 public notice. Pursuant to Government
Code 53750(h)(2)(B), Council’s later activation of any one of the properly noticed and Council-
approved drought surcharge levels is not a rate increase for purposes of Article XIII C and
Article XIII D of the California Constitution and Government Code 53750 .
SECTION 4. 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 Res ources Code
Sec. 21080(b)(8) and Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations Sec. 15273(a). After
/ /
/ /
/ /
/ /
****NOT YET APPROVED*****
Attachment C
3
150526 sdl 6053335
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
Attachment D
Adopted by Council on November 10, 2014 (Staff Report 5171)
Design Guidelines for the 2014 Water Utility Drought Rate Cost of Service Study
1. Drought rates must be based on the cost to serve customers. This is the overriding principle
for this study; all other rate design considerations must fall within this basic premise.
2. The drought rate design should be consistent with the water shortage response plan
evaluation criteria in Appendix G of the City’s 2010 Urban Water Management Plan,
summarized as follows:
a. Reduce overall City consumption to reduction target required
b. Provide sufficient water available for personal use
c. Design should be acceptable to the community
d. Unemployment and business loss should be minimized
e. Landscaping investment losses should be minimized
f. Plan should be cost-effective, enforceable, and achievable in the given timeline
g. Plan should allow for flexibility
h. Plan should take into account for new water services
i. Plan should recover penalties applied by suppliers
These criteria are discussed in more detail in the 2010 Urban Water Management Plan.
3. Rates will be designed for the following demand targets:
San Francisco Public
Utilities Commission
System-wide Demand
Reduction
Target Palo Alto
Demand
(CCF)
Projected Sales
(CCF)
10/15% 4.976 million 4.571 million
20% 4.586 million 4.213 million
25% 4.261 million 3.914 million
4. Rates will be designed assuming the following allocation of water between indoor and
outdoor (irrigation) use.
SFPUC System-
wide Reduction
in Available
Supply
CPAU
Sales
(CCF)
Indoor Use Outdoor Use
(CCF)
% reduction
over normal
year (CCF)
% reduction
over normal
year
None 4.946 million 3.134 million - 1.812 million -
10/15% 4.571 million 2.977 million 5% 1.589 million 12%
20% 4.213 million 2.852 million 9% 1.359 million 25%
25% 3.914 million 2.758 million 12% 1.160 million 36%
5. Rates for residential customers should provide an allowance for efficient landscaping
through the use of three tiers, if feasible, and should otherwise be based on two tiers.
Attachment D
Adopted by Council on November 10, 2014 (Staff Report 5171)
6. Rates for commercial customers should provide an individual baseline allocation
representing indoor use (based on winter use in a pre-drought year) and a second tier for
outdoor use.
7. Water purchase costs should be passed through directly on the bill as a separate rate
component.
8. Evaluate variance processes for customers needing additional water for medical necessity,
health and safety, and other critical needs.
Page 1 of 3
Estimated Impact of Proposed Drought Surcharges on Customer Bills
The charts below show the impact of drought surcharges on customer bills. Note that the bill
calculations below assume that the City’s wholesale supplier, the SFPUC, does not raise rates to
recover lost revenue. This assumption may hold in the short term, but in an extended drought
the SFPUC will increase rates as needed. In this event, the City would adjust rates to pass the
cost through to customers.
10% / 15% REDUCTION LEVEL
Residential Bills
4 39.75 39.29 -1% -0.46 40.51 2% 0.76
(Winter median) 7 59.99 58.95 -2% -1.04 61.68 3% 1.69
(Annual median) 9 76.75 75.03 -2% -1.73 79.54 4% 2.79
(Summer median) 14 118.65 115.21 -3% -3.44 124.19 5% 5.54
25 210.83 200.22 -5% -10.61 222.42 5% 11.59
Commercial Bills
Commercial (W-4) (5/8” meters)
(Annual median) 12 99.07 97.65 -1% -1.42 101.95 3% 2.88
(Annual average) 64 458.91 451.36 -2% -7.55 474.27 3% 15.36
Irrigation (W-7) (1 ½” meters)
(Winter median) 9 134 130 -3% -4 139 4% 5
(Summer median) 37 367 346 -6% -21 385 5% 18
(Winter average) 56 524 493 -6% -31 553 6% 29
(Summer average) 199 1710 1601 -6% -109 1811 6% 101
ATTACHMENT E
Page 2 of 3
20% REDUCTION LEVEL
Residential Bills
4 39.75 39.03 -2% -0.72 41.31 4% 1.56
(Winter median) 7 59.99 58.15 -3% -1.84 63.47 6% 3.48
(Annual median) 9 76.75 73.39 -4% -3.36 82.51 8% 5.76
(Summer median) 14 118.65 111.47 -6% -7.18 130.11 10% 11.46
25 210.83 186.20 -12% -24.63 234.83 11% 24.00
Commercial Bills
Commercial (W-4) (5/8” meters)
(Annual median) 12 99.07 96.95 -2% -2.12 104.95 6% 5.88
(Annual average) 64 458.91 447.59 -2% -11.32 490.27 7% 31.36
Irrigation (W-7) (1 ½” meters)
(Winter median) 9 134 124 -7% -10 145 8% 11
(Summer median) 37 367 323 -12% -44 410 12% 43
(Winter average) 56 524 458 -13% -66 590 13% 66
(Summer average) 199 1710 1473 -14% -237 1944 14% 234
Page 3 of 3
25% REDUCTION LEVEL
Residential Bills
4 39.75 38.98 -2% -0.77 42.11 6% 2.36
(Winter median) 7 59.99 57.55 -4% -2.44 65.29 9% 5.30
(Annual median) 9 76.75 71.75 -7% -5.00 85.57 11% 8.82
(Summer median) 14 118.65 107.24 -10% -11.41 136.27 15% 17.62
25 210.83 173.76 -18% -37.07 247.81 18% 36.98
Commercial Bills
Commercial (W-4) (5/8” meters)
(Annual median) 12 99.07 96.71 -2% -2.36 107.71 9% 8.64
(Annual average) 64 458.91 446.31 -3% -12.60 504.99 10% 46.08
Irrigation (W-7) (1 ½” meters)
(Winter median) 9 134 119 -11% -15 152 13% 18
(Summer median) 37 367 302 -18% -65 438 19% 71
(Winter average) 56 524 426 -19% -98 632 21% 108
(Summer average) 199 1710 1361 -20% -349 2094 22% 384
201 S. Lake Avenue
Suite 301
Pasadena, CA 91101
Phone 626 . 583 . 1894
Fax 626 . 583 . 1411
www.raftelis.com
Raftelis Financial Consultants
Memorandum
TO: Jon Abendschein, Senior Resource Planner
FROM: Sudhir Pardiwala/Hannah Phan
DATE: May 20, 2015
SUBJECT: Proposed Water Rates
The City of Palo Alto (City) engaged Raftelis Financial Consultants, Inc. (RFC) to review the cost of service
methodology and water rate structure described in our 2012 rate study1 to ensure its continued
compliance with Proposition 218. This memo summarizes the methodology and development of the
proposed water rate methodology and tiered rate structure.
Proposed Water Rates
The following subsections detail the methodology and calculation related to the proposed water rates
for fiscal year (FY) 2016.
Cost of Service Analysis Adjustments
At the City’ request, RFC reviewed the cost of service analysis methodology used in its 2012 rate study,
to ensure its continued compliance with Proposition 218’s substantive requirements for water rates. The
methodology and rate structure described in the 2012 cost of service study remains fundamentally
sound. Upon review, we have refined our analysis and recommend that the following adjustments be
made to ensure that the rates proposed continue to equitably recover the City’s costs of providing water
service:
1.RFC updated the customer class peaking factors using FY 2014 data. Peaking costs are one of the
elements used to differentiate rates amongst different classes of customers. Different
customers impose different demands on the system, and the portion of the costs related to
peaking are applied proportionally to the peaking factors. As discussed below, peaking factors
for the customer classes have shifted since the last study, and the new peaking factors should be
reflected in the proposed rates.
2.RFC analyzed the usage characteristics for residential Tiers 1 and 2 usage in order to update the
peaking-related costs to be allocated to each tier. The boundary between Tier 1 and Tier 2 use, 6
CCF, represents the median winter monthly usage for residential customers (winter is consider
January through March). Analyzing winter usage is a common way to calculate indoor, year-
1 Palo Alto Water Cost of Service and Rate Study Report dated March 2012
ATTACHMENT F
City of Palo Alto May 20, 2015
Page 2
round, base load use. Usage above this level typically is related to irrigation. As a result, the
2012 cost of service study did not allocate any peaking factors to Tier 1, because the customers
with usage solely in that tier were presumed not to have a usage peak. Upon further study, RFC
has determined that Tier 1 customers do have a small peaking factor that occurs as a result of
their slightly higher summer use. As a result, RFC recommends refining the 2012 cost of service
analysis to allocate a small share of peaking factor costs to Tier 1. This change will more
equitably recover system design and operational costs associated with Tier 1 customers’ peak
demands upon the system.
