05/15/1996 - Packet INT'ERG-OVE kNAUNTAL WA'D'ER BOARD MEETING
Serving Tigard, King City, Durham and Unincorporated Area
AGENDA
Wednesday, May 15, 1996
5:30 p.m.
ll. Gall to Order
2. Roll Call and Introductions
3. Visitor Comments
4 Approve April 10, 1996 Meeting Minutes
5 Letter for Adjustment
6 Water Rate Study CH2M Hill
7. Director's Report
8 Non AgendaItems
9. Adjournment
Executive Session:.. The:Intergovernmental Water Board may go into Executive
Session under the provisions of ORS 192.660 (1) (d), (e), & (h) to. discuss.labor
relations, real property transactions, and current and pending litigation issues. All
discussions within this session axe confidential., thereforenothing from this meeting
may be disclosed by those present. Representatives of the news media are allowed
to attend this'session, but must not disclose any information discussed during this
session.
kathy,VW545.agn
ti
INTERGOVERNMENTAL WATER BOARD MEETING MINUTES
Members Present: Bill Scheiderich, Beverly Froude, John
Budihas, Bob Rolf, and Bob Tydeman
Staff Present: Bill Monahan, Ed Wegner, Randy Volk, Mike
Miller, Wayne Lowry and Kathy Raatz
Visitors Present: Steve Feldman and John Haunsperger
1. Call to Order
The regular meeting of the Intergovernmental Water Board was
called to order at 5 : 30 p.m.
2 . Roll .Call and Introductions
Roll was taken and all members were present with the exception
of Commissioner Hunt whose representative was City Councilman
Bob Rolf, and for Commissioner Manning was Mayor Bob Tydeman.
3 . Visitors Comments
There, were no visitors present that wished to speak.
4 . Approval of March .13, 1996 Meeting Minutes
A motion was made by Commissioner Budihas to approved the
minutes of the March 13, 1996 meeting which was seconded by
Commissioner Froude and was voted upon unanimously.
5. Water Rate Study - CH2M Hill
Mr. Lowry stated that last month a brief presentation was made
by CH2M Hill and they had returned to present an update since
the draft report is not completely finished. Mr. Lowry
continued by stating that they would like some discussion and
further direction by the Board, on the findings as well as
rate alternatives .
Eric Rothstein, Senior Economist for CH2M Hill distributed a
packet of information to the Board members and stated that he
wanted to discuss the system development charge calculations ,
cost of service rates and options, seasonal conservation rate,
rate design options and typical bills, and backup information.
Mr. Rothstein stated that the system development charges are
intended to recover the cost of new development imposed upon
the system. There are two components of this charge a)
reimbursement fee requiring the new customer to provide equity
contribution to the system equivalent to the equity that
existing customers have in the system and b) capital
improvement fee which intended to recover the costs of new
capital improvements that are being required to service the
development .
Mr. Rothstein continued by saying that compared to the
existing fees there is a $140 increase for the 410 zone and
$500 increase for Bull Mountain. The cost comparison for
these SDC' s was provided in the information distributed. Mr.
Lowry stated that the current SDC' s as seen on this comparison
chart were put in place in 1990 .
Mr. Rothstein stated that it was CH2M Hill ' s recommendation to
adopt the revised System Development Charges for the main 410
system service area as well as the Bull Mountain service area.
Councilman Rolf questioned why the SDC' s are low as compared
to some other jurisdictions? Mr. Rothstein stated that these
f_ee.s are based upon the capital program that the water service
area has in place . Mr. Lowry also stated that we do not have
a treatment facility. Mr. Wegner stated that this model -is
based upon the current system and does not reflect costs
involved with a major capital program to bring a secure water
supply, system. Mr. Rothstein stated that the rate and SDC
calculations can all be revised as needed.
Mr. Rothstein then discussed the rate structure. Information
.. ..Was. provided that compared the existing rate structure as well
.. as.. the proposed cost of service rates . He continued by
stating that there were two options with the proposed rates
one being a base charge, booster charge which is slightly
higher than the existing charges and volume rates by customer
class and no volume built into the base charge .
Commissioner Budihas questioned the same rates being charged
to someone outside the district as opposed to in district
users . Mr. Rothstein stated the they could reflect a higher
rate to an outside user although there is such a limited
number of customers outside it is hardly worth it . There is
only approximately 120 accounts outside the District . Mr.
Wegner stated that these services are in the Metzger area and
Pac Trust, with the only potential for .growth being Pac .Trust .
An alternative to this options is to inbed the cost of 8.00 ccf
into the base charge with all volumes in excess of the 800 ccf
be charged accordingly (current rate structure) .
Intergovernmental Water Board Meeting - April 10 , 1996 Page 2
Mr. Rothstein stated that the advantage of the $3 . 89 base
charge is that for low volume users (users that use less then
800 ccf) do not pay for the minimum water usage of 800 ccf.
Chair Scheiderich questioned the percentage of users that use
less than 800 ccf bi-monthly and whether a lifeline rate
(minimal per person average use) was factored in? Mr.
Rothstein stated that the percentage of users is relatively
low in this category and they had not figured in specifically
a lifeline rate. Mr. Lowry stated that out of 13-14 thousand
accounts in the District, there is only 2000 to 3000 low end
users which are accounted for generally in King City and
Summerfield.
Mr. Rothstein stated that the primary benefit to having a
minimum usage is revenue stability. There is a revenue loss
when you do not charge all users the minimum base rate.
Having more built into the fixed charges allows for higher
revenue stability with the downside being that you are
minimizing your conservation incentives and are moving away
from cost of service since users are paying a fixed rate
rather than the actual costs of service. Mr. Roth continued
by saying that they generally recommend using the cost of
service option.
Councilman Rolf questioned the average water usage for
residential service? Mr. Lowry stated the average usage to be
between 18 and 20 ccf bi-monthly. Councilman Rolf continued
and questioned why there is a lower rate proposed for
industrial users? Mr. Rothstein stated that the differences
in the volume rates are basically reflective of differences in
peaking characteristics among customer classes . Mr. Rothstein
continued by stating that while going through the cost
allocation process to determine the cost of service, they look
at operation and maintenance costs and capital costs and
allocated those costs to average demand and peak demands . A
portion of the costs is associated with providing peak levels
of service and industrial users tend to have low peak demands
and have stable, constant usage.
Mr. Lowry stated that the current rate structure has the
$14 .30 minimum plus a $1.32 for any usage over that regardless
of customer class . Both of these proposed rate structures
cover the cost of service.
Mr. Rothstein then discussed the consumption blocks and stated
it was determined that even though there was limited data
available of the distribution of use in residential class from
low volume users to high volume users, the break point
appeared to be at 50 ccf. The users that use more than 50 ccf
over would be assessed an incremental increase in rate
(surcharge) . The amount generated with this was indicated on
Intergovernmental Water Board Meeting - April 10, 1996 Page 3
the information provided. Mr. Rothstein continued to state
that the new information on conservation rates indicates that
increased rates for seasonal rates do not tend to be effective
in promotion conservation in the absence of accompanying
conservation education and/or incentive programs .
Mr. Rothstein continued by stating that the rate design
options available are to continue the current - rate design or
adopt cost of service rates and for either of these options a
decision would need to be made on whether to adopt a seasonal
conservation surcharge and whether to continue current fire
service charges . Mr. Rothstein stated that the City is in a
fairly stable revenue situation although thought should be
given to whether the rate structure should be adjusted to
provide for greater simplicity, add more conservation and be
more cost of service based. He continued by stating that
continuing the current rate design has some appeal in terms of
acceptability since there will be no new administrative costs
in implementing a new rate structure .
Chair Scheiderich questioned if the decision came to
continuing the current rate design, he would like to clarify
what the difference in- meter charges were? Mr. Lowry stated
that .these charges are not installation charges but bi-monthly
meter. charges . Mr. Wegner stated that the concept is that the
larger the meter the larger volume of water being used. If
you would change to a cost of service rate structure,, you
would pay for the amount of water used. Mr. Volk stated that
there are only 33 meters that are above two inch. Mr.
Rothstein stated that the original basis for the different
meter charges was probably the higher meters take a higher
claim on the capacity of the system.
Mr. Wegner question within the next couple of years when we
are purchasing water from another entity and will have
hopefully a more constant rate, if we had a bi-monthly base
charge with a volume charge can these be adjusted? Mr.
Rothstein stated that this model can be adjusted at anytime to
reflect a change in cost of supply.
Chair Scheiderich questioned whether a cost of living (CPI)
adjustment was figured in the structure? Mr. Rothstein stated
infrequently are rates changed due to cost of living
adjustment .
Chair Scheiderich questioned whether there was any literature
reporting success of conservation education? Mr. Rothstein
stated that generally the conservation education has very
positive results . Councilman Rolf questioned the range of
Intergovernmental Water Board Meeting - April 10 , 1996 Page 4
surcharges and what would the optimal surcharge be? Mr.
• Rothstein stated that this would be based upon the
requirements of implementing a reasonably effective
conservation program (expenses , educational materials, etc) .
Mr. Wegner stated that currently we budget $17, 000 for water
conservation education which is being funded out of, our
current rates with the use of existing staff . Mr. Rothstein
stated that you would be looking at the need for at least a
part time position. Commissioner Froude stated that since
landscaping is a big issue, and the need for emphasis on home
gardens . Mr. Rothstein stated that the education process will
demonstrate the efficient use of water.
Mr. Wegner stated that the draft rate study will be mailed out
next week and will be placed on Tigard City Council agenda on
April 16 to hear the same presentation made tonight by CH2M
Hill and at the May meeting of the IWB, a recommendation will
be necessary to take to Tigard City Council in October with
any needed changes being implemented by July 1 .
Chair Scheiderich questioned whether notes on the Council
discussion could be made available to IWB Board members? Mr.
Wegner stated that we would check on sending those out to the
Board.
• 6 . b. Sprint Mono Pole
Since, Mr. Monahan was not present, Mr. Wegner stated that
Sprint Spectrum has approached the. City on the possibility of
installation of an antennae tower on one of three sites, the
Water facility, Public Works building, or at the Canterbury
site . After 'some testing, =the best location proved to be the
Water facil-ity site. This would be placed behind the storage
area, behind the Tualatin Valhey Fire District area. W=ith Mr.
Monahan' s arrival he provided some pictures of various mono
poles that have been placed in the area. Mr. Monahan stated
that he had attended the Tigard Water District meeting to
discuss this mono pole and the Tigard Water District has a
Resolution in place which limits the height of antenna on any
Water District property to not more than three feet above the
existing structures . The intent of this Resolution was to
limit antennae in residential areas . The Tigard Water
District did agree to allow it at this site and change the
Resolution to exclude properties that within the central
business district . Chair Scheiderich questioned the allowance
of this with the Tigard zoning laws? Mr. Monahan stated that
this would involve a conditional use zoning process . Mr.
Monahan stated that they also contacted Mike Marr, the
President of the Downtown Merchants Association and provided
them with information. Mr. Marr' s has some concerns although
he would prefer it located here rather than some area closer
Intergovernmental Water Board Meeting - April 10 ,_ 1996 Page 5
to the downtown area. Mr. Monahan stated that the Tigard
City Council did give authorization if the IWB approves to
enter into an agreement to allow Sprint Spectrum to utilize
1 , 500 square feet in the location described to erect a mono
pole and some cabinets for storage of electronic devices for
a lease amount of $800 per month for a five year term with the
five year term being renewable up to five times with a 200
increase in the lease amount. This mono pole would also allow
the City the capability of attaching additional communication
devices for Police and Fire as well as locate another
competitor devices on this pole for an additional lease
amount .
Chair Scheiderich questioned whether a market study had been
done to ensure that the $800 a month was a fair market value
for 1, 500 square feet? Mr. Monahan stated that a survey had
not been completed since this piece of property is not being
used currently. Mr. John Haunsperger (TWD Board Member)
stated that in East Portland they are receiving a lease amount
of $1, 400/month. Mr. Monahan stated that they had already
negotiated from $600 to $800 per month and this would allow
the City $9 , 600 per year income. 'Chair Scheiderich stated he
would like to see someone do a quick market survey to see what
market value would be for this type of property and at the
five year intervals, the owners have the right to discontinue
use and have equipment removed. Councilman Rolf questioned •
the time frame on making a decision in this matter? Mr.
Monahan stated that Sprint is ready to move quickly and may
consider another site. Chair Scheiderich questioned who would
hear the conditional use process? Mr. Monahan stated that the
Hearings Officer for the City of Tigard would process this
application.
Councilman Rolf made a motion to authorize the City
Administrator to negotiate and consummate a deal with Sprint
Spectrum provided that research shows fair rate. The motion
was seconded by Commissioner Budihas and passed unanimously.
6 . a. Facility Use
Commissioner Budihas provided Mr. Monahan with the King City
decision on facility use. King City wants to retain ownership
and negotiate for a monthly or yearly rental fee, the City of
Durham is willing to allow usage of the building on a lease
arrangement and to provide in kind services and the Tigard
Water District has made the decision to retain ownership
although they may be willing, to allow the City the right to
usage for. other purposes with advance notice . Some of the
other uses discussed with the Tigard Water District was use of
the auditorium for Court purposes . ' The Tigard Water District
authorized to proceed with what configuration and
modifications will be necessary to accommodate the Court
Intergovernmental Water Board Meeting - April 10 , 1996 Page 6
• proceedings . Mr. Monahan stated that the City is still
considering the Amber Foods facility for a long term solution
and the additional use of the Water facility a short term
solution and to continue to utilize the building for some
Water functions . Mr. Monahan continued by stating that the
City is not in imminent need to make changes to this facility
since. the City' s position has changed with the Amber Food
facility and with the decision by the various entities to
retain 'ownership.
Chair Scheiderich questioned the concern for use of the Water
auditorium for free public space and stated that it would be
appropriate to be agreed upon by all owners in advance. Mr.
Monahan apologized for the use of the building for the
.homeless shelter and the Farmer' s Market without 'prior
approval of the entities . This year the Farmer' s Market has
only inquired about use of the parking lot area and the only
inside access would -be for restrooms beginning June 1 through
Octob-er. The Board discussed the Farmer' s Market usage- and
the fact that they' are a non-profit organization operating
under the Chamber of Commerce. They used the Magna Humphrey' s
site for two years and this would be the second year of usage
at this site. It was discussed that there were no problems,
they had placed flags in the lawn area and , there was some
electrical upgrades done with the Farmer' s Market paying for .
those improvements . The Board consensus was that this use
would be acceptable -although nextyear it would be advisable
for the Farmer' s Market to make a presentation to the Board
prior to use. Mr. Monahan stated that although the contract
allows the City to make .decisions on use of the facility, the
Farmer' s Market organization will make presentation next year.
7 . a. Willamette River Water Update - Ed Wegner
Mr. Wegner had provided the Board with an Executive Summary of
a report that was commissioner by various entities which
included. Tigard on the Willamette River. The report states
that the Willamette could be used as a drinking water source
and the cities involved could benefit from this, although a
lot more work will be involved. Issues that need to be
clarified are where does this transmission line go, how does
it connect the Clackamas River Water District , Canby with
Wilsonville, Tigard, Sherwood and Tualatin Valley? Next week
Mr. Monahan and Mr. Wegner will be attending a workshop to
look at recommendations outlined and prioritize them and look
to the next step. Mr. Wegner stated that more information
will be made available at the next meeting.
7 . b. Regional Water Update - Ed Wegner
Mr. Wegner highlighted the revisions of the. RWSP and he
• requested if the Board had any concerns or questions in
Intergovernmental Water Board Meeting - April 10 , 1996 Page 7
regards to the revisions to the Plan to contact him prior to •
April 25 to discuss .
Mr. Wegner stated that Murray,- Smith and Associates had made
a presentation to the Tigard City Council last night on the
Menlor site and the Council authorized them to proceed.
Murray, Smith and Associates will submit a scope of services
within the next week and Mr. Monahan and Mr. Wegner will
review and pass onto Council on April 23 .
