HomeMy WebLinkAbout4.11(b)--Award Request for Proposal No. 5337, Utility Rate Study Update Project GI �" Y � F
� � � ° � � � " � � CITY OF REDDING
REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL
MEETING DATE: January 17, 2023 FROM: Chuck Aukland,Public
ITEM NO. 4.11(b) Works Director
***APPROVED BY***
� „
�:
�
ukl�n�I,H'ciblic Wr�aks L'�ireGt ' 1;'6/2423 5 �ri I�cMaa�d,Ass��tant C"ity = :, Ir'�/2423
caulcland@ci.redding.ca.us btippin@cityofredding.org �
SUBJECT: 4.11(b)--Award Request for Proposal No. 5337, Utility Rate St�udy Update Project
and Authorize the Mayor to Execute a Consulting and Professional Services Contract for the
Water, Wastewater, and Solid Waste Utilities Cost-of-Service and Utility Rate Study Update
Pro'ect
Recommendation
Authorize the following actions relative to Request for Proposals, Sched�ule No. 5337, Water,
Wastewater, and Solid Waste Utilities Cost-of-Service and Utility Rate Study Update Project:
(1) Award to NBS of San Francisco, California;
(2) Autharize the Mayor to execute a Consulting and Professional Services Contract for a
not-to-exceed fee of$180,990 with NBS; and
(3) Autharize the City Manager to approve contract amendment increases up to $20,000.
Fiscal Impact
The Water, Wastewater, and So1id Waste Divisions have sufficient funds appropriated in the
approved Fiscal Year 2022-23 budget for this project.
Alterna�ive Action
The City Council (Council) could choose not to award the Reguest for Proposals, Schedule No.
5337 (RFP) for the Cost-of-Service and LJtility Rate Study and provide alternative direction to
staf£ This would result in the current rate structures remaining in place moving forward.
Implications of this alternative would result in insufficient revenue to align with expected
expenses. This would also reduce the ability to fund needed capital projects and therefore risking
infrastructure failures, public health and safety, and regulatory compliance action by State and
Federal agencies.
Report to Redding City Council January 10,2023
Re: 4.11(b)--Award Reauest for Proposal No. 5337, Utility Rate Study Update Project Page 2
Background/Analysis
The most current Water, Wastewater, and Solid Waste Rate Study Program was adopted in 2020.
The rate structures for these utilities were approved by the City Council in February 2020. The
approved rate structures included increases in years 2020, 2021, 2022, and 2023. The proposed
project will examine the rate structures of the Water, Wastewater, and Solid Waste Utilities
moving beyond 2023. Utility rates are established to recoup the cost of providing and
maintaining the City of Redding's (City) investment in Water, Wastewater, and Solid Waste
infrastructure, as well as the cost of providing these services to residents. The goal of this project
is to develop rate structures that support the revenue required to operate and maintain the utilities
while balancing the need to consider the impact to the ratepayers over the next four years (2024-
2027).
On November 1, 2022, a formal RF'P, outlining the specific scope of work, was sent to five
firms, posted on the City`s Purchasing website, and advertised in the Record Searchlight.
Proposals were required to include a fee schedule for the entire scope of services. A single
proposal and fee schedule was received on December 2, 2022, from NBS. Public Works
Department staff evaluated the proposal based on the understanding of the scope of work, ability
to meet the proposed schedule and maintain the project budget, experience and qualifications of
the proposed staff, ability to work with community stakeholder groups, and commitment to the
project. Minor scope modifications were requested by staff to encompass additional tasks for the
project. NBS successfully prepared the previous utility rate study for the City and is familiar with
the appropriate regulatory procedural process, current trends in utility funding, and the City's
utility structures to efficiently complete the proposed effort.
The contract has been approved as to form by the City Attorney.
Environmental Review
This action is not a project as defined under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA),
and no further action is required.
Council Pr�iority/City Manager Goals
� Budget and Financial Management — "Achieve balanced and stable 10-year Financial
Plans for all Funds."
• Government of the 21st Century — `Be relevant and proactive to the opportunities and
challenges of today's residents and workforce. Anticipate the future to make better
decisions today."
Attachments
Consulting and Professional Services Contract
NBS Final Rate Study Report Feb 2020
CITY F ING '
CUNSULTING AND PROFESSIONAL SERVICES CONTRACT
THIS CONTRACT is made at Redding, California,by and between the City of Redding("City"),
a municipal corporation, and NBS ("Consultant") for the purpose of performing a Cost-of-Service
and Utility Rate Study for the Water, Wastewater, and Solid Waste Utilities.
E EAS, City does not have sufficient personnel to perform the services required herein
thereby necessitating this Contract for personal services.