3. RFC adjusted the model to more clearly delineate the difference between base (delivery),
peaking, and the cost of purchased water from San Francisco Public Utilities Commission
(SFPUC). While this does not necessarily affect the cost allocation between customer classes, it
does more clearly show the costs being allocated among customer classes and residential tiers.
The adjustments were made to the model used to calculate the City’s existing rates, which has been
updated to reflect FY 2016 budget requirements.
Adjustment 1: Peaking Factors for Customer Classes
Table 1 shows the peaking factors by customer class, based on the maximum month factors calculated
from each customer class’ water usage in FY 2014, compared to the peaking factors used in the 2012
study. These were calculated using the same methodology as in the 2012 cost of service study. The
primary differentiator of rates amongst different customer classes is based on the demand that they put
on the system. This demand is expressed in terms of the maximum day and maximum hour facto rs.
These are the demands expressed as a ratio of the maximum demand to the average demand for each
customer class. For example, if the maximum demand for a customer class were 10,000 CCF per day,
and the average annual demand were 5,000 CCF per day, the peaking ratio would be 2.0.
Residential customers generally have higher peaking factors than commercial customers, and irrigation
customers have the highest peaking factors. The max day factor for each customer class is based on the
maximum month demands. The ratio of the max hour and max day for the whole system is used to
estimate the max hour factor for each customer class. Since usage in the Construction – W2 class is
intermittent and varies based on the construction activity in the City, customers in the Construction –
W2 class are considered to be the same as the Commercial – W4 class for the purpose of calculating
variable charges. These two classes are differentiated only in the fact that temporary hydrant meters are
used for construction customers, while commercial customers have permanent services.
City of Palo Alto May 20, 2015
Page 3
Table 1
Revised Peaking Factors by Customer Class
The change to the peaking factors by customer class shifts the capacity or peaking-related costs among
the customer classes, to equitably reflect their demands on the system and recover the City’s cost of
providing service. The peaking factors for the W-4 customer class has remained the same (when
normalized).2 The peaking factor for the W-1 customer class as a whole has also remained the same,
though the peaking factors for the residential tiers have been adjusted as discussed below. The W-7
customer class peaking factor has changed.
Adjustment 2: Peaking Factors for Residential Rate Tiers
In order to equitably allocate the peaking related costs to residential Tiers 1 and 2, RFC analyzed the
water usage per month per account for FY 2014. Since the maximum month usage for residential
customers occurs in August, the August usage in each tier was compared with the average usage in each
tier to determine the relative peaking factor for each tier. Table 2 shows the calculation of the peaking
factor for each tier, representing the amount of extra capacity needed on the system to serve customers
in that tier. The peaking factor for Tier 1 is 1.06 (i.e., the peak is 1.06 times the average or 6 percent
above the average Tier 1 usage.) Similarly, the peak for Tier 2 is 69 percent above the average for Tier 2
usage. The delivery cost, or average cost of providing service, is recovered from the average
component, and the peak cost recovered from the peak component. Based on the analysis, Tier 2
requires approximately 12 times (0.69/0.06) more peaking capacity than Tier 1. Conversely, in the 2012
study, no peaking cost was allocated to Tier 1, thus putting 100 percent of the peaking costs on Tier 2.
2 Normalization is done so that W-1 equals 2.0. This normalization is performed to make it easier to see differences
between customer class peaking factors and how those peaking factors change over time. Using the normalized
peaking factors results in the same cost allocation as would result if the non-normalized peaking factors were used.
Customer Specific Peaking Factors
2012 Max Day
(MD)
2012 Max
Hour (MH)
2014 Max Day
(MD)
2014 Max
Hour (MH)
Residential - W1 1.49 2.34 1.45 2.27
Master MFR/Commercial - W4 1.30 2.04 1.27 1.99
Irrigation - W7 2.25 3.53 1.81 2.84
Construction - W2 1.30 2.04 1.27 1.99
Customer Specific Peaking Factors
2012 MD
Normalized
2012 MH
Normalized
2014 MD
Normalized
2014 MH
Normalized
Residential - W1 2.00 3.14 2.00 3.14
Master MFR/Commercial - W4 1.75 2.75 1.75 2.75
Irrigation - W7 3.00 4.71 2.50 3.92
Construction - W2 1.75 2.75 1.75 2.75
City of Palo Alto May 20, 2015
Page 4
Table 2
Peaking Factors for Tiers 1 and 2
Adjustment 3: Presentation of Underlying Rate Components
These changes discussed above result in the calculated rates shown in Table 3 for FY 2016, assuming a
12 percent revenue increase. Each rate has three components: supply rate, delivery rate, and peaking
rate. The supply rate represents the cost of purchased water from the SFPUC, which is applied to all
customer classes and tiers equally since the City only has one source of water. Note that the supply rate
component includes the fixed meter costs (about 2 percent of total costs) and losses (about 8 percent of
purchased water). The delivery rate represents the City’s fixed costs of operating the water system to
serve year-round base load consumption, excluding any peaking related costs. This component is also
applied to all customer classes and tiers equally. The peaking rate represents the capacity related costs
of the system necessary to serve peak load, and it differs per customer class and tier based on the
calculated peaking factors for each customer class and tier, as shown in Tables 1 and 2. Table 4 shows
the existing rates and how they underlying rate components were previously displayed.
Table 3
Proposed FY 2016 Commodity Rate
Peaking Factor Analysis for W1 Customers
Max Month
Usage Bills in Tier Usage per Bill Average
Usage
Peaking
Factor
Tier 1 - 0-6 CCF 73,173 13,124 5.58 5.27 1.06
Tier 2 - over 6 CCF 154,329 11,739 13.15 7.78 1.69
Customer Class Tier (ccf)Supply Rate
($/ccf)
Delivery Rate
($/ccf)
Peaking Rate
($/ccf)Rate ($/ccf)
Residential - W1
Tier 1 6 $4.61 $1.10 $0.22 $5.93
Tier 2 over 6 $4.61 $1.10 $2.67 $8.38
Average Rate $3.87 $7.36
Master MFR/Commercial - W4 $4.61 $1.10 $1.21 $6.92
Irrigation - W7 $4.61 $1.10 $2.58 $8.29
Construction - W2 $4.61 $1.10 $1.21 $6.92
City of Palo Alto May 20, 2015
Page 5
Table 4
Existing Commodity Rate Components
The proposed rates are shown in Table 5 for both an 8 percent and a 12 percent revenue increase. The
monthly meter service charge includes customer service, metering, and billing charges as well as the
costs associated with the service connection and a portion of the distribution system capacity. Fire
service meter charges include costs associated with maintaining system capacity to serve firefighting
flows for private fire meters.
Customer Class Tier (ccf)Supply Rate
($/ccf)
Delivery Rate
($/ccf)
Peaking Rate
($/ccf)Rate ($/ccf)
Residential - W1
Tier 1 6 $3.41 $1.58 $0.00 $4.99
Tier 2 over 6 $3.41 $1.58 $2.59 $7.58
Average Rate $6.41
Master MFR/Commercial - W4 $3.41 $1.58 $1.16 $6.15
Irrigation - W7 $3.41 $1.58 $2.53 $7.52
Construction - W2 $3.41 $1.58 $1.16 $6.15
City of Palo Alto May 20, 2015
Page 6
Table 5
Proposed FY 2016 Water Rates
General Monthly Meter Service Charge
Meter Size Existing Rates Updated COS
Rates (8.2%)
Updated COS
Rates (12.1%)
5/8"$14.67 $15.54 $16.03
3/4"$19.51 $20.88 $21.50
1"$29.18 $31.58 $32.45
1 1/2"$53.37 $58.32 $59.83
2"$82.39 $90.40 $92.67
3"$174.29 $192.01 $196.70
4"$309.72 $341.74 $350.00
6"$633.80 $700.04 $716.82
8"$1,165.86 $1,288.28 $1,319.07
10"$1,843.02 $2,036.96 $2,085.57
12"$2,423.45 $2,678.68 $2,742.56
Monthly Fire Meter Service Charge
Meter Size Existing Rates Updated COS
Rates (8.2%)
Updated COS
Rates (12.1%)
2"$3.03 $3.38 $3.43
4"$18.78 $20.94 $21.22
6"$54.55 $60.82 $61.63
8"$116.24 $129.61 $131.34
10"$209.03 $233.09 $236.20
12"$337.65 $376.51 $381.52
Commodity Rate ($/ccf)
Existing Rates Updated COS
Rates (8.2%)
Updated COS
Rates (12.1%)
Residential - W1
Tier 1 0 - 6 ccf $4.99 $5.70 $5.93
Tier 2 over 6 ccf $7.58 $8.08 $8.38
Master MFR/Commercial - W4 $6.15 $6.66 $6.92
Irrigation - W7 $7.52 $7.99 $8.29
Construction - W2 $6.15 $6.66 $6.92
201 S. Lake Avenue
Suite 301
Pasadena, CA 91101
Phone 626 . 583 . 1894
Fax 626 . 583 . 1411
www.raftelis.com
Raftelis Financial Consultants
Memorandum
TO: Jon Abendschein, Senior Resource Planner
FROM: Sudhir Pardiwala/Hannah Phan
DATE: May 20, 2015
SUBJECT: Proposed Drought Rates
The City of Palo Alto (City) engaged Raftelis Financial Consultants, Inc. (RFC) to develop a drought rate
structure that is Proposition 218-compliant, fair and equitable while encouraging conservation. This
memo summarizes the methodology for the proposed drought rates.
