HomeMy WebLinkAbout03-31-2015 B1 Water Rate StructureCity of San Luis Obispo, Council Agenda Report, Meeting Date, Item Number
FROM: Carrie Mattingly, Utilities Director
Prepared By: Ron Munds, Utilities Services Manager
Brigitte Elke, Utilities Business Manager
SUBJECT: WATER REVENUE STABILITY ANALYSIS
RECOMMENDATIONS
1. Authorize the one-time use of Rate Stabilization Reserve funds in the amount of $1
million to cover 2014-15 water sales revenue loss.
2. Direct staff to incorporate Alternative 3 into the 2015-17 Water fund analysis.
DISCUSSION
Report in Brief
This report is not requesting a modification to water rates at this time but seeks Council direction
regarding the current water rate structure. The City of San Luis Obispo water rate structure has
two components: a base rate that is a fixed charge regardless of the amount of water used and a
volumetric charge. The current water base rate provides insufficient revenue stability and
predictability (Council Rate Structure Goal 1) and insufficient stability and predictability of
rates (Goal 2). Staff is requesting direction on increasing the water base rate in order to complete
its water fund analysis and rate setting work for the upcoming financial plan.
All changes to rates and rate structures must be sent to rate payers and property owners in
accordance with Proposition 218 which is done prior to Council consideration. Should a simple
majority (50 percent plus one) protest the proposed changes, Council may not enact those
changes. Staff will bring the proposed rates and rate structure changes to Council in June 2015.
Current Drought Situation
California is facing its fourth year of drought with most of the State now in a severe to extremely
severe drought situation. Snowpack in the
Sierras, the main source of the State’s
groundwater basins and storage reservoirs, are
at an all-time low with 16 to 20 percent of
normal levels. The State’s reservoirs are
measuring between 40 to 50 percent of normal
levels. The State is in the process of releasing
its second conservation mandate, extending
the requirements to reduce water consumption
by 20 percent and curbing outdoor watering
Mar 31, 2015
B1
B1-1
Water Revenue Stability Analysis Page 2
(accounting for 44 percent of water use) and other mandatory measures through May 2016. In its
recent notification, the State estimates the loss of revenue to water purveyors at $239 million
statewide.
Locally, drought conditions continue to persist with 2013 being the driest year since rainfall data
has been collected in the county. The 2014-15 rainy season started off with promise with early
storms bringing average to above average rainfall throughout the County. A very dry January
and February have resulted in a significantly below average rainy season so far. Similar to the
State statistics, the City is looking at a revenue shortfall of one million dollars due to decreased
water sales revenue attributed to the drought and water use cutbacks.
Climate change science paints a bleak picture of future weather patterns indicating that the
southwestern United States will become drier, increasing the likelihood of prolonged droughts. It
is widely believed that today’s situation represents the future norm. Water use patterns adopted
today will likely not reverse and water purveyors are faced
with what the Utilities Department calls the “new gallon
reality.” Unless a new revenue model is considered,
infrastructure to source and distribute reliable and safe water to
customers will now have to be paid with income from a
decreasing revenue base due to reduced water consumption.
San Luis Obispo’s Water Rate Structure
Prior to drought conditions reaching today’s level, the City
Council studied the elements, philosophies and values that are
used to develop the community’s water rate structure and
applicable rates that water users pay. The key changes resulting
from the study were the addition of a monthly base fee, a
change to the structure of the tiers and the adoption of new
Council rate structure goals. Of these changes, the addition of
the base fee was the most significant element. The previous
rate structure was 100 percent volumetric which created an
increasingly unstable revenue stream due to changing climatic
conditions and economic forces. While having a portion of the rate volumetric helps
communicate the value of water, it also makes it more difficult to achieve the desired goal of
revenue stability.
A base fee helps a utility fund the fixed cost it incurs regardless of the volume of water
consumed in the water system. It therefore adds some level of predictability to the revenue
stream. Fixed costs are about 80 percent of total operating costs. The City’s current base fee is
relatively modest, recovering about 6.5 percent of the Water Fund’s expenditures not including
capital investments.
If the City Council chooses to implement Alternative 3, it will increase the base fee over three
years to 16.3 percent of revenue, recovering 14.3 percent of projected expenditures. The
California Urban Water Conservation Council (CUWCC) sets the upper end of the fixed portion
(base fee) at 30 percent in order to maintain a conservation incentive through higher volumetric
charges. When the CUWCC and participating stakeholders debated the issue of fixed costs
Council’s Rate
Structure Goals and
Objectives
1. Revenue Stability &
Predictability
2. Stability &
Predictability of Rates
3. Simple & Easy to
Understand and
Administer
4. Fair Allocation of
Total Cost
5. Discourage Wasteful
Use
B1-2
Water Revenue Stability Analysis Page 3
versus volumetric charges, the potential for revenue volatility when a structure was overly
dependent on the volumetric portion of the rate structure was a major concern. Many water
agencies therefore still believe that the 30 percent number is too low given the complexities of
the business of supplying, treating and delivering safe drinking water 24 hours a day, seven days
a week.
What has changed since the 2012 Water Rate Structure Study?
Coupled with record-breaking heat, the City is in what may soon be recognized as the worst case
drought and could be in what some experts say is a
mega-drought. State-mandated water consumption
reduction was embraced by the community which in
turn brought in less revenue. Permanent turf removal
has occurred with increased water recycling and grey
water applications. Despite conservative estimates of
water sales, the level of volatility associated with
predicting water consumption levels and resulting
revenues with 95 percent of that revenue tied to water
use in this climate is unprecedented. Staff believes
the City will continue to experience declining water
sales.
On the other hand, operation, maintenance and infrastructure must be maintained in order to
continue providing safe and high quality drinking water. Debt service for water resources and
treatment plant upgrades must be met. The draft Water Master Plan (which will be presented to
Council in May 2015) has identified critical infrastructure requirements that must be addressed;
further compounding the financial challenges brought on by the drought. Labor costs have remained
level due to cost containment strategies, however this cannot be expected to be the new normal;
other expenses such as electricity, chemicals used in treating water, operating materials, regulatory
requirements, and construction costs have increased markedly. In preparation for meeting the
operational needs of the water distribution system, the City Council approved contract meter
reading which commences April 3, 2015. Contracting out this work was the most cost-effective way
to gain additional workforce without having to hire additional employees. The department continues
to look at additional ways to contain cost and accomplish current and future work programs with the
most prudent options available. Historically, water fund operating expenditures come in at 90 to 95
percent of budgeted amounts at year-end.
The result is a perfect storm as the community appropriately responds to the drought resulting in
decreasing water sales, while the fixed costs to treat and deliver water stay the same or rise. Hence
the “new gallon reality” in which the same or increased costs must be paid for and the amount of
gallons to divide that cost into continues to decline.