N , T E F , the Parties covenant and agree, for good consideration hereby
acknowledged, as follows:
SECTI N 1. C N�ULTA�T SE VICES
Subject to the terms and conditions set forth in this Contract, Consultant shall provide to
City the services described in Exhibit A, attached and incorporated herein. Consultant shall
provide the services at the time,place and in the m er specified in Exhibit A.
SECTI N 2. C PENSATI N AN I U SE ENT F C STS
A. City shall pay Consultant for services rendered pursuant to this Contract, at the times
and in the manner set forth in Exhibit B, attached and incorporated herein, in a total
amount not to exceed One Hundred Eighty Thousand Nine Hundred Ninety Dollars
($180,990). This sum includes all out-of-pocket travel, lodging and incidental
expenses incurred by Consultant that are reasonably associated with the provision of
services under this Contract. The payments specified herein shall be the only
payments to be made to Consultant for services rendered pursuant to this Contract.
B. Consultant shall submit monthly invoices to City for work completed to the date of
the invoice. All invoices shall be itemized to reflect the employees perfornning the
requested tasks, the billing rate for each employee and the hours worked.
C. All correct,complete and undisputed invoices sent by Consultant to City shall be paid
within thirty(30) calendar days of receipt.
SECTI N 3. TE TE INATI N
A. Consultant shall commence work on or about 3anuary 23, 2023, and complete said
work no later than January 31, 2024. Time is of the essence.
B, If Consultant fails to perfornn its duties to the satisfaction of City, or if consultant
fails to fulfill in a timely and professional manner its obligations under this Contract,
Consulting and Professional Services Agreement Page 1
Rev. 6/15
then City shall have the right to terminate this Contract effective i ediately upon
City giving written notice thereof to Consultant.
C. Either Party may terminate this Contract without cause on thirty (30) calendar days'
written notice. Notwithstanding the preceding, if the term set forth in Section 3.A. of
this Contract exceeds ninety (40) calendar days in duration, Consultant's sole right
to terminate shall be limited to termination for cause.
D. Consultant hereby acknowledges and agrees that the obligation of City to pay under
this Contract is contingent upon the availability of City's funds which are
appropriated or allocated by the City Council. Should the ding for the project
and/or work set forth herein not be appropriated or allocated by the City Council,
City may terminate this Agreement by ishing at least thirty (30) calendar days'
written notice of its intention to terminate. In the event of a termination pursuant to
this subdivision, Consultant shall not be entitled to a remedy of acceleration of
payments due over the term of this Agreement. The Parties acknowledge and agree
that the power to terminate described herein is required by Article 16, Section 1$, of
the California Constitution, and that constitutional pravision supersedes any law,
rule, regulation or statute which conflicts with the provisions of this Section.
E. In the event that City gives notice of termination, Consultant shall promptly provide
to City any and all finished and unfinished reports, data, studies,photographs, charts
or other work product prepared by Consultant pursuant to this Contract. City shall
have full ownership, including, but not limited to, intellectual property rights, and
control of all such finished and unfinished reports, data, studies,photographs, charts
or other work product.
F. In the event that City terminates the Contract, City shall pay Consultant the
reasonable value of services rendered by Consultant pursuant to this Contract;
provided, however, that City shall not in any manner be liable for lost profits which
might have been made by Consultant had Consultant completed the services required
by this Contract. Consultant shall, not later than ten (1Q) calendar days after
termination of this Contract by City, furnish to City such financial information as in
the judgment of the City's representative is necessary to determine the reasonable
value of the services rendered by Consultant.
G. In no event shall the termination or expiration of this Contract be construed as a
waiver of any right to seek remedies in law, equity or otherwise for a P 's failure
to perform each obligation required by this Contract.
SECTI N 4. ISCELL E US TE 5 C N ITI NS F C NT CT
A. City shall make its facilities accessible to Consultant as required for Consultant's
performance of its services under this Contract, and, upon request of Consultant,
provide labor and safety equipment as required by Consultant for such access.
Consulting and Professional Services Agreement Page 2
Rev. 6/15
B, Pursuant to the City's business license ordinance, Consultant shall obtain a City
business license prior to commencing work.
C. Consultant represents and warrants to City that it has all licenses, permits,
qualifications and approvals of any nature whatsoever that are legally required for
Consultant to practice its profession. Consultant represents and warrants to City that
Consultant shall, at its sole cost and expense, keep in effect or obtain at all times
during the term of this Contract any licenses, permits and approvals that are legally
required for Consultant to practice its profession.