Proposed Water Drought Rates
The following subsections detail the methodology and calculation related to the proposed drought rates
for FY 2016.
Demand Scenarios
The City receives its potable water supply from SFPUC, which is currently asking its wholesale customers
for a 10 percent voluntary reduction. If the drought worsens, SFPUC will ask for mandatory cutbacks.
RFC modeled three supply reduction scenarios, which were provided by the City as supplied by SFPUC: a
10/15% reduction scenario, a 20% reduction scenario, and a 25% reduction scenario. Table 1 shows the
projected purchases and sales in acre feet (AF) of water for each drought scenario for FY 2016, including
a water loss factor of approximately 8.1 percent as well as projected reductions in usage.
Table 1
Drought Scenarios
–
Normal 11,404 10,477
10/15% reduction 10,535 9,679
20% reduction 9,710 8,920
25% reduction 9,022 8,288
Proposed Drought Surcharge Calculation
The proposed drought rates are calculated to be revenue neutral, net of SFPUC costs, compared to the
revenue generated from the FY 2016 rates shown in Table 2.
ATTACHMENT G
City of Palo Alto May 20, 2015
Page 2
Table 2
Proposed FY 2016 Water Commodity Rates
Reduced sales result in reduced revenues as well as reduced purchased water costs. However, the net
result is inadequate revenue to recover costs since a significant amount of the water system costs are
fixed. As a result, rates need to be increased during drought and other shortage situations, to ensure
financial stability and sufficient revenue recovery.
In times of drought, it is important to ensure that basic health and sanitation needs are provided for
first. This is considered to be essential usage. The City has set reduction targets for each type of
consumption for each drought scenario, as shown in Table 3, in order to achieve the total target
reduction set by SFPUC. Indoor usage is required to conserve less than outdoor usage. While it is not
practical to set a target reduction for construction usage, for purposes of the analysis in order to
calculate drought rates, construction usage is projected to have the same reduction as commercial
customers.
Table 3
Assumed Water Reduction in Each Scenario
Table 4 shows the indoor and outdoor reductions (from a normal year) assumed under each reduction
scenario and the usage reductions assumed for each customer group and billing tier based on the
percentages shown in Table 3.
Updated COS
Rates (12.1%)
Residential - W1
Tier 1 0 - 6 ccf $5.93
Tier 2 over 6 ccf $8.38
Master MFR/Commercial - W4 $6.92
Irrigation - W7 $8.29
Construction - W2 $6.92
Requested Reductions:10/15%20%25%
Residential
Indoor Reduction (0 - 6 CCF)5%9%12%
Outdoor Reduction (7 - 30 CCF)10%18%26%
Outdoor Reduction (30+ CCF)15%30%36%
Reduction Goal 8%15%21%
Non-Residential
Indoor Reduction 5%9%12%
Outdoor Reduction 12%25%36%
City of Palo Alto May 20, 2015
Page 3
Table 4
Projected Water Usage in Each Scenario
When usage is reduced in a drought, water purchase costs decrease as well. Therefore, water purchase
costs were separated out before calculating the revenue requirement for the drought surcharges. Table
5 shows the estimated SFPUC supply costs for each drought scenario. Because of the fixed costs that
SFPUC charges the City, the unit cost increases as the usage decreases.
Table 5
SFPUC Supply Unit Cost in Each Drought Scenario - ($)
The total water enterprise cost in FY 2016, excluding the cost of water purchased from SFPUC, is
approximately $11.7 million, as shown in Table 6. To determine the cost to serve each customer class,
net of water purchase costs, in FY 2016, RFC determined the total commodity revenue, based on the FY
2016 rates, less purchased water costs. Fixed meter charges are excluded from this analysis since those
are unaffected by the drought. RFC used the same cost allocation methodology discussed in the
previous section to determine the cost allocation to each customer class by cost component. Delivery
costs are costs associated with providing service to customers during average conditions. Peaking costs
are costs associated with providing service at peak conditions, which differ based on customer class
since they peak at different levels.
Table 6
Allocation of City’s Costs to Customer Class
Customer Class Tier (ccf)Total Usage
(ccf)Reduction %Total Usage
(ccf)Reduction %Total Usage
(ccf)Reduction %Total Usage
(ccf)
Residential - W1
Tier 1 6 894,536 -1.2%883,519 -2.2%874,706 -3.0%868,096
Tier 2 over 6 1,260,973 -13.5%1,090,204 -24.8%948,351 -34.2%829,401
Master MFR/Commercial - W4 1,798,207 -6.3%1,685,653 -11.9%1,584,610 -16.3%1,504,785
Irrigation - W7 428,161 -12.0%376,781 -25.0%321,120 -36.0%274,023
Construction - W2 6,694 -6.3%6,275 -11.9%5,899 -16.3%5,601
TOTAL 4,388,571 4,042,432 3,734,687 3,481,906
Normal 10/15% Reduction 20% Reduction 25% Reduction
FY 2016 SFPUC Costs Usage (ccf)Unit cost
($/ccf)
Normal $20,189,435 4,388,571 $4.61
10/15%$18,858,590 4,042,432 $4.67
20%$17,679,924 3,734,687 $4.74
25%$16,711,773 3,481,906 $4.80
COS Allocation Delivery Peaking Total
Residential - W1 $2,360,813 $3,566,028 $5,926,841
Master MFR/Commercial - W4 $1,969,480 $2,182,259 $4,151,739
Irrigation - W7 $468,941 $1,104,723 $1,573,665
Construction - W2 $7,331 $8,123 $15,454
Total $4,806,566 $6,861,134 $11,667,699
City of Palo Alto May 20, 2015
Page 4
Table 7 shows the delivery unit cost in each drought scenario based on the projected water usage in
Table 4 and the cost in Table 6. Since these costs are fixed, the unit cost increases as usage decreases.
Table 7
Calculation of Delivery Unit Cost in Each Drought Scenario
Table 8 shows the calculation of each rate component for each customer class in each drought scenario.
The calculation is based on the data presented in Tables 5 through 7. Since the City only has one source
of water, everyone pays the same unit cost for supply. That principle applies to the fixed delivery cost of
the system. Since this cost is fixed, the unit rate increases as the usage decreases. The differentiation
between the prices for the tiers comes from the peaking related costs. Since customer usage peaks at
different levels, the peaking cost is used to differentiate between customer classes and tier prices. The
difference in peaking costs between residential Tiers 1 and 2 is based on the same methodology and
ratio shown in Table 2. In all scenarios, the revenue collected from the delivery and peaking components
equals $11.7 million, meaning the drought surcharges only collect revenue equal to the normal year
revenue requirement for delivery and peaking costs.
Delivery Cost 10/15%20%25%
Total Cost $4,806,566 $4,806,566 $4,806,566
Usage (CCF)4,042,432 3,734,687 3,481,906
Average Unit Cost ($/CCF)$1.19 $1.29 $1.38
City of Palo Alto May 20, 2015
Page 5
Table 8
Calculation of Rate Component in Each Drought Scenario1
Table 9 shows the proposed drought surcharges for each drought scenario from the FY 2016 normal
rates, shown in Table 2. These are calculated as the difference between the normal rates and the rates
shown in Table 8 for each customer class and rate category.