Current Water Fund Fiscal Condition
Currently expenditures are in alignment with budgeted amounts. For fiscal year 2014-15, actual
water sales are expected to be lower by approximately one million dollars; a five percent decline
despite a 5.5 percent rate increase. This decrease translates into a ten percent drop in consumption.
gpcd = gallons per capita per day
B1-3
Water Revenue Stability Analysis Page 4
Overall revenues for fiscal year 2014-15 are tracking with the budget forecast largely due to high
development activity and impact fee collection. Development impact fees are not considered a
stable source of income due to fluctuations in building activity driven by new development.
Additionally, the Water Fund must reach and maintain a 2.0 debt ratio in order to keep its favorable
rating from Fitch Ratings and Standard & Poors. A 2.0 debt ratio is achieved when the net operating
income (excluding one-time income such as development impact fees) equals at least two times the
cost of the fund’s annual debt service obligation. Development impact fees are excluded from the
debt ratio calculation by the bond rating agencies. A drop of one million dollars in water sales
revenue lowers the debt ratio below the acceptable level required by the rating agencies. In the
absence of the rating agencies changing their practices staff is focused on ensuring that the debt
ratio is maintained at the required level in order to avoid increasing the long-term debt service
payments resulting from a downgrade of the ratings.
On December 18, 2012, the City Council approved the introduction of a rate stabilization reserve in
addition to the Water Fund’s 20 percent fund reserve level. This reserve puts aside ten percent of
annual water sales revenue to offset unanticipated fluctuations that would otherwise require rate
increases. The reserve was fully funded in fiscal year 2013-14.
In order to offset the anticipated water sales revenue loss in 2014-15, staff recommends utilizing one
million dollars of the current $1.6 million available in the rate stabilization reserve. The use of this
reserve will allow the water fund to continue the work efforts under way and assist it in meeting the
2.0 debt ratio requirements.
However, due to the anticipated continued variability of water use and continuing drought and
related conservation measures, staff recommends City Council review the current rate structure
under the new “gallon reality” and determine the structure’s current alignment with Council’s
adopted rate structure goals and objectives.
Rate Structure Analysis
In an effort to find solutions to the short and long term impacts of this downward trend in water use,
the City entered into an agreement with HDR Inc. to develop a financial plan that would include
water rate structure alternatives that meet Council goals and objectives and foster added water
revenue stability. The analysis incorporated current and future predicted consumption patterns and
prudent revenue levels. The long-term objective of this effort is to reduce revenue volatility
resulting in impacts to the fund’s debt ratios and credit ratings.
In the short term, staff is asking the City Council to focus on the next two to three years in order to
develop the foundation for the long term fiscal health of the Water Fund. The short term plan
includes a one-time use of the Rate Stabilization Reserve in the amount of one million dollars to
offset the projected water sales revenue shortfall for fiscal year 2014-15 and the utilization of one of
the alternatives for increasing the base fee presented by HDR.
Based on the financial analysis provided by HDR, the following is a summary of the alternatives
presented in the consultant’s final report found in Attachment 2. It shows the percent of fixed and
variable revenues to the Water Fund. Each alternative assumes an increase in the base fee and a
B1-4
Water Revenue Stability Analysis Page 5
further reduction in citywide water consumption by five percent in the first year and one percent in
each of the next two years.
Alternative 1
This alternative looks to increase the base charge for all users by 50 percent ($5.28 to $7.92) in
fiscal year 2015-16 and by an additional 33 percent ($7.92 to $10.56) in fiscal year 2016-17
while the volumetric rate stays at fiscal year 2014-15 levels for two years. It forecasts a 3.5
percent increase on both the base and volumetric rate in fiscal year 2017-18. The chart below
shows the revenue effects as well as the ratio between fixed and variable charges.
For 2015-16 the average residential user consuming 6 units of water would see an increase of
5.64 percent ($46.80 to $49.44).
Alternative 2
This alternative recommends doubling the base fee for all users ($5.28 to $10.56) in fiscal year
2015-16 with no increases in the volume charges or base fee in fiscal years 2015-16 and 2016-17
and a forecasted 3.5 percent increase in fiscal year 2017-18 for both the base fee and the
volumetric charge. The chart shows the revenue results and ratio between fixed and variable
charges.
For 2015-16 the average residential user consuming 6 units of water would see an increase of
11.28 percent ($46.80 to 52.08).
Alternative 3
This alternative increases the base fee for all users incrementally over three years (from $5.28 to
$8.80 to $12.32 to $15.84). There is no change to the current volumetric charge through fiscal
year 2016-17. In fiscal year 2017-18 there would be a slight decrease in the volumetric charge to
maintain needed revenue levels. This alternative has the highest level of base fee and therefore
Rate Schedule Revenues
Residential Rates Alternative 1
Alternative 1 Present FY 2016FY 2017FY 2018
Present FY 2016FY 2017FY 2018 Rates
Proposed Rate Adj.Rates 0.0%0.0%3.5%
Current $16,364,483 N/A N/A N/A
Base Fee
All Customers $5.28$7.92$10.56$10.88 Budgeted $16,715,250$17,216,708$17,733,209
Volume Charge ($/1,000 gal)Projected $16,680,921$16,998,902$17,356,332
0-8 CCF $6.92$6.92$6.92$7.13
8+ CCF 8.658.658.65 8.91 Fixed / Variable 8.5% / 91.5%11.1% / 88.9%11.2% / 88.8%
Rate Schedule Revenues
Residential Rates Alternative 2
Alternative 2 Present FY 2016FY 2017FY 2018
Present FY 2016FY 2017FY 2018 Rates
Proposed Rate Adj.Rates 0.0%0.0%3.5%
Current $16,364,483 N/A N/A N/A
Base Fee
All Customers $5.28$10.56$10.56$10.88 Budgeted $16,715,250$17,216,708$17,733,209
Volume Charge ($/1,000 gal)Projected $17,151,591$16,998,902$17,356,332
0-8 CCF $6.92$6.92$6.92$7.13
8+ CCF 8.658.658.65 8.91 Fixed / Variable 11% / 89%11.1% / 88.9%11.2% / 88.8%
B1-5
Water Revenue Stability Analysis Page 6
the highest degree of revenue stability moving forward. Alternative 3 is staff’s recommended
alternative.
For 2015-16 the average residential user consuming 6 units of water would see an increase of
7.52 percent ($46.80 to $50.32).
Future Actions
The long term plan is to use better water demand forecasting tools to complement the foundational
changes discussed in this report and to better gauge consumer use patterns. The implementation of
contract meter reading will provide consistent financial and consumption information as meters are
being read consistently at the same time of month. The pending upgrade of the billing system will
greatly enhance its reporting capabilities and in turn provide improved analytics for forecasting
water consumption and revenue trends. Staff continues to monitor consumption and revenue closely
as the “dry” season arrives.
FISCAL IMPACT
The anticipated fiscal impact associated with any of the proposed changes to the water base rate
is increased rate and revenue predictability and stability.
