HomeMy WebLinkAbout2007/12/18 Item 8
CITY COUNCIL
AGENDA STATEMENT
~v~ CITY OF
:~CHULA VISTA
12/18/07, ItemL
SUBMITTED BY:
REVIEWED BY:
RESOLUTION DECLARING THE CITY'S
INTENTION TO INCREASE SEWER SERVICE CHARGES AND
SETTING A PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER SAID INCREASE
FOR FEBRUARY 5, 2008 AT 4:00 P.M.
DIRECTOR OF EN~~RING AND GENERAL SERVICES ~
CITY MANAGER __
ASSISTANT CITY AGER "7 /
4/5THS VOTE: YES D NO ~
ITEM TITLE:
BACKGROUND
The sewer service charge is paid by all users who are connected to the City's wastewater
collection system. Revenues derived from this fee are used to fund the cost of wastewater
treatment, system maintenance and operation.
On July 19, 2005, the City Council approved a five-year rate plan, based on the
recommendations of a Sewer Rate Study prepared by Camp Dresser & McKee, Inc. ("CDM").
The rate plan set the schedule for the adjustment of sewer service fees for Fiscal Year 2005-06
through Fiscal Year 2009-10. However, since then, the adopted rate plan has not met the revenue
objectives due to a variety of reasons. The primary reasons for the inadequacy of the adopted
rates were due to a combination of factors; baseline customer data used in the 2005 Rate Study
was over-estimated, in addition there have been unanticipated shortfalls in the growth projections
for new accounts contrary to the assumptions in the rate study, which formed the basis of the
adopted rate plan. .
A recent study by Camp Dresser & McKee, Inc. ("CDM") has determined that, over the long
term, the adopted rate plan would not generate the projected revenues, hence compromising the
ability of the fund to meet its obligations for wastewater treatment, system operation and
maintenance. It is therefore necessary that the City take the appropriate actions to adjust the rate
schedule and avoid this potential fiscal impact.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The Environmental Review Coordinator has reviewed the proposed activity for compliance with
the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and has determined that the activity is not a
8-1
12/18107, Item~
Page 2 of 11
"Project" as defined under Section 15378 of the State CEQA Guidelines because it does not
involve a physical change to the environment; therefore, pursuant to Section 15060(c)(3) of the
State CEQA Guidelines the activity is not subject to CEQA. Thus, no environmental review is
necessary.
RECOMMENDATION
That Council adopt the resolution declaring the City's intention to increase sewer service charges
and setting a Public Hearing to consider said increase for February 5, 2008 at 4:00 p.m.
BOARDS/COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION
Not applicable.
DISCUSSION
Sewer Service Charl!:e Update
The City of Chula Vista's sewer service charge is made up of three different fees: the Sewer
Service Fee, Sewer Facilities Replacement Fee and the Storm Drain Fee (see diagram below).
Consequently, revenue generated by the City's sewer service charge is distributed between three
separate funds. The City is proposing to adjust the Sewer Facilities Replacement fee and the
Sewer Service fee. The Storm Drain fee is not being re-evaluated or adjusted as part of this effort;
however it will be included in a future workshop regarding funding infrastructure needs.
On July 19, 2005, the City Council approved a five-year rate plan, which set the schedule for the
adjustment of sewer service fees for Fiscal Year 2005-06 through Fiscal Year 2009-10 based on
the findings and recommendations of the "Cost of Service and Rate Study for Sewer Services"
prepared by Camp Dresser & McKee, Inc. ("CDM").
Sewer Fees Relationship Diagram
I Sewer Service Charge I
I
I I I
Scwcr Service Fee Scwcr Facilities Replacement Fec Stann Drain Fee
Varies SFR $1.97/Month SFR $0.70/Month
(Dependent on quantity MFRlComm $O.lllhcf MFRlComm $0.06/hcf
and quality of flow)
I I I
Sewer Service Fund Sewer Facility Rcplaccment Fund Stonn Drain Fund
City Maintenance & Operations Sewer Rehab Projects Stonn Drain Projects
Metro Treatment Costs NPDES Compliance
8-2
12/18/07, Item~
Page 3 of 11
Since then, the adopted rate plan has not met the revenue objectives primarily because baseline
customer data used in the 2005 Rate Study was over-estimated coupled with a significant shortfall
in growth projections for new accounts contrary to the assumptions in the previous rate study.
Consequently, the City retained CDM to prepare another study dated October 2007 (see
Attachment A) with the primary goal of achieving the following objectives:
1. Existing Rates: To re-evaluate the performance of the adopted rate plan and its potential
ability to meet the revenue requirements based on the revised proj ected growth rate of the
City.
2. Cost Allocation: To re-evaluate the cost allocation amongst the various user classes to
ensure that it was proportional to use and equitable.
3. Single-Family Residential Billing Method: To re-evaluate the sewer-billing method for
single- family residential users and address the concerns those customers had regarding the
impact of residual winter irrigation usage on their sewer bill.
4. Financial Plan: To develop a financial plan, which returns the Sewer Service Revenue
Fund to self-sufficiency, and further rebuilds the reserve balance to an optimal level.
Findings
. Existing Rates
It has been determined that the existing rates (see Attachment B) were inadequate and have
not/will not generate the revenues needed to meet the obligations of the fund for wastewater
treatment, system operation and maintenance. Therefore, the rates needed to be adjusted and in
some cases increased. A new rate schedule (see Attachment B) is being proposed.
The primary reasons for the inadequacy of the adopted rates were due to a combination of
factors; baseline customer data used in the 2005 Rate Study was over-estimated and a shortfall
in the growth projections for new accounts.
Customer Data - 2005 Rate Study
The City of Chula Vista bills its customers in three different ways. Customers within Otay
Water District's (Otay) jurisdiction are billed monthly for water and sewer services on the
same bill by Otay. Customers in Sweetwater Authority's (Sweetwater) jurisdiction who reside
in the pre-annexation area are billed for sewer services bi-monthly by the City's Finance
Department. The remaining customers who are in the Montgomery area of the city who are in
either Sweetwater's or CAL-American's jurisdiction are billed for sewer services annually on
the property tax bill by the City's Engineering & General Services Department. All these
billing units maintained independent databases that were not linked. Ultimately the customer
data, which was used in the 2005 study, was assembled from these databases. Through a recent
audit of these systems, in preparation for the 2007 study, it was determined that the baseline
customer data used in the 2005 study was significantly higher than it should have been (See
8-3
12/18/07, Item~
Page 4 of 11
Table 1 & Figure 1). Consequently, the revenue requirement was spread over more customers
than actually existed, resulting in rates that were lower than they should have been, and
revenue that was significantly lower than projected with the difference compounding after the
application of an overly optimistic growth rate.
Table 1 - Number of Customer Accounts
Fiscal Year FY 2005-06 Sewer Rate FY 2007-08 Sewer Rate
Study Study Differeuce
05/06 48370 46399 -1971
06/07 50570 47020 -3550
----- 0-
07/08 52790 47550 -5240
----- - .~-~
_ 08/09 55018 48080 -6938
-
_09/10 57240 48620 -8620
--.--
10/11 49170
_nOnn n
11/12 49720
~ 65000
I '-
Ql
E 60000
0 55000
....
III
:l 50000
(J
- 45000
0
.. 40000
Ql
.Q 35000
E
:l 30000
Z
!O :\ ","" !'1) !'1)\....c:, c:,\........ "("-'1.-
0<::i ,p 'i/J'"
<::i <::i ~ <::i <::i .... ........
Fiscal Year
._--~.
~--
--+- FY 2007-08
Sewer Rate
Study
1__ FY 2005-06
I Sewer Rate
I Study
Figure 1 - Account Projections
Shortfall in the projected growth rate of new accounts
The revenue generated by the Sewer Service Revenue Fund primarily depends on the number
of customers on record and the amount of billable flow generated by these customers. The
2005 Cost of Service Study was based on customer usage data from the two prior years, FY
2003-04 and FY 2004-05. At that time, the City of Chula Vista was experiencing a high influx
of new development, which seemed to be on track to continue for a significant amount of time.
Unfortunately, shortly after the adoption of the rate schedule, development peaked and went
into a significant downturn that has impacted the revenues for the past two years and is
projected to continue to have a negative impact. An analysis of the actual customer data
utilized in this study compared to the projections used in the previous study shows that the
actual number of customers and billable flow for the last two years was significantly lower
than what was projected. This further exacerbated the situation and ultimately resulted in
revenues being significantly lower than the 2005 Study projections.
8-4
12/18/07, Item~
Page 5 of 11
Therefore, the combination of the inadequate rates and the decline in the growth rate resulted
in fewer paying customers, lower sewage volume, and consequently lower than expected
revenue for the fund. Single-Family Residential User growth has dropped from 5% to 1.15%.
This has resulted in a decline in expected revenues over the five-year period analyzed. Had
the baseline customer data been accurate, and had growth continued as previously predicted,
the adopted rates would have been adequate to cover expenses.
. Costs Allocation
Costs to be allocated
As earlier indicated, the Sewer Service Revenue Fund is primarily used to fund the cost of
wastewater treatment ("Metro Expenditures"), as well as maintenance and operation of the
City's wastewater collection system. The table below shows the estimated costs to be met in
Fiscal Year 2007 -08. These percentages are typical for this fund.
PROJECTED MAINTENANCE AND OPERATIONS EXPENSE FY 2007-08
Descrintion Amount I Percentaee
I
A WW Maintenance & Operatiou (incl. support Sycs) $ 9,789,100 . 33.2%
B Canital Exnenditure to Maintain Collection System $ 1,300,800 4.4'10~_
C Otay Water District ~ Billing Services $ 356,000 1.2%
D Spring Valley Costs (Capital Projects & M &0) $ 736,200 25%_-::::
E Metro Cost - Wastewater Treatment $ 18,273,300 58.6%
F Estimated~O",e-timeS:redit for Prior Year Metro Expenditures ($I,OOO,O()O)
Total $ 29,455,400 I 100.0%-
Metro Expenditures
The City is billed for wastewater treatment based on the quantity and quality (strength) of the
sewage generated. The above table shows that the wastewater treatment costs represents
approximately 59% of the fund's obligation. This is due to the fact that the City of San Diego
allocates all the costs for treatment (including the maintenance and operation of the Metro
system, and Capital Improvement Projects) to all participating agencies in proportion to the
quantity and quality of sewage they each contribute to the system. The City of Chula Vista's
proportionate share is based upon the current flow of approximately 9% of the total flow in the
Metro system.
City's Operation and Maintenance Expenditures
The City of Chula Vista had been developing at a very fast pace. Consequently, the addition of
new sewer mains to the collection system required the addition of new staff and equipment to
maintain these facilities. The City's in-house maintenance, operations (M & 0) and capital
costs represent approximately 38% of the operating budget. The City continues
to benchmark with other agencies throughout the region and the results of surveys indicate that
the City's costs for M & 0 are comparable with those of other agencies of similar size or
characteristics with one notable difference. The average spill recorded in the Orange,
Riverside, and San Diego Counties by the State Water Resources Control Board for FY 2006-
07, is 1.9 spills per 100 miles compared to only 0.8 spills per 100 miles for the City of Chula
8-5
12/18/07, Item~
Page 6 of 11
Vista. Chula Vista's spill rate for the most recent year was 58% lower than the three-County
average, a testament to the City's diligent management of the wastewater collection system.
Cost Allocation by User Class
CDM has developed a proposed revenue plan, which not only corrects for customer base and
growth rate, but also includes refinements to the cost allocation among the various user classes
based on quantity and quality of flow discharged by each user class. Attachment C shows the
account and flow distribution of the various users of the system who are obligated to share in
the cost of maintaining and operating this system. Single-family residential customers
represent approximately 91 % of the customer base and generate approximately 61 % of the
flow. Multi-family residential and commercial customers makeup the remaining 9% and
generate 39% of the flow. These percentages form the underlying basis of the cost allocation.
Attachment D shows the existing cost allocation and the proposed re-allocation. Adoption of
CDM's recommendations will make the rate structure even more proportional to use and also
more equitable.
.
Single-family Residential Billing Method - Implementation of a "Return Factor" for
Single-Family Residential Customers
A previous analysis of the City's sewer customer billing data indicated that the City's current
approach of billing single-family residential customers based on the lowest two winter months
of water usage is a fair and equitable method and is used by a majority of large utilities in the
United States. However, over the last few years, a significant number of customers seem to
continue to irrigate even during the lowest-use winter months. Since the usage within that
period is the basis of the customer's sewer bill for the fiscal year, a re-valuation of the
currently assumed 100% return factor for this user class determined that implementing a ninety
percent (90%) return factor, (assuming that 10% of the water used during this period by the
customer was used for irrigation, and 90% was used inside the house and returned to the sewer
system) still achieved mass balance. This reduced return factor was validated through a
comparison of billed sewer volume conveyed to Metro and customer billed estimates.
. Independent Study to verify the "Return Factor" for Single Family Residential
Customers
Although staff is currently recommending that the City implement a 90% return factor for
single-family residential customers at this time, this recommendation is based on the review of
similar studies by other agencies in the region, and validation by a mass-balance analysis.
However, since the flow generation characteristics of this user class may vary from region to
region, staff will be seeking a grant to conduct a limited study involving Chula Vista residents,
to determine the "actual" return factor for an "average" single-family residential household in
the City of Chula Vista. This may involve installing meters at sewer laterals, tracking the
number of users per household, and other relevant factors that impact sewage generation. The
goal of this study would be to determine an "actual" rate of return for Chula Vista residents
compared to County averages and help ensure that return rate assumptions are most reflective
of our city.
8-6
12/18/07, Item~
Page 7 of 11
Recommendations - Proposed Rate Plan
The current rate plan, which was adopted in July 2005, for FY 2005-06 through FY 2009-10,
represented an overall annual increase in revenue requirement of 7.5% for the first three years
and 3.5% for the two years thereafter. Although, the last Cost of Service Study by CDM
developed a five-year financial plan for FY 2007-08 through FY 2011-12, CDM recommended
the adoption of a three-year plan (FY 2007-08 to FY 2009-10) due to a variety of current/near-
term issues that could have significant impacts on future rates. The major issue is the potential
upgrade of the Point Loma Treatment Plant from an advanced primary treatment plant to a
secondary treatment plant, currently estimated to cost approximately $700 million to $1
billion. The City of San Diego has decided to request another waiver-results are not
anticipated for up to another year. It is for this reason that staff concurs with CDM's
recommendation to adopt a three-year rate plan. The proposed rate plan, being scheduled for
Council consideration on February 5, 2008, represents an overall increase in revenue
requirement of 5% for the remainder of Fiscal Year FY 2007-08, and two consecutive 9.9%
increases for the two years thereafter. This would be in lieu of the scheduled 3.5% increases.
Effective Date Adopted Rate Proposed Rate
Increases Increases
July 2005 7.5 Percent
July 2006 7.5 Percent
July 2007 7.5 Percent
February 2008 - 5.0 percent
July 2008 3.5 Percent 9.9 percent
July 2009 3.5 Percent 9.9 percent
Sewer Facility Replacement Fee Update
The Sewer Facilities Replacement Fee, which is a component of the sewer service charge, was
established in 1987 as a funding mechanism for the rehabilitation and/or replacement of
structurally deficient sewer facilities. This goal is achieved through the implementation of a
comprehensive Sewer Rehabilitation Program.
Sewer Rehabilitation Program
The Sewer Rehabilitation Program is a $1.4 million/year program, which involves the relining or
replacement of aging pipelines within the City's wastewater collection system. It also funds the
reconstruction of existing pump stations. This program has so far been driven by the information
gathered through a comprehensive video monitoring program. City crews using specialized
vehicles equipped with video cameras televise and evaluate the conditions of various lines within
the collection system. Using data gathered through this process, a priority list is developed of
locations that need to be rehabilitated or replaced. Subsequently, these lines are improved as part
of an annual Capital Improvement Program which the City funds every year.