1 Totals may not add due to rounding.
10/15% Reduction Supply
(SFPUC)Delivery Peaking Total
Residential - W1
Tier 1 6 $4.67 $1.19 $0.26 $6.12
Tier 2 over 6 $4.67 $1.19 $3.06 $8.93
Master MFR/Commercial - W4 $4.67 $1.19 $1.29 $7.16
Irrigation - W7 $4.67 $1.19 $2.93 $8.80
Construction - W2 $4.67 $1.19 $1.29 $7.16
20% Reduction Supply
(SFPUC)Delivery Peaking Total
Residential - W1
Tier 1 6 $4.74 $1.29 $0.29 $6.32
Tier 2 over 6 $4.74 $1.29 $3.49 $9.52
Master MFR/Commercial - W4 $4.74 $1.29 $1.38 $7.41
Irrigation - W7 $4.74 $1.29 $3.44 $9.47
Construction - W2 $4.74 $1.29 $1.38 $7.41
25% Reduction Supply
(SFPUC)Delivery Peaking Total
Residential - W1
Tier 1 6 $4.80 $1.38 $0.33 $6.52
Tier 2 over 6 $4.80 $1.38 $3.95 $10.14
Master MFR/Commercial - W4 $4.80 $1.38 $1.45 $7.64
Irrigation - W7 $4.80 $1.38 $4.03 $10.22
Construction - W2 $4.80 $1.38 $1.45 $7.64
City of Palo Alto May 20, 2015
Page 6
Table 9
Proposed Drought Surcharges
Commodity Rate ($/ccf)Normal 10/15%20%25%
Residential - W1
Tier 1 6 $5.93 +$0.19 +$0.39 +$0.59
Tier 2 over 6 $8.38 +$0.55 +$1.14 +$1.76
Master MFR/Commercial - W4 $6.92 +$0.24 +$0.49 +$0.72
Irrigation - W7 $8.29 +$0.51 +$1.18 +$1.93
Construction - W2 $6.92 +$0.24 +$0.49 +$0.72
CRITERIA TO EVALUATE WATER SHORTAGE RESPONSE PLAN
This appendix lists criteria expected to guide the selection of allocation/allotment
strategies whenever water use reductions are needed. Not all of them may be applicable
to every strategy but customer perception of equity is important in achieving the necessary
reductions.
1. Reduce overall City consumption by reduction target required -this is the effective goal of
any plan. To accomplish this goal the percentage reduction for the various customer classes
will necessarily vary because their ratios of indoor/ outdoor use varies.
2. Sufficient water available for personal use -the most important use of water is for basic
drinking, health, and sanitary uses, and therefore, this is given the highest priority of use.
This prioritization will drive both rate schedules and water use restrictions. However, within
allowed limits (i.e., water use restriction ordinances}, customers will be able to choose how
they use their allotment between indoor and outdoor uses.
3. Acceptance by the community-many people tend to evaluate or accept a particular water
rationing plan in terms of how it would directly affect them. It is this aspect which makes it
difficult to gain a popular consensus on any one plan. However, any plan must be generally
accepted by the community to be successful. One important aspect of acceptance is the
public's understanding of the program; thus, it is viewed as important to make the plan as
uncomplicated as possible.
4. Minimize unemployment or business loss -water is extensively used in both commercial
and industrial functions. If water is severely limited to these consumers, increased
unemployment and business losses could result. Staff intends that, wherever possible, this
should be avoided. Still, outside water use must be sacrificed greatly if only minimal indoor
reductions are required. Cooling tower use for air conditioning must also be considered.
5. Landscaping investment losses -in cases of critical or severe shortage of water, it is
expected that significant landscaping losses may arise . The use of recycled water should be
encouraged for certain applications. In some cases, using the City's well system to augment
the SFPUC supply will be an option to provide a minimum amount of water for landscaping.
In this case, the goal should be to keep valuable and mature trees and plantings alive.
Shrubs and lawns will be considered a lower priority.
6. Workable plan -the plan must be workable in order to accomplish its goal. It must take the
following factors into account:
a. Cost -the cost of any water plan to the public should be minimized.
Page 1of2
ATTACHMENT H
b. Enforcement -enforcement is viewed as a key component of any plan. Those plans
requiring fewer resources for enforcement would be preferable. However, the success
of a plan is contingent upon effective enforcement and the utility must be provided the
resources to meet the enforcement objective. The current staff can only absorb a
certain level of additional responsibilities without unreasonably impacting service to the
customer.
c . The plan must be practical and feasible from a data processing viewpoint and not
subject to erroneous results due to incomplete or inaccurate databases. A realistic
timeframe must be allowed to perform any necessary data entry or customer
programming functions.
9 . Flexibility-the water shortage is a dynamic situation and may get better or worse . Thus, it
is necessary that any plan be adaptable to changes in targets or adjustable if original
expectations are not being met.
10. Allowance for new services-some provision must be made in any plan to serve new
establishments or those under construction.
12. Recover penalties applied by suppliers -revenue should be collected to the extent
necessary to recover any penalties that may be charged by suppliers .
Page 2 of 2
Utilities Advisory Commission Minutes Approved on: Page 9 of 11
ITEM 6: ACTION: Staff Recommendation that the Utilities Advisory Commission Recommend
that the City Council Adopt two Resolutions Effective September 1, 2015: 1) Amending Rate
Schedules W-1 (General Residential Water Servicer), 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) to Increase Rates 4% and
Add Drought Surcharges; and 2) Activating Drought Surcharges at the 20% Level in Response to
Mandatory Potable Water Use Restrictions Imposed by the State Water Resources Control
Board
Senior Resource Planner Jon Abendschein provided a brief summary of the written report. The
UAC and Finance Committee had previously recommended a 12% rate increase effective July 1,
2015. Staff sent out notices to customers of these 12% increases. Subsequently, a court
decision was published providing additional guidance on rate design. Staff asked its rate
consultant to review the City’s rate design methodology. The consultant recommended minor
adjustments. To incorporate these adjustments and comply with the noticing requirements of
the California Constitution, the 12% rate increase had to be broken into two parts: 8% effective
July 1, 2015, and 4% effective September 1, 2015. Staff had also been developing drought
surcharges based on design guidelines adopted by Council the previous fall. Staff recommended
including these drought surcharges in the rate action effective September 1, 2015.
Public Comment
Herb Borock asked the UAC not to approve the rate increase proposed. He also said that he will
also recommend that the Council reject the 8% rate increase in front of them on June 8. He
said that proposed rates should be heard by the Council before notice was sent to customers.
This had been done in the past. Only recently did staff begin taking proposed rates to the UAC
and Finance Committee, but not the Council, before they send out the Proposition 218 notice
to customers.
Chair Foster asked Mr. Borock to clarify whether his concern was solely with the process, or
whether he also had concerns regarding the rate increase itself.
Mr. Borock stated he also had concerns about whether recycled water had been considered in
the cost of service analysis.
UTILITIES ADVISORY COMMISSION MEETING
MINUTES OF JUNE 3, 2015
DRAFT
ATTACHMENT D
Utilities Advisory Commission Minutes Approved on: Page 10 of 11
Chair Foster asked whether the UAC could recommend that the Council approve the rates, and
whether the City Attorney would later inform the Council if there were any problem with the
process.
Senior Assistant City Attorney Grant Kolling said that he would, but that the City Attorney
would not have allowed this to proceed if there were a problem with the process.
ACTION:
Chair Foster made a motion to approve the staff proposal. Commissioner Schwartz seconded
the motion. The motion passed unanimously (4-0 with Commissioners Cook, Danaher, Foster,
and Schwartz voting yes and Commissioners Eglash, Hall and Van Dusen absent).
• ::1 l C_<' Of
PALO
ALTO FINANCE COMMITTEE
MINUTES
Special Meeting
Tuesday, June 16, 2015
Chairperson Schmid called the meeting to order at 6:15 P.M. in the Council
Chambers, 250 Hamilton Avenue, Palo Alto, California.
Present:
Absent:
Filseth, Kniss, Schmid (Chair)
Scharff
Oral Communications
None
Agenda Items
1. Staff Recommendation that the City Council Adopt Two Resolutions
Effective September 1, 2015: 1) 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) to Increase Rates 4 Percent and
Add Drought Surcharges; and 2) Activating Drought Surcharges at the
20 Percent Level in Response to Mandatory Potable Water Use
Restrictions Imposed by the State Water Resources Control Board.