Council will have an opportunity to consider proposed water rates (which include the base rate)
at its June 16, 2015 Council meeting. This meeting is when the water fund analysis is presented
as part of the 2015-17 financial planning process.
All changes to rates and rate structures must be sent to rate payers and property owners in
accordance with Proposition 218 which is done prior to Council consideration. Should a simple
majority (50 percent plus one) protest the proposed changes, Council may not enact those
changes.
ALTERNATIVES
The City Council could determine that the current rate structure’s base rate and methodology for
increasing that base rate meets its goals. Should Council choose this alternative, the volumetric
rate will need to increase significantly more in 2015-16 than projected; approximately nine
percent as compared to the 3 percent originally projected.
Rate Schedule Revenues
Residential Rates Alternative 3
Alternative 3 Present FY 2016FY 2017FY 2018
Present FY 2016FY 2017FY 2018 Rates
Proposed Rate Adj.Rates 0.0%0.0%0.0%
Current $16,364,483 N/A N/A N/A
Base Fee
All Customers $5.28$8.80$12.32$15.84 Budgeted $16,715,250$17,216,708$17,733,209
Volume Charge ($/1,000 gal)Projected $16,837,811$17,094,239$17,356,563
0-8 CCF $6.92$6.92$6.82$6.72
8+ CCF 8.658.658.53 8.40 Fixed / Variable 9.3% / 90.7%12.8% / 87.2%16.3% / 83.7%
B1-6
Water Revenue Stability Analysis Page 7
ATTACHMENTS
1. Statistical Data
2. HDR Report
t:\council agenda reports\2015\2015-03-31\water rate structure\water rate structure analysis 2015 car.docx
B1-7
THIS PAGE IS INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
Council Agenda Report – Water Rate Structure Evaluation
Statistical Information Attachment 1
The City of San Luis Obispo receives its water from three
surface sources. Nacimiento Lake, Salinas, and Whale Rock
Reservoir. To the right are the reservoir levels with
availability and the City’s allocation
In Acre Feet
San Luis Obispo Reservoir Levels
Reservoir Availability City’s
Allocation
Nacimiento 109,238 3,380
Salinas 4,230 2,200
Whale Rock 17,745 6,300
San Luis Obispo water use comparing three different time periods (in gallons/capita/day)
gpcd = gallons per capita per day
B1-8
Council Agenda Report – Water Rate Structure Evaluation
Statistical Information Attachment 1
Water Fund Revenue 2011-15
Revenue- Expenditure Comparison 2011-2017
B1-9
Council Agenda Report – Water Rate Structure Evaluation
Statistical Information Attachment 1
Water Fund Expenditure
B1-10
THIS PAGE IS INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
ATTACHMENT 2
City of San Luis Obispo 1
Water Rate Structure Review
Technical Memorandum
To: Ron Munds – City of San Luis Obispo
From: Shawn Koorn - HDR
Date: 3/18/15
Subject: Water Rate Structure Review
Introduction
In 2012 HDR Engineering Inc. (HDR) assisted the City of San Luis Obispo (City) in the
development of the current water rate structure. Since the implementation of the current rate
structure California has been experiencing a drought and water conservation efforts have
resulted in declining consumption and revenues. As a result, the City requested assistance from
HDR to review the current water rate structure and develop alternative rate structures that; (1)
meet the overall revenue needs (operating and capital) of the water utility given current
consumption levels, (2) maintain the City’s rate design goals and objectives from the 2012 study
and, (3) develop a revenue requirement to assist in developing rate projections in future years.
The following discussion will review the analysis and recommendations resulting from the
study.
Overview of the Current Water Rate Structure
The current rate structure was developed through several workshops with the City Council and
staff. The starting point of the analysis was the prioritization of rate design goals and objectives
developed in the 2012 study. The City Council and staff participated in the prioritization and
the results are provided below.
Table 1
Prioritization of the Rate Design Goals and Objectives
City Council Prioritization Rank City Staff Prioritization
Revenue Stability & Predictability 1 Stability and Predictability of Rates
Stability and Predictability of Rates 2 Revenue Stability & Predictability
Easy to Understand and Administer 3 Fair Allocation of Costs
Fair Allocation of Costs 4 Reflect Present and Future Costs
Discourage Wasteful use 5 Easy to Understand and Administer
As can be seen, the focus of the 2012 water rate structure review was to enhance the stability
and predictability of revenues and rates. Given these goals multiple options were developed
and presented to the City Council for review and consideration. After reviewing the
alternatives developed, the City Council adopted a water rate structure that included a monthly
fixed charge to enhance the revenue stability and revised the consumption blocks to reflect
B1-11
City of San Luis Obispo 2
Water Rate Structure Review
ATTACHMENT 2
customer consumption patterns as well as the block pricing to reflect the inclusion of the
monthly fixed charge. Provided in Table 2 is a summary of the current water rates.
Table 2
Summary of the Council Alternative Water Rate Structure
Monthly Customer Charge $5.28
Volume Charges
Block 1 First 8 CCF $6.92
Block 2 > 9 CCF $8.65
As can be seen the water rate structure includes a monthly fixed charge and an increasing block
consumption charge with two blocks. Based on recent consumption levels the current rate
structure collects approximately 6% of the water utility revenues through the monthly
customer charge. The remaining 94% of the revenues are received from the consumption
charges. Prior to the adoption of this rate structure the City had a 100% volumetric rate.
Overview of the Study Concerns
As noted, California is experiencing a significant drought and it appears this may continue with
further State mandates for water conservation. The impact of the reduced consumption
through conservation efforts has resulted in a shortfall of annual revenues of over $1 million
projected for Fiscal Year 2014-2015 (FY 14/15) for the City’s water utility.
The loss of revenue is due to the majority of revenues being received through the volume
charges, which is variable depending on the level of water consumption, while the costs of
operating and maintaining the water utility are primarily fixed regardless of the level of water
consumption. These fixed costs are annual debt service payments, salaries and benefits,
customer service, and other costs related to providing water service that don’t vary depending
on the level of water sales. These fixed operating costs generally make up between 80% and
90% of total costs for utilities. The remaining costs are variable costs typically related to
electricity and chemicals, which in some cases can be considered fixed to some level given a
base consumptive use on the system.
Many in the water industry are also noting that this decline in consumption levels may be
permanent. In other words, current consumption levels can be expected after the drought is
over. This has been a result of prior droughts, where customer consumption levels stay at, or
near, drought consumption levels as customers maintain conservation practices in non-drought
conditions. In some cases consumption has increased slightly, however, this “new normal” is
being seen across the U.S. as conservation practices are implemented, water saving devices are
installed, and driving water rate increases.
B1-12
City of San Luis Obispo 3
Water Rate Structure Review
ATTACHMENT 2
Development of the Revenue Requirement
The starting point of the analysis was to develop a projection of revenues based on the current
rates and recent water consumption data. This data reflected the recent decline in overall
consumption levels and was adjusted to reflect future assumptions on water consumption
declines based on additional conservation efforts and mandates.