8-7
12/18/07, Item~
Page 8 of 11
The current fee, funding level, and cost allocation were last evaluated in 2005 as part of the
Wastewater Master Plan Update, which was done concurrent with the General Plan Update. More
recently, staff reviewed the historical records i.e. findings of previous monitoring efforts, required
improvements and cost of the required improvements and made the following determination:
a. Program Status
Video Monitoring - Current data in the system indicates there are approximately 477 miles of
sewer lines in the City's wastewater collection system as of the beginning of FY 2007-08. To
date, Public Works crews have televised a net 155 miles of sewer lines mostly located within
the western portion of the City. This represents approximately 32% of the entire collection
system, which means that approximately 68% or 322 miles remain to be televised (mostly in
the eastern/newer section of the City). It is expected that the remaining portion of the system
will be televised within the next 10 years, after which the process will be repeated.
Completed Improvements - To date the City has completed over 30,000 l.f (7.5 Miles) of
required improvements at a cost of approximately $4.4 million.
b. Revenue Requirements - Although future monitoring efforts will be focused on the
eastern/newer portion of the City, which may result in a lower level of rehabilitation and/or
replacement, there is the potential that unanticipated replacement projects, and the findings
from the current Infiltration & Inflow (I & I) Study, could result in additional expenditures.
Therefore, staff recommends setting the fee such that it continues to generate the same
level of revenue as it does today ($1.4 million).
c. Review of the cost allocation among the user classes - The estimated cost of service of
$1.4 million per year was then used as the basis to allocate costs to the various user classes
in proportion to the quantity of wastewater contributed, and to develop the revised fees for
each user class. Using the same customer data as was used in the Cost of Service Study by
CDM, staff determined that the current cost allocation needed to be changed. Since the
City now has a consumption-based sewer service fee structure for all users, staff
recommends that the Sewer Facility Replacement Fee also be revised to a consumption-
based fee for all users. Staff is recommending a new fee of $O.l8/Hundred Cubic Feet
(hcf). Consequently, single-family residential users who are currently billed a flat fee of
$1.97/month, will now pay $0.18/hcf. Although, each user's fee will be dependent on
actual usage, the "average" single-family residential user will pay $1.62/month. For multi-
family dwellings and commercial users, fees will be increased from $O.II/hcfto $0.18/hcf.
The detailed cost allocation calculation is shown in Attachment E.
Table 2
Proposed Sewer Facilities Replacement Fee Update
User Class Current FY08 FY09 FYIO
$/hcf
Single-Family $1.97/month $0.18 $0.18 $0.18
Multi-family $O.l1/hcf $0.18 $0.18 $0.18
Commercial $O.ll/hcf $0.18 $0.18 $0.18
8-8
12/18/07, Item~
Page 9 of 11
Overall Rate Imoacts
Single-Family Residential Users
In July 2007, the City implemented the previously adopted rates, which represented a 7.5%
percent increase in revenue requirement from the prior year. Although, a 5% increase in revenue
requirement is being recommended for February 2008, it will have almost a zero net impact on the
average single-family residential user, who will see a net reduction offour cents on their bill. The
minimal impact is primarily due to the implementation of a 90% return factor and the reduction of
the sewer facilities replacement fee component of the sewer service charge. Attachment F shows
the impact of the proposed increases on single-family residential users at various levels of usage
from FY 2007-08 through FY 2009-10.
Multi-Family Residential and Commercial Customers
The individual impacts to these classes of customers will vary in accordance with their water
consumption (sewage generation). Collectively, the impacts on these user classes are shown in
greater detail in Attachment F.
Comoarison of City of Chula Vista's Sewer Service Fee with Other Local Al!encies
While acknowledging that every agency's cost for operating its wastewater collection system
varies in accordance with its unique characteristics (size, age of system, demographics etc.),
Attachment G shows a comparison of the sewer service charge an "Average Single-Family
Residential User" all the participating agencies in the Metro system, whose treatment costs per
million gallons, is the same as Chula Vista's.
Proposition 218
Pursuant to the California Supreme Court decision in the Bighorn-Desert View Water Agency v.
VeIjil, local govemments must comply with the notice and majority protest proceedings of Article
13D, section 6 (a) of the California Constitution when seeking an increase in sewer fees. Thus,
the City is required to provide written notice by mail of the proposed fee increase to the record
owner of each identified parcel upon which the proposed fee increase is imposed, the amount of
the proposed increase in the fee, the basis upon which the amount of the proposed fee increase is
calculated, the reason for the proposed increased fee, together with the date, time and location of a
public hearing on the proposed fee increase. The City shall conduct a public hearing upon the
proposed fee increase not less than 45 days after the mailing of the notice. At the public hearing,
the City shall consider all protests against the proposed fee or charge. If written protests against
the proposed fee or charge are presented by a majority of the owners of the identified parcels, the
City shall not impose the increase in the fee.
Tonight, the Resolution Declaring the City's Intention is before the City Council. Should the
Resolution of Intention be approved tonight, a Notice (Attachment H) will be mailed to all
property owners within the City who may be impacted by this rate increase. Based on our records,
8-9
12/18/07, Item~
Page 10 of 11
notices will be mailed to 52,902 property owners who will be impacted by the rate increase. The
notice will explain the reasons for the increase, the impact of the rate change on their bill, the
majority protest process and an invitation to attend a public hearing to be held 45 days later
(February 5, 2008).
DECISION MAKER CONFLICT
Staff has reviewed the property holdings of the City Council Members and has determined that the
effect of the decision contemplated by this action on the public officials' interest in real property
also affects ten percent or more of all property owners in the public official's jurisdiction or 5,000
property owners in the jurisdiction of the official's agency in substantially the same manner.
Therefore, pursuant to California Code of Regulations sections 18707 and 18707.1, the Public
Generally Exception applies.
FISCAL IMPACT
If a majority protest does not occur related to the proposed sewer rate adjustments and if the City
Council subsequently approves the proposed sewer rate adjustments and increases, it is anticipated
that the City will generate sufficient revenues to meet projected fund expenditures for Fiscal Years
2007-08 through 2009-10. The Sewer Service Revenue Fund started Fiscal Year 2007-08 with an
un-appropriated balance of approximately $4.1 million. If the increase is not approved, that
balance would drop to $0.8 million by the end of the fiscal year. With the proposed rate
adjustment, the fund balance would increase to $1.4 million and then start to recover in the
ensuing years. This fee adjustment will increase the fund revenues by approximately $11.6
million, over the next two-and-a-half years.
If the fee increase is not approved, the City may address the resulting shortfall through a transfer
from the General Fund or by making operational cuts. Since the City cannot control the sewage
generation or treatment costs, the only other area of control will be the City's in-house operations
and capital expenditures. Reductions in these areas will impact our pipe cleaning, pipe monitoring
and pipe rehabilitation programs. The City's excellent spill-prevention record can be attributed to
these programs. Consequently, cuts in these programs could make the wastewater collection
system more susceptible to sewer spills, which could then result in significant penalties from the
State Water Resources Control Board. Therefore, the approval of the proposed rate increases is
crucial to the City's ability to provide a high level of operation and maintenance of the City's
wastewater collection system.
Furthermore, approval of the proposed sewer facility replacement re-allocation will ensure that the
City's cost allocation for each user group better correlates to their estimated impacts on the
system. This fee adjustment will continue to generate approximately the same level of revenue as it
does today ($1.4 million) over the next two-and-a-half years. The Sewer Facility Replacement Fund
currently has an unappropriated balance of approximately $3.3 million.
ATTACHMENTS
A. Cost of Service and Rate Study For Sewer Services - October 2007
8-10
B. Existing and Proposed Rate Schedules
C. Account and Flow Distribution by User Class
D. Existing and Proposed Cost of Service Allocation
E. Sewer Facility Replacement Fee Cost Allocation/Fee Determination
F. Rate Impacts on Various User Classes
G. Other Cities Rates- Single-Family Residential User Comparison
H. Public Hearing Notice
Prepared by: Anthony Chukwudolue, Senior Civil Engineer, Engineering Department
f \Engineer\A GENDA \CAS2007\12-18-07\Intention to Increase Sewer Rate.ac.doc
8-11
12/18/07, ItemL
Page 11 of 11
ATTACHMENT A
City of Chula Vista
Cost of Service and Rate Study for Sewer Services
October 2007
Prepared by:
CDM
111 Academy, Suite 150
Irvine, California 92617
8-12
COM
Contents
Executive Summary .............................................. ............................................................. ES-1
Section 1 Introduction .................................................................... .................................. .1-1
1.1 Background ..................................................... .....................................1-1
1.2 Purpose.................................................................................... ............ .1-4
1.3 Scope of the Study ...............................................................................1-5
Section 2 Revenue.............................................................................................................. 2-1
2.1 User Classifications and Customer Growth ....................................2-1
2.2 Billing Method .....................................................................................2-2
2.3 Existing Sewer Rates ...........................................................................2-4
2.4 Sewer Service Fee Revenue Under Existing Rates..........................2-5
2.4.1 Revenue Under Existing Rates .............................................2-5
2.4.2 Other Revenues ............................................ ..........................2-6
2.4.3 Interest Income ....................................................................... 2-6
Capital Improvement Program .......................................................................3-1
Revenue Requirements ....................................................................................4-1
4.1 Operations and Maintenance Expense.............................................4-1
4.2 Debt Service Requirements ................................................................4-2
4.3 Transfer of Revenues to the Sewer Facilities Replacement Fund.4-2
4.4 Transfers of Revenues to the Storm Drain Fund ............................4-2
4.5 Bad Debt Write-offs.............................. ...............................................4-2
4.6 Routine Capital Outlays .....................................................................4-2
Section 5 Cash Flow Analysis ..........................................................................................5-1
5.1 Proposed Revenue Adjustments.......................................................5-1
Section 6 Cost of Service Analysis...................................................................................6-1
6.1 Cost of Service to be Allocated..........................................................6-1
6.2 Wastewater Parameters...................................................................... 6-2
6.2.1 Volume Related Costs............................................................6-2
6.2.2 Wastewater Strength Costs...................................................6-2
6.2.3 Customer Costs........................................................ .............. .6-2
Allocation to Wastewater Parameters ..............................................6-3
6.3.1 Allocation of Capital Costs ...................................................6-3
6.3.2 Allocation of Operating Expense .........................................6-3
Allocation of Cost to Customer Classes ...........................................6-4
6.4.1 Customer Classifications............. ............................... ...........6-4
6.4.2 Units of Service ........................ ............... ................................6-5
6.4.3 Unit Costs of Service ..............................................................6-6
6.5 Customer Class Costs of Service .......................................................6-7
Section 7 Rate Design........................................................................................................ 7-1
7.1 Proposed Sewer Rates......................................................................... 7-1
7.2 Appeal Process..................................................................................... 7-2
7.3 Rate Revenue Comparison.................................................................7-2
7.4 Proposed Rates................................................................................. ... 7-3
7.5 Rate Comparisons ................................................................. .............. 7-5
Section 3
Section 4
6.3
6.4
8-13
COM
Executive Summary
The City of Chula Vista (City) requested Camp Dresser & McKee (CDM) to conduct
an update of the cost of service and rate study for sewer service. The purpose of the
study is to evaluate the existing sewer rates, review and evaluate revenues and
revenue requirements, and perform cost of service and rate analyses to ensure equity
among customer classes. This report documents the results of the study and
recommends sewer rates that the City should charge its customers in the study
period.
Throughout this study, fiscal years will be termed as follows: Fiscal Year 2007-2008 is
shown as FY 07-08, FY 2008, or just 2008 herein.
The objective of this report is to support development of fair and equitable rates that
can be easily implemented and updated for the City's sewer system for the study
period of FY 07-08 through FY 11-12 and a five-year financial plan that will secure
financial stability of the sewer enterprise.
This financial plan was developed based on information that was readily available at
this time (from both the City of Chula Vista and the City of San Diego). Since the City
of Chula Vista receives wastewater treatment services from the City of San Diego
Metropolitan Wastewater District (Metro) and those costs are a significant component
of the fund's obligation, any major policy decisions (i.e., current consideration to
upgrade the Point Lorna treatment Plant from an advanced primary treatment plant
to a secondary treatment plant) will definitely impact the financial plan. The City will
have to re-evaluate the rates developed through this study should that situation or a
similar situation with significant unanticipated financial impacts arise.
The sewer service fees collected by the City of Chula Vista are primarily used to
maintain and operate the wastewater collection system and pay for the cost of
wastewater treatment. In addition to the sewer service fee, users also pay a sewer
facilities replacement fee and a storm drain fee as part of their monthly fbi-monthly
service charge. However, the storm drain fee was not analyzed in this study.
Revenues generated through the storm drain fee and sewer facilities replacement fee
are later transferred into the Storm Drain Fund and Sewer Facilities Replacement
Fund respectively.
We recommend the results of this study be used to make sewer rate adjustments
effective this fiscal year and the next two years. Beyond that time frame, significant
changes, such as potential cost increases from Metro, are likely to occur and a new
analysis should be conducted.
Summary of Findings and Recommendations
1. The City is currently serving approximately 47,000 individual sewer customer
accounts. The study anticipates continued increases in the number of sewer
customers throughout the study period. The projected growth rate varies
ES-1
8-14
1:DM
Executive Summary
depending on the customer category. Below are the annual percentage growth
rates used for the various customers; the rates were based on the review of
historical trends in the City within the last 2 years.
Table ES-l
Projected Growth by Customer Class
Customer Class FY 08-09 FY 09-10 FY 10-11 FY 11-12
Single-Family Residential 1.15% 1.15% 1.15% 1.15%
Multi-Family Residential 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 1.0%
Mobile Homes 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 1.0%
Commercial Low 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 1.0%
Commercial Medium 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Commercial High 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Special Users 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
2. Sewer utility revenues are principally derived from sewer service fees. Other
revenue sources include industrial waste permits, miscellaneous fees, and interest
income among others. The Operating Fund is currently self-supporting, although
using existing reserve balances, and the proposed financial plan does not provide
for any future transfers from any other sources.
3. The sewer utility's annual revenue requirements consist of operations and
maintenance (O&M) expenditures, routine capital outlays, write-offs of
uncollectible accounts, and transfers to the replacement fund and storm drain
fund. O&M expenses, including capital outlays, are projected to increase from
$29,455,400 in FY 07-08 to $34,118,600 in FY 11-12.
4. By definition, cost of service is the annualized revenue requirements net of
revenue credits from other miscellaneous sources that need to be met through
sewer rates. The City's estimated 2008 test year cost of service to be met from
sewer rates totals $26,742,400. Revenue derived from charges for service under
current rates is estimated to be $25,469,000 for FY 07-08 excluding revenues
derived from Sewer Facilities Replacement Charges and Storm Drain Charges.
Therefore, the adopted rates are inadequate and do not generate sufficient
revenues to meet the revenue requirements.
5. Although not the subject of this rate study, also of note is the Sewer Utility Capital
Improvement Program (CIP) which is projected to total $9,101,300 over the next
five years - from FY 07-08 through FY 11-12. Projects include sewer replacements,
and annual improvements to the sewer system. To finance the capital program,
several funding sources are planned to be used, including sewer facility
replacement fees, storm drain fees, sewer capacity charges, transfers from the
General Fund, and existing fund balances in the capital funds. Consequently,
ES-2
8-15
COM
Executive Summary
capital costs will be offset by other funding sources and hence do not affect this
study
6. The purchase of additional Metro capacity is not included toward current CIP as
negotiations are underway. A reserve has been created towards paying for
additional capacity, but it will not be adequate, and additional debt may have to
be issued to cover the remainder of capacity costs. This debt will be serviced by
the Trunk Sewer Capital Reserve Fund and will not affect rates detailed in this
report.