8 . Non Agenda Items
City of Durham Mayor, Bob Tydeman requested to make a formal
recommendation to the Intergovernmental Water Board to amend
the original IGA to allow appointment of other than an elected
official. to the IWB. Mr. Tydeman stated that the City of
Durham would like to appoint City Manager, Steve Feldman as
the City of Durham' s representative to the IWB with Mr.
Tydeman as the alternate representative. ,
Mr. Wegner stated that he had received a request from Mr.
Tydeman requesting Mr. Feldman' s appointment to the Board,
since Ms . Manning has resigned from the Durham City Council .
Mr. Wegner informed Mr. Tydeman that the bylaws that were
-adopted in December of 1993, under section B3 "Board members
shall be elected officials serving on the respective elected
Board, except for the Member at Large" (Mr. Scheiderich) .
Chair Scheiderich stated according to the bylaws any
amendments must be approved by the governing bodies . Mr.
Scheiderich continued by saying that the each governing bodies
.consider and come back to the next meeting and inform the
Board of their recommendation. Commissioner Froude questioned
why the bylaws were written this way initially? Mr. Monahan
stated that there was an interest in having the Board evenly
staffed by allowing only elected officials . Mr. Tydeman
questioned why a vote could not be taken at this time? Chair
Scheiderich stated that- each of the Board' s representatives
are acting in behalf of their respective jurisdictions with
the concern being that they need to take back to the various
jurisdictions prior to, making a change to the bylaws which
states that the representative can be a elected office o.r City
Administrator. Commissioner Froude stated that she thought
each representative should go back to their respective
agencies for discussion, prior to changing the bylaws .
Councilman Rolf agreed that this Agreement should be
considered by each respective City Council prior to making
such a significant change. Mr. Monahan stated that the bylaws
states that "amendments must be approved by the governing
bodies of the District and Tigard" which he interrupted as
every governing body. Chair Scheiderich entertained a motion
that each representative go back to their respective •
Intergovernmental Water Board Meeting - April 10, 1996 Page 8
jurisdictions with an answer in advance of the next meeting to
• be communicated to Mr. Wegner. The next meeting of the IWB
could be moved to May 15 to accommodate this Fequest. Mr.
Wegner stated that this would not be feasible due to the need
to meet 'on purchasing prior to the next Portland City Council
meeting (possibly May 1) . Chair Scheiderich stated he would
not be available unless a phone meeting could be scheduled.
Mr. Monahan rephrased the motion to read that each
jurisdiction modify Section B 3 on page 4 of the IGA to allow
Board members either elected officials serving on the
respective body or City Manager/Administrator or a designee
appointed by the City Council.
Councilman Rolf questioned the possibility of Mr. Feldman
attending the meetings to gather information but be restricted
on being a voting member of the Board? Mr. Monahan stated
that there is a provision in the IGA to allow employees to be
an ex-officio members but it does state that Tigard may
appoint City officials as ex-officio members .
Mr. Monahan asked Mr. Tydeman if he would be attending the
Tigard City Council meeting to make this formal request or did
he prefer that it be placed on the agenda and be accompanied
by a memo? Mr. Tydeman stated that he would prefer to have a
memo explaining the request . Mr. Monahan stated that this
will be placed on the agenda for the April 23 meeting of the
Tigard City Council .
Mr. Feldman who was in attendance at the meeting commented on
his dissatisfaction with the Board's inability to make this
decision and to question Mr. Tydeman's appointment . Mr.
Feldman stated that it was his feeling that the governing
bodies should be allowed to appoint whoever they think is
appropriate and that the control remains in the hands of the
elected officials.
The-, next meeting .of .the Intergovernmental Board was set for
May 15 and is a special meeting is deemed necessary it shall
be set .
-9 . Adjournment
The meeting was adjourned at 7 : 15 p.m.
kathy\iwb\4-I Omtg.min
•
Intergovernmental Water Board Meeting - April 10 , 1996 Page 9
22401 McKenzie Ct.
West Linn, OR 97224
March 1.9, 1996
Intergovernmental Water Board_
Cite of Tigard
13125 SW Hall Blvd.
Tigard, OR 97223
RE appeal -t658QSW Woderest Ave. Tigard, OR 97224
#6402033
Deal- Board Meiilber:
The purnosc of this letter is to appeal the decision made by the Cite of Tigard not to
cons.der an, additional adjustment to my water bill as a result of a leak that inruiTed in the
main Nv atcr line. I appreciate the f act that there have been an extrernetiy high nuri°ber of
,requests for adjustments as a result of the recent weather conditions, but Nwould li ke to
meet with you to personally, explain the circumstances. Kana enclosin-T a copy of the: letter 1
sent to the water bureau detailing these circumstances.
l Iook forward to hearing froni you very-,sooii.
Sincerely,
;i
Carolyn Houhlon. owner
cc- Nick George; tenant
f
22401 McKenzie Ct.
West;Linn, OR 97068
February 26. 1996
Tigard Water Dept:
Attn: -Supervisor
P.O. Box 230000
Tigard, OR 97281
RE: Acct: G402083
1.6580 SW Woodcrest Ave.
Tigard, OR 9.7224
Dear Supervisor:
I am the owner of the above property and currently have a tenant, Nick and
Jeannetter George, occupying it. Later on December 5, 1995', Mr.George-
noticed water bubbling up from the water main. He called Tigard:.water on
December 6 and' a break was detected on the house side of-the main. The
water was shut off at ;this#ime. I Vas notified,and immediately sent out,a
repairman to locate and repair the;leak. I.was told- that the 3/4" PVC pipe.had
totally snapped for some unknown reason allowing for quite a Large amountof
water to flow through it. This pipe is located under ground cover, with a smaller
bush in the same area.
.My tenant notified me last week of the exorbidant water bill he received as a
result of the leak. I was astounded that it could be so high and questioned why
he had not noticed the leak sooner. He said that because my house is higher
than the neighbor's; the water ran to the neighbor side and across his driveway
and into his front yard'. Even the neighbor was unaware a problem existed
because there,had been several days of rain and the additional water just
followed the normal rine of flow.
I was told today that I would only be allowed the maximum credit limit of $165
toward the $633 bill. That leaves a balance of $468.71. My husband and I own
five rental houses in Tigard and because. of regular maintenance expenses, I
respectfully request a reduction of the balance by'half, changing the balance
owing to $234.35. Interestingly, I have had water leaks off the main line at three
of our properties (all different.builders) in Tigard this past year!! They were all
• repaired as quickly as they-were noticed, but as'a result; I have had to incur
charges.:for two additional larger water bills in addition to the repairs made to
the lines.. One repair of $205, another of $249 and this one of $183. This has
made ,a financial impact on us.
would appreciate you taking this matter under consideration and hope to hear
from you.soon. If I can answer any further questions, please.do not hesitate to
call.
Thank you.
Regards,
Carolyn. Houghton.
Owner
245-8022 Work
557-3848 Home
MEMORANDUM
CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON
TO: Intergovernmental Water Board Members
FROM: Ed Wegner
DATE: April 23, 1996
SUBJECT: Water Rate Study
Enclosed is a draft report of the Water Rate and System Development Charge Study
from CH2M Hill. Staff will be reviewing this document in the next few days and if
you have any questions, please contact Wayne Lowry or myself to discuss.
Please remember the date of the next Intergovernmental Water Board meeting was
changed to May 15th at 5:30 at the Water Building.
Thanks!
iwb\ratestud.mem
CITY OF TIGARD
MEMORANDUM OREGON
CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON
TO: Intergovernmental Water Board Members
d
FROM: Ed Wegner
DATE: April 30, 1996
SUBJECT: Article on Conservation
In reviewing my Water Rates file, I came across this article that I had saved to share
with you. Even though the rate charts are of the East Coast, the information or, water
conservation programs is universal and could be applied or adapted to Tigard.
This is for informational purposes only, and I hope it will assist you in having a better
understanding of what it takes to begin a water conservation program.
Thanks!
attachment
ksthy\i wb\cons erv.mem
13125 SW Hall Blvd„ Tigard, OR 97223 (503) 639-4171 TDD (503) 684-2772
Waterw ser Conservation Matters
Fundamentals of Implementing a Water Conservation Program
by Rick Albani dramatically. Generally, more punitive measures have been
associated with curtailment conditions.
For the past 21 years, I have helped many utilities
initiate, develop, and implement water conservation plans Supply and Demand Management
and programs. Although most of the utilities'programs Water conservation is most effectively achieved through
began as a result of regulatory requirements from various a balance of both supply and demand management tech-
state agencies, some utilities initiated their plans without niques. It has proven ineffective to focus entirely on either
regulatory prodding. Motivated to establish good public of these management approaches while ignoring the other.
policy and a conservation ethic for long-term societal In fact, some supply management activities may be more
change, these utilities chose to begin conservation programs cost-effective than demand management activities during
i rather than wait for regulatory agencies to require them. the program's initial years. Repairing leaking pipe and distri-
1 Developing a water conservation program is not a simple bution storage tanks, for example, frequently achieves large
matter.There are many technical and policy issues that water savings at relatively low costs.
drive the process. These issues should be identified and eval- It is important to encourage conservation among all customer
uated jointly by policy makers and technical staff at the classes through various demand management techniques such as
project's inception.This article highlights these key issues rate structure changes,distribution of-water-saving devices,and
and concludes with examples of two Rhode Island water public education.These techniques increase customer awareness
utilities that have recently implemented different types of and participation in water conservation over time.
water conservation rate structures.
Public Involvement
Basis for Conservation Program The composition of water users in your system will also
Clearly establish the objectives and reasons for your dictate which water conservation methods will be most effec-
utility's conservation efforts. It's important to understand tive for you. Your customers can be important allies as you
why your utility wants and needs to pursue conservation. develop an effective water conservation program,as was the
The most common reason a utility starts a conservation case in Edmonton, Alta., and other cities in recent times.
program is because its water resources are legally restricted A conservation program, if developed properly, can create
or otherwise limited, either on a seasonal or annual basis. If a positive, proactive image for your utility. By involving key
a utility's water resources or water rights are limited during community leaders, regulators, a cross-section of customers,
peak periods, then its conservation program should target and agriculture and industrial interest groups, it is possible
peak period users, outside use, and irrigation activities. to create a broad base of understanding and support for
State agencies generally view water conservation as a water conservation activities. Interactive sessions, such as
viable long-term mechanism to reduce demand and, there- advisory committee meetings, workshops, focus groups, and
fore, eliminate or defer the need to develop additional public presentations, promote an understanding of the
supplies. In fact, in areas where new sources of supply are specific needs for water conservation in your system. Early
scarce or not available, water conservation and other means involvement with these groups can help you design a better
of controlling growth in consumption may be the only strategy to launch your conservation program.
viable options for the future.
Another common consideration for starting a conserva- Regional or Solo Efforts
tion program is to reduce wastewater flows at overloaded A third issue, whether to participate on a regional basis or
wastewater treatment plants. It is important to communi- a solo effort, is usually evaluated when developing a water
cate with your local wastewater utility when starting a conservation program. The economies of scale associated
conservation plan. Water utilities frequently initiate conser-
vation efforts without adequately involving and informing saving device distribution support a coordinated regional
their wastewater counterparts. approach to conservation, particularly where utilities share
common media outlets.
Conservation Versus Curtailment On the other hand, it's possible that a utilltV could inde-
Another issue—the difference between conservation and pendently accomplish some of a conservation prograrn's
curtailment—should be examined before program imple- financial and administrative requirements effectively. Each
mentation. Water conservation reflects the long-tern utility must decide which is more important—the
sustained reduction in the supply and demand patterns for economies of scale with the regional approach or the inde-
the utility. Water curtailment,on the other hand, reflects a pendence and flexibility of controlling conservation activi-
temporary reduction in either the supply or the use of water. ties and budgets with the solo approach.
Curtailment usually occurs during a resource or facility
emergency. Once the emergency has passed, however, Measuring Success
curtailment efforts generally subside as supply and demand Monitoring a conservation program's effectiveness and
patterns return to normal. making needed improvements is key to a program's success.
The approach and methodologies used to reduce water
consumption render conservation and curtailment can vary �orittimcd or pi,,c-t
September 1995 3
Fundamentals of Implementing a Water Conservation Program, continued from page 3
Plans should be reviewed and updated at least every five either no reduction in consumption or in a short-term
years, more frequently if required by your state regulators. decline and then a return to consumption patterns prior to
Plan to revise your water conservation strategy in order to the increase. If revising traditional rate structures, use
incorporate new technologies and to discard conservation caution to shield customers from rate shock, to provide
practices that prove ineffective. revenue stability to the water utility, and to avoid the confu-
sion that can result from changing a long-standing system.
Rate Issue Approaching change gradually, in this regard, appears to be
The final issue relates to the revenue stability of the in everyone's best interest.
utility. A utility implementing aggressive water conservation For traditional water rate structures, the amount of water
ervation's included in the meter charge before the per unit commodity
measures is justifiably concerned about cons
effects on revenue and cash flow. Many conservation rate was applied was known as the minirniirn commodity
measures have undesired revenue and cash flow effects, allowance. In recent years, several utilities and public service
which can negatively influence a water utility's financial commissions (PSCs) have advocated the elimination of the
performance and, in some cases, its creditworthiness to the minimum commodity allowance as one step toward imple-
investment community. menting water conservation rates. In lieu of a meter charge,
Effective management of conservation's undesirable several utilities and PSCs are implementing a customer
revenue and cash flow effects concentrates on minimizing service charge or a base facility charge with no consumption
revenue and cash flow shortfalls and reducing the uncertain- allowance.
ties related to these financial impacts.These impacts can be The customer service charge or base faciiiti-charge is usually
handled effectively if anticipated and factored into the rate- based on the size of the meter and collects a portion of the
making procedure. For more information about strategies to fixed costs of the utility,providing a level of revenue stability
mitigate conservation's revenue and cash flow effects, refer to the utility. Ideally,the customer service charge should only
e
mer-
to AWWA's Managing the Revome and Cash Flow Effects of related costcosts directly (maintainingd
accounting ebt rcustomerce and racocounts
Conservation.
Pricing water is only one demand management technique and obtaining meter readings), billing, and collections.
Reducing the service
available to water utilities. Yet, pricing alone will not ice charge or base facility charge less
n
achieve permanent reductions in water consumption. In my than $10 per quarter for s/H in. meters may require sigifi
experience, some water utilities using substantial price cant increases to the commodity charge to collect total
increases, some in excess of 100 percent, have resulted in revenues.
7 Meter Size
United Water Rhode Island(UWRI) Kent County Water Authority(KCWA)
finches) Customer Service Customer Service Customer Service Customer Service
Charge(Quarterly) Charge(Monthly) Charge(Quarterly) Charge(Monthly)
5/8 $15.90 $5.30 $9.90 $5.75
7.00
9.90 5.75
a/4 21.00 14.88 7.41
1 30.00 10.00
17.00 24.21 10.52
1Y2 51.00 13.22 i
32.31
26.00
2 78.00 42.89 16.74
3 144.00 48.00 23.59
63.43
78.00
4 234.00 108.87 38.74
6 459.00 153.00 65.09
8 729.00 243.00 187.93 ii
Quarterly Customers Monthly Customers .
UWRI Commodity Charges First 8 ccf @ $1.46/ccf
[Residential (Inclining Blocks) First 24 ccf @$1.46/ccf
Over 24 ccf @$2.05/ccf Over 8 ccf @ $2.05/ccf
First 1600 ccf @$1.35/ccf First 533 ccf @ $1.35/ccf
Commercial (Declining Blocks) Over 533 ccf @ $1.02/ccf
Over 1600 ccf @$1.02/ccf
First 1600 ccf @$135/ccf First 533 ccf @ $1.35/ccf
.