Next, a financial plan was developed to determine the level of revenues necessary to
sufficiently fund the operating and capital needs of the City’s water utility. Based on the City’s
long-term plan, a revenue requirement (i.e., a financial plan) was developed to determine the
target level of revenues. This was a key component of the analysis as the decline in water
consumption has resulted in a shortfall of revenues of approximately $1.0 million from prior
year’s revenue levels. Given this decline in revenues, a revenue target needed to be
established that would allow the City to sufficiently fund the costs to operate and maintain the
system.
Once the financial plan was developed, a revenue (rate) transition plan was determined to
meet the operating and capital needs of the water utility over the next three (3) year period.
These revenue levels were used to calculate the conceptual rate structures developed for
review by City staff and the Council.
The decrease in annual revenues has several impacts on the City’s water utility. While not an
all inclusive list, the following highlights several key areas of focus for the study:
Ability to sufficiently fund operating and capital needs, both short-term and long-term.
Ability to maintain prudent coverage ratios for the outside financial community.
Maintain adequate reserve levels to fund current, and future, capital improvement needs.
Sufficient Funding
Given the decline in the City’s water revenues, a key component of the revenue requirement
was to determine if revenues are sufficient to fund annual operating and capital needs for both
the short and long-term. However, the focus of the analysis was on the initial three-year period
to develop a rate structure that can be adopted to stabilize the water revenue stream. Based
on the analysis, revenue targets were developed that would adequately fund the annual
operating and capital needs of the utility. Given the reduced revenue, the City has determined
it will use the rate stabilization fund to supplement the proposed revenues and has projected
approximately $1.0 million of rate stabilization funds will be used to fund annual operating and
capital needs in 2014-15. The ultimate level of rate stabilization funds will depend on the
actual annual expenditures at the end of the year. However, for projection purposes this level
of funding is assumed. The use of the rate stabilization fund allows for a multi-year transition
towards a rate structure that enhances the revenue and rate stability and predictability. The
final analysis which was used to develop the conceptual rate structure alternatives established
revenue levels that support annual operating and capital needs for the next three fiscal years.
While the focus of the analysis was on the initial three year period, it is also important to
consider the long-term impacts of the revenue loss as the proposed revenue levels do not
“reset” to pre-drought levels given the projected consumption levels. As noted, consumption
levels will most likely remain at current levels after the drought, at least in the short-term, and
B1-13
City of San Luis Obispo 4
Water Rate Structure Review
ATTACHMENT 2
if additional State conservation mandates are implemented consumption levels may continue
to decline. Given the overall reduced revenue, the City will need to monitor the future
projection of rate impacts to sufficiently fund operating and capital needs.
Prudent Coverage Ratios
The development of the target revenue levels also took into consideration the City’s water
utility coverage ratios. Coverage ratios are essentially the credit check of the utility that the
financial community reviews to establish the City’s ratings for issuing certain types of long-term
debt. Recently, the City was notified that impact fees would no longer be included in the
revenue calculation for determining the coverage ratio. When removing the impact fee
revenues from the calculation the City, and the reduced revenue levels, the City is not meeting
the target established by the financial community (i.e., Fitch, S&P). As a result, the target
revenue levels took into consideration increasing the coverage ratio over the three year period
to move toward meeting the target coverage ratio. If the City desires to meet the target
coverage ratio rates would need to be adjusted to pre-drought revenue levels. At this time, the
proposed rate structures alternatives, and resulting revenue levels, do not reach pre-drought
revenue levels.
Adequate Reserve Levels
Reserve levels are key to maintaining a financially healthy utility. Target minimum reserve
levels are established to provide a reasonable level of fund balance to meet financial
requirements should emergency situations occur. Reserves play an important role for the City
given the level of revenues received through the variable consumption rates. Absent reserves,
the City would need to immediately increase rates under the current revenue decline to
sufficiently fund operating and capital costs.
As a result, the City has established reserve funds and target minimum ending balances to
minimize the risk of revenue instability. Currently, the financial community is targeting
between 180 days and 365 days of O&M expenses as a minimum fund balance. This target
minimum fund balance typically reflects a highly rated utility in the water industry. The City has
minimum target reserve balances for the operating reserve and the rate stabilization reserve.
The operating reserve has a target minimum balance calculated as 20% of annual O&M
expenses while the rate stabilization target minimum balance is set at 10% of volume sales.
The level of ending fund balance above the target minimums, or unreserved balance, is
available for other purposes. It is important to maintain an ending fund balance greater than
the target minimum levels to minimize the risk associated with further reductions in
consumption, emergency situations, or other catastrophic events. Currently, the City is
exceeding the target minimum fund balances; however, future ending balances are nearing the
target minimum balances given the reduced revenue levels over the long-term (e.g., 10-year
period).
As noted, the analysis has assumed the use of the rate stabilization fund to reduce the short-
term impact on rates to sufficiently fund operating and capital needs in 2014-15. While this
allows for a transition of rates to sufficient levels, the City will need to replace those funds over
time to meet the target fund balance for the rate stabilization fund. Typically this is
B1-14
City of San Luis Obispo 5
Water Rate Structure Review
ATTACHMENT 2
accomplished over a multi-year period to minimize the impacts to customers and rate levels.
However, if the drought continues, and consumption levels continue to reduce, the City may
need to use additional rate stabilization funds to supplement revenues. If this occurs,
additional rate adjustments may be necessary to maintain sufficient revenue levels for
operating and capital needs and for replacing the funds used in prior years over a multi-year
period.
In addition to the rate stabilization fund, the City maintains an operating fund balance that is
used to fund capital projects. This fund can also be used for short-term (monthly) cash flow
issues as needed due to the variability in monthly revenues. The target minimum fund balance
for the operating fund is met in the first several years. However, given the planned capital
improvements necessary to maintain the system infrastructure and reduced revenue levels, the
fund balance goes below the target minimum at times during the long-term review period.
While the future anticipated rate adjustments result in meeting the target minimum, additional
reductions in revenues will further impact the ending fund balances.
Impact Fee Revenues
Another key component of the study is the appropriate use of water impact fees. Impact fees
are a one-time charge to new customers connecting to the City’s water system. Essentially,
these fees are used to maintain equity between existing customers, who have supported
(funded) the available capacity in the system, and new customers connecting to the system. By
using impact fees new customers “buy into” the system at a level that reflects the average
investment in infrastructure (capacity) as a current customer. In this way “growth pays for
growth” and existing customers are not burdened with the cost of providing additional capacity
to meet future needs. These fees can be used to fund two (2) components of the water utility
expenses. The first is to fund expansion (growth) related capital project costs, and the second is
to fund expansion related annual debt service payments. In this way new customers
connecting to the system pay for the costs of the available system capacity. As a note, impact
fees can not be used to fund operations and maintenance costs, only capital related costs that
provide capacity in the system. Annual impact fees revenues can also be very unstable in the
level of revenues collected annually as they vary depending on the economy and building cycle.