7. Required revenue increases throughout the study period are based on an analysis
of the sewer utility's revenues and revenue requirements. Our analyses indicate
sewer utility revenues will require the following increases for FY 07-08 through
FY 11-12. There will be an initial 5.0% increase to the currently effective FY 07-08
rates and the subsequent rate increases will be in lieu of the previously adopted
rate increases.
Effective Date Adopted Rate Proposed Rate
Increases Increases
July 2005 7.5 Percent
July 2006 7.5 Percent
July 2007 7.5 Percent
January 2008 - 5.0 percent
July 2008 3.5 Percent 9.9 percent
July 2009 3.5 Percent 9.9 percent
July 2010 3.5 percent
July 2011 3.5 percent
8. A cost of service approach is used to develop rates for sewer service. This means
that customers are charged based on their proportional usage of facilities. The
proposed rates are consistent with State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB)
guidelines and recognized rate industry standards as described in the Wastewater
Environment Federation (formally Wastewater Pollution Control Federation) rate
manual. Rates are set to recover the cost of service (maintenance, operation and
treatment). Wastewater treatment costs are dependent on the quantity and quality
of the effluent that is treated at the plant. In the San Diego Metro system, the
quality of the effluent is measured by two components; chemical oxygen demand
(COD) and total suspended solids (TSS). Consequently, rates are developed using
uniform unit costs for volume, chemical oxygen demand (COD) and total
suspended solids (TSS). These are applied to loadings and demands for service
from each customer category. The resulting cost of service rate schedule is based
on a uniform cost of service and recognizes different loadings for each customer
class.
9. Based upon results from the detailed cost of service study for the FY 07-08
through FY 11-12 test years, the proposed schedule of sewer rates shown in Table
ES-3
8-16
an
Executive Summary
17 have been developed to recover the utility's cost in an equitable and practical
manner from all customers served. The proposed rates have higher fixed charges
and volume charges than the rates previously adopted and scheduled to go into
effect. The rates currently scheduled to go into effect will not produce the
necessary level of revenue.
10. Based on the findings of a recent City staff review of the historical records (i.e.,
findings of previous monitoring efforts, required improvements) and cost of the
required improvements, it is recommended that the Sewer Facilities Replacement
Fee be amended as follows: for all users the fee will be set at $0.18 per HCF.
Single-family users will no longer be charged a flat fee of $1.97 and for multi-
family Inon-residential users the fee will be increased from $0.11 to $0.18 per HCF.
11. The average single-family residential (SFR) customer is estimated to have an
average monthly water usage of 10 hundred cubic feet (HCF) or 120 HCF per year.
Table 17 shows a comparison of typical SFR monthly sewer bills under the
scenarios reviewed in this study.
Briefly, the average household pays $34.30 per month under the existing rates.
The rate structure changes proposed in this study incorporate cost of service
restructuring and results in an average monthly FY07-08 SFR bill of $34.26. This
means that a typical single-family residential customer will pay $0.04 per month
less under the proposed rates than under the adopted rates due primarily to the
reduction of the return factor as discussed below and the reduction of the sewer
facilities replacement fee for residential users. Detailed charges for other SFR
accounts with varying water usage are shown in Table 17.
12. Each customer class was assigned a return factor based on the average amount of
water that is conveyed through the sewer system. In previous studies, single-
family residential customers were billed as if 100 percent of the water entering
their residence was returned to the sewer system. Some of the water used by
single-family residential customers, even in winter, does not go back into the
sewer system due to landscape irrigation and other outdoor uses. By comparing
billed water flows to the sewer flows billed by Metro, the single-family residential
customer class has been assigned a 90 percent return factor in this study reflecting
the assumption that only 90 percent of water used will be conveyed through the
sewer system. Therefore, a typical customer using 10 HCF of water will only be
billed for sewer service based on a 90 percent return factor or 9 HCF. This
reduction in billed volume is the reason for the reduction in the typical SFR bill.
13. The City of Chula Vista bills its customers in three different ways. Customers
under Otay Water District's (Otay) jurisdiction are billed for water and sewer
services monthly on the same bill by Otay. Customers in Sweetwater Authority's
(Sweetwater) jurisdiction who reside in the pre-annexation area are billed for
sewer services bi-monthly by the City's Finance Department. The remaining
customers who are in the Montgomery area of the City who are in either
Sweetwater's or CAL-American's jurisdiction are billed for sewer services
ES-4
8-17
COM
Executive Summary
annuaIly on the property tax bill by the City's Engineering & General Services
Department. AIl these billing units had independent databases that were not
linked. Ultimately the customer data, which was used in the 2005 study, was
assembled from these databases. Through a recent audit of these systems, in
preparation for this new study, it was determined that the baseline customer data
used in the previous study was significantly higher than it should have been.
Consequently, the revenue requirement was spread over more customers than
ultimately existed, resulting in rates that were lower than they should have been,
and lower revenue than projected.
14. In addition, just prior to the 2005 Study, the City of Chula Vista was experiencing
an influx of new development, which seemed to be on track to continue for a
significant amount of time. Unfortunately, shortly after the adoption of the rate
plan, development peaked and went into a significant downtum, which seems
inclined to continue for the next few years. That has ultimately impacted the
revenues for the past two years. Consequently, the customer data used in this
study is significantly different from the previous study. The updated data
indicates that the projections of customer data (i.e., number of customers and
billable flow) were significantly higher than what actuaIly occurred, which further
impacted the revenues. Therefore, the combination of the inadequate rates and the
decline in the growth rate resulted in fewer paying customers, lower sewage
volume, and consequently lower than expected revenue for the utility. Residential
single-family growth has dropped from 5 percent to 1.15 percent. This has
resulted in a decline in expected revenues of approximately $2 million in FY07-08
and some $17.5 million over the period analyzed. Had the baseline customer data
been accurate, and had growth continued as previously predicted, the adopted
rates would have been adequate to cover expenses.
65000
60000
l!!
" 55000
E
S
.. 50000
"
(.)
-
0 45000
~
"
.a
E 40000
"
z
35000
30000
~." ~ ~., ~'" c- ~'b ~O; ,,<::l ,," ,,'\.
'\.<:l '\.<:l '\.<:l '\.<:l '\.<:l <:l '\.<:l '\.<::l '15' '15'
'];
Year
----- Current Model
-- Plior Model
Figure ES-1 - Previous and Current Study Estimates - Number of Customers
ES-5
8-18
COM
Executive Summary
15. As a result of not meeting revenue projections, expenses have exceeded revenues
and operating reserves are declining. Figure ES 2 below illustrates the difference
between current and previous study estimates. The lower line (red) reflects
revenue estimates based on adopted rates from the previous study, and the higher
line (green) reflects revenue estimates based on proposed rates for the current
study.
40.0
35.0
30.0
. 25.0
..
"0
c 20.0
c
~ 15.0
;;
10.0
5.0
0.0
2008
2011
2012
2009
2010
Fiscal Year
c::::::JO&M Expense (Last Study)
-.- Revenue with 7.5% increases (Last Study)
c:.::::J O&M Expense (This Study)
__ Re\enue .....ith 5% increases (This Study)
Figure ES-2 - Previous and Current Study Estimates - Revenues & Expenditures
16. Another important element that was taken into consideration in establishing the
revenue requirements is the restoration of a healthy operating reserve balance. The
study determined that with the projected revenue increases, reserves would be at
minimal levels for the next two years but begin a steady process of returning to
recommended levels after that. The indicated minimum reserve level has been set
at a 90-day working capital balance, typical for utilities. That amount is roughly
equivalent to the City's quarterly payment to Metro and also allows for an
emergency reserve. Bond rating agencies indicate reserves closer to 180 days are
typical for utilities with higher bond ratings.
90
8.0
70
6.0
5.0
4.0
3.0
20
1.0
00
2008 2009
.
.
2010
Year
2011
2012
_ Cumulati..e Operating Fund Balance -+- Minimum Desired Balance
Figure 2 Target Reserves vs. Actual Reserve Balance
ES-6
8-19
CDM
Executive Summary
15. A 5 % mid-year increase in FY 07-08 will assure revenues will be adequate to meet
expenses and start replenishing reserves. Due to Proposition 218 requirements, a
lead-time of several months is needed to comply with all regulations.
Consequently, rates are not anticipated to go into effect until December of 2007.
Proposed Rate Schedule
Shown below is a proposed rate schedule for the next five years. However, we
recommend only rates to be effective January 1, 2008 and Fiscal Years 2008-2009 and
FY 2009-2010 be approved at this time.
TABLE 16
Proposed Rate Schedule for Fiscal Years 2008 Through 2012
2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
Meter Monthly Service Chan::;e (1)
= $/month $/month $1month $/month $/month
Single-Family Residential 7.35 8.00 8.73 9.01 9.01
All Others
5/8 6.65 7.30 8.03 8.31 8.31
3/. 6.65 7.30 8.03 8.31 8.31
1 11.08 12.17 13.38 13.85 13.85
11/2 22.16 24.35 26.76 27.70 27.70
2 35.45 38.96 42.81 44.31 44.31
3 66.47 73.05 80.28 83.09 83.09
. 110.78 121.7' 133.79 138.48 138.48
6 221.55 243.48 267.59 276.95 276.95
8 354.48 389.57 428.14 443.13 443.13
Volume Charge (1)
$/hcf $/hcf $/hcf $/hcf $/hcf
Residential
Single-Family 2.99 3.27 3.57 3.69 3.82
Multi-Family 3.05 3.33 3.63 3.75 3.88
Mobile Homes 3.05 3.33 3.63 3.75 3.88
Non-Residential
Commercial - Low 3.05 3.33 3.63 3.75 3.88
Commercial - Medium 4.13 4.52 4.94 5.10 5.27
Commercial - High 6.29 6.89 7.55 7.80 8.07
Special Users 2.98 3.33 3.63 3.75 3.88
(1) Includes the Sewer Facilites Replacement Fee and Storm Drain Fee
Typical Bills
The table below shows residential bills under proposed rates for various levels of
winter periods water usage. The table recognizes that effective January I, 2008
residential users will be assigned a 90% return factor to provide an allowance for
winter period irrigation usages. Figure ES-3 shows the distribution of residential
customers by usage levels from I hcf to 20 hcf. The figure shows that the average is
not only 10 hcf but the largest number of users have a sewer bill based on 10 hcf.
ES-7
8-20
CDM
Executive Summary
TABLE 17
Comparison of Typical Single-Family Residential Monthly Sewer Bills
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7)
FY 2008 FY 2008 FY 2009 FY 2010 FY2011 FY 2012
Adopted Proposed Proposed Proposed Proposed Proposed
~ ~ Charae Charae ~ ~ ~
hef/mo. $ $ $ $ $ $
0 9.00 7.35 8.00 8.73 9.01 9.01
1 11.53 10.04 10.95 11.94 12.33 12.44
2 14.06 12.73 13.89 15.16 15.66 15.88
3 16.59 15.42 16.83 18.38 18.98 19.31
4 19.12 18.11 19.77 21.59 22.30 22.75
5 21.65 20.80 22.71 24.81 25.63 26.18
6 24.18 23.49 25.65 28.03 28.95 29.61
7 26.71 26.18 28.59 31.24 32.27 33.05
8 29.24 28.87 31.54 34.46 35.60 36.48
9 31.77 31.57 34.48 37.68 38.92 39.92
10 34.30 34.26 37.42 40.89 42.24 43.35 I
11 36.83 36.95 40.36 44.11 45.57 46.78
12 39.36 39.64 43.30 47.33 48.89 50.22
13 41.89 42.33 46.24 50.54 52.21 53.65
14 44.42 45.02 49.18 53.76 55.54 57.09
15 46.95 47.71 52.13 56.98 58.86 60.52
16 49.48 50.40 55.07 60.19 62.18 63.96
17 52.01 53.09 SS.G1 63.41 65.51 67.39
18 54.54 55.78 60.95 66.63 68.83 70.82
19 57.07 58.48 63.89 69.84 72.15 74.26
20 59.60 61.17 66.83 73.06 75.48 77.69
6,000
,
0
.,;
5,000
4,000
'"
0: N
W ~ .
'" N N
" W ,; ,; .
. 0
~ . ,;
0 3,000 . N
0: "
W N
"'
'" .
" N
Z .
2,000
.
. ~. ~
N
0
1,000
~
.
".
w
"
W
N.
~
N
.
N
N
N
o
,
"'
"
.
".
N
~
"'
"
.
.
.
.
... '\...., ~ ~ '0 '\ 'b <l)...~..."'o&...""~...~...'O~...'b...<l)'19
USAGE (HCF)
Figure ES-3- Distribution of Customers at Each Level of Usage1,2
1 New customers who do not have a "winter usage history" are set up as "an Average" customer -10
HCF.
2 The City has a "Cap" of 20 HCF, therefore all customers who have a "winter average" of 20 HCF or
above are billed for only 20 HCF.
ES-8
8-21
tDlII
Executive Summary
Rate Comparisons
CDM performed a survey of wastewater charges in cities in San Diego County and
the results are presented in Figure 3 below. The figure clearly shows rates in Chula
Vista are on the low end in the County.
70,00
60.00
50,00
40.00
f
~
g
30.00
20,00
10.00
0.00
~i:).~ ~...J' d*~ ~~." <Q.o.:i<'b' -*,;;.<$-"" J>~..$' .,J"......~ J>~o ~0~ ~~Q <j-,ft Q'It~ -I'Q ~-i'<5\ ~~Q\
0(,0 CJ'1i 0-.J,,~ r;jP-'-" <<) v~$' 'v# V' #~ 4" Q,~e _~,.} ~ .#
_,'\:::: /L'Ii..1CT ~~ ~<:'
~qp ... '$,.0' -r ~
~'li .j,,'It !.,dJ'*" .#
~'Q~f;' v..~'O Q;-o/~
City/District
~~
~
9
ES-9
8-22
i:DM
Section 1
Introduction
1.1 Background
The City of Chula Vista is the sewer and storm drain service provider to the
residences and commercial enterprises in its service area. The city is located eight
miles south of the city of San Diego and seven miles north of the Mexico border and
covers approximately 50 square miles. The city has grown at a rapid pace, primarily
due to new development on its eastern side in addition to in-fill development on the
west. Recently growth has slowed, however.
Wastewater generated in the city is collected and sent to treatment facilities in Point
Lorna and South Bay operated by the City of San Diego Metropolitan Wastewater
Department (Metro). The City is billed by Metro based on the wastewater flow and
strength sent to these treatment plants.
In providing sewer service, the City incurs considerable expense related to the
ongoing operating and capital needs of the utility. Operating and capital expenditures
change annually because of the need for repairs and replacements to existing facilities,
the need to improve service to meet more stringent state and federal environmental
compliance requirements, and to stay abreast of inflationary trends. The City, in
recognition of the importance of financially planning for the costs to replace, improve,
and operate the sewer utility, has engaged Camp Dresser & McKee to perform a
comprehensive update to the sewer cost of service and rate study performed in 2005.
The City's priorities in the coming years include the acquisition of additional
treatment capacity. The City is currently evaluating a variety of options for meeting
this need, some of the options being considered include a.) purchase or lease of
additional treatment capacity rights from a member agency or agencies in the Metro
system, b.) construction of an independent wastewater reclamation facility or c.)
facilitating the upsizing or acceleration of planned Metro treatment facilities to
accommodate the City's needs.
Although not part of this rate analysis given alternate funding sources, in addition,
the City also has plans for on-going upgrades and improvements of its municipal
sewer system. All these projects are included in the City's five-year capital
improvement program. A major challenge will be to balance the requirements of
expanded infrastructure with available City revenues. All planned expenditures will
need prioritization to assure that financial resources are used in the most effective
way. The City will also conduct a level of service review to ensure that the level of
service being provided is optimized and that available resources are used judiciously.