Municipal (Declining Blocks) Over 533 ccf @ $1.02/ccf
Over 1600 cel @$1.02/ccf
First 1600 ccf @$1.35/ccf First 533 ccf @ $1.35/ccf
Industrial (Declining Blocks) Over 533 ccf @$1.02/ccf
Over 1600 ccf @$1.02/ccf
Wholesale (Uniform Block) $0.66/1,000 gal $0.66/1,000 gal
Quarterly Customers Monthly Customers
KCWA Commodity Charges $1.213 per ccf
Small Meters(5/8 in.-2 in.) $1.213 per ccf
$1.054 per ccf $1.054 per ccf
Medium Meters (3 in.-4 in.) $0.924 per ccf
Large Meters(6 in. and up) $0.924 per ccf
}
A utility's rates are determined based on several factors, their approaches and rate structures are vastly different, as
including total consumption. Proportionately, the higher shown in Table 1.
the unit price, the greater the effect on water conservation, Both utilities have combination rate structures, which
seasonable fluctuations, and climatological uncertainties consist of a customer service charge based on meter size,
will have on total revenue. For example, when 1,000,000 gal with no consumption allowance, and a commodity charge.
priced at $2 per thousand is not sold, the effect on revenues These charges apply to both quarterly and monthly
is much greater than if the 1,000,000 gal were priced at $.SO customers.The customer service charges for the larger size
per thousand. meters appear to be related to the s/8-in. meter by flow-
Rate Structures capacity ratios.
The commodity charge for KCWA is a uniform block
There is an array of opinion as to which water industry structure, differentiated by size of meters.The small meter
rate structure is best suited to stimulate conservation and rate is applied to residential, small commercial, and munic-
maintain revenue stability. ipal accounts. The medium rate is applied to large commer-
Until recently, penalty rates and inclining block rates tial and small industrial accounts. The large meter rate is
were implemented only when the demands placed on a applied to large industrial and wholesale accounts. The
system were approaching or exceeding the safe yield. These effect of the design of these rates is a reduction in average
rate structures have been used as last resort or punitive day demands and less dramatic peak demands. Large users
efforts to induce conservation. Now, utilities are experi- are also discounted to minimize rate impacts on those
menting with inclining block rates more frequently but customers.
without regard to revenue stability. The commodity charge for UWRI is also differentiated by
Seasonal rates, which address peak seasonal demand customer class, with three different types of rate structures.
issues, are somewhat favorable, but implementing this rate The residential class, the largest group of customers, has an
structure, universally, is premature. Each utility should be inclining rate structure commodity charge, meaning the
evaluated before deciding whether this structure should be price per block increases as consumption increases. Since
applied to curb seasonal demands that might be straining a there are a significant number of commercial, industrial,
particular system. and municipal customers in UWRI's service area, the
As automatic meter reading technology advances, commodity rate for those customers remains a declining
seasonal surcharges may find their place in the rate strut- block structure, meaning the price per block decreases as
tures of water utilities nationwide. consumption increases. Finally, the wholesale customer has
The most commonly used rate structure—the declining a uniform block structure commodity charge, meaning the
block rate—has been criticized as consumption-oriented and price per unit is constant as consumption increases.
at the same time praised for its ability to achieve revenue Since these rates are in effect year-round and not just
stability and for reflecting the true cost of service to the seasonally, they are designed to minimize rate shock, reduce
various customer classes.This rate design appears to promote average and peak demands,and minimize economic hard-
waste, however, since the price of water decreases as consump- ships for the commercial, industrial, and municipal customers,
tion increases. In practice, blocks of consumption are usually
designed to price the commodity to a class of customers based Conclusion
on the use by,and the load factor of, that class. I applaud these utilities and the RIPUC for using non-
The concept of a uniform commodity rate for each class traditional rate structures to achieve their conservation
Of customer is the most favorable for promoting conserva- goals. Other utilities with similar goals can benefit from
tion. Movement toward this type of structure could be their experience.
accomplished using cost of service methodology and by
modifying the present declining block structures of utilities Rick Albanni is Director of Technical Services for Vista
using this type of rate structure. Each customer class would Consulting Group in Arlington, Va., and a member of the
have a customer service charge and one commodity charge, AWWA Water Consen�ation Committee(Govemment
which would simplify the billing process. The customer Coordination Subcommittee).He is also a member of the
would be billed for a service charge based on meter size and National Association of Water Companies Committees on
a single per unit charge for all water consumed, which could Rates and Revenues and Conservation. For more irnformation
be different for each class of customer. Consequently, this ons this subject, contact Rick at(703) 524-1888.
structure would achieve water conservation results without
severe rate shock.
Rates in Rhode Island To Get More Information
Rhode Island is nicknamed the "Ocean State" because a
significant portion of its 1,214 square miles fronts directly Contact WaterWiser for more information about this topic
on the Atlantic Ocean and Narragansett Bay, which empties and other water-efficiency activities.
into the Atlantic Ocean. Both United Water Rhode Island 1-(800)559-9855(phone)
(UWRI), an investor-owned water utility, and the Kent (303)795-1440(fax)
County Water Authority (KCWA), a publicly owned water
utility, have implemented water conservation rates to Web Server—hftp://www.waterwiser.org
reduce or level their very high seasonal peaks. These peaks Gopher Server—gopher.waterwiser.org
are typical for seashore communities. E-mail—bewiser@waterwiser.org
Both utilities are regulated by the Rhode Island PublicWaterW�Ser
Utilities Commission (RIPUC) and have similar goals, but
The Water Effiy Clearinghouse
September 1995
vow
rr
DRAFT REPORT
CityTigard
of
Cost-of-Service
Water Rate and System
Development Charge Study
Submitted by
CH2MHILL
wo Portland, Oregon
April 1996
Contents
Section Page
ExecutiveSummary......................................................................................................ES-1
1 Introduction......................................................................................................................1-1
Authorization and Purpose.............................................................................................1-1
Scope...................................................................................................................................1-1
., Background .......................................................................................................................1-1
ReportOrganization.........................................................................................................1-2
Acknowledgments............................................................................................................1-2
2 General Overview of the Water Rate Determination Process..................................2-1
Introduction.......................................................................................................................2-1
SystemRevenue Requirements.......................................................................................2-1
." Revenue Requirements from Rates ................................................................................2-4
Cost Allocation Procedures.............................................................................................2-4
Designof the Rate Structure......................................................................................... .2-5
3 User Characteristics.........................................................................................................3-1
Introduction.......................................................................................................................3-1
Accounts ............................................................................................................................3-1
EquivalentMeters.............................................................................................................3-1
AnnualWater Use............................................................................................................3-3
�.. Consumption Patterns .....................................................................................................3-3
PeakingRequirements .....................................................................................................3-3
4 Revenue Requirements...................................................................................................4-1
Introduction............................................................. ......................4-1
....................................
Operation and Maintenance Costs.................................................................................4-1
CapitalOutlays.................................................................................................................4-3
.� Nonrate Revenues.............................................................................................................4-3
Total and Net Revenue Requirements...........................................................................4-3
5 Cost Allocations...............................................................................................................5-1
Introduction.......................................................................................................................5-1
Cost Allocation Procedure...............................................................................................5-1
�. Capital Cost Allocations..................................................................................................5-1
Operation and Maintenance Cost Allocations..............................................................5-2
Cost Allocations to Customer Classes............................................................................5-2
wo
PDX16F2A.DOC 111 132328.A0.01
NO
Contents
(continued)
Section Page
Aw 6 Water Rates.......................................................................................................................6-1
Introduction.......................................................................................................................6-1
ExistingRates....................................................................................................................6-1
«. New Rates..........................................................................................................................6-1
Seasonal Conservation Surcharge...................................................................................6-4
Impacton Typical Bills.....................................................................................................6-4
ProjectedRevenues...........................................................................................................6-5
7 System Development Charges......................................................................................7-1
Introduction.......................................................................................................................7-1
System Development Charges:An Overview...............................................................7-1
Legislative Considerations..............................................................................................7-2
..rOverview of Methodology..............................................................................................7-3
Proposed System Development Charges.......................................................................7-7
SDC Recommendations ...................................................................................................7-8
8 Summary of Recommendations....................................................................................8-1
Rates...................................................................................................................................8-1
System Development Charges........................................................................................8-1
W. Recommendations............................................................................................................8-1
low
ww
.w
PDX16F2A.DOC iv 132328.A0.01
w«.
w Contents
(continued)
low
Tables
Number Page
2-1 System Revenue Requirements.......................................................................................2-1
*■ 2-2 User Revenue Requirements...........................................................................................2-4
3-1 Accounts Summary by Customer Class.........................................................................3-2
3-2 Projected Water Demand by Customer Class (ccf).......................................................3-4
3-3 Estimated Peaking Factors by Customer Class.............................................................3-6
4-1 Operation and Maintenance Costs.................................................................................4-2
' 4-2 Capital Improvement Program.......................................................................................4-4
4-3 Nonrate Revenues.............................................................................................................4-5
4-4 Net Revenue Requirements From Rates........................................................................4-6
5-1 Plant Investment Allocation Percentages......................................................................5-3
5-2 Allocation of Net Plant Investment to System Parameters.........................................5-4
5-3 Allocation of O&M Costs to Major Unit Process-Summary.......................................5-5
5-4 O&M Allocation Percentages to Functional Parameters.............................................5-6
5-5 Allocation of O&M Costs to Functional Parameters....................................................5-7
5-6 Allocation Percentages to Customer Classes ................................................................5-8
5-7 Allocation of Total Costs to Customer Classes.............................................................5-9
6-1 Current Rates.....................................................................................................................6-2
6-2 Proposed Cost of Service Rates.......................................................................................6-6
6-3 Residential Conservation Surcharge(Jul-Aug-Sep 94/95)..........................................6-7
6-4 Typical Bill Comparisons-No Booster Charges............................................................6-8
+�• 6-5 Volume Rate Plus Minimum Customer Charge-Rate Revenues................................6-9
6-6 Current Rates-Total Rate Revenues.............................................................................6-10
7-1 SDC-Reimbursement Fee................................................................................................7-4
7-2 SDC-Improvement Fee....................................................................................................7-6
7-3 SDC-Combined Fees........................................................................................................7-7
Figures
Number Page
2-1 Schematic Development of Water Rates........................................................................2-2
2-2 Allocation of Costs to User or User Class...................................................
PDX16FZA.DOC v 132328.A0.01
r
Executive Summary
Introduction
This report contains an analysis of the City of Tigard's water facilities,capital and operating
costs, revenues, and water service characteristics. This analysis has been used to develop
cost-of-service water rate alternatives for the City. In addition, water system development
charges (SDCs) have been developed that are in accordance with our understanding of the
State of Oregon statute relating to the implementation and assessment of SDCs.
Existing Rates
The City of Tigard currently charges a bi-monthly minimum charge ($14.30)plus a uniform
volume rate ($1.32 per ccf) for all customer classes. In addition to this, the City charges a
booster charge for higher elevation service areas, a meter charge for larger meter sizes, an
outside district charge, and fire service charges. The City's current rates and charges are
shown in Table ES-1. The bi-monthly minimum charge includes the initial 8 ccf per billing
period. Any water consumption beyond the initial 8 ccf in a billing period is charged at the
*� volume rate. The analysis showed that the existing rates are sufficient to meet net revenue
requirements from rates for the 5-year study period with only a slight modification to the
water utility's financial plan.
w.
New Rate Structure
Two cost-of-service rate structure alternatives were developed for this study: volume rates
plus a minimum customer charge and volume rates plus a minimum service charge. Both
rate designs would still include a bi-monthly booster charge and the fire service charges, as
needed. The proposed volume rates vary between customer classes because of their
different costs of service. The proposed volume rates plus minimum customer charge
.• recover customer costs in the base minimum charge. Flow-related costs are included as
volume rates. The proposed volume rates plus minimum service charge recover customer
costs plus the initial 8 ccf of water consumption in a billing period in the minimum service
charge. The volume rates under this alternative are applied to any water consumption
beyond the initial 8 ccf.
aw
PDX16F2A.DOC ES-1
wrr
Table ES-1
CITY OF TIGARD
WATER RATE MODEL
CURRENT RATES
o,.
Within Outside
Item Meter Size District District
Bi-Monthly Minimum Charge (Includes 8ccf) $14.30 $14.30
Volume Rate ($/ccf) $1.32 $1.32
Bi-Monthly Booster Charge $3.00 $3.00
«W Bi-Monthly Meter Charge 5/8"X 3/4" $0.00 $0.00
ill $8.80 $8.80
1-1/2" $22.00 $22.00
Now 2" $59.40 $59.40
3" $121.00 $121.00
4" $213.40 $213.40
6" $303.60 $303.60
ow 8" $427.90 $427.90
Bi-Monthly Outside District Charge 5/8"X 3/4" $5.50
1" $8.80
1-1/2" $13.20
2" $22.00
,.. 3-0
$33.00
4" $41.80
6"
$61.60
8" $83.60
Within District
Fire Service Charges: Booster
One-Time Connection Fee $1,250 $1,250 $1,250
... Bi-Monthly Fire Charge 1-1/2" $30.00 $35.00 $33.00
2" $30.00 $35.00 $33.00
3" $30.00 $35.00 $33.00
4" $30.00 $35.00 $33.00
6" $30.00 $35.00 $33.00
8" $40.00 $45.00 $43.00
low
,A. ES-2
�. Proposed Rates
The proposed rate structure alternatives are for the period of fiscal year (FY)1996/97
M• through FY2000/01. As shown in Table ES-2, all users under the volume rates plus
minimum customer charge would pay a base charge of$3.89 per bimonthly billing period.
The water consumed would be charged a different rate for each customer class where
.. single-family residential users would pay $1.35 per ccf, multifamily users would pay $1.33
per ccf, commercial users pay $1.56 per ccf, industrial users pay $1.30 per ccf, and the
irrigation customer class would pay$1.67 per ccf.
The volume rates plus minimum service charge includes the same customers costs of$3.89
per bi-monthly billing period plus the initial 8 ccf of water demand in the billing period.
The volume charges, which are the same as those above, are added to the base charge for
any water demand greater than 8 ccf.
Seasonal Conservation Surcharge
„,. The City of Tigard and the Intergovernmental Water Board are considering the
implementation of a water conservation program. The program would include a seasonal
conservation surcharge for single-family residential users and irrigation users. A surcharge
was developed for the single-family residential users as part of this study. Data was not
available for the irrigation customer class. A proposed seasonal surcharge would be added
to the bills of single-family residential users who demand more than 50 ccf per bi-monthly
ow billing period (25 ccf per month) during the months of July, August, and September. The
revenues collected by the surcharge would be beyond the cost-of-service revenue
requirements identified in this study and could therefore be used to fund a conservation
Mar education program. Table ES-3 shows alternative surcharges and the amount of revenue
that would be generated by the surcharge.
Impact on Typical Bills
Table ES-4 shows the impact that the proposed rate structures would have on the bills of
some typical users. The table shows the current water rates and the two proposed rates.
Compared with current rates, single-family residential users with low water demand (less
than 8 ccf per billing period) would pay less under the proposed volume rates plus
minimum customer charge while users with higher water demands would pay slightly
more. A single-family residential customer with a bimonthly water demand of 20 ccf
would have a volume rate plus minimum customer charge bill of$30.90, or a volume rate
W. plus minimum service charge bill of$30.97,compared with a current bill of$30.14.
System Development Charges
An analysis was prepared of the cost of providing capacity in the water system to serve
future connections. System development charges were then calculated to recover these costs
from new connections as shown on Table ES-5. The charges to a new, single-family
PDX16F2A.DOC ES-3
�r.
.. residential equivalent dwelling unit (EDU) in the 410-zone service area would increase
from $845 to $986 under the proposed fee schedule. The SDC for an EDU in the Bull
Mountain service area would increase from the current charge of$1,000 to $1,500. The fee
�., structure for all other users with larger meter sizes is based on 5/8-by 3/4-inch equivalent
water meter values.