As a result, it is recommended that a conservative level of impact fee revenues is budgeted to
offset expansion related capital costs.
Summary
Overall the revenues generated from the analysis, and proposed rate structure alternatives,
sufficiently fund the operating and capital needs of the utility. However, it is important to note
that revenues are not projected to reach prior years’ levels due to the decline in consumption.
As a result, the City will need to monitor future year rate needs to fund future operating and
capital needs.
Development of the Conceptual Water Rate Structure Options
Given the revenue transition plan, conceptual water rate structure alternatives were developed
for review and discussion. As noted, conceptual rates were developed for a three (3) year
B1-15
City of San Luis Obispo 6
Water Rate Structure Review
ATTACHMENT 2
period based on the revenue transition plan previously discussed. Each of the alternatives
target the same revenue level at the end of the three-year period and incorporate the key
components of maintaining a financially healthy utility and the City Council’s prior rate design
goals and objectives.
Three (3) rate structure alternatives were developed for consideration by the City. The
alternatives were:
Alternative 1 – Increase the monthly fixed charge over two years.
Alternative 2 – Increase the monthly fixed charge in the first year.
Alternative 3 – Increase the monthly fixed charge three consecutive years.
For alternatives one and two, it was proposed that the monthly fixed charge (base charge) be
doubled over two years (Alt 1) or in the first year (Alt 2). Alterative 3 increased the monthly
fixed charge over three years to triple the monthly fixed charge. Provided below is a summary
of each of the rate structure alternatives developed for the City’s consideration.
Conceptual Water Rate Structure Alternative 1 – Increase the fixed monthly charge over two
years.
The first rate structure alternative increases the fixed charge over the first two years and
applies a projected 3.5% across the board increase in year 3. The proposed alternative doubles
the monthly fixed charge over the two year period.
Conceptual Water Rate Structure Alternative 1
Increase Fixed Charge Over Two Years
Current Rates Year 1 Year 2 Year 3
Monthly Fixed Charge $5.28 $7.92 $10.56 $10.88
Volume Charge
Block 1 (0-8 ccf) $6.92 $6.92 $6.92 $7.13
Block 2 (>8 ccf) $8.65 $8.65 $8.65 $8.91
The advantage of this rate structure alternative is the increase in the revenue stability over the
three year period while maintaining the conservation incentive with a tiered rate structure.
The alternative is also easy to understand and administer given no changes to the rate
structure, as only the level of rates is being changed. This alternative also slowly transitions the
customers to a higher fixed charge over two years which minimizes cost impacts to customers.
Conceptual Water Rate Structure Alternative 2 – Increase the fixed monthly charge in one
year.
The second rate structure alternative increases the fixed charge in the first year, maintains the
rate levels in year two, and applies a projected 3.5% across the board increase in year 3.
B1-16
City of San Luis Obispo 7
Water Rate Structure Review
ATTACHMENT 2
Conceptual Water Rate Structure Alternative 2
Increase Fixed Charge in Year 1
Current Rates Year 1 Year 2 Year 3
Monthly Fixed Charge $5.28 $10.56 $10.56 $10.88
Volume Charge
Block 1 (0-8 ccf) $6.92 $6.92 $6.92 $7.13
Block 2 (>8 ccf) $8.65 $8.65 $8.65 $8.91
The advantage of this rate structure alternative is the immediate increase in the revenue
stability in year one. The alternative is also easy to understand and administer given no
changes to the rate structure, as only the level of rates is being changed. A disadvantage of this
rate structure alternative could be the increase in the fixed charge of $5.28 and possible
impacts to low water use customers.
Conceptual Water Rate Structure Alternative 3 – Increase the fixed monthly charge over three
years.
The final rate structure alternative triples the fixed charge each year of the three-year period
and decreases the volume charges in years two and three to account for the increased fixed
revenue.
Conceptual Water Rate Structure Alternative 3
Increase Fixed Charge Annually
Current Rates Year 1 Year 2 Year 3
Monthly Fixed Charge $5.28 $8.80 $12.32 $15.84
Volume Charge
Block 1 (0-8 ccf) $6.92 $6.92 $6.82 $6.72
Block 2 (>8 ccf) $8.65 $8.65 $8.53 $8.40
The advantage of this rate structure alternative is the increase in revenue stability at the end of
the three year period. The alternative is also easy to understand and administer given no
changes to the rate structure, as only the level of rates is being changed. A disadvantage of this
rate structure alternative would be the customer bill impacts; however it is transitioned over a
three-year period to minimize customer bill impacts. The decrease in the volume charges
reduces the bill impacts to customers, but may slightly reduce the conservation impacts of the
rate structure. However, given the level of the volume charges, this rate structure alternative
still provides an incentive to conserve water.
B1-17
City of San Luis Obispo 8
Water Rate Structure Review
ATTACHMENT 2
Fixed and Variable Revenues
As noted, the City’s rate design goals and objectives listed revenue and rate predictability and
stability as the top goals. These rate structure alternatives enhance these goals and increase
the level of fixed revenues received by the City. Provided below is a summary of the fixed and
variable revenues received for the current rate structure and the alternatives in Year 3 of the
proposed rate structures.
Table 3
Comparison of Fixed and Variable Revenues – Year 3
Current Rates Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3
Fixed 5.8% 11.2% 11.2% 16.3%
Variable 94.2% 88.8% 88.8% 83.7%
As can be seen, the current revenues generate approximately 6% of the revenues through the
monthly fixed charge. This reflects the amount of revenue generated through the monthly
fixed charge. This is not the same as saying the fixed charge funds a specific percentage of
costs. Alternatives 1 and 2 result in fixed revenues of just over 11% at the end of the three year
revenue transition plan while Alterative 3 results in 16% fixed revenues by year 3. Each of the
alternatives increases the revenue stability and sufficiency of rates which can help minimize the
impacts of declining consumption and drought impacts. In comparison, the California Urban
Water Conservation Council (CUWCC) defines a conservation based rate structure as a rate
structure that collects no more than 30% of the revenue through the fixed charge. When
reviewing the conceptual water rate structure alternatives, Alternative 3, which has the highest
fixed percentage of revenues, is approximately half of the CUWCC definition.
Study Conclusions and Recommendations
Given the loss of revenue due to declining consumption, the analysis focused on developing
revenue targets to sufficiently fund operating and capital costs over the next three year period.
A long-term review was also developed to review the impacts of the loss of revenue and
impacts in the future. It is also important to note that the City incurs a high level of fixed costs
regardless of how much water is consumed. For most water utilities fixed costs are
approximately 80%-90% of the annual expenses. However, to some degree a portion of the
variable costs, such as chemicals and electricity, are fixed given a base level of consumption.