1-1
8-23
CDM
Section 1
Introduction
Sewer Service Charge
The City of Chula Vista's current Sewer Service Charge is made up of three different
fees; the Sewer Service Fee, the Storm Drain Fee and the Sewer Facilities Replacement
Fee as illustrated in the diagram below. Consequently, revenue generated by the
City's Sewer Service Charge is distributed between three separate funds. These
separate fees and funds are detailed as follows:
Sewer Fees Relationship Diagram
Sewer Service Charge
I I I
Sewer Service Fee Storm Drain Fee Sewer Facilities Replacement Fee
Vanes SFD $070lMonth SFD $1971Month
MFDIComm $O.06Ihd MFDIComm $O.11Ihd
I I I
Sewer Service Fund Storm Drain Fund Sewer Facility Replacement Fund
City M&O and Metro Exp Storm DrainlNPDES Sewer Rehab Projects
The Sewer Service Fee
This fee is comprised of two parts and is the focus of the study. There is a fixed
monthly fee paid by all users and a variable fee based on water consumption. The
fixed monthly fee is based on water meter size and currently ranges from $6.33 to
$337.60 per month. For the variable portion of the fee, residential and low-strength
commercial customers are charged $2.53 per Hundred Cubic Feet (HCF). Medium-
and high-strength commercial customers are charged $3.38 and $5.12 per HCF
respectively; while special user charges are individually calculated for each customer.
Sewer Service Revenue Fund - (Fund 41410)
Revenues derived from Sewer Service Fees are deposited into the Sewer Service
Revenue Fund. Funds in the Sewer Service Revenue account are used solely for the
purposes of maintaining and operating the municipal wastewater collection system,
any collection costs and wastewater treatment charges by the City of San Diego
Metropolitan Wastewater. Maintenance and operation is as dictated in Municipal
Code Section 3.20. This fund is considered the operating fund for purposes of this
study and will be discussed in detail later in the report.
Storm Drain Fee
While not part of this rate review, information regarding this fee is provided to
increase understanding of customer billing. This fee recovers a portion of the cost of
maintenance and operation of the storm drain system through two types of fees.
Single-family customers are charged a flat monthly fee, which is currently $0.70 per
month. All other customers are charged a monthly fee based on water consumption
that is currently $0.06 per HCF. This fee is collected as part of the monthly sewer
1-2
8-24
COM
Section 1
Introduction
service charge. Since this fee was established in 1991, the fee has never been increased
due to the constraints of Proposition 218. Consequently, the fee does not generate
sufficient revenues to meet the obligation of the fund.
Storm Drain Fund (Fund 30110)
Revenues in the Storm Drain Fund are derived from Storm Drain Fees paid by all
users for the operation and maintenance of the City's Storm Drain System including
underground drainage systems channels and ditches. Also competing for this limited
fund source are costs associated with complying with the requirements of the
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES). Because fee revenue is not
sufficient to meet budgetary requirements, the general fund currently subsidizes
storm drain activities. Details of the Storm Drain Fund are shown in the table below.
Storm Drain Fund
Description 2008 2009 ZQ1Q 2011 Wl
$ $ $ $ $
Source of Funds
Funds on Hand at Beginning of Year (374,200) (566.500) (753.100) (934.000) (1.109,100)
Storm Drain Fees (Transfer from Operating) 546,205 551,904 557,653 563.444 569,332
Permit Fees 400,000 400.000 400,000 400,000 400,000
Total Funds Available 572,005 385,404 204,553 29,444 (139,768)
Use of Funds
Fees and Services 342.100 342,100 342.100 342.100 342.100
Transfer to GENERAL FUND 343.700 343.700 343.700 343.700 343.700
Transterto REPLACEMENT FUND 179.726 179.726 179.726 179,726 179.726
Other Transfers Out 273.000 273,000 273.000 273,000 273,000
Total Use of Funds 1 ,138,526 1,138,526 1,138,526 1,138,526 1,138,526
Funds on Hand at End of Year (566,521) (753,122) (933,973) (1,109,082) (1,278,294)
[1] Interest on available storm drain fund computed at a 3.5% annual interest rate
Sewer Facilities Replacement Fee:
This fee is not the subject of the COM study however an internal review has resulted
in recommendations outlined below. This recovers the cost of sewer rehabilitation
and replacements through two types of fees. Single-family customers are currently
charged a flat monthly fee, which is currently $1.97 per month. All other customers
are charged a monthly fee based on water consumption that is currently $0.11 per
HCF.
Based on the findings of a recent City staff review of the historical records (Le.,
findings of previous monitoring efforts, required improvements) and cost of the
required improvements, it is recommended that the fee be amended as follows: for
single-family residential users the flat monthly fee of $1.97 will be removed. Under
the proposed rate schedule, all users, including single-family, multi-family and non-
residential users, will be charged $0.18 per HCF.
1-3
8-25
Section 1
Introduction
Sewer Facilities Replacement Fund (Fund 42800)
Revenues in the Sewer Facilities Replacement Fund are derived from Sewer Facilities
Replacement Fees paid on a monthly basis by all users connected to the City's
wastewater collection system. This fund is primarily used for the replacement and
rehabilitation of deteriorating municipal facilities, This fee is collected on a monthly
basis with the Sewer Service Charge, Details of the Sewer Facilities Replacement Fund
are shown in the table below, The table reflects the proposed changes in the Fees.
Sewer Facility Replacement Fund - 42800
Line Fiscal Year EndinQ June 30
No. Description 2008 2009 2010 .<!ill 2012
$ $ $ $ $
Source of Funds
1 Funds on Hand at Beginning afYear 3,382,608 1,689,548 1,781,406 1,884,944 2,000,262
2 Connection Fees 0 0 0 0 0
3 Sewer Facility Replacement Fees 1,392,368 1,406,632 1,421,013 1,435,491 1,450,228
4 Transfer in from Loan Payments 179,726 179,726 179,726 179,726 179,726
5 Interest Income 205,358 60,700 64,200 68,000 72,200
6 Total Funds Available 5,160,060 3,336,606 3,446,344 3,568,162 3,702,415
Use of Funds
7 Major Capital Improvements [2] 3,321,300 1,400,000 1,400,000 1,400,000 1,400,000
Bond Reserve Account Requirement 0 0 0 0 0
8 Automotive Equipment 0 0 0 0 0
9 Transfer out to Sewer Service Rev 149,212 155,200 161,400 167,900 174,600
10 Transfer out to General Fund
11 Total Use of Funds 3,470,512 1,555,200 1,561,400 1,567,900 1,574,600
12 Funds on Hand at End of Year 1,689,548 1,781,406 1,884,944 2,000,262 2,127,815
[1] Interest on available capital funds computed at a 3.5% annual interest rate.
[2] Shown on Table 3 as funding source "R".
1.2 Purpose
The purpose of this sewer rate study is to:
. Review and analyze the City's historical data and project future requirements and
resulting revenue needs;
. Plan for financing of the municipal capital improvement program proposed by the
City;
. Meet the financial requirements of system improvements;
. Analyze the cost of providing service by customer class;
. Develop an equitable sewer rate structure based on proper customer classification;
~ 1-4
8-26
an
Section 1
Introduction
. Design sewer rates based on cost of service, which will generate adequate
revenues to support revenue requirements.
1.3 Scope of the Study
This 2007 update to the 2005 rate study includes three phases: Financial Planning,
Cost of Service Analysis, and Rate Design.
. Financial Planning: Revenue requirements are projected for a five-year period
from FY 07-08 through FY 11-12. Financial planning involves estimation of annual
O&M and capital expenditures, inter-fund transfers, annual reserve requirements,
operating and capital revenues, and the determination of required annual sewer
service revenues from rates and charges.
. Cost of Service: Cost of service involves the apportioning of annual revenues
required from rates to the different user classes in proportion to their demands on
the sewer system.
. Rate Design: Rate design involves the development of a fixed and variable
schedule of sewer rates for each of the different user classes to reflect the required
revenue adjustments made during the financial planning phase.
This report includes six sections besides the Executive Summary and the Introduction.
Sections 2 through 7 present study results. These sections discuss in detail the
financial planning phase, cost of service analysis, and rate design phase.
1-5
8-27
COM
Section 2
Revenue
Revenue for the sewer utility is derived from sewer service charges, industrial waste
permits, miscellaneous revenues, and interest income from operations. This section
provides a description of those revenue sources.
2.1 User Classifications and Customer Growth
The level of future revenue from user fees the City can expect to receive is a function
of the number of customers served, the quantity of sewer flow, and the level of
current rates. Development of projected revenues under existing rates provides the
benchmark upon which to evaluate the need for revenue adjustments throughout the
five-year study period.
Seven classes of customer are recognized. They include single-family, multi-family,
mobile homes, low-strength commercial, medium-strength commercial, high-strength
commercial and special users (high-volume users and variance accounts). The study
assumes modest future growth in the City service area. Table 1 shows the projected
number of customer accounts, wastewater flow, and revenue assuming existing rates
for FY 07-08 to FY 11-12.
TABLE 1
Projected Number of Accounts, Volume, and Revenue
Fiscal
Year Ended
June 30
Average
Number of
Accounts
Total
WW
Volume
hcf
Revenue
Under
Existing
Rates
$
2007
2008 (1)
2009(1)
2010(1)
2011 (1)
2012 (1)
47,020
47,550
48,080
48,620
49,170
49,720
8,172,900
8,256,900
8,342,200
8,428,100
8,514,700
8,602,800
23,526,500
25,469,000
25,730,200
25,993,700
26,259,200
26,529,000
(1) Projected revenue under adopted FY 07-08 rates.
The City of Chula Vista also provides a low-income rate, which is 70% of the single-
family residential adopted rate. This rate is available to single-family residential users
who meet the City's income requirements for "low-income status." The City uses the
Federal Department of Housing and Urban Development's (H.U.D) guidelines as a
basis of approval.
2-1
8-28
COM
Section 2
Revenue
2.2 Billing Method
The City strives to establish sewer rates that are fair and equitable, so the billing
method for each user class is designed to match its estimated cost of service. Rates
have been designed to recover fixed costs of maintenance and operation of the
system, which is more dependent on the size of the collection system than on the
amount of flow in the system. The rates also recover variable costs for wastewater
treatment, which is based on the quantity and quality of the treated sewage.
Consequently, users pay a sewer service charge that is made up of two components: a
fixed service charge and a variable commodity charge. Together these two
components comprise the customer's total Sewer Service Charge.
Fixed Service Charge: This charge applies to all users including residential,
commercial & industrial, and institutional users. Based upon meter size, the charge
allows the City to break out and recover the fixed costs of service that the City incurs
irrespective of the amount of flow that goes through the system (e.g., billing and
administrative costs, certain portions of the maintenance costs and debt service).
Commodity Charge: This charge varies and is dependent on the amount of
wastewater discharges (as measured by water used) and the user's strength
classification
Monthly Sewer Service Fee: Fixed Service Charge + Commodity Charge
Commodity Charge: (Sewer Rate x Rate of Return x Water Used)
The Rate of Return is the percentage of the amount of water used by a user that is
ultimately discharged into the wastewater collection system.
Single-Family Residential Users
Single-family residential customers - These customers pay a uniform monthly fixed
service charge based on meter size (assumed to be 5 j 8ths inches for all single-family
residential customers -SFR). The fee is currently $6.33jmonth exclusive of storm drain
and sewer facilities replacement fees. In addition, variable commodity charge based
on water consumption is paid. The City of Chula Vista uses a customer's "Winter
Average" to set their sewer service fee for the fiscal year. This concept is explained in
greater detail below.
Winter Water Usage Approach
In July 2003, the Chula Vista City Council approved a major change in the way the
Sewer Service Charge is determined for single-family homes. The structure was
changed from a flat-fee structure where all homes paid the same fee, to a
consumption-based structure, which was based on the amount of water used which
typically correlates to the amount of sewage generated. Under this new structure, the
sewer service charge is determined by using the lowest average water consumption of
two consecutive winter months; the winter months are the six months from
2-2
8-29
an
Section 2
Revenue
November through April. The underlying assumption being that most customers
significantly reduce or turn off irrigation sprinklers during the winter season.
Therefore, the water consumption during that period generally correlates to the
amount of sewage discharged, hence the use of this data as the basis of the rates.
A previous analysis of the City's sewer customer billing data indicated that the City's
current approach of billing single-family residential customers the lowest two months
of water usage is a fair and equitable method and is used by a majority of large
utilities in the United States. However, since a significant number of customers seem
to continue to use water outside the home even in the lowest use winter months, it is
therefore appropriate to bill for less than the total amount of the water used during
the winter period. A 90 percent return to sewer factor (return factor) is used to
develop the proposed rates shown in this report as compared to the previous rate
study which utilized a 100 percent return factor. This reduced return factor is
validated by a mass balance calculation of billed sewer volume conveyed to Metro
and customer billed estimates.
In addition, the City also has a cap on billable flow for single-family residential
customers. Based on the findings of a previous study, the City adopted a cap of 20
HCF. That means that single-family residential customers are capped at 20 HCF per
month. The cap was put in place to avoid charging single-family residential customers
for any residual irrigation usage that may have occurred during the winter period.
The study determined that with a 90% rate of return and a cap of 20 HCF for single-
family residential customers and an appropriate rate of return for all other user
classes, the total amount of billable flow approximately equals the amount of flow
treated at the plant ("mass balance").
Multi-Family Users
Multi-family users pay a fixed service charge based on the meter size and a variable
commodity charge that is calculated either of two ways:
a. If the individual units do not have their own meters, then the entire complex is
billed as a multi-family location on a "Master Meter" with a rate of return of
79% (84% for Mobile Homes).
b. If each unit has its own individual meter, it is billed as single-family home (i.e.,
based on winter average).
Commercial Users
Commercial users also pay a fixed service charge based on their meter size and a
variable commodity charge that is based on the strength classification of the user.
Commercial users are classified as low-strength, medium-strength or high-strength
users. In addition, the billable flow for commercial users assumes a rate of return of
90% of water consumed.
2-3
8-30
COM
Section 2
Revenue
Special Users
There are two types of special users: High-Volume Users and Variance Accounts are
both discussed in greater detail below.
High-Volume Users:
The State Water Resource Control Board guidelines for agencies establishing revenue
programs such as this require that commercial and industrial customers who
discharge over 25,000 gallons per day (gpd) of wastewater have their sewer service
charges determined individually based on flow as well as Chemical Oxygen Demand
(COD) and Total Suspended Solids (TSS) or estimated strength.
The City currently has seven (7) accounts in this classification.
Prudential Overall Supply
Scripps Hospital
Sharp Medical Center
County of San Diego
Fredericka Manor
Laura Smith
B.F. Goodrich
Sewer Variances
The City also has customers who have been granted special rates based on other
criteria because their recorded water usage did not reflect sewage discharged. In
accordance with the provisions of Chula Vista Municipal Code, these customers pay
processing fees and go through an application process where each component of their
sewer discharge is investigated and a special rate based on cost of service is
determined by staff. The City currently has 11 accounts in this classification.
Duke Energy
First Church of Christ
Sweetwater Union High School
Canyon Community Church
Inland Industries
Ecology Auto Parts
Paseo Del Rey Church
CV Elementary Schools
Southwestern College
Santa Fe Tortilleria
Otay Landfill
2.3 Existing Sewer Rates
The existing rate schedule is presented below in Table 2.