Recommendations
CH2M HILL recommends that the City of Tigard:
• Adopt the proposed combined SDCs for the two separate service areas as shown in
OW Table ES-5.
• Consider the proposed cost-of-service volume rates plus minimum customer charge or
go minimum service charge rate structures shown in Table ES-2.
• Consider implementing a conservation education program funded by a seasonal
conservation surcharge.
OW
PDX16F2A.DOC ES-4
Table ES-2
,. CITY OF TIGARD
WATER RATE MODEL
PROPOSED COST OF SERVICE RATES
ITEM CHARGE
Bi-Monthly Base Charge $3.89
Bi-Monthly Booster Charge $3.13
Volume Rate ($/ccf):
Residential $1.35
Multifamily Residential $1.33
wo Commercial $1.56
Industrial $1.30
Irrigation $1.67
Average $1.39
Bi-Monthly Base Charge $14.77 Includes Initial 8ccf of Demand
Bi-Monthly Booster Charge $3.13
Volume Rate ($/ccf):
Residential $1.35
Multifamily Residential $1.33
Commercial $1.56
Industrial $1.30
Irrigation $1.67
Average $1.39
aw
w
�... ES-5
Table ES-3
CITY OF TIGARD
WATER RATE MODEL
RESIDENTIAL CONSERVATION SURCHARGE(JUL-AUG-SEP 94/95)
dr.
Number of Accounts Total 3-Month Demand Elasticity Demand
Consumption Blocks Accounts Percent Demand Percent Ad'ustment Percent
(-.03)
0 to 50ccf 8,861 77.2% 318,540 55.5% 318,540 56.3%
50ccf&More 2,614 22.8% 255,300 44.5%1 247,6401 43.7%
Total 11,475 100.0% 573,840 100.0% 566,180 100.0%
Seasonal Conservation
Consumption Blocks Surcharge Revenues
w ($/ccf) (a)
50ccf&More $0.25 $61,910
$0.50 123,820
r. $0.75 185,730
$1.00 247,640
$1.25 309,550
$1.50 371,460
$1.75 433,370
$2.00 495,280
(a) Use seasonal surcharge revenues to finance a conservation education program.
.r
w.
rr
5r.
+w
ww■
�. ES-6
Table ES-4
�» CITY OF TIGARD
WATER RATE MODEL
TYPICAL BILL COMPARISONS- NO BOOSTER CHARGES
Vol Rate+ Vol Rate+
Bi-monthly Current Min Customer Min Service
Customer Class& Meter Size Use ccf Bill Charge Charge
(a) (b) (b)
Single-Family Residential (5/8'x 3/4") 5 $14.30 $10.65 $14.77
Single-Family Residential (5/8'x 3/4") 8 $14.30 $14.70 $14.77
Single-Family Residential (5/8'x 3/4") 20 $30.14 $30.90 $30.97
Single-Family Residential (5/8'x 3/4") 30 $43.34 $44.40 $44.48
",. Single-Family Residential (5/8'x 3/4") 40 $56.54 $57.90 $57.98
Commercial (1") 20 $38.94 $35.13 $33.51
Commercial (1") 40 $65.34 $66.37 $57.98
Commercial (1") 60 $91.74 $97.60 $84.98
Commercial (1") 80 $118.14 $128.84 $111.99
Commercial (1") 100 $144.54 $160.07 $138.99
Industrial (2") 20 $89.54 $29.92 $30.39
Industrial (2") 40 $115.94 $55.95 $56.41
Industrial (2") 60 $142.34 $81.97 $82.44
Industrial (2") 80 $168.74 $108.00 $108.47
Industrial (2") 100 $195.14 $134.02 $134.49
ftw
Irrigation (1-1/2") 20 $52.14 $37.23 $34.77
Irrigation (1-1/2") 40 $78.54 $70.56 $68.11
Irrigation (1-1/2") 60 $104.94 $103.90 $101.44
Irrigation (1-1/2") 80 $131.34 $137.23 $134.77
Irrigation (1-1/2") 100 $157.74 $170.56 $168.11
ow
(a) If applicable, add$3.00 per bill for the Booster Charge.
(b) If applicable, add$3.13 per bill for the Booster Charge.
low
ww
+r. ES-7
Table ES-5
CITY OF TIGARD
WATER RATE MODEL
SDC- COMBINED FEES
Item System-Wide 410 Zone Bull Mtn S stem
Reimbursement SDC per EDU $671 $671 $663
Net Improvement SDC per EDU $426 $315 $844
Combined SDC per EDU $1,097 $986 $1,507
Current SDC per EDU N.A. $845 $1,000
WWI
we
aw
wM
w.
wr
ES-8
.. Section 1
Introduction
".
00 Authorization and Purpose
In July 1995, the City of Tigard authorized CH2M HILL to conduct a water system cost-of-
am service rate and system development charge (SDC) analysis. The purpose of the study was
to develop water rates and SDCs that were fair and equitable for the City's user groups and
sufficient to recover anticipated water system operating and capital costs.
aw This technical report presents the results of the water rate and SDC analysis for the City of
Tigard. It presents projected rates for the 5-year period of fiscal year (FY) 1996/97 through
FY2000/01,as well as proposed SDCs for the City's water system.
No
Scope
The scope of the study involved the following major tasks:
• Review the City's current and projected water utility costs, system and customer
characteristics,and current user rates.
• Conduct a cost-of-service analysis to determine the costs of providing water service to
each of the City's customer classes.
• Develop alternative rate designs to recover system costs.
• Develop system development charges for recovery of costs associated with capacity
provided for future system growth.
• Prepare draft and final reports presenting study assumptions, methodology, and
findings.
• Assist in presenting the study results to the Intergovernmental Water Board and the
City of Tigard's City Council,as needed.
aw
Background
MW The City of Tigard's water service area has been experiencing moderate growth over the last
several years and growth is expected to continue at about the same rate for several more
years. The City's water supply includes its own wells plus major purchases of water from
wo the Cities of Portland and Lake Oswego. The city currently has no major water treatment
facilities and none are planned within the time period of this study. The capital
improvement plan (CIP) includes construction of two new reservoirs within the next 5
ow years.
PDX16F2A.DOC 1-1
Report Organization
Section 2 provides a general overview of the methodology that was used to calculate the
MW cost-of-service water rates presented in this report. Section 3 summarizes customer class
user characteristics and the basis for projections of user demands for FY1996/97 through
FY2000/01. The calculation of system revenue requirements and net revenue requirements
from rates is discussed in Section 4. The allocation of system costs to functional parameters
and then to customer classes is presented in Section 5. Section 6 presents proposed rate
structure alternatives for water service. The section includes a discussion of the impacts of
W» the proposed rate alternatives on typical user bills. Section 7 summarizes the legal
requirements relating to the calculation of SDCs, and the methodology used to calculate
these charges for the City of Tigard. Section 8 presents a summary and the recom-
mendations of the study.
Acknowledgments
CH2M HILL gratefully acknowledges the assistance we received from the City of Tigard.
�.. In particular, we would like to express our appreciation to Wayne Lowry, Ed Wagner, and
Mike Miller for their extra efforts in this regard.
Aw
too
UK
awe
VM
+w
PDX16F2A.DOC 1-2
Section 2
General Overview of the
Water Rate Determination Process
Introduction
The purpose of this section is to describe the major steps involved in generating cost-of-
service water rates for the City of Tigard's water system. Figures 2-1 and 2-2 schematically
illustrate the following basic steps in this process:
• Determination of annual water system revenue requirements (costs)
• Determination of revenue requirements that must be recovered from user charges
(rates)
• Analysis of water demands and use characteristics for each customer class
• Allocation of revenue requirements to customer service characteristics
• Allocation of revenue requirements to customer classes by service characteristics
• Development and design of rate alternatives
System Revenue Requirements
The first element of information required for a rate study is an estimate of system revenue
requirements. For this study, the cash basis of accounting was used to determine revenue
requirements. The essence of the cash basis is that utility revenues must be sufficient to
Iwo recover all cash needs of the utility as they come due, for the period for which the rates are
intended to be adequate. System revenue requirements under the cash basis consist of
operation and maintenance(O&M) expenses, debt service, and any capital outlays funded
ftw directly from rates. Table 2-1 presents system revenue requirements in tabular form.
Table 2-1
System Revenue Requirements
($/year)
MW Operation and maintenance costs
+Debt service
+Capital outlays
=System revenue requirements
r
PDX16F2A.DOC 2-1
9
DD
O
T
wr U
u
A
C
d
3 Water Utility Revenue Requirements
s
IF
o
w.
N
F
I
Revenues to be Recovered Other System
�. from User Charges i Revenues
Allocation of Costs of Service
to Cost Functions
Base Costs
Maximum
Extra Day Costs
No Capacity
Costs Maximum-
Hour Costs Allocation of
• Costs to User
or User Class
w
Annual Cost
C Ctoos�er per Equivalent
DESIGN OF
.r.
WATER RATES
Equivalent
Meter Service
rr.
Number of Actual
�. Customers IL Services
r►
Figure 2-1
Schematic Development
of Water Rates
CH2MHILL
User or User Class
+� Water Demand and
Service Characteristics
ti
Pro
U10 AnnDel Wmanater Total Aected nnual Base %of Base Costs of
(cubic meters) Water Base Service for User
P.
Water Demand Costs or User Class
rr+
b
3
0
0
R
User or User Class
Peaking Factors
Maximum-Day Costs
Maximum Maximum- of Service for User
Day Day Costs or User Class
Maximum Maximum- Maximum-Hour Costs
Hour Hour Costs of Service for User
or User Class
VAW Number of
Customers
Equivalent Annual Cost per Customer Costs
Meter Service X Equivalent Meter c Allocable to User
,.. Service or User Class
.�.. Number Annual Cost Billing Costs Allocable
of Bills X per Bill - to
User or User Class
w
Total Costs Allocable to
�. User Class: User or User
Class Cost of Service
rrr
rr
Figure 2-2
Allocation of Costs
to User or User Class
,r CH2MHILL
am
fm A water utility's O&M expenditures are typically characterized by unit process expenditure
categories; these categories include water supply, reservoirs and storage, transmission,
distribution,and pump stations,customer services,and general administration.
U.
Revenue Requirements from Rates
The portion of annual system revenue requirements to be recovered through rates depends
on a water utility's financing policy and other sources of income. To determine the amount
WA, of revenue that rates must generate annually, nonrate or .other system revenues are
subtracted from total revenue requirements. Nonrate sources of revenue vary among
systems but typically include such items as miscellaneous charges,system capacity charges,
aw and unrestricted interest earnings on fund balances. Capital reserve funds and government
grants may also provide revenue to offset costs of capital improvements. As illustrated in
Figure 2-1 and outlined in Table 2-2,nonrate revenues are used to offset a portion of system
revenue requirements.
Table 2-2
User Revenue Requirements
... ($/year)
System revenue requirements
-Other system revenues
=Revenue requirements from rates
Cost Allocation Procedures
Determination of the costs of service by customer class is a three-step process. First,a water
utility's O&M costs and capital assets are usually divided into unit processes,such as water
supply, reservoirs and storage, transmission, distribution, and pump stations, meter and
billing services, and general administration expenditures. Second, the costs are allocated to
customer service characteristics, such as base (or average) demand and maximum-day
demands. Finally, the requirements by customer service characteristic are allocated to
customer classes in proportion to their use of each service characteristic. The sum of all
requirements allocated to a class is its costs of service.
AM
Allocation of Costs to Customer Service Characteristics
The assignment of costs to customer service characteristics varies with the allocation
method used. This study relies on the base-extra capacity cost allocation method. The base-
extra capacity method is recommended by the American Water Works Association
(AWWA) and is generally accepted throughout North America. The method assigns O&M
costs to base,extra-capacity(maximum-day), and customer service categories.
PDX16F2A.DOC 2-4
An allocation of system plant investment serves as the basis for allocating the system's
annual capital costs to service characteristics. The allocation of system costs to customer
service characteristics is shown graphically in Figure 2-1.
Base costs are costs that vary with water use under average demand conditions. Base costs
represent the costs that would be incurred if water consumption occurred evenly from day
to day and from hour to hour, so that the system did not need extra capacity to meet peak-
period demands.
Extra-capacity costs represent costs incurred to meet water demands that exceed average
levels of use by system customers. Extra-capacity costs are incurred because of water use
variations and peak demands of customers. Storage facilities,for example,are designed and
constructed to meet demands during peak periods.
Customer costs are the costs expended in serving customers regardless of water demand.
Meter reading and maintenance, billing, and customer services are examples of customer
costs.
Each customer class has potentially differing levels for use of each of these characteristics.
For example,one class might represent 50 percent of the average demand of the system but
only 25 percent of the peak-day demand. Because the percentages of use for each
characteristic tend to differ among classes,the cost responsibilities differ as well. To account
V"' for these differences in the cost-of-service analysis, costs are allocated to customer service
characteristics.
Allocation of Costs to Customer Classes
The costs by customer service characteristic are allocated to each customer class according
to its proportionate responsibility for that service characteristic. Base costs are allocated on
the basis of annual demand of each class, which is determined or estimated from historical
billing records. Maximum-day costs are allocated to classes in proportion to the extra
demands put on the water system beyond average daily water use. Customer costs are
allocated in proportion to the number of customers or bills in each class.
••• Water consumption records are usually available for customer classes on a monthly,
bimonthly,or quarterly basis,but seldom on a daily or hourly basis. Published information,
augmented by professional judgment, is often applied to determine maximum-day
". customer class consumption characteristics. These characteristics are usually expressed as
ratios of respective peak demand to annual average demand. These ratios, called peaking
factors,are used to determine the costs of service by customer class.
a
Design of the Rate Structure
N.
The last step in the rate development process is the design of the water rate structure. Many
types of water rate structures have been used in the past and are currently in use. These rate
Ow structures include declining block rates, uniform volume rates (accompanied by a monthly
service charge),increasing block rates,flat charges,and seasonal charges.
PDX16F2A.DOC 2.5
.r
The most important concerns addressed by rate structures usually include adequacy of the
rates to recover the net revenue requirements, rate equity among the customer classes (that
is,cost-based rates),consistency with state and federal laws,and defensibility if challenged.
Conservation objectives, such as supply enhancement through conservation rates, are
becoming increasingly important in many communities throughout North America. For
this study, a uniform volume rate plus bimonthly service charge and a seasonal surcharge
aw were considered and evaluated, as well as the City's current water rates. The rate structure
alternatives presented in Section 6 of this report were designed to meet the objectives of the
City of Tigard and the Intergovernmental Water Board.
40
The end result of this cost allocation and rate determination process is an equitable
distribution of system user charge revenue requirements to system users. The process is
am called cost-of-service ratemaking.
MW
VM
No
so
PDX16FZA.DOC 2-6
..
Section 3
User Characteristics
aw
Introduction
To allocate user charge revenue requirements equitably to water system users on the basis
of their average and peak demands,annual and monthly water use for each user class must
first be identified or estimated. The current customer classification structure used by the
City for rate setting consists of separate classes for single-family residential, multifamily
residential, commercial, industrial, and irrigation users. These classes are further
differentiated by categories of: inside-city or outside-city; inside-booster zone (Bull
Mountain service area) or outside-booster zone (410 main system); and by meter size. Fire
service connections are also categorized separately. These customer class categories help to
�. differentiate usage patterns and therefore costs.
This section contains projections of water accounts and annual water demands by customer
+r• class. This information will be used in Section 5 to distribute system revenue requirements
to the customer classes, and will be used in Sections 6 and 7 to develop water rates and
SDCs.
Accounts
The City of Tigard currently provides water service to 13,032 customers. Of these accounts,
11,881 or 91 percent of total accounts are single-family residential customers, and 541 or
„�. 4 percent are multifamily residential customers. The City also provides service to 526
(4 percent) commercial accounts, 8 (.001 percent) industrial, and 76 (.01 percent) irrigation
customers.
r.