Given this it is important to develop a rate structure that reflects how the City incurs costs and
promotes the City’s water rate structure goals and objectives. The alternatives developed
enhance the revenue and rate stability and predictability by increasing the fixed monthly charge
and recover a greater proportion of fixed costs and reduce the variability of water rate
revenues in general and specifically in times of declining consumption.
Another impact of the loss of revenue due to declining consumption was the need to maintain
prudent coverage ratios to meet the outside financial community requirements for ratings and
issuing long-term debt. Given the reduced revenues, the City will need to adjust revenue levels
B1-18
City of San Luis Obispo 9
Water Rate Structure Review
ATTACHMENT 2
to meet the coverage targets. The revenue levels established for the conceptual water rate
structure alternatives take this into consideration.
Reserves are also a critical component of maintaining a financially healthy utility. As noted, rate
stabilization funds are being used in the short-term to allow for a transition of revenues to
sufficient levels to maintaining adequate cash flow for operating and capital needs. Given the
level of fixed revenues received by the City reserves play an important role of minimizing rate
impacts due to revenue declines.
Another method used by water utilities to offset the revenue impacts of droughts and declining
consumption is the development of drought surcharges. These surcharges are implemented
when a drought is declared and vary depending on the drought stage. This is something the
City may want to consider as a long-term goal to minimize future impacts of droughts on water
revenues.
Summary of the Analysis
The analysis completed by HDR has provided the City with conceptual water rate structure
alternatives for review and consideration. Each alternative was developed to enhance the
revenue stability of water rate revenues over a three year period. As noted, revenues do not
reach pre-drought levels and future rates will need to be monitored to sufficiently fund
operating and capital needs.
B1-19
THIS PAGE IS INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
March 31, 2015
Water Rate Structure
Review and Update
Presented by:
Shawn Koorn
Associate Vice President
HDR Engineering, Inc.
2
Overview of the Presentation
Purpose of the review and past rate setting practices
Review the prioritization of rate structure goals and objectives
Rate structure assumptions
Summary of the rate structure alternatives
Council discussion and direction on proposed rate structures
3
Purpose of the Review
•Drought has resulted in a decline in water
consumption
–2014 to 2015 reduction of approximately 10%
–Impacts of future reductions with additional
conservation mandates?
•Decreased consumption has reduced revenues
by approximately $1 million in the current year
budget
•Results in impacts to:
–Ability to sufficiently fund O&M and capital needs
–Meeting required coverage ratios
–Prudent reserve level balances
4
Purpose of the Review (Cont’d)
•2012 study resulted in the current water rate
structure
–Added a monthly fixed customer charge
–Reduced residential volume consumption to two (2)
blocks from three (3) blocks
–Same rate structure for all customers
•Restructuring reflected Council and staff rate
structure goals and objectives
•Implementation of the current fixed charge
mitigated some of the impacts of the decline in
consumption and resulting revenues
5
Prioritization of Attributes By Council and
By Staff
Council Prioritization Rank City Staff Prioritization
Revenue Stability & Predictability 1 Stability & Predictability of Rates
Stability & Predictability of Rates 2 Revenue Stability & Predictability
Simple and Easy to Understand and Administer 3 Fair Allocation of Total Cost of Service Among
Customer Classes
Fair Allocation of Total Cost of Service Among
Customer Classes 4 Reflect All Present and Future Costs & Benefits
of Providing Utility Services
Discourage Wasteful Use, While Promoting All
Justified Types and Amounts 5 Simple and Easy to Understand and Administer
6
Revenue and Rate
Stability and Predictability
Raise, or implement, fixed charges
•Need to consider fixed/variable costs
Maintain prudent minimum reserve levels
•Operating reserve
•Rate stabilization reserve
•Emergency reserve
Restructure to provide additional stability
•Price or tier/block sizes
7
Rate Structure Review Assumptions
•Current consumption levels most likely become
the “new normal”
–Additional conservation mandates may result in further
declines to water consumption levels
–Analysis slightly reduces future consumption levels
–Analysis assumes minimal customer growth on new
customers connecting to the system
•Appropriate use of impact fee revenues
–Method of funding capital improvements for growth on
the system
–Not used for O&M expenses
•Reviewed fixed and variable revenues and expenses
–CUWCC BMP definition of a conservation-based rate
structure assumes no more than 30% of revenues
through fixed charges
8
What is the Appropriate Level?
Volumetric Charges
―Conservation
―Efficient Use
―High Customer Acceptance
Fixed Charges
―Revenue Stability
―Collection of Fixed Costs
―Low Customer Acceptance
The majority of a utility’s
costs are fixed in nature
Fixed
― Does not vary with sales
― Salaries, debt service, etc.
― 80 – 90% for water utilities
Variable
― Varies with water sales
― Power, chemicals, etc.
― 10 – 20% for water utilities
9
Review of the Analyses
•Developed a long-term financial plan
–Based on current customer characteristics and financial
projections
•Reviewed prudent financial measures