2-4
8-31
mM
Section 2
Revenue
TABLE 2
Existing Sewer Rate Schedule
FY 2008
Monthly
Service
Charae
$Imo
Single-Family Residential
9.00
All Others
5/8
3/4
1
11/2
2
3
4
6
8
9.00
9.00
13.22
23.77
36.43
65.97
108.17
213.67
340.27
Volume
Charoe
$/hcf
Residential
Single-Family
Multi-Family
Mobile Homes
Non-Residential
Commercial - Low Strength
Commercial - Medium Strength
Commercial - High Stength
Special User
2.53
2.53
2.53
2.53
3.38
5.12
Varies
In addition to the Sewer Service Fees, all users pay a Sewer Facilities Replacement fee
and a Storm Drain Fee, which are all integrated, into the monthly Sewer Service
Charges. All SFR customers are currently charged $1.97 a month, while
MFDjCornrnercial customers are billed $O.l1jHCF. SFR customers are billed a storm
Drain Fee of $0.70 a month while MFDjCommercial are billed $0.06jHCF.
2.4 Sewer Service Fee Revenue Under Existing Rates
Revenue for financing the City's sewer system is derived principally from sewer
service charges. Other revenues are received from miscellaneous revenues and
interest income.
2.4.1 Revenue Under Existing Rates
Revenue under existing rates is obtained by applying the current rate schedule,
shown in Table 2, to the projected number of customers served by the City and
estimated wastewater flow. Table 1 shows that the City will collect approximately
$25,469,000 in FY 07-08 for sewer services, excluding Storm Drain Charge and Capital
Facilities Charge revenues.
2-5
8-32
mM
Section 2
Revenue
2.4.2
Other Revenues
Other revenue sources include industrial waste permits; pump station maintenance
fees, reimbursements, and miscellaneous revenue. Total revenue from these sources is
estimated to be approximately $393,100 in FY 07-08.
2.4.3
Interest Income
Interest income varies from year-to-year depending on the investment of available
monies in the Sewer Operating Fund. Investment income projections are based on
available fund balances using an average annual interest rate of 3.5 percent
throughout the study period. Estimated interest income for FY 07-08 totals $121,700.
2-6
8-33
Section 3
Capital Improvement Program
The City has developed a sewer utility capital improvement program (CIP) to address
municipal sewer systems need in terms of projects necessary to bolster and reinforce
its existing infrastructure facilities. A summary of the sewer capital improvement
program, which reflects the planned expenditures for each year during the study
period, is shown in Table 3. The program is estimated to total $9,101,300 for FY 07-08
through FY 11-12; however, there are projects that may be carried over from FY 06-07.
Sewer projects include the purchase of additional Metro capacity, sewer replacements,
and annual upgrades and improvements to the sewer system.
Since these capital costs are not going to be funded from the operating fund directly,
they are provided for informational purposes only and will not affect rates
TABLE 3
Proposed Major Capital Improvement Program
Line Funding Fiscal Year Endil1Q June 30
No. Description Source (1) 2008 2009 2Q1Q <!ill 2Q12 I2I2!
$ $ $ $ $ $
1 Sewer Facility Replacement Fund
2 GIS-OrthopllolographylTopography R 17.000 17,000
3 G St Pump Station Improvements R (1,000,000) (1.000,000)
4 Sev.er Rehabilitation FY05-06 R (100.000) (100,000)
5 SeY.Er Rehabilitation FYOO-07 R (187,473) (187,473)
6 Inflow and Infiltration Study R 174,300 174,300
7 G St Sewer beMEen 2nd and 4th R 1,750,000 1,750,000
8 C St Sewer beMEen 4th and 5th R 600,000 600,000
9 Garrell 51 Sewer beMEen Da~dson & E i R 480,000 480,000
10 Ovic Center Renovations-Phase 3 R 80,000 80,000
11 Sewer Rehabilitation FY 07-00 R 1,507,473 1,507,473
12 Future Sev.er Rehabilitation R 0 1,400,000 1,400,000 1,400,000 1,400,000 5,600,000
0
13 Trunk Sewer Fund 0
14 Main St between Hilltop and Fresno T 30,000 30,000
15 Speclal Sewer Fund 0
16 CIP Mgml and Equip Purchase 5P 50,000 50,000
17 CIP Pdvanced Planning 5P 100,000 100,000
18 Total 3,501,300 1,400,000 1,400,000 1,400,000 1,400,000 9,101,300
(1) SD'" Storm!::>r'an Fund, T=TlUlk Sev.lerCq:li1al Reserve Furxl, R= Repacemenl Fund, ();;Clperating Fund, Sf>: Special SeY.erFund
an
3-1
8-34
Section 4
Revenue Requirements
Revenue Requirements of the utility consist of operation and maintenance expenses
and annual capital costs. The latter includes debt service, which the utility currently
does not have, and routine capital outlays for equipment replacements.
4.1 Operations and Maintenance Expense
Operation and maintenance (O&M) expense includes the cost of operating and
maintaining sewer collection, treatment and disposal of wastewater, and maintenance
of system facilities. Expenses include the cost of personnel, utilities (gas and electric),
chemicals, and miscellaneous materials and supplies to operate the sewer system on a
routine basis. Expenses also include payment to the General Fund for overhead costs.
Since O&M costs are an ongoing annual obligation of the City, they must be met from
sewer service charge revenue.
Table 4 presents a summary of the projected O&M expenses for the City's sewer
system. The forecasted expenditures are based upon the City's budget and the effect
of inflation in future years. Total operation and maintenance expense, including
capital outlay, is projected to increase from $29,455,400 in FY 07-08 to $34,118,600 in
FY 11-12. The Metro and Spring Valley costs shown on Lines 11 and 12 include both
O&M and capital costs.
TABLE 4
Operations and Maintenance Expense
No. Description Fiscal Year Endinq June 30
2008 NQl! w.Q ~ 2012
$ $ $ $ $
WW Support Services
1 Wastewater Engineering S41.900 552,800 563.600 574.700 586,000
2 WW Operations Admin 147,600 150,700 153,700 156,800 159,900
3 WW Maintenance 3,590,400 3,864,579 3,937,900 4,012,600 4,088,600
4 Lift Station/Pool Maint. 570,800 582,300 594,000 605,900 618,000
5 Sewer Billing and Collection 116,300 119,300 122,200 125,300 128,500
6 Sewer Service Supplies and Services 112,700 115,100 117,400 119,700 122,000
7 Sewer Service Risk Management 50,100 51,600 53,100 54,700 56,300
8 Transfer to General Fund 4,587,700 4.679,400 4,773,000 4,868,500 4,965,900
9 Transfer to 03 Refunding COP 21,000 21,500 21,900 22,300 22,700
10 Total WW Support Services 9,738,500 10,137,279 10,336,800 10,540,500 10,747,900
11 Metro Cost 17,273,300 18.381,000 20,005,000 21,437,600 22,509,500
12 Spring Valley 736,200 412,200 134,800 320,000 280,300
13 Other Professional Svcs. 50,600 52,100 53,700 55,300 57,000
14 Olay Water District Processing 356,000 366,700 377,700 389,000 400,700
15 Total O&M Expense* 28,154,600 29,349,279 30,908,000 32,742,400 33,995,400
16 Capital Outlay 1,300,800 926,000 423,400 605,400 123,200
17 Total O&M Expense 29,455,400 30,275,279 31.331,400 33,347,800 34,118,600
. - Total excludes Capital Outlay
calli 4-1
8-35
COM
Section 4
Revenue Requirements
4.2 Debt Service Requirements
The City currently does not have any existing outstanding bond indebtedness.
4.3 Transfer of Revenues to the Sewer Facilities
Replacement Fund
As part of the sewer service charge, a sewer facilities replacement fee of $1.97 per
dwelling unit per month is currently charged to residential customers. Non-
residential customers are currently charged $0.11 per HCF of water usage but in no
case less than $1.97 per meter. The rates will change to $0.18 per HCF for all users
effective January 1, 2008. Total revenues collected will be transferred to the Sewer
Facilities Replacement Fund.
4.4 Transfers of Revenues to the Storm Drain Fund
Similar to the sewer facilities replacement fee, the City also has a storm drain fee of
$0.70 per single-family dwelling unit per month. Non-residential customers are
charged $0.06 per HCF of water usage per meter. It is anticipated that the Operating
Fund will make a series of transfers to the Storm Drain Fund matching revenues
collected.
4.5 Bad Debt Write-offs
This study assumes bad debt write-offs of $300,000 annually based on historical
trends. The majority of the write-offs are from customers in the pre-annexation area of
the City who are billed by the City's Finance Department. Since the sewer billing is
not done in conjunction with the water bill, the City does not have the ability to shut-
off water service in order to collect these bills.
4.6 Routine Capital Outlays
Routine capital outlays, which are financed from annual system earnings, include
estimates for vehicle replacements, a new vactor truck, and other additions and
replacements to system equipment.
4.7 Otay Water District Billing and Collection Charges
A portion of the City (primarily east of 1-805) is billed for sewer service by the Otay
Water District ("Otay"). Otay bills the City on a per account basis for providing this
service. It is currently estimated that Otay will bill the City an average of $390,000
over the next 5 years. While this amount is quite significant, there are several benefits
associated with this arrangement. For example since the sewer bill is collected with
the water bill, the City has a low "bad debt" percentage for customers in that area
compared to the other areas where the City does not have a similar arrangement and
has less leverage to deal with delinquent accounts.
4-2
8-36
ClIVI
Section 5
Cash Flow Analysis
5.1 Proposed Revenue Adjustments
To provide for the continued operation of the sewer utility on a sound financial basis,
revenue must be sufficient to meet revenue requirements. This section of the report
analyzes the revenue increases needed to meet future revenue requirements.
The pro forma operations statement or cash flow summary presented in Table 5
provides a basis for evaluating the timing and level of sewer revenue increases
required to meet the projected revenue requirements during FY 07-08 through FY 11-
12. In order to meet projected revenue requirements and to maintain desired
operating and capital reserve fund balances, the following increases are proposed:
Effective Date Increases
January 1, 2008 5.0 percent
July 1, 2008 9.9 percent
July 1, 2009 9.9 percent
July 1, 2010 3.5 percent
July 1, 2011 3.5 percent
The magnitude of the increases shown above has been selected in order for total
sewer revenue to meet revenue requirements and avoid transfers from any other
funds, so that the Sewer Service Revenue fund can remain self-supporting. Estimated
sewer revenue under existing rates is shown on line 1 of Table 5. The annual revenue
shown is the same as in Table 1. Additional operating revenues from any proposed
rate increases are shown on Lines 2 through 7. Other revenues and interest income are
shown on Lines 10 through 15.
Operation and maintenance expenses, transfers to other funds, and bad debt
write-offs are shown on Lines 18 through 24. line 19 shows the transfers to the Sewer
Replacement Fund and Line 20 presents the transfers to the Storm Drain Fund
scheduled for each year.
The cash flow indicates the recommended revenue increases will be sufficient to meet
all the needs of the utility throughout the study period with the proposed 5.0 percent
increases effective January 1, 2008; 9.9 percent for the second and third; and 3.5
percent after that. It is anticipated that the Operating Fund will be self-sufficient and
no transfers from any other sources will be necessary although reserves are currently
being used to meet revenue requirements. Table 5 shows that annual fund balances
will remain positive but below a minimum desired balance defined as 90 days O&M.
5-1
8-37
an
TABLE 5
Operating Fund Flow of Funds
Line
t!Q.
Description
2
3
4
5
6
Revenue:
Wastewater Service Charges Under Existing Rates
Additional Service Charge Revenue Required:
Revenue Months
Increase Effective
5.00% 6
9.90% 12
9.90% 12
3.50% 12
3.50% 12
~
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
7
Total Additional SeNice Charge Revenue
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
Total Wastewater Service Charge Revenue
Other Revenues
Facilitites Replacement Charge Revenue
Storm Drain Charge Revenue
Reimb - CIP Projects
Transfer In from Swr Facility Repl
Interest Income From Operations [1]
Interest Income From Restricted Reserves [1]
Reimbursement from General Fund
17
Total Operating Revenues Available
18
Revenue Requirements:
Operation and Maintenance Expense
19
20
21
22
23
Debt Service
Transfer to Replacement Fund
Transfer to Storm Drain Fund
Transfer Out to Other Funds
Bad Debt Write-Offs
Routine Capital Outlay
24
Total Revenue Requirements
25
26
Net Operating Funds Available
Beginning Operating Fund Balance
27 Cumulative Operating Fund Balance
28 Minimum Desired Balance [2]
2008
$
25,469,000
636,700
636,700
26,105,700
393,100
1,392,400
546,200
100,000
149,200
121,700
o
150,000
Section 5
Cash Flow Analys;s
Fiscal Year Ending June 30
~ 2010 <Q11
$ $ $
2012
$
25,730,200 25,993,700 26,259,200 26,529,000
1,286,500
2,674,700
3,961,200
29,691,400
393,100
1,406,600
551,900
o
155,200
42,100
o
150,000
1,299,700
2,702,000
2,969,500
6,971,200
32,964,900
393,100
1,421,000
557,700
o
161,400
76,500
o
150,000
1,313,000
2,729,600
2,999,900
1,165,600
8,208,100
34,467,300
393,100
1,435,500
563,400
o
167,900
142,700
o
150,000
1,326,500
2,757,700
3,030,700
1,177,500
1,218,700
9,511,100
36,040,100
393,100
1,450,200
569,300
o
174,600
216,500
o
150,000
28,958,300 32,390,300 35,724,600 37,319,900 38,993,800
28,154,600 29,349,279 30,908,000 32,742,400 33,995,400
1,392,400
546,200
o
300,000
1,300,800
1,406,600
551,900
o
300,000
926,000
1,421,000
557,700
o
300,000
423,400
1,435,500
563,400
o
300,000
605,400
1,450,200
569,300
o
300,000
123,200
31,694,000 32,533,779 33,610,100 35,646,700 36,438,100
(2,735,700)
4,163,000
1,427,300
7,038,700
[1] Estimated based on 3.5% interest rate.
[2] Estimated at 90 days of operation and maintenance expense.
8-38
(143,479) 2,114,500
1,427,300 1,283,821
1,673,200
3,398,321
2,555,700
5,071,521
1,283,821 3,398,321 5,071,521 7,627,221
7,337,300 7,727,000 8,185,600 8,498,900
5-2
mM
Section 5
Cash Flow Analysis
However, the fund balance grows over the five-year plan period. This minimum
desired balance is considered a reasonable working capital balance for a wastewater
utility and is a target that can be used to justify higher bond rating.
Figure 1 shows a graphical summary of the revenue under the proposed rates with
revenue requirements. The figure indicates that revenue under the proposed rates is
not sufficient to cover operation and maintenance and capital expenses for FY 07-08
and that drawdown of reserves will be necessary. However, no appreciable draw
downs are anticipated in FY 08-09 through FY 11-12 once the Operating Fund
becomes self-sufficient.
40.0
35.0
30.0
~ 25.0
..
'0
c 20.0
c
~ 1S.0
:i
10.0
5.0
0.0
2008 2009 2010 2011
l
2012
Fiscal Year
c:::::J Oty's Operating Expense c:::::J Metro/Spring Valley Costs
c:::::J Replacements and Stormwater ........ Rate Re\enue with increases
Figure 1 Sewer Operating Fund Summary
Figure 2 below shows the projected reserve balances against the desired level of
reserves. The figure shows that with the projected revenue increases reserves will be at
minimal levels for the next two years but begin a steady process of returning to
recommended levels after that.
Maintaining adequate reserves is critical to the successful financial operation of an
enterprise activity such as the Sewer Fund. The indicated minimum reserve level has
been set at a 90 day working capital balance, typical for utilities. That amount is
roughly equivalent to the utility's quarterly payment to Metro and also allows for an
emergency reserve. Bond rating agencies indicate reserves closer to 180 days are
typical for utilities with higher bond ratings.