Jon Abendschein, Senior Resource Planner: Good evening, Council
Members. My name's Jon Abendschein. I'm a Senior Resource Planner with
the Resource Management Division. I'm here to talk to you tonight about
the four percent Water Rate increase and Drought Surcharges. The
recommendation that we have for you tonight is to adopt two Resolutions,
one to amend Water Rates, to raise rates by four percent, and add Drought
Surcharges effective September 1, 2015. The second is to activate those
Drought Surcharges. We're putting three levels of Drought Surcharge on the
rate schedule, and we're recommending that you activate the 20 percent
reduction level surcharge effective September 1, 2015. We're trying to
achieve three objectives with these ...
Page 1of28
ATTACHMENT E
MINUTES
Chair Schmid: Could I ask a question? You're asking us to activate or to
recommend to Council to activate.
Mr. Abendschein: To recommend to Council to activate. I'm sorry. This is
our recommendation to the City Council we're asking you to recommend to
the City Council.
Chair Schmid: Pass it on, yes.
Mr. Abendschein: Our objectives with these two Resolutions. We have
three objectives. First off, we want to complete the 12 percent rate increase
that we discussed with you last week, which we recommended be broken
into two parts, an eight percent effective July 1st and four percent effective
September 1st. Last night you approved the first part of that two-part rate
increase. This would be the second part. We're also, as I said, adding
Drought Surcharges and activating the Drought Surcharges. On June 3rd,
the Utilities Advisory Commission (UAC) unanimously recommended the
Council approve the recommended action. We don't' unfortunately have the
minutes of the discussion in the report, because their meetings were too
close together. We do have Chair Foster, Jonathan Foster, here to talk
about the UAC's discussion. I'll just go over the background. It's important
just to remind everyone how we got here. Last fall as we were getting into
the drought, the Finance Committee discussed a set of Rate Design
Guidelines to be used in designing Drought Surcharges. We started a Cost
of Service analysis. In March and April, we started our usual financial
forecasting process. We recommended a 12 percent rate increase. That
was adopted by the UAC and the Finance Committee. I'm reiterating some
discussion we had at the Council Member meeting. In late April when we
were mailing our Prop 218 notice, there was a court decision. We asked our
Water Rate Consultant to take a look at our rate design methodology. We
came to you last week to incorporate some recommended adjustments
effective July 1st. I don't think I need to necessarily reiterate this. You've
already heard this earlier in the week. If you have any questions on it, I'm
happy to answer them. This slide, Slide Number ...
Council Member Kniss: Could I interrupt with that one? Given that court
decision, even though you've discussed tiers in here, help me out with that.
Perhaps I didn't understand the court decision.
Mr. Abendschein: I can go into this in a little more depth then. The court
decision did address tiers. The court decision did not say-I'll defer to the
City Attorney on this-that tiers were something cities couldn't use; they just
had to be cost justified. Our Water Rate Consultant took a look at ...
Page 2 of 28
Finance Committee Special Meeting
Minutes 6/16/2015
MINUTES
Council Member Kniss: That's a big thing, to cost justify it. That's what it
hung on, as I understand it.
Mr. Abendschein: That's right. When we adopted our Two-tier rate system
back in 2012, we had a methodology for justifying that two-tier system. In
the wake of the court decision, we wanted to take a look at it and say, "Do
we still feel comfortable with it?" The consultant said, "We do still feel
comfortable with it." It has to do with the way that system capacity is
allocated to year-round and seasonal uses. I'm happy to go into that in
more depth, if you would like to.
Council Member Kniss: As I said, this is the crux of the whole thing. It's
why we're debating this. It's why, as I understand it, we're doing one right
now and we're going to add more at the end of the summer. If I'm wrong
on that, I'd like to know it. That was my understanding as I looked at this
and realized what our objectives are and so forth.
Mr. Abendschein: You're absolutely right.
Council Member Kniss: If I'm not in the right direction then ... What people
are asking us now is, "How are you setting the rates?" Someone said,
"Here's what Mountain View anticipates." What is your limit? What are you
telling people they can use or not use? What are you telling them about if
they use more water, it's going to cost them more? We need to be very
exact when we are explaining to the public this very scarce resource
becoming scarcer unless the Nino does hit, which certainly one hopes will.
This may be a long term and really important resource that we have to deal
with.
Molly Stump, City Attorney: Jon, perhaps I can wade in a little bit?
Mr. Abendschein: Please do, yes.
Ms. Stump: Molly Stump, City Attorney. Thanks for the question. There's
been a fair amount of confusion about this, since the Court of Appeal issued
the San Juan Capistrano decision. As you know, Proposition 218 has some
significant, substantive requirements in it. One of them is that when a local
agency adopts rates to assess property-related fees or charges that those
fees need to be based on the cost of providing service to those payers.
Although the language of Prop 218 says the cost needs to be proportional to
the service to the parcel, courts have said it's legitimate for agencies to
group customers into similarly situated clusters and to figure out the cost of
serving based on those groupings. It's very common, state of the art, to put
residential customers together, commercial customers and then perhaps
agricultural or industrial. We do that. The court in Southern California
Page 3 of 28
Finance Committee Special Meeting
Minutes 6/16/2015
MINUTES
looked at one rating agency's decisions to create a tiered rate structure.
San Juan Capistrano had four tiers in their residential rates. They were very
steep tiers. Every rating agency does this different. Palo Alto has two tiers,
and they're relatively close together. The court found that San Juan
Capistrano did not have evidence that their rate structure was supported by
the cost of providing service to the people in those various tiers. Our
situation is different. The Utilities Department has worked with Raftelis, and
they have developed a methodology that measures the usage including the
base usage and also what's called the peaking factor. This is something that
the utility has to design for, the regular usage and then usage that will rise
up and peak typically on very hot days in the summer. There's an expert
methodology for assessing what it costs to build for that peaking capacity
and then allocating that to the customers that generate those costs. When
the new decision came down, there have been several on tiered rates. This
is one of several. We took that opportunity to look at the guidance from this
panel of the Court of Appeal and go back to the expert and say, "This is the
methodology that you've recommended before, that you believe allows us to
charge people based on the cost of serving them. In light of the court's
newest comments, are we still good?" They said, "Yes. The methodology is
fundamentally sound." They did update it and recommend some minor
adjustments which, if I'm correct, had the effect of bringing our tiers a little
closer together. Because of those changes, the City needed to put the rate
increases that are needed to fund the full cost of the system in place in two
steps. This is the second step. To answer your question, unfortunately the
media reporting on the San Juan Capistrano decision was very high level.
"Court says tiered rates are unconstitutional." What they actually said was
this particular jurisdiction's rates did not meet the constitutional standard. If
court challenges are filed in other jurisdictions, it's going to depend on the
work that those jurisdictions have done to establish what is the cost of
serving, what is their rate structure and what kind of evidentiary basis do
they have to support it. We feel we're in a very different position, and these
tiered rates are well supported by our expert. Does that help?
Council Member Kniss: That's very reassuring. It'll be very reassuring to
the public. Those of us will accept them, but it's about what we're saying to
the public as to why this is happening when the San Juan Capistrano case
was so visible and so well-discussed. Thank you.
Mr. Abendschein: Slide 5 illustrates why we had to break the rate increase
into two parts. As Molly said, the adjustments that the consultant
recommended we make to the methodology flattened the tiers slightly. We
had sent out a Prop 218 notice with rates at this level. If we were to have a
12 percent increase and incorporate the methodology changes, it would have
resulted in tiered rates at this level which means the Tier 1 rate would have
Page 4 of 28
Finance Committee Special Meeting
Minutes 6/16/2015
MINUTES
been above what we sent out in the Prop 218 notice. What we did was we
said, "We'll have an eight percent increase instead." As you can see, that
sets the Tier 1 rate for July 1st at the Prop 218 notice level. We're going to
have a second Prop 218 notice to do an additional 4 percent to get us to the
total 12. We don't like to send out two Prop 218 notices, but fortunately we
were in the process of developing Drought Surcharges and we knew we
would have to have a second Prop 218 notice of the Drought Surcharges
anyway, so we were able to combine those two efforts into one Prop 218
notice. That's ready to go out assuming you recommend approval tonight.
Slide 6 and Slide 7 are for reference. If you'd like to speak to any of those
slides, I can put them back up for the public. I'm not going to go into them
in-depth; they're covered in the report.
Council Member Kniss: One more question on this, if I might. If I'm looking
at my Tier 2 rates ...
Chair Schmid: Can you read what slide?
Council Member Kniss: I'm on Slide 6. I'm looking at the tiered rates. They
go up, but it's not a great deal. It's not a huge amount. When I get my
water bill, and that is the big discussion lately. "Have you gotten your water
bill? What did your water bill look like?" What am I going to see? What is
the average water bill? I don't actually know.