–Sufficient revenues to fund O&M and capital needs
–Meeting required coverage ratios
–Maintaining prudent reserve levels
•Need to re-establish reserves when used
•Developed a three (3) year revenue transition plan to
meet operating and capital needs
–Use of rate stabilization funds to allow for revenue
transition
•Revenue targets were used to develop the conceptual
water rate structure alternatives
10
Conceptual Water Rate
Structure Alternatives
11
Overview of the Current Rate Structure
Fixed Charge
$/month/acct $5.28
Volume Charge
1 to 8 units $6.92/Unit
9+ units $8.65/Unit
1 Unit = 100
Cubic Feet
(1 ccf )
1 ccf = 748
gallons
12
Rate Structure Alternative Review
•Developed three (3) conceptual alternative rate
structures
–Three year rate period (FY 15/16 – FY 17/18)
•Focused on the level of the monthly fixed
customer charge
–Goal was to enhance the revenue and rate
stability and predictability
•Rates are conceptual
–Staff will develop final proposed rates for the
Proposition 218 process
–Rates (numbers) are provided for comparison
purposes only
13
Overview of the Rate Structure
Alternatives
•Focus of the alternatives was on the level of the
fixed charge over the next three (3) year period
–Each alternative adjusts the fixed charge level over
a different time period
–No changes to the volume rate structure were
proposed
Fixed Charge –
$/month/acct Current
Rate Year 1 Year 2 Year 3
Alternative 1 $5.28 $7.92 $10.56 $10.88
Alternative 2 $5.28 $10.56 $10.56 $10.88
Alternative 3 $5.28 $8.80 $12.32 $15.84
14
Alternative 1 –
Conceptual Water Rate Structure
•Provides additional revenue/rate stability over 2 years
•Simple and easy to understand and administer
•Still meets CUWCC definition of a conservation rate
structure(11.2% fixed revenues in year 3)
Fixed Charge Current
Rate FY 15/16 FY 16/17 FY 17/18
$/Month/Acct $5.28 $7.92 $10.56 $10.88
Volume Charge - $/Unit
1 to 8 units $6.92 $6.92 $6.92 $7.13
9+ units $8.65 $8.65 $8.65 $8.91
15
Alternative 1 –
Residential Bill Comparison
$0.00
$20.00
$40.00
$60.00
$80.00
$100.00
$120.00
$140.00
$160.00
$180.00
3 7 11 15 20
Current Rates $26.04 $53.72 $86.59 $121.19 $164.44
Proposed Year 1 $28.68 $56.36 $89.23 $123.83 $167.08
Proposed Year 2 $31.32 $59.00 $91.87 $126.47 $169.72
Proposed Year 3 $32.27 $60.79 $94.65 $130.29 $174.84
CCF
16
Alternative 1 –
Non-Residential Bill Comparison
$0.00
$200.00
$400.00
$600.00
$800.00
$1,000.00
$1,200.00
$1,400.00
25 50 75 100 150
Current Rates $207.69 $423.94 $640.19 $856.44 $1,288.94
Proposed Year 1 $210.33 $426.58 $642.83 $859.08 $1,291.58
Proposed Year 2 $212.97 $429.22 $645.47 $861.72 $1,294.22
Proposed Year 3 $219.39 $442.14 $664.89 $887.64 $1,333.14
CCF
17
Alternative 1 –
Summary Bill Comparisons
Consumption Current Proposed Proposed Proposed
(CCF)Bill Bill $%Bill $%Bill $%
0 $5.28 $7.92 $2.64 50.00%$10.56 $2.64 33.33%$10.88 $0.32 3.03%
1 12.20 14.84 2.64 21.64%17.48 2.64 17.79%18.01 0.53 3.03%
2 19.12 21.76 2.64 13.81%24.40 2.64 12.13%25.14 0.74 3.03%
3 26.04 28.68 2.64 10.14%31.32 2.64 9.21%32.27 0.95 3.03%
4 32.96 35.60 2.64 8.01%38.24 2.64 7.42%39.40 1.16 3.03%
5 39.88 42.52 2.64 6.62%45.16 2.64 6.21%46.53 1.37 3.03%
6 46.80 49.44 2.64 5.64%52.08 2.64 5.34%53.66 1.58 3.03%
7 53.72 56.36 2.64 4.91%59.00 2.64 4.68%60.79 1.79 3.03%
8 60.64 63.28 2.64 4.35%65.92 2.64 4.17%67.92 2.00 3.03%
10 77.94 80.58 2.64 3.39%83.22 2.64 3.28%85.74 2.52 3.03%
11 86.59 89.23 2.64 3.05%91.87 2.64 2.96%94.65 2.78 3.03%
15 121.19 123.83 2.64 2.18%126.47 2.64 2.13%130.29 3.82 3.02%
20 164.44 167.08 2.64 1.61%169.72 2.64 1.58%174.84 5.12 3.02%
25 207.69 210.33 2.64 1.27%212.97 2.64 1.26%219.39 6.42 3.01%
50 423.94 426.58 2.64 0.62%429.22 2.64 0.62%442.14 12.92 3.01%
75 640.19 642.83 2.64 0.41%645.47 2.64 0.41%664.89 19.42 3.01%
100 856.44 859.08 2.64 0.31%861.72 2.64 0.31%887.64 25.92 3.01%
150 1,288.94 1,291.58 2.64 0.20%1,294.22 2.64 0.20%1,333.14 38.92 3.01%
Year 3 Proposed Rates
DifferenceDifference
Year 1 Proposed Rates Year 2 Proposed Rates
Difference
18
Alternative 2 –
Conceptual Water Rate Structure
•Provides additional revenue/rate stability in year 1
•Simple and easy to understand and administer
•Still meets CUWCC definition of a conservation rate
structure(11.2% fixed revenues in year 3)
•Immediate bill impacts to lower use customers
Fixed Charge Current
Rate FY 15/16 FY 16/17 FY 17/18
$/Month/Acct $5.28 $10.56 $10.56 $10.88
Volume Charge - $/Unit
1 to 8 units $6.92 $6.92 $6.92 $7.13
9+ units $8.65 $8.65 $8.65 $8.91
19
Alternative 2 –
Residential Bill Comparison
$0.00
$20.00
$40.00
$60.00
$80.00
$100.00
$120.00
$140.00
$160.00
$180.00
3 7 11 15 20
Current Rates $26.04 $53.72 $86.59 $121.19 $164.44
Proposed Year 1 $31.32 $59.00 $91.87 $126.47 $169.72
Proposed Year 2 $31.32 $59.00 $91.87 $126.47 $169.72
Proposed Year 3 $32.27 $60.79 $94.65 $130.29 $174.84
CCF
20
Alternative 2 –
Non-Residential Bill Comparison
$0.00
$200.00
$400.00
$600.00
$800.00
$1,000.00
$1,200.00
$1,400.00
25 50 75 100 150
Current Rates $207.69 $423.94 $640.19 $856.44 $1,288.94
Proposed Year 1 $212.97 $429.22 $645.47 $861.72 $1,294.22
Proposed Year 2 $212.97 $429.22 $645.47 $861.72 $1,294.22
Proposed Year 3 $219.39 $442.14 $664.89 $887.64 $1,333.14
CCF
21
Alternative 2 –
Summary Bill Comparisons
Consumption Current Proposed Proposed Proposed
(CCF)Bill Bill $%Bill $%Bill $%
0 $5.28 $10.56 $5.28 100.00%$10.56 $0.00 0.00%$10.88 $0.32 3.03%
1 12.20 17.48 5.28 43.28%17.48 0.00 0.00%18.01 0.53 3.03%
2 19.12 24.40 5.28 27.62%24.40 0.00 0.00%25.14 0.74 3.03%
3 26.04 31.32 5.28 20.28%31.32 0.00 0.00%32.27 0.95 3.03%
4 32.96 38.24 5.28 16.02%38.24 0.00 0.00%39.40 1.16 3.03%
5 39.88 45.16 5.28 13.24%45.16 0.00 0.00%46.53 1.37 3.03%