5-3
8-39
CDM
Section 5
Cash Flow Analysis
9.0
. .
8.0
7.0
e 6.0
"
0 5.0
Q
c 4.0
~
i 3.0
2.0
1.0
0.0
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
Year
_ Cumufati...e Operating Fund Balance -+-Minimum Desired Balance
Figure 2 Target Reserves vs. Actual Reserve Balance
5-4
8-40
CDM
Section 6
Cost of Service Analysis
The cost of service analysis is a critical element in a rate study. The total revenue
requirements net of revenue credits from miscellaneous sources, is by definition, the
cost of providing service. This cost of service is then used as the basis to develop unit
rates for the wastewater parameters and to allocate costs to the various user classes in
proportion to the quantity of wastewater contributed and the strength of wastewater.
In this study, FY 07-08 is referred to as the "test year", therefore, FY 07-08 revenue
requirements are used in the cost allocation process.
6.1 Cost of Service to be Allocated
The annual revenue requirements or costs of service to be recovered from charges for
wastewater service consist of the elements of O&M expense and capital related costs.
O&M expense includes cost directly related to the collection, treatment and disposal of
wastewater, and maintenance of system facilities. Capital related costs represent routine
capital outlays.
The test year cost of service to be recovered from wastewater service charges is
estimated at $26,742,400. As shown in Table 6, the total cost of service comprises net
operating expenses and capital costs are offset by other funds.
TABLE 6
Allocation of Revenue Requirements
Test Year 2008
Line Operating Capital and
tl2. - other Costs I.olol
$ $ $
Total Revenue Requirements
1 Operation & Maintenance Expense 28,154,600 28,154,600
2 Total Debt Service 0 0
3 Routine Capital Outlay 1,300,800 1,300,800
4 Bad Debt Write-offs 300,000 300,000
5 Transfer To Replacement Fund 1,392,400 1,392,400
. Transfer To Storm Drain Fund 546,200 546,200
7 Subtotal 29,000,800 2,693,200 31,694,000
Less Other Operating Revenue
8 Other Revenues 393,100 393,100
9 Reimbursements and Transfers 399,200 399,200
10 Replacement Fee Revenue 1,392,400 1,392,400
11 Storm Drain Fee Revenue 546,200 546,200
12 Interest Income 121,700 121,700
13 Subtotal 1,061,000 1,791,600 2,852,600
Adjustments
14 Adjustment for Annual Cash Balance 2,884,900 (149,200) 2,735,700
15 Adjustment to Annualize Rate Increase (636,700) (636,700)
,. Subtotal 2,248,200 (149,200) 2,099,000
17 Cost of Service to be Recovered from Rates 25,691,600 1,050,800 26,742,400
6-1
8-41
Section 6
Rate Design
In determining the annual cost of service revenues required from rates, revenues from
other revenue sources such as miscellaneous revenue, Storm Drain Fee revenue, and
Replacement Fee revenue are deducted from the appropriate cost element. In addition,
adjustments are made to account for cash balances.
6.2 Wastewater Parameters
The total cost of sewer service is analyzed by system functions in order to equitably
distribute costs of service to the various classes of customers.
For this analysis, sewer utility costs of service are assigned to three basic functional cost
components (wastewater parameters)
>- volume related costs
>- strength related costs
>- customer related costs
Functional cost components relate to services provided and not activities of the utility
as set out in the O&M budget.
6.2.1
Volume Related Costs
. Volume costs are those which vary directly with the quantity of wastewater
contributed and include:
. Capital costs related to the investment in the system facilities which are sized on
the basis of wastewater volume,
. O&M expense related to those facilities, and
. The expense of treatment chemicals and electric power associated with the
volume of wastewater treated.
6.2.2 Wastewater Strength Costs
. Consist of the O&M expense and capital costs related to wastewater treatment
facilities designed to remove pollutants, (Metro)
. Are based principally on the amount of pollutants in the wastewater.
. Are further separated into COD and TSS.
6.2.3
Customer Costs
. Customer costs are those, which tend to vary in proportion to the number of
customers served.
. These include billing and collection expenses and general administration.
CDNI 6-2
8-42
COM
Section 6
Rate Design
The separation of costs of service into these principal components provides the means
for further allocation of such costs to the various customer classes on the basis of their
respective volume, strength, and customer requirements for service.
General Fund Transfers were previously allocated entirely to customer costs, but after
changes to the accounting system due to the conversion to an enterprise fund
allocation adjustments had to be made. Costs were rolled up differently and therefore
costs that were previously volume related were rolled into the general fund transfer.
To compensate for this the General Fund Transfer has been split between volume and
customer costs. Those are the costs incurred by the City for transporting wastewater
to Metro and billing customers which City overheads support.
6.3 Allocation to Wastewater Parameters
The allocation of O&M and capital costs to the wastewater parameters selected
involves the following:
. Identification of functional O&M and capital costs of the wastewater system
. Determination of O&M and capital cost allocation percentages for the wastewater
parameters
O&M expense items are allocated directly to appropriate cost components, while the
allocation of capital costs is based upon a detailed allocation of related capital
investment. The separation of costs into functional components provides a means for
distributing such costs to the various classes of customers on the basis of their
respective responsibilities for each particular type of service.
6.3.1 Allocation of Capital Costs
Capital costs include routine capital improvements. A reasonable method of assigning
capital costs to functional components is to allocate such costs on the basis of the
capital investment.
All of the City's facilities are designed only to convey wastewater. The City currently
owns no facilities designed to treat wastewater. Hence all capital costs are allocated
100% to the volume component.
6.3.2 Allocation of Operating Expense
Projected net operating expense for the test year is allocated to cost components on
the basis of an allocation of O&M expense as shown in Table 7. O&M expense for the
test year is allocated to cost components in the same manner as capital costs, based on
the design criteria of the plant facilities. The allocation of Metro costs is based on
annual billing.
6-3
8-43
Section 6
Rate Design
6.4 Allocation of Cost to Customer Classes
The total cost responsibility of each customer class may be estimated by distributing
the cost of service allocated to functions in Tables 7 among the classes based on the
respective service requirements of each class.
TABLE 7
Allocation of Operation and Maintenance Expense to Functional Cost Components
Test Year 2008
Strength
Line Total Suspended
No. Cost Component Excense Volume COD Solids Customer
$ $ $ $ $
WW Support Services
1 WW Engineering 541,900 0 0 0 541,900
2 WW Operations Admin 147,600 0 0 0 147,600
3 WW Maintenance 3,590,400 2,692,800 0 0 897,600
4 Lift Station/Pool Maint. 570,800 281,404 138,134 151,262 0
5 Sewer Billing and Collection 116,300 0 0 0 116,300
6 Sewer Svc Supplies and Services 112,700 0 0 0 112,700
7 Sewer Svc Risk Management 50,100 0 0 0 50,100
8 Transfer to General Fund 4,587.700 1,940,597 0 0 2,647,103
9 Transfer to 03 Refunding COP 21,000 21,000 0 0 0
10 Total WW Support Services 9,738,500 4,935,802 138.134 151,262 4,513,303
11 Metro Cost 17,273,300 8,515,737 4,180,139 4,577,425 0
12 Spring Valley 736,200 736,200 0 0 0
13 Other Professional Svc 50,600 50,600 0 0 0
14 Otay Water District Processing 356,000 175,508 86,152 94,340 0
15 Total Operation & Maintenance 28,154,600 14,413,846 4,404,424 4,823,027 4,513,303
16 Percent 51.20% 15.64% 17.13% 16.03%
The allocation of costs of service into the principal service requirement components
(customer, volume and strength related) provides a means for further allocation of
costs to the various customer classes on the basis of their respective volume and
strength.
6.4.1
Customer Classifications
For purposes of cost of service analysis and rate design, sewer customers are classified
to reflect groups of customers with similar service requirements and who are served
at a similar average cost. Sewer customers are currently separated by the City into the
following classes:
. Single-Family Residential (includes low-income residential)
. Multi-Family Residential (includes mobile homes)
. Commercial - Low Strength
COM 6-4
8-44
CDM
Section 6
Rate Design
. Commercial - Medium Strength
. Commercial - High Strength
. Special Users (includes High Volume Users and Variance Accounts)
6.4.2
Units of Service
The determination of customer class responsibility for costs of service requires that
each general customer class be allocated a portion of the volume, strength and
customer costs of service according to its respective service requirements, and that all
costs directly associated with a specific customer class be allocated to that class,
The estimated test year service requirements or units of service for the various customer
classes are shown in Table 8. Cost responsibility by customer class is based on each
class' share of units of service, That is, if a class contributed one-third of the wastewater
flow it will be assigned one-third of volume related costs. The same is done for
strength-related costs and customer costs. Metered water and wastewater data for FY
05-06 and partial FY 06-07 flows were used to estimate customer usage by customer
category and to balance total wastewater plant loadings, Equivalent units in column 5
reflect additional dwelling units as well as an adjustment for larger meter sizes.
TABLE 8
Estimated Units of Service
Test Year 2008
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5)
Strength
Line Wastewater Suspended Number of Equivalent
No. Customer Class Volume COD Solids Accounts Units
hcf Ibs Ibs
Residential
1 Single-Family 4,694,000 16,408,000 4,834,500 43,300 43,300
2 Multi-Family 1,756,800 6,140,900 1,809,400 2,252 6,036
3 Mobile Homes 0 0 0 0 0
Non~Residential
4 Commercial - Low 699,900 2,446,600 720,900 1,435 3,465
5 Commercial- Medium 138,800 666,400 303,200 201 461
6 Commercial- High 156,000 1,947,100 681,500 196 471
7 Low Income 0 0 0 0 0
8 Golf Courses Club Houses 0 0 0 0 0
7 Special Users 290,000 905,000 271,500 161 1,053
8 Total 7,735,500 28,714,000 8,621,000 47,545 54,786
6-5
8-45
an
Section 6
Rate Design
Estimates of the wastewater volume of each class are based upon water usage records
and include an estimated return factor for water reaching the wastewater system. The
estimated total wastewater volume for test year 2008 is 7,735,500 HCF. InfiItration is not
included, but the return factor for single-family users has been reduced from 100% to
90% to account for incidental outside water usage during the winter period that does
not return to the sewer. Estimated strengths and return factors used in this study are
shown in Table 9.
TABLE 9
Wastewater Characteristics
Wastewater Strengths
Customer Return COD T55
Classification Factor mg/L mg/L
%
5ingle- Family Residential (1) 90 560 165
Multi-Family Residential 79 560 165
Mobile Homes 84 560 165
Commercial - Low 90 560 165
Commercial - Medium 90 1000 350
Commercial - High 90 2000 700
Special Users Varies varies varies
(1) Winter period usage.
6.4.3
Unit Costs of Service
Table 10 shows the development of the test year unit costs for each of the wastewater
parameters. The test year net O&M expense is allocated to volume, COD, TSS, and
customer based on the O&M allocation percentage shown in Line 16 of Table 7.
Capital costs are recovered through a separate fee and are therefore excluded from
this analysis. The unit costs of service shown in Line 5 of Table 10 are developed by
dividing Line 3 by Line 4.
6-6
8-46
a:JM
Section 6
Rate Design
TABLE 10
Development of Unit Costs
Test Year 2008
StrenQth
Line Suspended
N.o. I2la! lll2llIm.o = ~ Customer
$ $ $ $ $
1 Net Operating Expense 25,691,600 12,345,700 4,404,400 4,823,000 4,118,500
2 Capital Costs 1,050,800 1,050,800 0 0 0
3 Total Cost of Service 26,742,400 13,396,500 4,404,400 4,823,000 4,118,500
4 Total Units of Service 7,735.500 28,714,000 8,621,000 54,786
hef pounds pounds Eq. meters
5 Total Unit Costs of Service - $/unit 1.7318 0.1534 0.5594 75.1739
6.5 Customer Class Costs of Service
The cost responsibility of each customer class is determined by applying the unit cost
of service shown in Table 10 to the units of service estimated for a class (shown in
Table 8). The cost of service allocated to each customer class is summarized in
Table 11.
Table 12 shows a comparison of the cost of service for each customer class with
revenue under existing rates, indicating the impact of cost of service allocation on
each class. A 5.0 percent annualized increase in the level of sewer revenue is needed
to meet the projected revenue requirements for FY 07-08. The cost of service analysis
ensures that the test year 2008 revenue requirement of $26,742,400 is met.
The result of the cost of service analysis is very informative. Table 12 shows that most
customers have been paying close to their fair share of cost of service. The table
indicates that single-family, multi-family, commercial and special-user customers cost
allocation does not match their cost allocation and needs to be revised. .
6-7
8-47
CDM
Section 6
Rate Design
TABLE 11
Allocation of Costs of Service to Customer Classes
Test Year 2008
StrenQth
line Suspended
No. Total Volume = Solids Customer
$ $ $ $ $
Unit Cost of Service 1.7318 0.1534 0.5594 75.1739
Residential
Single-Family
2 Units 4,694,000 16,408,000 4,834,500 43,300
3 Cost-$ 16,605,700 8,129,200 2,516,700 2,704,800 3,255,000
Multi-Family
4 Units 1,756.800 6,140,900 1,809,400 6,036
5 Cost-$ 5,450,400 3,042,400 942,000 1,012,200 453,800
Non-resldentlal
Commercial - Low
6 Units 699,900 2,446,600 720,900 3.465
7 Cost-$ 2,251,200 1,212,100 375,300 403,300 260,500
Commercial - Medium
8 Units 138,800 866,400 303,200 461
9 Cost-$ 577,500 240,400 132,900 169,600 34,600
Commercial - High
10 Units 156,000 1,947,100 681,500 471
11 Cost-$ 985,500 270,200 298,700 381,200 35,400
Special Users
12 Units 290,000 905,000 271,500 1,053
13 Cosl-$ 872,100 502,200 138,800 151,900 79,200
14 Total Cost of Service - $ 26,742400 13,396 500 4 404.400 4,823,000 4118500
15 Total Units of Service 7,735500 28,714,000 8,621 000 54786
TABLE 12
Comparisons of Allocated Costs of Service with Revenue Under Existing Rates
Test Year 2008
Revenue Indicated
Total Under Revenue
Line Cost of Existing Increase
No. Customer Class ~ Rates (Decrease)
$ $ %
Residential
1 Single.Family* 16,605,700 16,484,300 0.7%
2 Multi-Family 5,450,400 4,903,100 11.2%
Non.Resldential
3 Commercial - Low 2,251,200 2,034,000 10.7%
4 Commercial- Medium 577,500 504,100 14.6%
5 Commercial. High 985,500 834,300 18.1%
6 Special Users 872,100 709,200 23.0%
7 Total 26,742,400 25,469,000 5.0%
... includes 250 low-income users
8-48
6-8
mM
Section 7
Rate Design
In general, class cost of service allocations serve as a "guide" to the necessity for, and
extent of, rate adjustments. Other considerations such as the change from previous
rate levels, public reaction to rate changes, past local policies and practices, and local
regulations may modify indicated cost of service adjustments. The end result of any
rate adjustment process, however, should be rate schedules, which are simple to
apply, clearly understood, and as equitable to each customer class as possible.
7.1 Proposed Sewer Rates
The cost of service analysis provides the basis for adjusting sewer service charges. The
cost of service allocation study provides the unit costs of service used in the rate
design process and gives a basis for determining whether resultant rates will recover
costs of service from customer classes and provide the total level of revenue required.
Table 13 presents the Proposed Rate Schedule for FY 2008 compared to Adopted 2008
rates. The Proposed 2008 Rates for Single-Family Residential Customers shown at the
right do not appear to vary much from the Adopted 2008 Rates but careful
examination shows that both the fixed Sewer Service Fee and the variable charge is
slightly higher. However, the fixed Sewer Facilities Replacement Fee has been
eliminated based on a cost of service analysis performed by City staff and replaced
with a variable fee. The results of these changes can be seen in typical bills shown in
Table 17 discussed below.