Mr. Abendschein: It's in the ballpark of 12 to 14 Centum Cubic-feet (CCF)
annually.
Valerie Fong, Utilities Director: Slide 10.
Council Member Kniss: Am I jumping ahead of you?
Ms. Fong: Yeah.
Council Member Kniss: Why don't you hold on for a minute and then we'll
see.
Mr. Abendschein: These are the billing (crosstalk) Drought Surcharges.
Ms. Fong: This is the Drought Surcharge (crosstalk).
Mr. Abendschein: I have a backup slide. If you're able to turn and take a
look, I can show it to you. If you want to open your report to Page 5.
Council Member Kniss: Packet Page 5?
Page 5 of28
Finance Committee Special Meeting
Minutes 6/16/2015
MINUTES
Lalo Perez, Administrative Services Director and Chief Financial Officer: Or
Page 5 of the Report?
Mr. Abendschein: Page 5 of the report itself.
Mr. Perez: Packet Page 7.
Mr. Abendschein: Packet Page 7. It looks like the table is cut off across
pages unfortunately. It's at the very bottom of Page 5, the top of Page 6,
Report Page 5 and 6. The annual median, I'm sorry, is 9 CCF. The summer
median is 14 CCF. The winter median is 7 CCF. The impact of the 4 percent
increase is between $2 and $4 to the average residential bill, or the median
residential bill that is. That's in addition to what you'd see for the July 1,
2015 8 percent rate increase which is unfortunately not in your report. If
you want to look at the backup slide that I've put up here, you can see that
as well.
Chair Schmid: If I could ask a question there. Tier 1 and Tier 2 are
separated at 6 CCF.
Mr. Abendschein: That's right.
Chair Schmid: Yet, you say here that your median is-you have a winter
median, an annual median, a summer median. How does that fit into Tiers 1
and 2?
Mr. Abendschein: I'm going to have to take a look at the winter median
again, because last time I checked it was at 6. I don't know why our table is
showing 7 here. We checked that over with the consultant as well.
Chair Schmid: At six.
Mr. Abendschein: Six is the breakpoint, if you think of that as the winter
median ...
Chair Schmid: If the annual median is nine, I would assume that in six you
have 20-25 percent of the residents.
Mr. Abendschein: Six CCF, for most residential customers it represents their
year-round usage, their base load usage. It's their winter usage and it's the
portion of the system that gets used year-round. Anything above six
generally is seasonal.
Chair Schmid: Everybody is in both Tiers 1 and 2.
Page 6 of 28
Finance Committee Special Meeting
Minutes 6/16/2015
MINUTES
Mr. Abendschein: Correct. It's actually not everybody. We do have a
significant subset of customers who do stay within six. Is this helpful as far
as the bill impacts of the normal year rate increases? This doesn't address
the bill impacts of the Drought Surcharges, which we'll get to in a moment.
If there are no more questions on that, I'm happy to move onto the Drought
Surcharges. This is Slide 8. This is a challenging part of this proposal. We
would have preferred to have presented the Drought Surcharges entirely
separately from the normal year four percent rate increase, but we weren't
able to do that this year. The Drought Surcharges are different from normal
year rate increases. We present them differently. They're only intended to
recover lost revenue due to lower sales during a drought. They're not
intended to raise additional revenue. The four percent and the eight percent
increases are intended to raise additional revenue.
Council Member Kniss: If I might. That is what has people so puzzled. Why
is it that you're charging me more when I'm using less?
Mr. Abendschein: That's right. It's a good question and it goes to the issue
that you're paying for the transportation rather than the water itself. You're
paying for the pipes and the maintenance and all of those things that we
have to do every year, rather than the water itself.
Council Member Filseth: Is it as simple as the fixed costs being amortized
over a smaller volume of water or is there more than that?
Mr. Abendschein: That's exactly it. That's all there is.
Council Member Filseth: That's all there is. There's nothing more.
Mr. Abendschein: That's all there is to it. We're proposing rate schedules to
deal with three different levels of water use reductions. We have a 10 and
15 percent level, a 20 percent and a 25 percent level. You might ask why
the 10 and 15 percent level are the same. It has to do with the way water is
allocated during a drought under our contract with the San Francisco Public
Utilities Commission (SFPUC) We have a high-I'm sorry, what's the ... The
supply guarantee, that's the word I'm looking for. We have a higher supply
guarantee relative to our usage, contractual supply guarantee with the
SFPUC relative to our normal year usage than other agencies do. That
benefits us during a drought. We end up seeing very similar water use
reduction requirements under 10 percent and 15 percent system-wide Hetch
Hetchy water use reductions. That's why those are the same. We want
these surcharges to be on the rate schedules all the time, updated every
time we update the regular rate schedules. When we get into a drought,
they could be activated by separate Council action. I'm moving on to Slide 9
here. Because of the Governor's requested mandate that we cut water use
Page 7 of 28
Finance Committee Special Meeting
Minutes 6/16/2015
MINUTES
24 percent from calendar year 2013, we're recommending activation of the
surcharges at the 20 percent reduction level. You might ask why 20 percent
instead of 25 percent. The answer is these are calculated as a reduction
from a normal year, a 20 percent reduction from a normal year. Calendar
year 2013 was an above average year. It was very dry. We sold a lot more
water than we normally would have sold. Activating them at the 20 percent
level, which is a little bit confusing, recovers exactly the revenue that we
need to recover. Because we would be activating these in September rather
than July, we would be drawing down reserves to recover some of the lost
revenue. We're comfortable that we can accommodate that within the
financial forecast. Moving on to Slide 10, unless there are any questions on
Slides 8 or 9. When we look at the bill impacts of Drought Surcharges, you
have to think about three different customers. When we activate these
Drought Surcharges, there are three different types of customers you need
to think about. There are customers who are not conserving and then
choose to start conserving. Those customers will see a bill reduction, even
with the Drought Surcharges. You see customers who have not conserved
and choose to continue not to conserve. Those customers will see a bill
increase. There are customers who are already conserving, and we have a
lot of those. Those customers will see an increase in their bills. This is
where the public communication gets very complicated. Essentially these
customers are going to be doing better than customers who are not
conserving, but they're not going to be doing as well as they were before.
Council Member Filseth: I have a question. I'm sure this is fiendishly
complicated and that's why (inaudible). Did you guys look at the possibility
of somehow taking that into account and normalizing it for cubic feet per
head in household? I don't know; something like that. Just for that case of
the person who says, "Now wait a second. I've had three bricks in my toilet,
and I only shower every other day. Meanwhile, my neighbor with the
swimming pool, with the two swimming pools, is going to get a rate cut, and
I'm going to have to pay more." I assume there's no simple way around
that.
Mr. Abendschein: There isn't a simple way, but we did take that into
account. When we did the Drought Rate Design Guidelines, we said we're
going to ask for lower levels of conservation from smaller users. That's built
into these Rate Schedules. You can see it's exhibited in the Drought
Surcharges as well. The surcharge for Tier 1 is a lot lower than the
surcharge for Tier 2.
Council Member Filseth: That's a very important message. If you're already
conserving, you're being asked to do less than somebody who is not. I hope
that comes out in the communications.
Page 8 of 28
Finance Committee Special Meeting
Minutes 6/16/2015
MINUTES
Mr. Abendschein: Absolutely. We have examples here. Our
Communications Manager couldn't be here tonight, but we have some
examples of communication pieces that we've been developing. We're
happy to share that with you.
Council Member Kniss: That you're going to put in the bill?
Mr. Abendschein: Yeah. We'll have it available online as well. That's it.
We're preparing a communications plan. We have some examples; this isn't
all the collateral that we're going to have put together. As part of the
communications, one of the things that we do hear from customers is that
there isn't any economic incentive right now for people to conserve. There
are people who feel like they're doing their part, but others have not faced
an economic incentive. They may be paying a higher bill, but they may be
glad to see those surcharges in place.
Council Member Filseth: From a macro level, it's hard to think that
anybody's going to be surprised to see water getting more expensive, given
the context of everything we've heard in all this (inaudible).
Mr. Abendschein: No, I don't think so.
Council Member Filseth: I wanted to ask another question. The way that I
read this, the Drought Surcharge and the rate increases don't completely
cover the cost, and we're going to make up some of that from reserves.
Mr. Abendschein: That's correct.
Council Member Filseth: Why would we not increase it so it covers
(inaudible) reserves?
Mr. Abendschein: This year it's a practicality. We're adopting the
surcharges starting September 1st. We want them to be at a level where
we're only going to be recovering our revenues if the drought extends on
year after year after year. We would have had to try and set them above
our long-term revenue recovery level to make up for those two months. It's
perfectly reasonable, we thought, to take a little out of reserves.