6 46.80 52.08 5.28 11.28%52.08 0.00 0.00%53.66 1.58 3.03%
7 53.72 59.00 5.28 9.83%59.00 0.00 0.00%60.79 1.79 3.03%
8 60.64 65.92 5.28 8.71%65.92 0.00 0.00%67.92 2.00 3.03%
10 77.94 83.22 5.28 6.77%83.22 0.00 0.00%85.74 2.52 3.03%
11 86.59 91.87 5.28 6.10%91.87 0.00 0.00%94.65 2.78 3.03%
15 121.19 126.47 5.28 4.36%126.47 0.00 0.00%130.29 3.82 3.02%
20 164.44 169.72 5.28 3.21%169.72 0.00 0.00%174.84 5.12 3.02%
25 207.69 212.97 5.28 2.54%212.97 0.00 0.00%219.39 6.42 3.01%
50 423.94 429.22 5.28 1.25%429.22 0.00 0.00%442.14 12.92 3.01%
75 640.19 645.47 5.28 0.82%645.47 0.00 0.00%664.89 19.42 3.01%
100 856.44 861.72 5.28 0.62%861.72 0.00 0.00%887.64 25.92 3.01%
150 1,288.94 1,294.22 5.28 0.41%1,294.22 0.00 0.00%1,333.14 38.92 3.01%
Year 1 Proposed Rates Year 2 Proposed Rates Year 3 Proposed Rates
Difference Difference Difference
22
Alternative 3 –
Conceptual Water Rate Structure
•Provides additional revenue/rate stability over 3 years
•Simple and easy to understand and administer
•Still meets CUWCC definition of a conservation rate structure(16.3% fixed revenues in year 3)
•Bill impacts to lower use volume customers
•Possible reduced conservation signal (lowering of the volume rates)
Fixed Charge Current
Rate FY 15/16 FY 16/17 FY 17/18
$/Month/Acct $5.28 $8.80 $12.32 $15.84
Volume Charge - $/Unit
1 to 8 units $6.92 $6.92 $6.82 $6.72
9+ units $8.65 $8.65 $8.53 $8.40
23
Alternative 3 –
Residential Bill Comparison
$0.00
$20.00
$40.00
$60.00
$80.00
$100.00
$120.00
$140.00
$160.00
$180.00
3 7 11 15 20
Current Rates $26.04 $53.72 $86.59 $121.19 $164.44
Proposed Year 1 $29.56 $57.24 $90.11 $124.71 $167.96
Proposed Year 2 $32.78 $60.06 $92.46 $126.56 $169.18
Proposed Year 3 $36.00 $62.88 $94.80 $128.40 $170.40
CCF
24
Alternative 3 –
Non-Residential Bill Comparison
$0.00
$200.00
$400.00
$600.00
$800.00
$1,000.00
$1,200.00
$1,400.00
25 50 75 100 150
Current Rates $207.69 $423.94 $640.19 $856.44 $1,288.94
Proposed Year 1 $211.21 $427.46 $643.71 $859.96 $1,292.46
Proposed Year 2 $211.81 $424.93 $638.06 $851.18 $1,277.43
Proposed Year 3 $212.40 $422.40 $632.40 $842.40 $1,262.40
CCF
25
Alternative 3 –
Summary Bill Comparisons
Consumption Current Proposed Proposed Proposed
(CCF)Bill Bill $%Bill $%Bill $%
0 $5.28 $8.80 $3.52 66.67%$12.32 $3.52 40.00%$15.84 $3.52 28.57%
1 12.20 15.72 3.52 28.85%19.14 3.42 21.76%22.56 3.42 17.87%
2 19.12 22.64 3.52 18.41%25.96 3.32 14.66%29.28 3.32 12.79%
3 26.04 29.56 3.52 13.52%32.78 3.22 10.89%36.00 3.22 9.82%
4 32.96 36.48 3.52 10.68%39.60 3.12 8.55%42.72 3.12 7.88%
5 39.88 43.40 3.52 8.83%46.42 3.02 6.96%49.44 3.02 6.51%
6 46.80 50.32 3.52 7.52%53.24 2.92 5.80%56.16 2.92 5.48%
7 53.72 57.24 3.52 6.55%60.06 2.82 4.93%62.88 2.82 4.70%
8 60.64 64.16 3.52 5.80%66.88 2.72 4.24%69.60 2.72 4.07%
10 77.94 81.46 3.52 4.52%83.93 2.47 3.03%86.40 2.47 2.94%
11 86.59 90.11 3.52 4.07%92.46 2.35 2.60%94.80 2.35 2.54%
15 121.19 124.71 3.52 2.90%126.56 1.85 1.48%128.40 1.85 1.46%
20 164.44 167.96 3.52 2.14%169.18 1.22 0.73%170.40 1.22 0.72%
25 207.69 211.21 3.52 1.69%211.81 0.59 0.28%212.40 0.59 0.28%
50 423.94 427.46 3.52 0.83%424.93 (2.53)-0.59%422.40 (2.53)-0.60%
75 640.19 643.71 3.52 0.55%638.06 (5.65)-0.88%632.40 (5.66)-0.89%
100 856.44 859.96 3.52 0.41%851.18 (8.78)-1.02%842.40 (8.78)-1.03%
150 1,288.94 1,292.46 3.52 0.27%1,277.43 (15.03)-1.16%1,262.40 (15.03)-1.18%
Year 1 Proposed Rates Year 2 Proposed Rates Year 3 Proposed Rates
Difference Difference Difference
26
Summary of the Conceptual Water Rate
Structure Alternatives
•All alternatives target the same revenue levels by year
three
•Meet short-term reserve levels and coverage ratios
•Varying impacts to customers based on transition of
fixed revenue levels
•Increased fixed revenue more closely reflects how
costs are incurred
–Increases the revenue stability of rates and revenues
•Increased fix revenue collection in year three
–Alternative 1 – 11.2%
–Alternative 2 – 11.2%
–Alternative 3 – 16.3%
27
Comparison of the Conceptual Water
Rate Structure Alternatives
Alternative 1
Transition to increased revenue
stability
Increase in fixed revenues of
approximately $475,000 in year 1
and another $475,000 in year 2
Ability to repay Rate Stabilization
over three years
Simple and easy to understand
Maintains CUWCC BMP for a
conservation based rate structure
Alternative 2
Immediate increase in revenue
stability
Increase in fixed revenues of
approximately $950,000 in 1 year
Ability to repay Rate Stabilization
immediately
Simple and easy to understand
Maintains CUWCC BMP for a
conservation based rate structure
Low use customer bill impacts in
year 1
Alternative 3
Longer term increased revenue
stability
Increase in fixed revenue of
approximately $630,000 each year
Repay Rate stabilization fund in less
than 2 years
Simple and easy to understand
Maintains CUWCC BMP for a
conservation based rate structure
Low use customer bill impacts
Possible reduced conservation signal
for larger use customers
28
Summary and Conclusions
•Each alternative enhances the revenue and
rate stability and predictability
–Alternative 3 provides the greatest long-term
revenue stability
–Alternative 3 minimizes impacts of future reduction
in consumption levels
•Alternative 3 results in greater reserve levels
over the 10-year projected period
–May impact the level of future rate adjustments
•Alternatives 3 replenishes the rate stabilization
fund in 1-2 years
•No alternatives result in pre-drought revenue
levels
29
Next Steps
•Answer any questions on the water rate
structure alternatives
•Receive Council direction on preferred rate
structure
–Conceptual rate alternative will be used by staff
during the upcoming rate setting process (i.e., Prop
218)