TABLE 13
Existing and Proposed Rate Schedule
Sinale~Familv Residential Adopted 2008 Proposed 2008
Fixed Variable Fixed Variable
Service Fee Fee Service Fee Fee
Sewer Service Fee 6.33 2.53 6.65 2.81
Sewer Facilities ReDlacement Fee 1.97 - - 0.18
Stann Drain Fee 0.70 - 0.70 -
SFR - Sewer Rate 9.00 2.53 7.35 2.99
Commercial - Low Strength Adopted 2008 Proposed 2008
Fixed Variable Fixed Variable
Service Fee Fee Service Fee Fee
Sewer Service Fee Varies 2.53 Varies 2.81
Sewer Facilities Reclacement Fee 0.11 0.18
Storm Drain Fee 0.06 0.06
Commercial LS- Sewer Rates Varies 2.70 Varies 3.05
Table 13 also provides an illustration of how Low-Strength Commercial Customer
Fees vary from Single-Family Residential. The Sewer Service Fees vary by meter si2e
and the Sewer Facilities Replacement and the Storm Drain Fees are both collected
7-1
8-49
caw
Section 7
Rate Design
from a variable fee. The net effect of this can be seen by comparing the bottom lines of
the two customers, which shows the combined sewer rates.
7.2 Appeal Process
The sewer variance review process ("appeal process") was amended in 2005 to
provide a mechanism for single-family residences to ask for a re-evaluation of their
sewer bill. This was done because some customers believed that their water usage
was not accurately evaluated due to a leak, excessive landscaping, or pool
maintenance, and that one or more of these elements affected their sewer service
charges.
The proposed rates incorporate a 90 percent return to sewer (return factor) for single-
family dwellings. This return factor takes into account the 10 percent of water used
during the winter period for purposes other than domestic use therefore reducing the
need for the appeals process. However, those residents who experience a leak during
the winter averaging period, and determine that their winter average may have been
impacted by the leak will still have an opportunity to apply for an adjustment.
7.3 Rate Revenue Comparison
Table 14 presents a summary of the revenue under the existing rates, cost of service
and revenue under proposed rates for each customer class for test year 2008. The table
shows that the proposed rate schedule will fairly recover the cost of providing sewer
service from all of the customer class. Adoption of the proposed rates would cause
varying charge increases for certain users.
TABLE 14
Comparison of Customer Revenue Under Proposed Rates
With Test Year Cost of Service
Test Vear 2008
Proposed Rates
Estimated
Test Year Revenue Revenue As a
2008 Under Under Pecent of
Line Cost of Existing Proposed Cost of
No. Customer Class Service Rates Rates Service
$ $ $ %
Residential
1 Single-Family 16,605.700 16,484,300 16,643.600 100.2
2 Multi-Family 5,4S0,400 4,903,100 5,418,100 99.4
Non-Residential
3 Low 2,251,200 2,034,000 2,243,000 99.6
4 Medium 577,500 504,100 576,600 99.8
5 Hi9h 985,500 834,300 981,400 99.6
6 Special Users 872,100 709,200 878,700 100.8
7 Total 26,742,400 25,469,000 26,741,400 100.0
7-2
8-50
1:DM
Section 7
Rate Des;gn
7.4 Proposed Rates
The calculated rates needed to meet the obligation of the sewer service revenue fund
for FY 07-08 through FY 11-12 are shown in Table 15 below and illustrate the rate
changes for all customer classes. The rates in Table 15 exclude the Storm Drain and
Sewer Facilities Replacement Fees. Table 16 shows the proposed Rate Schedule for FY
07-08 through FY 11-12, which includes the Storm Drain and Sewer Facilities
Replacement Fees. These are the rates recommended for adoption.
TABLE 15
Proposed Rate Schedule for Fiscal Years 2008 Through 2012
= = = 2Q11 =
Meter Monthly Service Chan::Je (1)
.s.@ $/month $/month $/month $/month $/month
Single-Family Residential 6.65 7.30 8.03 8.31 8.31
All Others (Meter Size in Inches)
5/8 6.65 7.30 8.03 8.31 8.31
3/4 6.65 7.30 8.03 8.31 8.31
1 11.08 12.17 13.38 13.85 13.85
11/2 22.16 24.35 26.76 27.70 27.70
2 35.45 38.96 42.81 44.31 44.31
3 66.47 73.05 80.28 83.09 83.09
4 110.78 121.74 133.79 138.48 138,48
6 221.55 243.48 267.59 276.95 276.95
8 354.48 389.57 428.14 443.13 443.13
Volume Chan:!e (1)
$lhef $/hcf $/hcf $/hef $/hcf
Residential
Single Family 2.81 3.09 3.39 3.51 3.64
Multi-Family 2.81 3.09 3.39 3.51 3.64
Mobile Homes 2.81 3.09 3.39 3.51 3.64
Non-Residential
Commercial. Low 2.81 3.09 3.39 3.51 3.64
Commercial - Medium 3.89 4.28 4.70 4.86 5.03
Commercial - High 6.05 6.65 7.31 7.56 7.83
Special Users Varies Varies Varies Varies Varies
Total Revenue 26,105,700 29,691,400 32,964,900 34.467,300 36,040,100
(1) Does not includes the Sewer Facilities Replacement Fee and Storm Drain Fee
7-3
8-51
a::JM
Section 7
Rate Design
TABLE 16
Proposed Rate Schedule for Fiscal Years 2008 Through 2012
2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
Meter Monthly Service Charge (1)
~ $/month $/month $/month $Jmonth $/month
Single-Family Residential 7.35 8.00 8.73 9.01 9.01
All Others
5/8 6.65 7.30 8.03 8.31 8.31
3/4 6.65 7.30 8.03 8.31 8.31
1 11.08 12.17 13.38 13.85 13.85
11/2 22.16 24.35 26.76 27.70 27.70
2 35.45 38.96 42.81 44.31 44.31
3 66.47 73.05 80.28 83.09 83.09
4 110.78 121.74 133.79 138.48 138.48
6 221.55 243.48 267.59 276.95 276.95
8 354.48 389.57 428.14 443.13 443.13
Volume Charqe ( 1)
$/hcf $/hcf $/hcf $/hcf $/hcf
Residential
Single.Family 2.99 3.27 3.57 3.69 3.82
Multi-Family 3.05 3.33 3.63 3.75 3.88
Mobile Homes 3.05 3.33 3.63 3.75 3.88
Non-Residential
Commercial - Low 3.05 3.33 3.63 3.75 3.88
Commercial - Medium 4.13 4.52 4.94 5.10 5.27
Commercial ~ High 6.29 6.89 7.55 7.80 8.07
Special Users 2.98 3.33 3.63 3.75 3.88
(1) Includes the Sewer Facilites Replacement Fee and Storm Drain Fee
Table 17 shows that the sample monthly bills for single-family residential customers for
FY 07-08 through FY 11-12. The proposed charges include the $0.70 per month Storm
Drain Charge and the $0.18 per HCF Facilities Replacement Charge.
Column 1 is the winter period water usage. The typical customer uses about 10 HCF.
However due to the reduced return factor the typical customer will only be billed for 9
HCF effective January 1, 2008. Column 2 of Table 17 shows the monthly sewer bill for
single-family residential customers with usage ranging from zero to 20 HCF under
existing rates. With the current cap set at 20 HCF, usage above 20 HCF is charged for
only 20 HCF. Column 3 shows what the wastewater bill is effective July 1, 2008 under
the rates already adopted. The fourth column indicates sewer bills based on Proposed
2008 Rates to be effective January 1, 2008. The remaining columns show single-family
residential typical bills for FY 2009 to FY 2012.
7-4
8-52
COM
Section 7
Rate Design
TABLE 17
Comparison of Typical Single-Family Residential Monthly Sewer Bills
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7)
FY 2008 FY 2008 FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011 FY 2012
Adopted Proposed Proposed Proposed Proposed Proposed
~ l<l1aJ:go l<l1aJ:go l<l1aJ:go l<l1aJ:go l<l1aJ:go l<l1aJ:go
hcf/mo. $ $ $ $ $ $
0 9.00 7.35 8.00 8.73 9.01 9.01
1 11.53 10.04 10.95 11.94 12.33 12.44
2 14.06 12.73 13.89 15.16 15.66 15.88
3 16.59 15.42 16.83 18.38 18.98 19.31
4 19.12 18.11 19.77 21.59 22.30 22.75
5 21.65 20.80 22.71 24.81 25.63 26.18
6 24.18 23.49 25.65 28.03 28.95 29.61
7 26.71 26.18 28.59 31.24 32.27 33.05
B 29.24 28.87 31.54 34.46 35.60 36.48
9 31.77 31.57 34.48 37.68 38.92 39.92
10 34.30 34.26 37.42 40.89 42.24 43.35 I
11 36.83 36.95 40.36 44.11 45.57 46.78
12 39.36 39.64 43.30 47.33 48.89 50.22
13 41.89 42.33 46.24 50.54 52.21 53.65
14 44.42 45.02 49.18 53.76 55.54 57.09
15 46.95 47.71 52.13 56.98 58.86 60.52
16 49.48 50.40 55.07 60.19 62.18 63.96
17 52.01 53.09 58.01 63.41 65.51 67.39
18 54.54 55.78 60.95 66.63 68.83 70.82
19 57.07 58.48 63.89 69.84 72.15 74.26
20 59.60 61.17 66.83 73.06 75.48 77.69
7.5 Rate Comparisons
CDM performed a survey of wastewater charges in cities in San Diego County and
the results are presented in Figure 3 below. The figure clearly shows rates in Chula
Vista are on the low end in the County.
70.00
60.00
50.00
40.00
.
S
..
a
30.00
20.00
10.00
0.00
1:>0 'III:> R~
~~ ~ 0'11
ocP'" C; 0
~~O~ ,,).'1>4, #'\ ~., q..'I> ;po ,# ~Q ,# 'I>~ ,i-Q .;i.Q'\ .~Q'\
~qO"~'fjr:f'-.i"'~~~Q Q~~~$'-
,J,1I ~ ~~ ;/'"A'o ,,'I> ~'II 'II~ ~0 1.0<.......
&'1) v~v#<;;iq'l>'00~##
,J,~"f'4,v::. <f' ~"f'4, *-8:<iJ -8:1f-
.-A ~ ,,~ #~
#-- ~ #
CltylDlstrlet
.,,~
.
~
Figure 3 - Monthly Sewer Bill Comparison
7-5
8-53
00
I
C11
~
Attachment B
Adopted Rate Schedule FY 2006 - FY 2010
Meter Size FY 2006 FY 2007 FY 2008 FY 2009 FY 2010
Monthl" Fixed Service Chan!:e
$/Month $/Month $/Month $/Month $/Month
Simde Familv 1 $8.47 T $8.47 I $9.00 I $9.25 $9.75
All Others
5/8 $8.47 $8.47 $9.00 $9.25 $9.75
3/4 $8.47 $8.47 $9.00 $9.25 $9.75
I $12.34 $12.34 $13.22 $13 .64 $14.47
11/2 $22.00 $22.00 $23.77 $24.60 $26.27
2 $33.60 $33.60 $36.43 $37.76 $40.43
3 $60.67 $60.67 $65.97 $68.47 $73.47
4 $99.34 $99.34 $108.17 $112.34 $120.67
6 $196.00 $196.00 $213.67 $222.00 $238.67
8 $312.00 $312.00 $340.27 $353.60 $380.27
Volume Chan!e/HCF
Residential
Single Familv $2.16 $2.36 $2.53 $2.62 $2.70
Multi Familv $2.16 $2.36 $2.53 $2.62 $2.70
Mobile Homes $2.16 $2.36 $2.53 $2.62 $2.70
Non-Residential
Conunercial-Low $2.16 $2.36 $2.53 $2.62 $2.70
Commercial - Med $3.00 $3.22 $3.38 $3.47 $3.55
Commercial. HilJh $4.71 $4.94 $5.12 $5.23 $5.33
Snecial Users $2.16 $2.36 $2.53 $2.62 $2.70
*HCF - Hundred CubiC Feet
Rates Include Storm Drain Fee and Sewer Facilities Replacement Fee
Proposed Rate Schedule FY 2008-FY 2010
Meter Size FY 2008 FY 2009 FY 2010
Monthlv Fixed Service Charl!e
$/Month $/Month $/Month
Sil-:wIe Familv I $7.35 I $8.00 I $8.73
AJlOthers
5/8 $6.65 $7.30 $8.03
3/4 $6.65 $7.30 $8.03
1 $11.08 $12.17 $13.38
11/2 $22.16 $24.35 $26.76
2 $35.45 $38.96 $42.81
3 $66.47 $73.05 $80.28
4 $110.78 $121.74 $133.79
6 $221.55 $243.48 $267.59
8 $354.48 $389.57 $428.14
Volume CharQ"e/HCF
Residential
Sino\e Familv $2.99 $3.27 $3.57
Multi Familv $3.05 $3.33 $3.63
Mobile Homes $3.05 $3.33 $3.63
Non-Residential
Commercial-Low $3.05 $3.33 $3.63
Commercial - Med $4.13 $4.52 $4.94
Commercial- High $6.29 $6.89 $7.55
Snecial Users Varies Varies Varies
*HCF - Hundred CubiC Feet
Rates Include Storm Drain Fee and Sewer Facilities Replacement Fee
Attachment C
ACCOUNT & FLOW DISTRIBUTION BY USER CLASS
User Class # of Accts % Flow (HCF) %
A Single-Family Residential Users 43,300 91.07% 4,694,000 60.7%
B Multi-Family Residential User 2,252 4.74% 1,756,800 22.7%
C Low-Strength Commercial Users 1,435 3.02% 699,900 9.0%
D Medium-Strength Commercial Users 201 0.42% 138,800 1.8%
E High-Strength Commercial Users 196 0.41% 156,000 2.0%
F Special Users 161 0.34% 290,000 3.7%
Total 47,545 100.0% 7,735,500 100.0%
ACCOUNTS %
. B
4.74%
o C
3.02%
o D
0.42%
. E
0.41%
8-55
FLOW %
. B
22.7%
o C
9.0%
o D
. E1.8%
2.0%
. F
3.7%
Attachment D
Existing Cost Allocation
Multi-Family
19%
Commercial Low
8%
Commercial Med
2%
Commercial High
3%
Special Users
3%
Single-Family
65%
. Single-Family
C Commercial Med
. Multi-Family
. Commercial High
DCommercial Low
.Special Users
Proposed Cost Allocation
Mu~i-Famly
20%
Corrrrercial Low
8%
Corrmerciall'V\ad
2%
Commercial HIgh
4%
Single-Famly
63%
. Single-Fannly
o ColTJT'erciall'V\ad
. MultI-Family
. ConTT1erciaJ High
o Corrrnercial Low
. Special Users
8-56
Attachment E
RE-EV ALUATION OF THE SEWER FACILITIES REPLACEMENT FEE
Assumes Annual Avera e CIP Expenditure = $1,400,000
3 Year Average
43,300
4,693,959
61%
$849,544
SO.18
43,798
4,747,945
61%
$850,601
SO.18
44,302
4,802,582
61%
$851,682
SO.18
8-57
Attachment F
Rate change impact on various levels of Single-Family Residential Users
Single-Family Residential Users
Winter Adopted Proposed Difference Adopted Proposed Difference Adopted Proposed Difference
Average FY 2008 FY 2009 FY 2010
0 $ 9.00 $ 7.35 ($1.65 $ 9.25 $ 8.00 ($1.25\ $ 9.75 $ 8.73 ($1.02)
1 $ 11.53 $ 10.04 1$1.49 $ 11.87 $ 10.95 ($0.92\ $ 12.45 $ 11.94 ($0.51)
2 $ 14.06 $ 12.73 1$1.33 $ 14.49 $ 13.89 ($0.60\ $ 15.15 $ 15.16 $0.01
3 $ 16.59 $ 15.42 1$1.1 $ 17.11 $ 16.83 ($0.28) $ 17.85 $ 18.38 $0.53
4 $ 19.12 $ 18.11 ($1.01 $ 19.73 $ 19.77 $0.04 $ 20.55 $ 21.59 $1.04
5 $ 21.65 $ 20.80 ($0.85 $ 22.35 $ 22.71 $0.36 $ 23.25 $ 24.81 $1.56
6 $ 24.18 $ 23.49 ($0.69 $ 24.97 $ 25.65 $0.68 $ 25.95 $ 28.03 $2.08
7 $ 26.71 $ 26.18 ($0.53 $ 27.59 $ 28.59 $1.00 $ 28.65 $ 31.24 $2.59
8 $ 29.24 $ 28.87 ($0.37) $ 30.21 $ 31.54 $1.33 $ 31.35 $ 34.46 $3.11
9 $ 31.77 $ 31.57 1$0.20\ $ 32.83 $ 34.48 $1.65 $ 34.05 $ 37.68 $3.63
10 $ 34.30 $ 34.26 1$0.04\ $ 35.45 $ 37.42 $1.97 $ 36.75 $ 40.89 $4.14
11 $ 36.83 $ 36.95 $0.12 $ 38.07 $ 40.36 $2.29 $ 39.45 $ 44.11 $4.66
12 $ 39.36 $ 39.64 $0.28 $ 40.69 $ 43.30 $2.61 $ 42.15 $ 47.33 $5.18
13 $ 41.89 $ 42.33 $0.44 $ 43.31 $ 46.24 $2.93 $ 44.85 $ 50.54 $5.69
14 $ 44.42 $ 45.02 $0.60 $ 45.93 $ 49.18 $3.25 $ 47.55 $ 53.76 $6.21
15 $ 46.95 $ 47.71 $0.76 $ 48.55 $ 52.13 $3.58 $ 50.25 $ 56.98 $6.73
16 $ 49.48 $ 50.40 $0.92 $ 51.17 $ 55.07 $3.90 $ 52.95 $ 60.19 $7.24
17 $ 52.01 $ 53.09 $1.08 $ 53.79 $ 58.01 $4.22 $ 55.65 $ 63.41 $7.76
18 $ 54.54 $ 55.78 $1.24 $ 56.41 $ 60.95 $4.54 $ 58.35 $ 66.63 $8.28
19 $ 57.07 $ 58.48 $1.41 $ 59.03 $ 63.89 $4.86 $ 61.05 $ 69.84 $8.79
20 $ 59.60 $ 61.17 $1.57 $ 61.65 $ 66.83 $5.18 $ 63.75 $ 73.06 $9.31
Rate change impact on various levels of Commercial Users
Low-Strength Commercial- Average customer uses 45 hcfj month with a 1 inch meter
$ 115.69
$17.57 $ 123.82
Difference
Adopted
Difference Adopted
$9.20
Difference Adopted
$ 119.75
$26.86
Medium- Strength Commercial- Average customer uses 63 hcf/ month with a 1 inch meter
Adopted I Proposed I Difference Adopted I Proposed I Difference Adopted T Proposed I Difference
FY 2008 FY 2009 FY 2010
$ 204.87 I $ 231.641 $26.78 $ 210.39 I $ 254.85 I $44.46 $ 215.76 T $ 279.87 T $64.12
High-Strength Commercial - Average customer uses 73 hcfj month with a 1 inch meter
Adopted
Difference Adopted
$58.96 $ 357.25
Difference Adopted
$91.82
Difference
$ 349.60
$ 364.65
$129.00
j;\EngineerISEWER\2007\SEWER RATE STUDY CDM 20078"'2!'S'lrent F.dnc
Attachment G
Comparison of Average Single-Family Residential User Rates in San Diego County
(Metro Participating Agencies)
70.00
66.36
10.00
60.00
50.00
40.00
f!