Ms. Fong: The reserves are covering a couple of high-use months, what
would normally be high water use months because we're not starting the
surcharge until September 1.
Mr. Perez: You're expecting it to cover the minimum anyway, right?
Mr. Abendschein: Yes.
Page 9 of 28
Finance Committee Special Meeting
Minutes 6/16/2015
MINUTES
Chair Schmid: I wondered if before we got into detailed questions, it might
be good to hear from Chair Foster to share where the UAC was on this.
Jonathan Foster, Utilities Advisory Commission Chair: I'll just say a couple
of things. Happy to answer any questions that arise. The UAC has looked at
Water Rates over an extended period of time. It is a subject that keeps
coming back unfortunately. I would say the UAC, all of us, would like to do
anything we can to avoid rate increases in general. The reality of life here is
we're getting hit with a double whammy. We've got the reality of the
increasing costs coming to us from the San Francisco PUC, leading to the
underlying rate increases, and then the drought mandates as well. None of
us like to do this. We were, for example, very pleased that last year we
were able to avoid rate increases in any of our utilities. Obviously this is not
the year with respect to the Water Utility. We certainly looked at it; we
asked the kind of questions you're asking, and then unanimously endorsed
the Staff recommendation. It's painful, but we think it is the right choice.
To the point for the conserving customers, they will be largely shielded from
the Drought Surcharge increases.
Chair Schmid: Were there any particular issues that you spent time on,
going back and forth?
Mr. Foster: To be honest, we went through it in the detail of the underlying
rate increase, the drought increase. I do not recall anyone saying-our
heads were getting around it. It is complex, but I do not recall anybody
saying we ought to do it a different way. At the end of the day after you've
absorbed what is being recommended here, it did appear to us that it was
the best approach possible. Nobody on the UAC said, "Aha! Here's a better
way to do it."
Chair Schmid: That's important given the fact that, as you say, you've been
doing this for years.
Mr. Foster: We have. We would love to come up with a better approach,
but we couldn't.
Chair Schmid: If there are questions about the UAC.
Herb Borock: Thank you, Chair Schmid. I have two concerns about whether
these rates are proper under Proposition 218. The first has to do with the
separation of the potable water service being proposed for these rates and
the recycled water service that the City's currently using for some irrigation
and that a couple of private companies are using and then selling for a profit
to others. The court decision discussed this in the factual context of capital
expenses for recycling. I believe that it applies whether there isn't any
Page lOof 28
Finance Committee Special Meeting
Minutes 6/16/2015
MINUTES
additional expenses on a recycling program or whether there are. The City
has both factual situations. First, let me read what the court decided. It
said, "The trial court assumed that providing recycled water is a
fundamentally different kind of service from providing traditional potable
water. We think not. When each kind of water is provided by a single local
agency that provides water to different kinds of users, some of whom can
make use of recycled water, for example cities irrigating parkland, while
others such as private residences can only make use of traditional potable
water, providing each kind of water is providing the same service. Both are
getting water that meets their needs. Non-potable water for some
customers frees up potable water for others. Since water service is already
immediately available to all customers of city water, there is no
contravention of Subdivision (b)(4) in including charges to construct and
provide recycled water to some customers." In fact, that's what we do for
the Capital Improvement Programs that we have for considering for future
recycled program. It's in the water fund Budget, and it comes out, those
expenses, in these rates. We are also currently providing recycled water
separately as if it is a separate service. What that means is that those using
that service, such as the City irrigating the Golf Course or Greer Park or
some private company getting it, are not paying their share of the water
service fixed expense for the potable water. That doesn't comply with Prop
18. It is one water service. The second concern I have is that you seem to
be trying to do three different things with these Drought Surcharges. Under
Proposition 218, the fees are charges imposed on a parcel shall not exceed
the proportional cost of the service attributable to the parcel. What we're
also doing is something that the court said not to do, which is to try and
figure out your rates by saying, "We have to get this much money," and
then try and have a rate structure that does that. The third thing is we're
talking about conservation. There's nothing in 218 about that. In fact, the
court case rejected the argument made by the City in this case and that I
was making myself earlier that the constitutional requirement for
conservation could be balanced with Prop 218. They went through the
history of that part of the constitution. They said, "No." We are saying, on
the one hand, we need to charge a Drought Surcharge because people are
not going to be using as much water and, therefore, aren't incurring the
fixed expenses. If you do use exactly the same amount as you did before,
we're going to give you a higher surcharge. You're going to be paying a
bigger surcharge, whereas, before if you used that amount you were
covering the fixed charges. We're also saying to others that we're going to
motivate you to use less and if everyone uses less, maybe those surcharges
wouldn't be high enough. I have some problem with how this surcharge
complies with Prop 218 and how we're trying to sell it to the ratepayers in
terms of conservation when that is not how you go about setting rates
Page 11of28
Finance Committee Special Meeting
Minutes 6/16/2015
MINUTES
including with the decision in this court case that conservation is not
something to do. Thank you.
Council Member Kniss: Mine, as I said, is a wind back question. I
remember when we began this a couple of years ago. The discussion was
about where were we in the drought and where were we as far as Hetch
Hetchy. As we look toward the future, what do we have, what have we
contracted for and how long can we go on in this drought? Is it year 4 or
year 5?
Mr. Abendschein: It depends on where you look at it. A lot of people would
say year 4. One of the ways to look at this is how many years do we have
left in storage. We have 3 1/2 years of storage. We would expect to be able
to use that for substantially longer because of conservation measures.
Council Member Kniss: Maybe we can stretch it out 4 1/2 or 5 years?
Mr. Abendschein: If not longer.
Council Member Kniss: Herb's point is interesting. The more our group
conserves water, literally long term, we will have to charge more. It's just
what you said earlier. There's a fixed cost and if you're not using enough,
then long term you will get, I would think, penalized. There must be a
better word to use than that. The less you use, the more it is going to cost
long term.
Mr. Abendschein: I'll say two things about it. Number one, when we as a
City use less, it frees up more capacity for other users in the Bay Area. If
those other cities build out, they're going to be taking on more of the cost of
the Hetch Hetchy water system. We actually will save some money. If we
as a City ...
Council Member Kniss: I hadn't thought of that. That's even taking it a step
further than I certainly would have thought.
Mr. Abendschein: You have to look at those long-term trends when you're
thinking about this. In the short term, yes, when we cut usage by quite a
bit, we end up having to add surcharges back to recover our fixed costs.
Council Member Filseth: Your rate goes up, but your bill doesn't go up
(crosstalk).
Mr. Abendschein: Right. That's another key-yeah. The other thing I'd say
though is that we've had some challenges recently with communicating
these things. People see themselves as conserving either through water
Page 12 of 28
Finance Committee Special Meeting
Minutes 6/16/2015
MINUTES
efficiency or because of the drought, then their bills continue to go up. They
believe that that's happening because they conserved. The problem is we're
asking them to conserve at the same time as our costs are going up. Even if
they hadn't conserved, their bills would have gone up. Trying to
communicate that is something we have to also work on.
Council Member Kniss: One other thing. I don't remember how much of our
waste water goes to Mountain View. What is it roughly?
Ms. Fong: Our recycled water?
Council Member Kniss: Yeah, recycled.
Mr. Abendschein: The vast majority. They paid to build that recycled water
pipeline.
Council Member Kniss: One of the things Herb talked about is people who
are getting the recycled water, is there an increase in their cost?
Mr. Abendschein: We have very few recycled water customers. It's almost
entirely City usage.
Council Member Kniss: That's what I meant. It's Mountain View, so do we
charge them any more as our rates are going up for the infrastructure? It's
their infrastructure I realize.
Mr. Abendschein: We have very few costs associated with recycled water.
We've recovered those directly from the customers who are using the
recycled water. When we eventually build out our recycled water system,
we're going to have to give a lot of thought to our Recycled Water Rates.
We don't have recycled ...
Chair Schmid: I think Herb was making the point that water itself is a value,
and that there's no difference to the user whether it's recycled or Hetch
Hetchy. Shouldn't they be charged the same rates? Including our
Recreation Department.
Mr. Abendschein: Given that these costs are not associated with the Water
Utility, we don't ...
Ms. Fong: You can't double recover the same water.