The number of accounts within the area currently being served by the water system is
projected to increase at a 3.5 percent compound annual rate for the first 2 years of the 5-year
study period and then by 3.25 percent for the last 3 years. Table 3-1 lists the number of
accounts and the number of equivalent meters projected to be served by the City for
FY1996/97 through FY2000/01. The total number of accounts served by the water system is
projected to increase from 13,032 currently to 15,362 in FY2000/01.
ONO Equivalent Meters
The amount of water that can pass through a user's water meter varies with the size of the
meter. Equivalent meter factors that equate the hydraulic capacity of meters of different
sizes are used to calculate the total number of 5/8" by 3/4" equivalent meters connected to
the water system. In this analysis, an equivalent meter is synonymous to an equivalent
dwelling unit (EDU) which is equal to the water demand of a single-family residential
customer. Table 3-1 shows the projected equivalent meters (or EDUs)by customer class for
PDX16F2A.DOC 3-1
ww
Table 3-1
CITY OF TIGARD
WATER RATE MODEL
ACCOUNTS SUMMARY BY CUSTOMER CLASS
CUSTOMER CLASS 1995/96 1996/97 1997/98 1998/99 1999/00 2000/01
Water Meters (Accounts):
Residential 11,881 12,296 12,727 13,141 13,567 14,008
Multifamily Residential 541 560 579 599 617 637
Commercial 526 544 562 597 597 618
Industrial 8 8 8 8 8 8
Irrigation 76 79 83 84 88 91
Total 13,032 13,487 13,959 14,429 14,877 15,362
N Annual Increase N.A. 455 472 470 448 485
Percent Increase N.A. 3.5% 3.5% 3.4% 3.1% 3.3%
Equivalent Water Meters:
Residential 12,403 12,835 13,288 13,719 14,162 14,621
Multifamily Residential 3,068 3,158 3,249 3,341 3,430 3,522
Commercial 2,481 2,545 2,606 2,733 2,733 2,808
Industrial 82 82 82 82 82 82
Irrigation 288 299 315 317 333 344
Total 18,322 18,919 19,540 20,192 20,740 21,377
Annual Increase N.A. 597 621 652 548 637
Percent Increase N.A. 3.3% 3.3% 3.3% 2.7% 3.1%
Now
o the 5-year study period. These numbers are used for allocations of costs to the customer
classes in Section 5.
Annual Water Use
The projected annual water demands by customer class for 5-year study period are shown in
Table 3-2.The City meters its water use in units of 100 cubic feet(ccf)which equals 748 gallons.
Single-family residential customers are projected to consume approximately 1.5 million ccf
(55.9 percent) of water in FY1996/97. Multifamily residential and commercial customer classes
account for about 23.8 percent and 16.3 percent of total water consumption, respectively;
industrial users account for about 1.3 percent of the total while irrigation customers account for
about 2.7 percent. Total water demand is projected to be about 2.8 million ccf in FY1996/97
increasing to about 3.2 million ccf by FY2000/01.
Consumption Patterns
The City's peak water demand has historically occurred in July, August, and September.
The cyclical rise in consumption is a result of higher irrigation use, customers watering
their lawns, washing their cars, and other activities that use more water. The seasonal
consumption pattern in the City is normal for systems of similar size in the Pacific
Northwest.
The City is considering adoption of a seasonal conservation surcharge to lower the peak use
during the 3 summer months and thus reduce the need for expanded system capacity. A
seasonal conservation surcharge is presented in Section 6 of this report.
aw
Peaking Requirements
"" The cost of providing water to customers depends not only on how much water they use,
but also on how that use occurs over time. The maximum-day and maximum-hour peaking
requirements of a water utility's customers have an important effect on the utility's costs.
em Because water utilities attempt to meet all of the water demands of their customers, water
systems are sized to meet their customer's peak requirements. In addition, some facilities
may only be used primarily during the system's peak season. Therefore, during off-peak
periods there are usually significant costs associated with the unused capacity and facilities.
To develop equitable rates, these costs must be allocated to the customers in proportion to
each user's contribution to the system peak. For maximum-day demands, the peak rate of
use relative to the average rate of use for each class is determined. This ratio is called a
peaking factor.
For this analysis,peaking factors are developed for maximum-day rates of use by customer
class. Data to determine maximum-hour rates of use were not available. If water meters
recorded both daily and hourly flow rates for each customer, more refined information
could be obtained on peaking factors. Clearly,this is not feasible because the enormous cost
that would be imposed on the City could not be justified. Therefore, the peaking factors
..
PDX16F2A.DOC 3-3
rrr
Table 3-2
CITY OF TIGARD
WATER RATE MODEL
PROJECTED WATER DEMAND BY CUSTOMER CLASS (ccf)
CUSTOMER CLASS 1995/96 1996/97 1997/98 1998/99 1999/00 2000/01 TOTAL
Residential 1,482,100 1,540,400 1,598,600 1,656,800 1,715,100 1,773,300 9,766,300
Multifamily Residential 630,400 655,100 679,900 704,600 729,400 754,200 4,153,600
Commercial 432,300 449,200 466,200 483,200 500,200 517,200 . 2,848,300
Industrial 34,500 35,800 37,200 38,500 39,900 41,200 227,100
Irrigation 72,700 75,500 78,400 81,200 84,100 86,900 478,800
Total (ccf) 2,652,000 2,756,000 2,860,300 2,964,300 3,068,700 3,172,800 17,474,100
w
Residential 55.9% 55.9% 55.9% 55.9% 55.9% 55.9% 55.9%
Multifamily Residential 23.8% 23.8% 23.8% 23.8% 23.8% 23.8% 23.8%
Commercial 16.3% 16.3% 16.3% 16.3% 16.3% 16.3% 16.3%
Industrial 1.3% 1.3% 1.3% 1.3% 1.3% 1.3% 1.3%
Irrigation 2.7% 2.7% 2.7% 2.7% 2.7% 2.7% 2.7%
Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
estimated in this analysis are the expected peaking factors for each customer class during
the system's maximum day. The following equation shows the calculation of maximum-
day peaking factors for each class:
,w
(Class i consump.during system max.month x (System peak—day rate of flow)
(Ave.month for Class i) (System max.—month rate of flow
This equation provides a general approximation of maximum-day peaking factors by class.
It is the best estimating technique available in the absence of more specific information on
No particular subsets of the customer base. The peaking factors of each customer class are
shown in Table 3-3. Irrigation users have the highest peaking factors of any user group
reflecting the seasonality of these users. Commercial users have uncharacteristically high
W peaking factors while, as expected, industrial users have the lowest peaking factors
reflecting even water use throughout the year.
MW
No
OW
WO
YAW
PDXI6F2A.DOC 3-5
.r
Table 3-3
CITY OF TIGARD
WATER RATE MODEL
ESTIMATED PEAKING FACTORS BY CUSTOMER CLASS
AVG BASE MAXIMUM
LM.. CUSTOMER CLASS FLOW DAY
Residential 1 2.52
Multifamily Residential 1 2.43
Commercial 1 3.33
Industrial 1 2.35
Irrigation 1 3.73
System 1 2.87
"'� 3-6
.. Section 4
Revenue Requirements
Introduction
The purpose of this section is to present system revenue requirements and identify the
portion of those requirements that must be recovered through water rates. For this analysis,
system revenue requirements have been developed under the cash basis of accounting and
ratemaking. Under the cash basis, system revenue requirements consist of cash outlays
(expenditures) and other system financial commitments (such as debt service coverage or
reserves) that must be met through system operating revenues and other revenue sources.
In this study,system revenue requirements consist of the following:
• O&M expenditures
• Non-debt-funded capital outlays
a Additions to reserves
r.
Depreciation expense is not considered a water system cash expenditure, and therefore is
not included in the calculation of system revenue requirements for this analysis. It is
prudent,however, for the City to set aside funds for reserves and replacement of any aging
system assets and equipment. Additions to reserves have been included in the revenue
requirements.
System revenue requirements have been projected for a 5-year period, FY1996/97 through
FY2000/01. Nonrate revenues and other sources of funding, such as interest income, other
water system charges, and planned uses of water fund reserves, are deducted from system
revenue requirements to determine the amount of revenue that must be generated through
water rates.
All historical water system data were obtained from the City of Tigard's financial state-
ments and from other data provided by the City. Cost projections are based on historical
requirements of the system, inflationary trends, engineering estimates of future capital
requirements,population and water demand projections,and budget estimates.
Operation and Maintenance Costs
Table 4-1 shows the City of Tigard's projected O&M costs for FY1996/97 through
FY2000/01. Projected system O&M costs were inflated from the FY1995/96 budgeted
expenditure levels. In addition to annual inflation increases, two new employees are
assumed to be hired over the 5-year study period. An O&M contingency fund of$300,000 is
assumed to be totally funded before the 5-year study period with no draw-downs during
the study period. The largest component, materials and supplies, include purchased water
costs of nearly $2.3 million in FY1996/97. These assumptions result in total system O&M
costs of$4,094,400 in FY1996/97 increasing to$4,573,600 in FY2000/01.
PDX16F2A.DOC 4-1
Table 4-1
CITY OF TIGARD
WATER RATE MODEL
OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE COSTS
ACTUAL BUDGETED PROJECTED 96/97-00/01
ITEM 1994!95 1995/96 1996/97 1997/98 1998/99 1999/00 2000/01 TOTAL
Personnel $766,100 $774,000 $805,000 $837,200 $928,700 $965,900 $1,067,300 $5,378,100
Materials and Supplies 1,757,000 2,389,300 2,786,100 2,668,100 2,697,400 2,805,300 2,917,500 16,263,700
Capital Outlays 63,100 81,000 84,300 87,700 91,200 94,800 98,600 537,600
Interfund Transfers 338,000 402,900 419,000 435,800 453,200 471,300 490,200 2,672,400
Contingencies 292,000 300,000 0 0 0 0 0 300,000
--------------- --------------- --------------- --------------- --------------- --------------- --------------- ---------------
Total O&M Costs $3,216,200 $3,947,200 $4,094,400 $4,028,800 $4,170,500 $4,337,300 $4,573,600 $25,151,800
N
Capital Outlays
System capital costs consist of debt service requirements and capital outlays not financed
from other sources.
Debt Service
The water system currently has no outstanding long-term debt and none is planned during
the 5-year study period.
Capital Improvements
ow Table 4-2 summarizes the water system's planned capital improvement expenditures for
FY1996/97 through FY2000/01. Major capital expenditures include construction of 2 water
reservoirs and construction of water lines and pump stations to provide improved service
to existing areas or additional service to developing areas. Total capital outlays are
projected to range from a low of $429,338 in FY1999/00 to a high of $3.9 million in
FY1997/98. Total capital improvements for the 5-year rate-setting period equal nearly $7.2
• million with approximately $2.4 million or 34 percent of the improvements required to
support system expansion for new users.
' Capital Reserve Fund
A capital reserve fund is included in this analysis in accordance with City policy and in lieu
of a depreciation expense.These funds are expected to be held for financing future capital
construction projects and amount to$500,000 annually.
irw
Nonrate Revenues
Nonrate revenues are shown on Table 4-3 and amount to $604,500 in FY1996/97 and range
from a low of $512,300 in FY1998/99 to a high of $3.2 million in FY1997/98. A capital
reserve of$2.7 million is included in FY1997/98 which is used to finance the construction of
' the Menlor Reservoir in the same fiscal year. Other sources of nonrate revenues include
interest income, fire service charges, meter installation fees, developer revenues, and other
revenues.
too
Total and Net Revenue Requirements
Table 44 summarizes the total and net revenue requirements. About $4.9 million is needed
from all revenue sources in FY1996/97. Approximately 82.9 percent of this total is for O&M
expenditures; the remaining 17.1 percent is for capital-related costs. The net requirement
from rates is $4.0 million in FY1996/97 after subtracting nonrate revenues and net SDC
revenues. The net revenue requirements from rates for the 5-year study period is $22.5
AN million. This is the amount of revenues that need to be recovered from rates over the 5-year
rate-setting period.
PDX16F2A.DOC 43
Table 4-2
CITY OF TIGARD
WATER RATE MODEL
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM(Adjusted for Inflation)
PROJECT BM PROJECTED 5-YEAR Annual
Codes:410=410 Zone&BM=Bull Mountain System) % 1996/97 1997/98 1998/99 1999/00 2000101 TOTAL Escalation Rate
1 2 3 4
Water Supply: 5
Unused 0% $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 4.0%
Unused 0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 4.0%
Unused 0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 4.0%
Unused 0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 4.0%
Unused 0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 4.0%
Subtotal $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0.
Reservoirs&Storage:
Menlor Land&Improvements 35% $312,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $312,000 4.0%
Construct 3.5 MG Menlor Reservoir 35% 0 3,201,536 0 0 0 3,201,536 4.0%
Construct 1.0 MG Reservoir on North Flank of Bull Mtn 100% 0 0 0 129,854 1,192,320 1,322,174 4.0%
Unused 0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 4.0%
Unused 0% 0 Of 0 0 Of 0 4.0%
Subtotal $312,000 $3,201,536 $0 $129,854 $1,192,320 $4,835,710
Transmission&Distribution
Replace T&D Mains on Tiedeman St 0 Fenno Creek 301/6 $93,600 $0 $0 $0 $0 $93,600 4.0%
p Install 1,450'of 12'Dist Main on SW N.Dakota 30% 90,480 0 0 0 0 90,480 4.0%
y Install 24'of 12'Dist Main onSW 130th Ave 0% 14,976 0 0 0 0 14,976 4.0%
A Install 900'of 8'Dist Main on SW130th Ave 0% 37,440 0 0 0 0 37,440 4.0%
Install 5,600'of 24'Trans Main on SW Walnut St 35% 0 726,835 0 0 0 726,835 4.01/6
Install 4,000'of 24'Trans Main on SW Greenburg Rd 35% 0 0 764,908 0 0 764,908 4.0%
Install 1,350'of 12'Dist Main on SW 150th Ave-Phase 1 100% 0 0 91,114 0 0 91,114 4.0%
Install 1,350'of 12'Dist Main on SW 150th Ave-Phase 2 100% 14,976 0 0 0 0 14,976 4.0%
Install 4,400'of 16'Trans Main on SW 135th Ave 35% 37,440 0 0 0 0 37,440 4.0%
Install 3,200'of 16'Trans Main on SW Beef Bend Rd 20% 0 0 0 299,484 0 299,484 4.0%
Unused 0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 4.0%
Unused 0% 0 Of 0 0 Or 0 4.0%
Subtotal $288,912 $726,835 $856,022 $299,484 $0 $2,171,253
Pump Stations:
Construct Pressure Relief Valve Station 100% $20,800 $0 $0 $0 $0 $20,800 4.0%
Construct Pressure Reducing Station 100% 20,800 0 0 0 0 20,800 4.0%
Upgrade Pumps at High Tor#1 100% 18,720 0 0 0 0 18,720 4.0%
Construct Pressure Reducing Station 100% 0 0 22,497 0 0 22,497 4.0%
Construct Pump Sta for Reservoir on No Flank of Bull Mtn 1001/. 0 0 0 0 145,998 145,998 4.0%
Unused 0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 4.0%
Unused 0% 0 01 0 0 01 0 4.0%
Subtotal $60,320 $0 $22,497 $0 $145,998 $228,815
TOTAL WATER CIP(Adjusted for Inflation) $661,232 $3,928,371 $878,519 $429,338 $1,338,318 $7,235,778
t i t r t° I t
Table 4-3
CITY OF TIGARD
WATER RATE MODEL
NONRATE REVENUES
BUDGETED PROJECTEDEscalation
ITEM 1995/96 1996/97 1997/98 1998/99 1999/00 2000/01 Rate
Interest Income $175,000 $250,000 $138,000 $142,100 $146,400 $150,800 3.0%
Other Water Sales 6,000 6,200 6,400 6,600 6,800 7,000 3.0%
Fire Service Standby Charge 27,000 27,000 27,000 27,000 27,000 27,000 0.0%
Meter Installation Fees 152,300 152,300 158,000 157,300 150,000 162,400 3.0%
Total Developer Revenues 173,000 150,000 154,500 159,100 163,900 168,800 3.0%
Misc Revenues 18,500 19,000 19,600 20,200 20,800 21,400 3.0%
Capital Reserves (Mentor Res) 0 0 2,700,000 0 0 0 0.0%
Total $551,800 $604,500 $3,203,500 $512,300 $514,900 $537,400
Table 4-4
CITY OF TIGARD
WATER RATE MODEL
NET REVENUE REQUIREMENTS FROM RATES
ITEM PROJECTED
1996/97 1997/98 1998/99 1999/00 2000/01 Total
Revenue Requirements:
Operation& Maintenance Costs $4,094,300 $4,028,700 $4,170,500
Revenue Financed Capital Costs (a) 340,400 3,096100 189,400 $4103,900 337,300 $1,070,700 $24,,204,400
800,500
Debt Service Costs 0 0, 0
Capital Reserve Fund0 0 0
--500,000 500,000 500,000 500,000 500,000 2,500,000
Total Revenue Requirements $4,934,700 $7,624,800 $4,941 200
� $4,859,900 $6,144,300 $28,504,900
Less:
Nonrate Revenues $604,500 $3,203,500 $512,300 $514,900 $537,400 $5,372,600
Net SDC Revenues (b) 329,300 0 21,000 103,900 167,300 621,500
Net Revenue Requirements $4,000,900 $4,421,300 $4,326,600 $4,322,400 $5,439,600 $22,510,800
(a) CIP expenditures allocated to existing users.