co .!!
I 0
CJ1 C
CD 30.00
20.00
0.00
".<'
~'"
~
o
"",'
~~
.o~ .o~
(;tS' ~
...<;) """,~
6~ 0 s,"''''
.:,.'If
.,,~
",,<f
'-
\,0
..1:;'
<)'
".
~o
.,,'If
~
",,'If
.~'"
r!;'
><-'"
,,'If
~o 6~
~t"(f ~
~o ~<T
cP ~o
.} ~'If
6~ .}
6"'"
. oS:- .C}
~ .~~
.>il' <:>'
",'" ".
Cj ~o
,4.0 .~rq.
0,0 """,'"
0<:- '"
e~ ~~
v tfI.
AG- 0:-
.~. Ilj
,,{:i rl-fb
v "v
~<$- ~'lf
~'If >I.'"
",... ...,<!':'
0" 0
0~
.q.1:J.
.:,.'
,y'"
CJ""
.}
6~
~q,. "..0
~'" .,"'~
", <:>
~v ~<::-
o {;
6~ .~o
CJ'
iI' ~",...
<)'If o~
&'" .}<1.
<1.'If 6~
~~
@
...<:J
o
6~
J:IEngineerISEWER\2007ISEWER RATE STUDY COM 2007IAttachment G.doc
City/District
ATTACf-i'\/'\=,'\" /1
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
SEWER RATE INCREASE
February 5, 2008 · 4 pm
Council Chambers
276 Fourth Avenue, Chula Vista
8-60
~~'?-
:::~~
--..::.-..::~.-....:
...............~.......
""'"~~~
CllY OF
CHUIA VISTA
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
The City of Chula Vista will hold a Public Hearing to consider
the proposed Sewer Rate Increase on February 5,2008 at 4 pm
in the Council Chambers located at 276 Fourth Avenue Chula
Vista, California.
In compliance with Proposition 218, the City is hereby notifying
all affected property owners of the proposed Sewer Rate
change effective February 5, 2008 as follows:
. Affected property owners are notified by mail about the
proposed rate increase. This notice outlines the public
hearing process (see below), publicizes the public hearing
and provides information relating to the proposed rate
Increase.
. If written protests are presented by a majority of the
affected property owners prior to the close of the public
hearing, the proposed rate increase will be rejected.
This notice describes:
. Amount of proposed sewer rate increases
. Reasons for the proposed rate increase
. How the proposed rates were calculated
. How to file a protest for the proposed rates
. Where you can find more information about the
proposed increase
EXPLANATION OF RATE INCREASE
The City of Chula Vista along with 14 other participating agencies
belongs to the Metropolitan Wastewater District (Metro).The
wastewater generated in the city of Chula Vista is collected and
conveyed through the city's extensive sewer collection system
to treatment facilities in Point Loma and Southbay. Chula Vista's
local collection system includes 13 pump stations and over 477
miles of sewer lines.
The primary reasons for the proposed rate increase is to
provide revenue sufficient to:
. Operate and maintain the city's Wastewater Collection
system.
. Pay the City of San Diego for the treatment of sewage
generated by the City of Chula Vista.
. Repair and replace deteriorating wastewater facilities to
maintain system reliability.
All revenue from the City's sewer charges are used exclusively
for the recovery of costs associated with providing these services.
Consequently, the rates are set to meet the estimated cost of
servIce.
If adopted, the proposed rate changes will be implemented
over the next three years. The proposed rates are presented
in the table on the next page. The amount of your sewer bill
will depend on your customer class (i.e" residential customer
or commercial customer) and the amount of water you us~ _ 61
EXPLANATION OF RATES
The City of Chula Vista's sewer service charge is made up of
three different fees: the Sewer Facilities Replacement Fee, the
Storm Drain Fee and the Sewer Service Fee. Revenue derived
from these fees are used as follows:
Sewer Facility Replacement Fee:
Revenue derived from this fee is used to rehabilitate or replace
deteriorating sewer facilities (i.e" sewer lines, manholes, pump
stations and related appurtenant structures).
Storm Drain Fee:
This fund is used to maintain the storm drain system. It is also
used to fund costs associated with complying with the
requirements of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System (NPDES).
Sewer Service Fee:
Revenue derived from this fee is used to pay the City of San
Diego (Metro) for wastewater treatment.This fee also pays for
the maintenance and operation of the city's wastewater collecton
system.The sewer service fee is made up of two components:
a fixed service charge based on water meter size and a
variable commodity charge based on water consumed.
Fixed Service Charges
All users connected to the city's wastewater collection system
pay a monthly fixed sewer service charge based upon their
meter size.
Commodity Charge - Single-Family Residential Users
All single-family residential customers currently connected to
the city's sewer collection system pay a monthly commodity
charge based on "winter water" usage:
New customers are assigned the median charge of 10 hcf and
are charged that rate until they establish their own winter water
use (i.e" two full cycles during the winter months of Nov-April).
Commodity Charge -
Multi-family Residential and Commercial Users
All multi-family residential and commercial customers currently
connected to the city's sewer collection system pay a monthly
commodity charge based on water usage.
Sewer rates are designed to exclusively recover the cost of
service.The Chart on the next page shows the cost allocation,
which is the underlying basis of the rates.
COST ALLOCATION
Replacement and
Storm Drain:
6%
Operation and
Maintenance:
34%
PROPOSED CHANGES
The proposed rate adjustment only impacts the Sewer Service
Fee and the Sewer Facility Replacement Fee, and are as follows:
I . Return Factor - Currently single-family residential customers
are assigned a commodity charge each fiscal year based on
100% of the average of their two lowest consecutive winter
month water use. If adopted, it will be based on 90% of the
winter average.
2. Sewer Facilities Replacement Fee - The Sewer Facilities
Replacement Fee for single-family residential customers is
currently billed at a flat rate of $1.97/month and $.0 II /hcf
for all other users. If the proposed rate schedule is adopted
all users including single-family, multi,family and commercial
will henceforth be billed at $0. I 8/hef.
HOW IS MY SEWER BILL CALCULATED?
Sample Calculation of Monthly 8ill for
on "Average" Single-Family Residential User
All single-family residential users are billed for service based on
their water usage during the winter period (November to April)
Nov/Dec Jan/Feb Mar/April
20hef 24hef 26hef
Lowest Winter Use = 20 hef
Winter Average = 20/2 = I Ohef (Basis of Monthly Fee)
Sewer Service Charge =
(Winter Average x Sewer Rate) + Fixed Service Charge
(Current Rate = $2.53; Fixed Service Charge = $9:00)
Therefore, for this custome~ Monthly Sewer Service Charge is
calculated as follows:
=( I 00% x lOx $2.53) + $9.00 = $34.30
Ifthe proposed rate changes are adopted, it will include a 90%
Return Facto~ therefore, for the same custome~ using the new
sewer rate, and new fixed service charge, their Monthly Sewer
Service Charge:
=(90% x lOx $2,99) + $7.35 = $34.26
Proposed 3 y~:~: Rate Sc~;.~ule .....
Monthly Fixed Service Charge
$/Mond1 $IMonth $IMond1
Single Family $7.35 $8.00 $8.73
All Others (meter size in inches)
5/8 $6.65
3/4 $6.65
1 $11.08
1 1/2 $22.16
2 $35.45
3 $66.47
4 $110.78
6 $221.55
8 $354.48
$7.30
$7.30
$12.17
$24.35
$38.96
$73.05
$121.74
$243.48
$389.57
$8.03
$8.03
$13.38
$26.76
$42.81
$80.28
$133.79
$267.59
$428.14
Residential
Single-Family $2.99
Multi-Family 3.05
Mobile Homes 3.05
Non.Residential
Commercial - Low 3.05
Commercial - Med 4,13
Commercial - High 6.29
Volume Charfe/HCF
3.27 3.57
3.33 3.63
3.33 3.63
3.33 3.63
4.52 4.94
6.89 7.55
HOW DO I OPPOSETHE RATE INCREASE!
If you oppose the proposed rate increase, your protest must
be submitted in writing to be considered, even if you plan to
attend the public hearing (see below). If written protests are
submitted by a majority of the affected property owners, the
proposed rate changes cannot be imposed.Your written protest
MUST be received prior to the close of public hearing.
Written protests must contain a description of the property,
such as the parcel number. Please also indicate the reason you
are protesting the rate increase. Please send your written
protest to:
City Clerk of the City of Chula Vista
276 Fourth Avenue
Chula Vista, CA 9 1910
FOR MORE INFORMATION
Visit www.chulavistaca.gov for more information about the city
of Chula Vista and your sewer service. Please note, howeve~
that the City of Chula Vista requires that rate increase protests
be submitted in writing. E-mail protests will not be accepted.
Who should I call with questions!
If you have questions about the proposed rates, please call city
of Chula Vista, Engineering Department - Wastewater Engineering
8-6 tection at (619) 476-5380,
'~7A-':'_~"'''<''''''''''_"_'_''_'
(
CllY OF Office of the City Clerk
CHULA VISTA 276 Fourth Avenue. Chula Vista. CA 91910
8-63
RESOLUTION NO. 2007-
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CHULA VISTA DECLARING THE CITY'S INTENTION TO
INCREASE SEWER SERVICE CHARGES AND SETTING A
PUBLIC HEARING FOR FEBRUARY 5, 2008, AT 4:00 P.M TO
CONSIDER ALL PROTESTS AGAINST THE PROPOSED
INCREASE TO THE SEWER SERVICE CHARGES.
WHEREAS, the Sewer Service Charge is the fee paid by all users who are connected to
the City's wastewater collection system to fund the cost of wastewater treatment and
maintenance of the system; and
WHEREAS, on July 19,2005, the City Council approved a five-year rate plan, which set
the schedule for the adjustment of sewer service fees for Fiscal Year 2005-06 through Fiscal
Year 2009-10 based on the findings and recommendations of the "Cost of Service and Rate Study
for Sewer Services" prepared by Camp Dresser & McKee, Inc. ("CDM"); and
WHEREAS, the adopted rate plan has not met the revenue objectives due to a
combination of factors, including, but not limited to, the overestimation of the baseline customer
data used in the 2005 Rate Study and the unanticipated shortfalls in the growth projections for
new accounts; and
WHEREAS in April 2007, the City retained CDM to prepare another study to re-evaluate
the performance of the adopted rate plan, re-evaluate the cost allocation among the various user
classes to ensure that it was proportional to use and equitable, re-evaluate the sewer-billing
method for single-family residential users, and develop a financial plan; and
WHEREAS, CDM has completed the "Cost of Service and Rate Study for Sewer
Services" dated October 2007 and has determined that the existing rates were inadequate and
would not generate the revenues needed to meet the obligations of the fund for wastewater
treatment, system operation and maintenance, and that rates needed to be adjusted and in some
cases increased; and
WHEREAS, at the current sewer rate level, necessary expenditures will exceed Fiscal
Year 2008 revenues by $3.3 million; and
WHEREAS, the adoption of the proposed sewer rate structure will ensure that the City
recovers sufficient revenues to meet projected expenditures for the maintenance and operation of
the City's sewer collection and treatment system for Fiscal Year 2008 through 2010.
H:\ENGINEER\RESOS\Resos2007\lZ-18-07\Reso-Sewer-Service-lncrease-Dee-Intent n:vS~Y6C40C
Resolution 2007-
Page 2
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City ofChula Vista
that it declares its intention to increase the sewer service charges and sets a public hearing for
February 5, 2008, at 4:00 p.m. to consider all protests against the proposed increase to the sewer
service charges.
Presented by
Approved as to form by
~J ()vC~
Ann Moore
City Attorney
Scott Tulloch
City Engineer
H:\ENGINEER\RESOSlResos2007\12-18-07\Reso-Sewer-Service-Increase-Dee-Intent revied~ scgc