Ms. Stump: If I may, just on that point. The San Juan Capistrano
discussion is very specific to what was going on in that jurisdiction. It's
difficult to generalize. Again, very fact specific these questions. What was
happening there is that they had a recycled water system that was available
Page 13 of 28
Finance Committee Special Meeting
Minutes 6/16/2015
MINUTES
to some customers and not to others. Some customers who didn't receive
recycled water said that system was not a cost of serving them. The Court
said in that particular case, because in that system the provision of recycled
water to one group of customers freed up additional potable water that was
provided to others, the constitutional requirement was met. The court was
looking at some very specific language in Prop 218 that said that Cost of
Serv ice only can include facilities that are immediately available to the user.
This was intended to prevent charging for when you don't have a hook-up at
all, when you're not on the system. The court said that was not intended in
this particular situation. It did support some flexibility for development of
infrastructure and charging that to the rate base when it benefits all.
Council Member Kniss: If I could just push on it a little more. We know that
there are a number of wells in the City. How are we addressing water use
from the wells? Or aren't we?
Ms. Fong: What we've been informed by the Santa Clara Valley Water
District is there are about 200 wells in the City. The Santa Clara Valley
Water District charges pump fees to those well owners who pump.
Groundwater here is managed by the Santa Clara Valley Water District.
Chair Schmid: Let me raise a couple of issues. As came out in the
discussion, the messaging is complicated and how you use words around it.
The Drought Surcharge, people associate that with not maintaining the fixed
revenue, but rather we need to cut back and this is a Drought Surcharge.
Maybe using a different term for that would make the messaging clearer .
We have to pay for the Hetch Hetchy rebuild for seismic safety. We have to
cover what we're losing.
Council Member Filseth: Calling it a Drought Surcharge is a really simple
message. It's a drought; water costs more. Everybody's going to get that.
Although, the mechanics are more complex.
Ms. Fong: Jon, you're going to correct me if I'm wrong here. The fixed
costs that we're covering are our own, not SFPUC's. The SFPUC costs are
recovered in the SFPUC rates. For us, it isn't about recovering Hetch Hetchy
costs; it's about recovering our own distribution costs.
Chair Schmid: Our own distribution costs are 25 percent of the SFPUC
number.
Mr. Abendschein: About 50 percent. Half of our costs are distribution. In
the total rate, about half the costs are distribution related; half are Hetch
Hetchy system related.
Page 14of 28
Finance Committee Special Meeting
Minutes 6/16/2015
MINUTES
Chair Schmid: I guess I saw a different number.
Council Member Filseth: There's been a lot of publicity in the last couple of
years about seismic upgrades to Hetch and Hetchy and the costs of those .
Mr. Abendschein: Maybe where the confusion is coming is that most of the
increase in our rates, almost a ll the increase in our rates, is related to the
Hetch Hetchy upgrade. That may be where that's coming from.
Chair Schmid: I'm concerned about the next step . The State and the PUC
have said there might be fines associated with not meeting the targets that
have been handed out. That is a drought penalty, and the message there is
if we don't meet the 25 percent, we will be fined substantial amounts .
That's a clear message, but we haven 't got that yet. To use up the drought
message on something that i s not this mandated fine might bind us when
the squeeze comes.
Mr. Abendschein: The squeeze is on already. From June 1st until next
February we will be measured against that 24 percent, and we may be fined.
( crossta I k)
Chair Schmid: That's what I 'm talking about. We have n 't had a fine yet.
Ms. Fong: Correct. What the State will look at, the Water Resources Control
Board, is whether or not we did a bona fide effort to try to achieve the
reductions that were assigned to us. We've been aggressive in everything
we've been doing including our rates . Beyond all that , all of our programs,
all of our messaging, our enforcement of the two days per week watering,
we've been very much out in front of a lot of other agenc ies . That will weigh
in if we don't h it the 24 . Our customers have been just amazing, and we're
trying to be optimistic that we will hit the 24 percent target. If we don't, the
State will look at what we've done.
Chair Schmid: I was struck by the Sunday Chronicle article where the San
Francisco PUC, when the Governor cut back water allocations, said if you had
a claim by 1904 you were grandfathered in a nd the PUC has a 1902. They
then interviewed the head of the PUC who said, "We're going to fix that i n
the summer and that date will no longer be protective." I don't want to be a
pessimist, but I assume that there will be a ruling in the next couple of
months saying that Hetch Hetchy water is not protected. That was the clear
implication (inaudible).
Ms. Fong: These legal actions-maybe Molly might know a little bit more .
Maybe it's so fresh she hasn't had a chance to look into it yet-are go i ng to
Page 15 of 28
Finance Committee Spec ial M eeting
M i nutes 6/16/20 15
MINUTES
be ongoing. That's for certain. I wouldn't want to speculate on what's going
to happen there at this point.
Chair Schmid: That's not what we're talking about tonight. It is out there in
terms of the messaging, that we've got to be prepared for the next steps.
One other thing that flows from that is the Plan Bay Area. Does the City
have an attitude toward the impact of the drought on planning for the future
of the Bay Area and having that as a critical input to how fast California
grows, how big California can be, how many new ...
Mr. Abendschein: We probably want to have the Planning Director weigh in
on regional planning issues.
Ms. Fong: Exactly. We're probably not the right folks to answer that
question.
Mr. Abendschein: We know what our water allocations are. We know what
our water rights are. We know how that fits into our development.
Regionally, I'm not sure we're prepared to comment on that.
Council Member Filseth: You're asking the question of what's the
relationship between water consumption and population growth. I assume
Plan Bay Area is like, "We don't worry about that."
Ms. Fong: I don't know.
Mr. Abendschein: I think they do.
Chair Schmid: The Santa Clara Valley Water District has announced that
they will participate in the Plan Bay Area discussions.
Ms. Fong: I don't know that we're necessarily tied into that right now. For
every development that is brought forward, we do a water supply assurance
study. We are part of the development impact assessment.
Chair Schmid: As we go down the drought road though, that might be an
issue that comes out.
Ms. Fong: That gets considered.
Chair Schmid: Plan Bay Area is especially significant because they start the
process this summer. The question is will water be a part of the discussions.
It would be helpful to have it there. One last question, you say that we will
draw a little bit on reserves. I did not see any financial numbers in here.
What are the reserves we have, and how much would be drawn?
Page 16 of 28
Finance Committee Special Meeting
Minutes 6/16/2015
MINUTES
Mr. Abendschein: It would take me a minute or two to bring up the total
reserves numbers. Right now, they're well above the minimum. The
$600,000 doesn't take us all that close to the minimum. In fact, we have a
fair amount of reserves that are set aside for Rate Stabilization and Capital
Improvement Reserves as we finish up this water system master planning
study in case there are some additional projects that we have to fund as a
result of that. We're comfortable with our reserves right now. What it may
result in is a slight acceleration of future rate increases, because we don't
have as much available for Rate Stabilization. We'll be very comfortable
with our Operational Reserves.
Chair Schmid: Given we're the Finance Committee, it would be nice if, when
it goes to the Council, you could have a paragraph on the amount of the
reserves.
Ms. Fong: Okay.
Mr. Abendschein: Not a problem.
Chair Schmid: Are we ready for a Motion.
Council Member Kniss: I think we are. Do you want me to read the whole
thing or would you .. . I'm on Page 3 and under the recommendation:
"That's to adopt a Resolution, Attachment A, amending rate schedules and
so forth, and adopt a Resolution, Attachment C, activating the Drought
Surcharges"-! guess we're staying with that word-"at the 20 percent
reduction level effective in September." Is there a second?
Chair Schmid: I will second that.
MOTION: Council Member Kniss moved, seconded by Chair Schmid to
recommend the City Council:
1. Adopt a Resolution 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) to add Drought Surcharges and increase rates four
percent effective September 1, 2015; and
2. Adopt a Resolution activating the Drought Surcharges at the 20
percent reduced level effective September 1, 2015.
Chair Schmid: As the UAC said, we're coming out of a period of time where
we've had very low utility increases. We have seen substantial increases on
Page 17 of 28
Finance Committee Special Meeting
Minutes 6/16/2015
MINUTES
the wastewater and the refuse and certainly on this. Now we're asking for
three separate increases, an 8, a 4, and a 20 percent surcharge. It is
important and significant and likely to have some questions coming in on
that. Appreciate very much the background material.
Council Member Kniss: Did we vote?
Chair Schmid: No. Just putting a word in. The communications is
important. It's good to see you preparing the way for that. We'll get some
public input when these rate bills start corning in. We're aiming for a
discussion of the surcharge in August. There'll be a public ...
Mr. Abendschein: On August 17th, there'll be a public hearing.
Chair Schmid: All in favor? That passes three to nothing.
M@T!OINI IP'ASSIED: 3-0, Scharff absent
Page 18 0128
Finance Committee Special Meeting
Minutes 6/16/2015