(b) SDC revenues less CIP expenditures allocated to future users.
aw
Section 5
Cost Allocations
Introduction
The fundamental principle for developing an equitable rate structure is to ensure that all
users pay, through user charges, connection fees, taxes, or other fees, for their share of the
total costs imposed on the system. O&M expenditures and normal capital expenditures
should be paid through user charges. Some of these expenditures are a function of water
use;others are a function of peak demands placed on the system. Some are associated with
serving customers regardless of the amount of water consumed or the extra-capacity
demand characteristics.
Before water rates can be developed, system net revenue requirements from rates (system
costs not offset by other revenues)must be allocated to the customer classes. In this section,
the information from previous sections regarding net revenue requirements from rates andwater service characteristics will be used, together with the cost allocations presented in
this section,to determine the total cost of providing service to each customer class.
low
Cost Allocation Procedure
"- The allocation of system costs to the customer classes is a three-step process. First, the
system capital investment and annual capital and operating costs are distributed to the
water system's unit processes: water supply, reservoirs and storage, transmission,
distribution, and pump stations, and general and administration. The second step involves
the allocation of these costs to the functional parameters: base demand, maximum-day
demand,and customer services.
In the third step, the estimated costs by functional parameter are used in combination with
the estimated customer class water demands to distribute the net revenue requirements to
.. each customer class. The costs distributed to each class are based on each class's propor-
tionate share of the total demand for each functional parameter. Billing service costs are
distributed on the basis of the number of bills for each customer class; general and
administration costs are distributed by the weighted percentages of the other categories.
For this analysis, the costs associated with pumping water to the higher elevated Bull
Mountain service area were also identified and allocated to those customers in that service
area as an additional "booster charge". The summation of these cost allocations to the
customer classes is considered the cost of providing service to each class.
Capital Cost Allocations
,- An allocation of the water system's investment in plant and equipment is used as the basis
for allocation of the system's annual net capital costs to the functional parameters. The
capital investment in each unit process is allocated to the parameters of base and
r•
PDX16F2A.DOC 5-1
�. maximum-day demands according to the design and function of that unit process. As
shown in Table 5-1, the capital investment in water supply and transmission, distribution,
and pump stations are allocated half to base demand and half to maximum-day demand
because these unit processes are sized in relation to the quantity of flow they carry both on
average and on peak days. The capital investment in reservoirs and storage is allocated
30 percent to base and 70 percent to maximum-day because these facilities are designed to
provide peak day demand. General plant investment is allocated based on the weighted
average of the other categories.
Table 5-2 shows the allocation of the water system's noncontributed depreciated plant
investment to the functional parameters. Based on this analysis,47.8 percent of the system's
total capital investment is allocated to base demands and 52.2 percent is allocated to
maximum-day demands. These allocation percentages are applied to the annual net capital
costs to derive the allocations to the functional parameters
Operation and Maintenance Cost Allocations
Annual system O&M costs for FY1996/97 through FY2000/01 are redefined by major unit
processes in Table 5-3. Before being allocated to the customer classes, the O&M costs are
first separated into unit processes, and then allocated to the functional parameters. The
costs associated with each functional parameter are then distributed to the customer classes,
based on their proportionate share of those parameters.
AW The separation of the O&M costs into the unit processes is based primarily on estimates
from City of Tigard staff on the portion of system operating expenditures incurred for each
unit process. These unit process costs are then allocated to the functional parameters by the
allocation percentages shown in Table 5-4. The costs associated with water supply and
transmission, distribution, and pump stations are allocated 50 percent to base demand and
50 percent to maximum-day demand. Reservoirs and storage costs are allocated 30 percent
to base and 70 percent to maximum-day, while booster costs are allocated 100 percent to
booster demand and billing service costs are allocated 100 percent to customers. General
and administration costs are allocated to the functional parameters based on the weighted
average of the other categories (not including booster costs).
Table 5-5 summarizes the allocation of O&M costs to the functional parameters of base
demand, maximum-day demand, booster charge, and customer costs for FY1996/97
MW through FY2000/01.
Cost Allocations to Customer Classes
Capital and O&M costs are allocated to the customer classes by multiplying the costs
associated with each functional parameter by each customer class's projected demand on
that parameter. Table 5-6 lists the allocations to customer classes for the various functional
parameters. Table 5-7 presents the resulting total cost-of-service allocations to each cus-
tomer class. As shown in Table 5-7, $2.3 million or 58 percent of system net revenue
PDX16F2A.DOC 5-2
VAM
r..
Table 5-1
CITY OF TIGARD
WATER RATE MODEL
PLANT INVESTMENT ALLOCATION PERCENTAGES
AVG BASE MAXIMUM
ITEM FLOW DAY TOTAL
Water Supply 50.0% 50.0% 100.0%
Reservoirs&Storage 30.0% 70.0% 100.0%
Transmission, Distribution, & Pump Stations 50.0% 50.0% 100.0%
General&Administration (a) 47.8% 52.2% 100.0%
Yw.
(a) Weighted average of other categories.
aw
A
w.
Mw
o, 5-3
Table 5-2
CITY OF TIGARD
WATER RATE MODEL
ALLOCATION OF NET PLANT INVESTMENT TO SYSTEM PARAMETERS
AVG BASE MAXIMUM
ITEM FLOW .DAY TOTAL
Water Supply $0 $0 $0
Reservoirs& Storage 635,000 1,481,700 2,116,700
Transmission, Distribution, & Pump Stations 8,523,900 8,523,900 17,047,800
Booster Costs 0 0 0
General&Administration 946,200 1,033,700 1,979,900
w.
------------------ ------------------ ------------------
$10,105,100 $11,039,300 $21,144,400
Percent 47.8% 52.2% 100.0%
r.
aw
am
Aw
aw
ON
aw
o
ow 5-4
Table 5-3
CITY OF TIGARD
WATER RATE MODEL
ALLOCATION OF O&M COSTS TO MAJOR UNIT PROCESSES-SUMMARY
ITEM 1996/97 . 199798 1998/99 1999/00 2000/01 Total
Water Supply $2,341,900 $2,214,500 $2,225,700 $2,314,700 $2,407,300 $11,504,100
Reservoirs& Storage 8,500 8,800 9,200 9,600 10,000 46,100
Transmission, Distribution, & Pump Stations 128,000 133,100 138,500 144,000 149,800 693,400
Booster Costs 49,300 51,200 53,300 55,400 57,600 266,800
Meter Service& Billings 192,100 199,800 215,100 223,700 240,600 1,071,300
General &Administration 1,374,500 1,421,200 1,528,700 1,589,900 1,708,300 7,622,600
--------------- --------------- --------------- --------------- --------------- ---------------
Total O&M Costs $4,094,300 $4,028,600 $4,170,500 $4,337,300 $4,573,600 $21,204,300
cn
+rr
Table 5-4
CITY OF TIGARD
WATER RATE MODEL
O&M ALLOCATION PERCENTAGES TO FUNCTIONAL PARAMETERS
ww
AVG BASE MAXIMUM BOOSTER CUSTOMER
ITEM FLOW DAY CHARGE CHARGE TOTAL
Aw Water Supply 50.0% 50.0% 100.0%
Reservoirs&Storage 30.0% 70.0% 100.0%
Transmission,Distribution,&Pump Stations 50.0% 50.0% 100.0%
Booster Costs 100.0% 100.0%
r. Meter Services&Billings 100.0% 100.0%
General&Administration(a) 45.9% 46.1% 0.0% 8.1% 100.0%
r. (a) Weighted average of other categories(not including booster costs).
ow
rr+
br.
w
.wW
w
.r.
. r.
ow
Nor 5-6
Table 5-5
wn CITY OF TIGARD
WATER RATE MODEL
ALLOCATION OF O&M COSTS TO FUNCTIONAL PARAMETERS
ow
AVG BASE MAXIMUM BOOSTER
ITEM FLOW DAY CHARGE CUSTOMER TOTAL
Aw 1996/97
Water Supply $1,171,000 $1,171,000 $0 $0 $2,342,000
Reservoirs&Storage 2,600 6,000 0 0 8,600
Transmission,Distribution,&Pump Stations 64,000 64,000 0 0 128,000
ftw Booster Costs 0 0 49,300 0 49,300
Meter Service&Billings 0 0 0 192,100 192,100
General&Administration 631,000 633,000 0 110,600 1,374,600
+mw Total $1,868,600 $1,874,000 $49,300 $302,700 $4,094,600
1997/96
Water Supply $1,107,300 $1,107,300 $0 $0 $2,214,600
+w Reservoirs&Storage 2,700 6,200 0 0 8,900
Transmission,Distribution,&Pump Stations 66,600 66,600 0 0 133,200
Booster Costs 0 0 51,200 0 51,200
Meter Service&Billings 0 0 0 199,800 199,800
A' General&Administration 652,500 654,500 0 114,400 1,421,400
------------------
Total $1,829,100 $1,834,600 $51,200 $314,200 $4,029,100
aw 1998/99
Water Supply $1,112,800 $1,112,800 $0 $0 $2,225,600
Reservoirs&Storage 2,800 6,400 0 0 9,200
Transmission,Distribution,&Pump Stations 69,200 69,200 0 0 138,400
aw Booster Costs 0 0 53,300 0 53,300
Meter Service&Billings 0 0 0 215,100 215,100
General&Administration 701,800 704,000 0 123,100 1,528,900
' Total $1,886,600 $1,892,400 $53,300 $338,200 $4,170,500
1999/00
Water Supply $1,157,300 $1,157,300 $0 $0 $2,314,600
Reservoirs&Storage 2,900 6,700 0 0 9,600
Transmission,Distribution,&Pump Stations 72,000 72,000 0 0 144,000
Booster Costs 0 0 55,400 0 55,400
Meter Service&Billings 0 0 0 223,700 223,700
General&Administration 729,900 732,100 0 128,000 1,590,000
Total $1,962,100 $1,968,100 $55,400 $351,700 $4,337,300
2000/01
Water Supply $1,203,600 $1,203,600 $0 $0 $2,407,200
Reservoirs&Storage 3,000 7,000 0 0 10,000
Transmission,Distribution,&Pump Stations 74,900 74,900 0 0 149,800
Booster Costs 0 0 57,600 0 57,600
Meter Service&Billings 0 0 0 240,600 240,600
General&Administration 784,300 786,700 0 137,500 1,708,500
----------------- ------------------ ---------------- ------------------ ------------------
aw Total $2,065,800 $2,072,200 $57,600 $378,100 $4,573,700
+Mw
Aw 5-7
Table 5-6
CITY OF TIGARD
WATER RATE MODEL
ALLOCATION PERCENTAGES TO CUSTOMER CLASSES (a)
Base Maximum-Day I Customer
CUSTOMER CLASS Demand Demand Costs
Residential 55.9% 52.9% 91.2%
Multifamily Residential 23.8% 21.7% 4.2%
"w Commercial 16.3% 20.4% 4.0%
Industrial 1.3% 1.1% 0.1%
Irrigation 2.7% 3.8% 0.6%
--------------- --------------- ---------------
Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
(a) Booster costs are allocated 100%to the customers in the booster service area.
ww
..
ow
M.w
4r
ow
ow
ww 5-8
Table 5-7
CITY OF TIGARD
WATER RATE MODEL
ALLOCATION OF TOTAL COSTS TO CUSTOMER CLASSES
CUSTOMER CLASS 1996/97 1997/98 1998/99 1999/00 2000/01 Total
Total Costs of Service:
Residential $2,310,700 $2,544,200 $2,502,600 $2,506,400 $3,124,400 $12,988,300
Multifamily Residential 842,200 934,900 908,600 904,700 . 1,152,900 4,743,300
Commercial 681,600 757,200 735,800 732,600 934,100 3,841,300
Industrial 44,700 49,700 48,200 47,900 61,200 251,700
Irrigation 121,800 135,400 131,500 130,900 167,100 686,700
- --------------- ------------------ ------------------ -----------------
- ------------------ ------------------
Total $4,001,000 $4,421,400 $4,326,700 $4,322,500 $5,439,700 $22,511,300
Percent:
Residential 57.8% 57.5% 57.8% 58.0% 57.4% 57.7%
Multifamily Residential 21.1% 21.1% 21.0% 20.9% 21.2% 21.1%
Commercial 17.0% 17.1% 17.0% 17.0% 17.2% 17.1%
Industrial 1.1% 1.1% 1.1% 1.1% 1.1% 1.1%
Irrigation 3.0% 3.1% 3.0% 3.0% 3.1% 3.1%
------------------ ------------------ ------------------ ------------------ ------------------ ------------------
Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
requirements from rates in FY1996/97 are allocable to single-family residential users,
21 percent to multifamily residential, 17 percent to commercial users, 1 percent to industrial
users,and 3 percent to irrigation customers.
Ow
4w
...
Ow
a.
w
PDXI6F2A.DOC 5-10
rr
ow Section 6
Water Rates
o.
Introduction
.m
The cost allocations described in Section 5 resulted in estimates of the costs of providing
water service to each of the customer classes. The rate structure alternatives developed in
W this section are designed to recover the costs allocated to each customer class from the users
composing that class. The proposed rate structure alternatives are designed under
conditions of normal weather, gradual system growth, and existing economic conditions.
on Significant changes in any of these variables would probably require a reassessment of the
rates. In addition, the rates calculated under the proposed alternatives are based on a
specific financial plan of the water system's current O&M budget and capital improvement
plan. The assumptions underlying the financial plan and, in particular, financing of capital
improvements, are significant to the overall financial position of the City. If these
assumptions change, annual revenue requirements may be altered depending on the
magnitude of the changes. Therefore CH2M HILL recommends that the City give careful
consideration to these assumptions when deciding on proposed policies and water rates
and charges.
Existing Rates
The City's current rates are shown in Table 6-1. The City of Tigard currently charges its
customers a bimonthly minimum charge of $14.30 which includes the initial 8 ccf of
w. demand per billing period plus a volume rate of $1.32 per ccf for additional demands
beyond 8 ccf. The system's multifamily residential customers are charged the same
bimonthly rates for each equivalent dwelling unit (EDU) in a complex. Customers in the
higher elevated Bull Mountain service area are charged $3.00 bi-monthly for the additional
costs of pumping water to higher elevations. Users with larger meters are charged an
additional amount based on meter size for the increased potential demands placed on the
.. system. Outside district customers are charged an additional amount based on meter size
for the liability the City assumes by serving them. Customers with fire service connections
are also charged an additional amount for that service.
New Rates
Two alternative volume rate plus minimum charge cost-of-service rate structures were
considered in this analysis. A seasonal conservation surcharge and the current fire service
.. charges were also analyzed. In each case, the rate structures are designed for the 5-year
rate-setting period of FY1996/97 through 2000/01 and are assumed to become effective on
July 1, 1996. These 5-year average rates are based on the assumptions of this analysis and
.., should be reviewed whenever significant changes to these assumptions occur.
PDX16F2A.DOC 6-1
it
a..
Table 6-1
CITY OF TIGARD
WATER RATE MODEL
CURRENT RATES
Within Outside
ow Item Meter Size District District
Bi-Monthly Minimum Charge (Includes 8ccf) $14.30 $14.30
1 am Volume Rate ($/ccf) $1.32 $1.32
Bi-Monthly Booster Charge $3.00 $3.00
`"" Bi-Monthly Meter Charge 5/8"X 3/4" $0.00 $0.00
1" $8.80 $8.80
1_1/211 $22.00 $22.00
2" $59.40 $59.40
3" $121.00 $121.00
4" $213.40 $213.40
,w 6" $303.60 $303.60
8" $427.90 $427.90
Bi-Monthly Outside District Charge 5/8"X 3/4" $5.50
w.
1 $8.80
$13.20
2" $22.00
wo 3" $33.00
4" $41.80
6" $61.60
�.. 8" $83.60
Within District
Fire Service Charges: Booster
One-Time Connection Fee $1,250 $1,250 $1,250
Bi-Monthly Fire Charge 1-1/2" $30.00 $35.00 $33.00
2" $30.00 $35.00 $33.00
3" $30.00 $35.00 $33.00
4" $30.00 $35.00 $33.00
6" $30.00 $35.00 $33.00
8" $40.00 $45.00 $43.00
mw
aw
6-2
tow
.. The proposed cost-of-service water rates are shown in Table 6-2. The volume rates plus
minimum charge are calculated for each customer class over the 5-year study period. The
first rate alternative assumes that the minimum charge only includes customer costs. The
,w, second rate alternative assumes that the minimum charge includes the same customer costs
plus the initial 8 ccf of water demand in a billing period (bimonthly). A single weighted
volume charge was calculated for all customer classes' initial 8 ccf to use in the minimum
,. charge calculation. The individual customer class's volume rate is added to the minimum
service charge for all water demand greater than 8 ccf. In both rate alternatives, a booster
charge is added to each bi-monthly bill of those customers residing in the higher elevated
,*„ Bull Mountain service area. This analysis also assumes that the current bi-monthly fire
service charges and one-time fire service connection fees are continued for the 5-year study
period.
Volume Rate plus Minimum Customer Charge
.... The 5-year average volume plus minimum customer charge rate structure was calculated
for each customer class. The minimum customer charge of $3.89 is based on the total
customer costs for the 5-year period. The volume rates vary between the customer classes
based on each lasses' 5-year costs-of-service (net of the minimum service charge) and total
5-year water demand. The volume rate ranges from $1.30 per ccf for the industrial class to
$1.67 for the irrigation lass. Single-family residential customers would pay a bi-monthly
bill of $3.89 plus $1.35 times their total bi-monthly water demand. Multifamily customers
would pay the minimum plus $1.33 per ccf and commercial customers would pay the
minimum plus$1.56 per ccf.
OW
Volume Rate plus Minimum Service Charge
,.. The second cost-of-service rate alternative simply takes the initial 8 ccf of bi-monthly water
demand and includes it in the minimum service charge of$14.77. The $14.77 also includes
the bi-monthly minimum customer charge of$3.89. Any water demand beyond the initial 8
ccf would be charged$1.35 per ccf for a single-family residential user. Including 8 ccf in the
minimum service charge increases the revenue stability of the utility throughout the year.
Rate revenue collections without the initial volume included, as proposed above, are more
ow cyclic and would be lower during low-use winter months and higher during high-use
summer months. A disadvantage of this rate option is that users with water demands of
less than 8 ccf per billing period pay for water that has not been used which in-turn
OW encourages unneeded water use.
Booster Charge
M
A cost-of-service booster charge of $3.13 per bi-monthly billing period was calculated for
the higher elevated Bull Mountain service area. This is an additional charge added to the
em volume rates plus minimum charges discussed above. The purpose of this charge is to
recognize the additional pumping costs associated with servicing higher elevations of the
water system.
PDX16F2A.DOC 6-3
9rw
w.
". Fire Service Charge
The water utility has to provide sufficient capacity in the water system for fire fighting. The
costs associated with providing fire service lines and additional fire service capacity are
recovered through the fire service charges. These costs are allocated to the customers with
fire service connections. CH2M HILL recommends that the current fire service charges
.. shown on Table 6-1 be continued for the 5-year study period.
OW Seasonal Conservation Surcharge
The Intergovernmental Water Board and the City of Tigard are considering implementation
00 of a comprehensive water conservation program. The program should be designed to
decrease single-family residential and irrigation customers' peak summer water demand
during the months of July, August, and September. The other customer classes' water
VW demand is more evenly spread throughout the year and should not be charged a
conservation rate. The volume rate plus minimum customer charge discussed above is a
first step toward a conservation rate in that users are charged for only the amount of water
*M0 used in a billing period. This rate design would be a good signal to all users that they
should start watching the amount of water that they use.
1W A seasonal conservation surcharge was identified for the single-family residential customer
class that could be included as part of this program. Data was not available for the
irrigation customer class. The conservation surcharge would only be charged during the 3
summer months and the revenues collected would be in addition to the cost-of-service
revenue requirements identified in this analysis. These additional revenues could be used
to fund the conservation education program.
Table 6-3 shows alternative single-family residential seasonal conservation surcharges and
the additional revenues collected by each surcharge. An elasticity of demand adjustment
raw was made to the estimated water quantities demanded to account for the assumed decrease
in water consumption at the higher surcharge rate. An analysis of the available water use
data suggested that 50 ccf per bi-monthly billing period (25 ccf per month) was an
appropriate point to start charging the surcharge. Any single-family residential customer
.r that used more than 50 ccf in a billing period would be charged an additional amount for
all water use over 50 ccf.
Impact On Typical Bills
Table 6-4 indicates the impact that the proposed FY1996/97 through FY2000/01 rates
would have on the bills of some typical users. As shown, a residential customer
discharging 5 ccf would pay $14.30 under current rates as compared to $10.65 under the
proposed volume rate plus minimum customer charge and $14.77 under the proposed
volume rate plus minimum service charge. Higher water use in the single-family
residential class results in about the same bill amount for all three rate designs. This shows
that the proposed volume rate plus minimum customer charge would benefit low-use (less
than 8 ccf per billing period) single-family users. In general, industrial customers would
PDX16P2A.DOC 6.4
..
tend to pay less under the proposed rates while commercial and irrigation customers
would tend to pay more under the proposed new rates. This implies that industrial
customers are subsidizing these 2 other customer classes under current rate designs. Also
note that the commercial class would pay somewhat less with the proposed volume rate
plus minimum service charge compared to the proposed minimum customer charge
because the 8 ccf included in the minimum service charge is charged at a lower weighted
.. average rate($1.37 per ccf)than is the cost-of-service volume rate for the class.
Projected Revenues
Table 6-5 compares the net revenue requirements (costs-of-service) with projected rate
revenues collected for the 5-year study period. The new rates generate sufficient revenues
to cover system net revenue requirements for the entire 5-year study period as a whole.
However, the proposed rates generate excess rate revenues in the first, third and fourth
MW years of the study period while a rate revenue shortfall occurs in the second and fifth years.
Excess revenues should be held in a rate stabilization account until they are needed in the
years with revenue shortfalls.
Table 6-6 shows the projected customer class rate revenues collected under current rates.
Note that the rate revenues are not sufficient to meet the total 5-year system net revenue
requirements as assumed in this analysis. However, approximately $81,000 could be
subtracted from the total capital reserve fund resulting in sufficient current rate revenues.
This indicates that with a minor adjustment to the water system financial plan,current rates
could be extended for the 5-year study period.
PDX16F2A.DOC
6-5
Table 6-2
`rr CITY OF TIGARD
WATER RATE MODEL
PROPOSED COST OF SERVICE RATES
ftw
ITEM CHARGE
Bi-Monthly Base Charge $3.89
Bi-Monthly Booster Charge $3.13
Volume Rate($/ccf):
r. Residential $1.35
Multifamily Residential $1.33
Commercial $1.56
Industrial $1.30
Irrigation $1.67
Average $1.39
Yw Bi-Monthly Base Charge $14.77 Includes Initial 8ccf of Demand
Bi-Monthly Booster Charge $3.13
Volume Rate($/ccf):
Residential $1.35
Multifamily Residential $1.33
Commercial $1.56
Industrial $1.30
Irrigation
$1.67
Average $1.39
ftw
swr
wr
aw
ftw 6-6
w
Table 6-3
CITY OF TIGARD
WATER RATE MODEL
RESIDENTIAL CONSERVATION SURCHARGE(JUL-AUG-SEP 94/95)
Number of I Accounts Total 3-Month Demand Elasticity Demand
Consum tion Blocks I Accounts Percent Demand Percent 8 ustment Percent
+w (-.03)
0 to 50ccf 8,861 77.2% 318,540 55.5% 318,540 56.3%
50ccf&More 2,614 22.8% 255.300 44.5% 247,640 7%
Total 11,475 100.0% 573,840 100.0% 566,180 43 100.7%
Seasonal Conservation
Mw Consumption Blocks Surcl a Revenues
($/ccf) (a)
50ccf&More $0.25 $61,910
$0.50 123,820
w $0.75 185,730
$1.00 247,640
$1.25 309,550
$1.50 371,460
'� $1.75 433,370
$2.00 495,280
ir. (a) Use seasonal surcharge revenues to finance a conservation education program.
r
w
wr
am
wr
r
6-7
Table 6-4
rwr CITY OF TIGARD
WATER RATE MODEL
TYPICAL BILL COMPARISONS-NO BOOSTER CHARGES
Vol Rate+ Vol Rate+
Bi-monthly Current Min Customer Min Service
Customer Class&Meter Size Use ccf Bill Charge Charge
+r.
(a) (b) (b)
Single-Family Residential(5/8'x 3/4") 5 $14.30 $10.65 $14.77
Single-Family Residential(5/8'x 3/4") 8 $14.30 $14.70 $14.77
Single-Family Residential(5/8'x 3/4") 20 $30.14 $30.90 $30.97
Single-Family Residential(5/8'x 3/41) 30 $43.34 $44.40 $44.48
Single-Family Residential(5/8'x 3/4") 40 $56.54 $57.90 $57.98
ow Commercial(1") 20 $38.94 $35.13 $33.51
Commercial(1") 40 $65.34 $66.37 $57.98
Commercial(1") 60 $91.74 $97.60 $84.98
Commercial(1") 80 $118.14 $128.84 $111.99
,r Commercial(1") 100 $144.54 $160.07 $138.99
Industrial(2") 20 $89.54 $29.92 $30.39
Industrial(2") 40 $115.94 $55.95 $56.41
ow Industrial(2") 60 $142.34 $81.97 $82.44
Industrial(2") 80 $168.74 $108.00 $108.47
Industrial(2") 100 $195.14 $134.02 $134.49
tow Irrigation(1-1/2") 20 $52.14 $37.23 $34.77
Irrigation(1-1/2") 40 $78.54 $70.56 $68.11
Irrigation(1-1/2") 60 $104.94 $103.90 $101.44
"" Irrigation(1-1/2") 80 $131.34 $137.23 $134.77
Irrigation(1-1/2") 100 $157.74 $170.56 $168.11
.r (a) If applicable,add$3.00 per bill for the Booster Charge.
(b) If applicable,add$3.13 per bill for the Booster Charge.
rw
w
a
"w 6-8
Table 6-5
CITY OF TIGARD
WATER RATE MODEL
VOLUME RATE PLUS MINIMUM CUSTOMER CHARGE - RATE REVENUES
CUSTOMER CLASS 1996/97 1997/98 1998/99 1999/00 2000/01 Total
Residential $2,417,100 $2,507,500 $2,597,500 $2,687,800 $2,778,500 $12,988,400
Multifamily Residential 882,100 915,400 948,600 981,900 1,015,300 4,743,300
Commercial 714,300 741,300 768,200 795,200 822,200 3,841,200
Industrial 46,800 48,600 50,300 52,100 53,900 251,700
Irrigation 127,700 132,500 137,400 142,200 147,000 686,800
----- ----------- ----------------- ----------------- -----------------
----------------- -----------------
Total $4,188,000 $4,345,300 $4,502,000 $4,659,200 $4,816,900 $22,511,400
Net Revenue Requirements $4,000,900 $4,421,300 $4,326,600 $4,322,400 $5,439,600 $22,510,800
�O Revenue Excess (Shortfall) $187,100 --
($76,000) $175,400 $336,800 ($622,700) $600
Table 6-6
CITY OF TIGARD
WATER RATE MODEL
CURRENT RATES-TOTAL RATE REVENUES (a)
CUSTOMER CLASS 1996/97 1997/98 1998/99 1999/00 2000/01 Total
Residential $2,411,500 $2,501,500 $2,591,100 $2,681,100 $2,771,500 $12,956,700
Multifamily Residential 829,300 860,700 892,200 923,700 955,100 4,461,000
Commercial 558,500 579,700 601,000 622,200 643,400 3,004,800
Industrial 46,800 48,600 50,400 52,200 53,900 251,900
Irrigation 94,700 98,300 101,800 105,400 109,000 509,200
--------------- --------------- ---------------
--------------- --------------- ---------------
Subtotal $3,940,800 $4,088,800 $4,236,500 $4,384,600 $4,532,900 $21,183,600
Total Other Charge Revenues(a) $235,300 $242,200 $250,600 $255,400 $262,600 $1,246,100
o Total Rate Revenues $4,176,100 $4,331,000 $4,487,100 $4,640,000 $4,795,500 $22,429,700
Net Revenue Requirements $4,000,900 $4,421,300 $4,326,600 $4,322,400 $5,439,600 $22,510,800
Revenue Excess (Shortfall) $175,200 ($90,300) $160,500 $317,600 ($644,100) ($81,100)
(a) Does not include fire service charges.
r..
Section 7
System Development Charges
Introduction
One of the principal sources of revenue for financing water system expansions is a one-time
initial charge for connection to the system. This charge is generally referred to as a
connection fee, impact fee, capital contribution fee,' and/or SDC. In some communities,
these fees are designed to recover only the costs incurred by the utility to install the
connection and, if needed, to extend the water line to serve the new user. For other
communities, these fees also include recovery of all or a portion of the capital investment
made by the water system to provide sufficient capacity in the system to serve these new
users.
The City of Tigard currently assesses an SDC that is intended to reimburse current users for
the costs they have incurred to provide capacity in the system to serve future users. The
City will begin construction on 2 reservoirs and several other capital projects in the next 5
years that will change the unit costs for the capacity provided in the system to serve future
users. In this section, the underlying assumptions and calculations of revised water SDCs
for the City of Tigard are discussed. Charges for installation of the connection or extension
of a water line should be assessed in addition to the SDCs calculated in this report.
MW
System Development Charges: An Overview
•m Capital improvements needed to provide new capacity in a water system must generally be
constructed in large increments;therefore, system expansions are often constructed years in
advance of when the added capacity will be fully utilized. As a result, current system users
,.. are often forced to pay rates that are partially used to pay for a portion of the system to
serve future users. SDCs, designed to recover the water system's investment in this extra
capacity, are often assessed, either to avoid charging existing users for these extra capacity
W costs or to partially compensate the existing users for the costs they have previously
incurred to provide this capacity.
MW Revenues generated through the assessment of SDCs are generally used to directly offset
the costs of a system expansion or to repay any debt issued to finance the system expansion.
The revenues may also be held to offset the costs of future system expansions. Use of these
`r„ revenues to offset these debt service costs reduces the amount of revenue that needs to be
generated through the water rates assessed to existing users. In this way, the SDC revenues
can be used either to directly finance plant expansions or to reimburse existing users
,W (through lower rates)for the costs they have incurred to provide capacity for new users.
SDCs are typically assessed when a new user or developer connects to the water, when a
new development permit is issued,or when a user changes the usage of his or her property.
There are a number of alternative SDC structures: a simple charge per connection, charges
that vary with the number of fixture units (water drains), new charges per equivalent
MW
PDX16F2A.DOC
7-1
9rr
aw residential unit, and charges that vary with the water meter size for the new connection
(that is, 5/8- by 3/4-inch equivalent meters). The City currently assesses SDCs on an
equivalent dwelling unit basis for all users.
Legislative Considerations
In 1989,the State of Oregon enacted legislation that applies to any SDCs in effect on orafter
July 1, 1991. The bill authorizes local governments to define and assess SDCs and places
limits on the ways revenues generated through SDCs can be used.
An SDC, as defined in this bill, is an amount charged to a new user at the time of
,i connection to the water system in excess of the cost of inspecting and installing the
connection. The SDC does not include fees assessed or collected through local improvement
districts. The legislation further breaks down the SDC into an improvement fee or a
,y reimbursement fee. The improvement fee is a fee for the cost of capital expansions to be
constructed. The reimbursement fee is a fee for the costs of capital improvements already
constructed or under construction. The SDC may consist of an improvement fee, a
reimbursement fee,or a combination of the two.
The legislation specifies that the reimbursement fee must be established by an ordinance or
resolution that sets forth the methodology that will be used to calculate the charge. It
further specifies that the methodology must consider the cost of existing facilities, prior
contributions by existing users, value of unused capacity, ratemaking principles employed
to finance the capital improvements, and other relevant factors. The objective of the
methodology must be that future system users contribute no more than an equitable share
of the cost of existing facilities.
The improvement fee methodology must also be specified in an ordinance or resolution
that considers the cost of projected capital improvements needed to increase the capacity of
the system. The legislation further requires that a credit be provided for the construction of
qualified public improvements (contributions). A qualified public improvement is one
required as a condition of residential development approval, identified in the system's
capital improvement program, and not located on or contiguous to the property being
developed.
Revenues generated through the reimbursement fees must be spent only on capital
improvements to the system or repayment of debt on those improvements. Revenues
generated through the improvement fees are dedicated to capacity-increasing capital
improvements or repayment of debt on capacity-increasing capital improvements. An
increase in capacity is established if the improvements increase the level of performance or
service provided by existing facilities or provide new facilities. The portion of such
improvements funded by improvement fees must be related to current or projected
development.
Other provisions of the legislation require that:
MW
PDX16F2A.DOC
7-2
• A local government implementing an SDC must develop a capital improvement
program (CIP)or comparable plan that lists the improvements that may be funded with
improvement fee revenues and the estimated timing and cost for each improvement.
• SDC revenues must be deposited into dedicated accounts, and local government must
provide an annual accounting of revenues and expenditures.
• Local government must provide for an administrative appeal procedure whereby a
citizen or other interested party may challenge an expenditure of SDC revenues.
• No legal action challenging the methodology used to calculate SDCs may be filed after
60 days from enactment of or revision to the SDC.
• The provisions of the legislation are invalidated if these provisions are construed to
impair the local government's bond obligations or the ability of the local government to
issue new bonds or other financing.
VAN
Overview Of Methodology
i4w The SDCs calculated in this study were prepared in accordance with CH2M HILL's
understanding of ORS223.297-314. The SDCs developed for this analysis consist of a
reimbursement fee, an improvement fee, and a combined fee. The City of Tigard's SDCs
were calculated on a system-wide basis and divided into 2 separate service areas; the 410
zone main service area and the Bull Mountain service area. The City's current SDCs are
based on the 2 separate service areas with different SDCs reflecting the additional costs
�. incurred to serve the higher elevated Bull Mountain service area.
Reimbursement Fee
The methodology used in this analysis to calculate the reimbursement fee involves dividing
the system's noncontributed depreciated plant investment in the water system components
by their respective capacities. The resulting investment per mgd of capacity is then
converted into an SDC that is based on a charge per EDU for single-family residential
connections. The resulting SDCs are based on the estimated requirements for capacity
•W associated with new users'potential demands on the system.
The reimbursement SDCs calculated in this study result in charges that are equal to the new
user's proportionate share of the depreciated investment by the utility in plant and
equipment to serve new users. The steps taken in this study to calculate these SDCs, as
shown in Table 7-1,are as follows:
• Determine historical system cost as measured by the noncontributed depreciated
original cost of the system's investment in the system plus current cash reserves less
MW outstanding debt on these improvements, to derive the net system investment in these
improvements.
+"" • Divide investment in system facilities by estimated system capacity of the system
components in mgd and gpd to derive charges per unit of capacity.
PDX16FZA.DOC
7-3
s.w
im-
Table 7-1
wr. CITY OF TIGARD
WATER RATE MODEL
SDC-REIMBURSEMENT FEE
rr• Water Reservoirs& Transmission
Bull Mountain System=19.7% Supply Storage I &Distribution Total
Current Fixed Asset Value-$ $0 $279,900 $2,254,000 $2,533,900
*w Less:Current Outstanding Debt Principal(a) 0 0 0 0
Plus:Current Cash Reserves(a) 0 58,900 473,800 532,700
Net System Investment $0 $338,800 $2,727,900 $3,066,600
r
Current System Design Capacity(mgd) 0.0 4.1 3.6
Net Investment per mgd $0 $82,600 $757,700
Net Investment per gpd $0.00 $0.08 $0.76
rwi
Maximum Day Water Demand(gpd)(b) 789 789 789
Reimbursement SDC per EDU $0 $63 $600 $663
+w.
Water Reservoirs& Transmission
410 Zone-80.3% Su Storage &Distribution Total
` Current Fixed Asset Value-$ $0 $1,138,800 $9,170,300 $10,309,100
Less:Current Outstanding Debt Principal(a) 0 0 0 0
Plus:Current Cash Reserves(a) 0 239,500 1,927,800 2,167,300
Net System Investment $0 $1,378,300 $11,098,100 $12,476,300
rwr
Current System Design Capacity(mgd) 0.0 16.8 14.4
w, Net Investment per mgd $0 $82,000 $770,700
Net Investment per gpd $0.00 $0.08 $0.77
Maximum Day Water Demand(gpd)(b) 789 789 789
Reimbursement SDC per EDU $0 $63 $608 $671
Water Reservoirs& Transmission
.r System-Wide=100% SUpn1v Storage &Distribution Total
Current Fixed Asset Value-$ $0 $1,418,700 $11,424,300 $12,843,000
Less:Current Outstanding Debt Principal(a) 0 0 0 0
Plus:Current Cash Reserves(a) 0 298,400 2,401,700 2,700,000
owPlus:
Investment
� $0 $1,717,100 $13,825,900 $15,543,000
Current System Design Capacity(mgd) 0.0 20.9 18.0
too
Net Investment per mgd $0 $82,200 $768,100
Net Investment per gpd $0.00 $0.08 $0.77
Maximum Day Water Demand(gpd)(b) 789 789 789
Reimbursement SDC per EDU $0 $63 $608 $671
' (a) Total is distributed to major unit processes using same proportions as current fixed assets.
(b) Estimated system total maximum day demand divided by total equivalent meters.
err
.. 7-4
-- • Multiply resulting total charge per unit of capacity by the estimated capacity
requirements of a typical single-family residential user or equivalent dwelling unit
(EDU). The charges for all other users are based on their meter size relative to a 5/8" x
3/4"EDU meter.
These steps result in reimbursement SDCs that distribute system capital costs equitably
WM between current and future users. In addition, these charges will equitably recover those
costs allocable to future users in proportion to their estimated potential demands for water
service.
Improvement Fee
The improvement fee methodology used in this analysis to calculate the SDCs is to divide
the expansion capital project costs (inflated) from the CEP by the new capacity being added
to the water system. The resulting unit cost of new capacity per mgd and gpd is then
converted into an SDC that is based on a charge per EDU. The resulting SDCs are based on
the estimated requirements for capacity associated with new users' potential demands on
the system and the unit costs per mgd of additional capacity.
The improvement SDCs calculated in this study result in charges that are equal to the
utility's costs to provide additional capacity for new users. The steps taken in this study to
calculate these SDCs,as shown in Table 7-2,are as follows:
• Determine the inflated value of OF expansion projects to be allocated to new users (see
Table 3-2).
• Divide the CEP expansion project costs by the additional water system capacity being
added by the CIP expansion projects.
• Multiply the resulting charge per unit of capacity by the estimated capacity
requirements of an EDU or typical single-family residential user. The charges for other
user classes are based on their meter size relative to a 5/8"x 3/4"EDU meter.
• Subtract a debt service credit, if any, for the expansion-related CIP costs that will be
debt financed. This is needed to ensure that new customers are not double-charged
+— through debt service payments included in the rates.
These steps result in SDCs that distribute additional system capacity costs equitably to
future users. In addition,these charges will equitably recover those expansion capital costs
allocated to future uses in proportion to their estimated potential demands for water
service.
Combined Fee
The combined fee methodology for calculating SDCs is the addition of the reimbursement
fee and the improvement fee. The resulting combined SDC, as shown in Table 7-3, is based
on the estimated requirements for capacity associated with new users, the potential
rr, demands on the system, and the unit investment per mgd of existing system capacity plus
the unit costs per mgd of additional system capacity.
low
PDX16F2A.DOC 7-5
am
Table 7-2
CITY OF TIGARD
WATER RATE MODEL
SDC-IMPROVEMENT FEE
r.
Water Reservoirs& Transmission
Bull Mountain System=19.7% Supply Stora e &Distribution Total
CIP Value Allocated to New Users $0 $406,800 $658,700 $1,065,500
Additional System Design Capacity(mgd) 0.0 1.0 1.0
Unit Cost of New Capacity per mgd $0 $406,800 $658,700
Unit Cost of New Capacity per gpd $0.00 $0.41 $0.66
Maximum Day Water Demand(gpd)(a) 789 789 789
rr
Improvement SDC per EDU $0 $323 $521 $844
Debt Service Credit per EDU $0 $0 $0 $0
Quo Net Improvement SDC per EDU $0 $323 $521 $844
Water Reservoirs& Transmission
410 Zone=80.3% Supply Storage &Distribution Total
rr
CIP Value Allocated to New Users $0 $264,400 $1,105,400 $1,369,800
Additional System Design Capacity(mgd) 0.0 3.5 3.5
wr
Unit Cost of New Capacity per mgd $0 $75,600 $315,800
Unit Cost of New Capacity per gpd $0.00 $0.08 $0.32
Maximum Day Water Demand(gpd)(a) 789 789 789
Improvement SDC per EDU $0 $63 $252 $315
Debt Service Credit per EDU $0 $0 $0 $0
" Net Improvement SDC per EDU $0 $63 $252 $315
Water Reservoirs& Transmission
System-Wide=100% Supply Storage &Distribution Total
CIP Value Allocated to New Users $0 $671,300 $1,764,100 $2,435,400
Additional System Design Capacity(mgd) 0.0 4.5 4.5
Unit Cost of New Capacity per mgd $0 $149,200 $392,000
err
Unit Cost of New Capacity per gpd $0.00 $0.15 $0.39
Maximum Day Water Demand(gpd)(a) 789 789 789
Improvement SDC per EDU $0 $118 $308 $426
Debt Service Credit per EDU $0 $0 $0 $0
Net Improvement SDC per EDU $0 $118 $308 $426
(a) Estimated system total maximum day demand divided by total equivalent meters.
-� 7-6
Table 7-3
CITY OF TIGARD
WATER RATE MODEL
SDC-COMBINED FEES
Item System-Wide 410 Zone Bull Mtn S stem
Reimbursement SDC per EDU $671 $671 $663
Net Improvement SDC per EDU $426 $315 $844
Combined SDC per EDU $1,097 $986 $1,507
Current SDC per EDU N.A. $845 $1,000
M
aw
s
VAW
a.
a.
7-7
The combined system-wide SDC for a single-family connection is$1,097. The SDCs for the 2
separate service areas are $986 for the 410 zone and $1,507 for Bull Mountain. These SDCs
compare with the current SDCs of$845 and$1,000,respectively,as shown on Table 7-3.
SDC Recommendations
We recommend that the City implement the 2 new SDCs for the 410 zone and .Bull
Mountain service areas as shown in Table 7-3. This SDC methodology is easy to administer,
is simple to understand, provides a reasonable approximation of the relative water
demands of various new customers, and does not require the City to monitor changes in
other user activities.
We also recommend that the City:
• Establish or continue to maintain an account for the SDC revenues and an accounting
system to track the receipt and expenditure of these funds.
• Establish or continue to maintain an administrative procedure whereby a citizen or
other interested party may challenge an expenditure of SDC revenues.
• Identify in the City's capital improvement program which capital improvements may be
�•• financed from revenues generated through SDCs.
• Incorporate the SDC calculation methodology used in this report into the SDC
ordinance.
w.
PDX16F2A.DOC 7-8
rr
Section 8
Summary and Recommendations
Rates
This study uses a cost-of-service analysis to determine the actual costs involved in serving
each of the customer classes. The results are based on the assumptions, available data, and
current estimates of future costs for the 5-year rate-setting period of FY 1996/97 through FY
2000/01. These results show that current water rates are sufficient to meet system financial
requirements. However,CH2M HILL recommends that the City consider the cost-of-service
rates developed in this analysis. The cost-of-service approach is a step toward a water
conservation rate and eliminates any concerns users may have over the equitable
distribution of system costs and the rates charged to recover those costs.
We recommend that the City of Tigard adopt water rates that are consistent with the
financial requirements of the system. This will result in rates that are adequate to meet the
system's revenue needs.
System Development Charges
A reimbursement SDC,an improvement SDC,and a combined SDC were calculated for this
study. CH2M HILL recommends that the City of Tigard adopt the 2 service area SDCs for
• new customers connecting to these water systems. These SDCs are equitable and charge
new users their appropriate share of the investment the City has or plans to have in the
water system.
Recommendations
The water rates presented in this report are for the 5-year rate-setting period of FY1996/97
through FY2000/01. We recommend that the proposed cost-of-service volume rate plus
+i® minimum charge structures be considered by the City as an alternative to the current rate
structure the City has in effect. The cost-of-service rate structures would eliminate the
outside district charge and the large meter demand charge but would maintain the booster
charge and the fire service charges. We also recommend the adoption of a seasonal
conservation surcharge during the 3 summer months of July, August, and September for
single-family residential users and for irrigation users when data for that class become
,. available. We finally recommend that water rates be reviewed annually to help maintain
adequate revenues and equitable rates.
aw
PDX16F2A.DOC
8-1
wow
f �6
�4
r:•pr� - -
• C
L
.r
Cityof Ti'gard
Water ate Study
May15, 1996
_
c
k:
C
FFC
M1
R
r
■
P.
SKr
rd ater ate Study
k
e'
I
F
e�
Review Draft Report
Review SDC and Rate Options
r
k
e
i.
E!
F
C
IF
L'
f4
G
C
F�
k
sC Recommendation
. E
k:
•
Adopt Revised System D
Charges
Main 410 System Service Area ($845)
>Bull Mountain Service Area ($1,507)
LL
• Continue Fire Service Connection
Charge ($1,250
F'
c
�e Designt. .Options
•s Continue Current Rate Design; or
•:� Adopt Cost of Service Rates.
Volume Rate plus Min. Customer Charge
> Volume Rate plus Min. Service Charge
❖ For Either of the Above Options:
>Adopt Seasonal Conservation Surcharge
Continue Current Fire Service Charges