D. Consultant shall, during the entire term of this Contract, be construed to be an
independent contractor and nothing in this Contract is intended, nor shall it be
construed, to create an employer/employee relationship, association, joint ven e
relationship,trust or partnership or to allow City to exercise discretion or control over
the professional manner in which Consultant performs under this Contract, y and
all taxes imposed on Consultant's income, imposed or assessed by reason of this
Contract or its performance, including but not limited to sales or use taxes, shall be
paid by Consultant. Consultant shall be responsible far any taxes or penalties assessed
by reason of any claims that Consultant is an employee of City. Consultant shall not
be eligible for coverage under City's workers' compensation insurance plan,benefits
under the Public Employee Retirement System or be eligible for any other City
benefit.
E. No provision of this Contract is intended to,or shall be for the benefit of,or construed
to create rights in, or grant remedies to, any person or entity not a p hereto.
F. No portion of the work or services to be performed under this Contract shall be
assigned, transferred, conveyed or subcontracted without the prior written approval
of City. Consultant may use the services of independent contractors and
subcontractors to perform a portion of its obligations under this Contract with the
prior written approval of City. Independent contractors and subcontractors shall be
provided with a copy of this Contract and Consultant shall have an affirmative duty
to assure that said independent contractors and subcontractors comply with the same
and agree to be bound by its terms. Consultant shall be the responsible party with
respect to all actions of its independent cantractors and subcontractors, and shall
obtain such insurance and indemnity provisions from its contractors and
subcontractors as City's Risk Manager sha11 determine to be necessary.
G. Consultant, at such times and in such form as City may require, shall furnish City
with such periodic reports as it may request pertaining to the work or services
undertaken pursuant to this Contract, the costs or obligations inc ed or to be
incurred in connection therewith, and any other matters covered by this Contract.
H. Consultant shall maintain accounts and records, including personnel, property and
financial records, adequate to identify and account for all costs pertaining to this
Contract and such other records as may be deemed necessary by City to assure proper
Consulting and Professional Services Agreement Page 3
Rev. 6/15
accounting for all project ds. These records shall be made available for audit
purposes to state and federal authorities, or any authorized representative of City.
Consultant shall retain such records for three (3) years after the expiration of this
Contract, unless prior permission to destroy them is granted by City.
I., Consultant shall perform all services required pursuant to this Contract in the manner
and according to the standards observed by a competent practitioner of Consultant's
profession. All products of whatsoever nature which Consultant delivers to City
pursuant to this Contract shall be prepared in a professional manner and conform to
the standards of quality normally observed by a person practicing the profession of
Consultant and its agents, employees and subcontractors assigned to perform the
services contemplated by this Contract.
J. All completed reports and other data or doc ents, or computer media including
diskettes, and other materials provided or prepared by Consultant in accordance with
this Contract are the property of City, and may be used by City. City shall have all
intellectual property rights including, but not limited to, copyright and patent rights,
in said documents, computer media,and other materials provided by Consultant. City
shall release, defend, indemnify and hold harmless Consultant from all claims, costs,
expenses, damage or liability arising out of or resulting from City's use or
modification of any reports, data, documents, drawings, specifications or other work
product prepared by Consultant,except for use by City on those portions of the City's
project for which such items were prepared.
K. Consultant, including its employees, agents, and subconsultants, shall not maintain
or acquire any direct or indirect interest that conflicts with the performance of this
Contract. Consultant shall comply with all requirements of the Political Reform Act
(Gove ent Code § 8100 et seq.) and other laws relating to conflicts of interest,
including the following: 1) Consultant shall not make or participate in a decision
made by City if it is reasonably foreseeable that the decision may have a material
effect on Consultant's economic interest, and 2) if required by the City Attarney,
Consultant shall file financial disclosure forms with the City Clerk.
SECTI N 5. INSU NCE
A. Unless modified in writing by City's Risk Manager, Consultant shall maintain the
following noted insurance during the duration of the Contract:
��r��r��� �������� �r��k�r����a���
Commercial General Liability X
Comprehensive Vehicle Liability X
Workers' Compensation and Employers' Liability X
Professional Liability(Errors and Omissions) X
(Place an"x"in the appropriate box)
Consulting and Professional Services Agreement Page 4
Rev.6/15
B. Coverage shall be at least as broad as: ,
1. Insurance Services Office form number CG-0001, Commercial General
Liability Insurance, in an amount not less than$1,Q00,000 per occurrence and
$2,000,000 general aggregate far bodily injury, personal injury and property
damage;
2. Insurance Services Office form number CA-0001 (Ed. 1/87), Comprehensive
Automobile Liability Insurance, which provides far total limits of not less
than $1,000,000 combined single limits per accident applicable to all owned,
non-owned and hired vehicles;
3. Statutory Workers' Compensation required by the Labor Code of the State of
California and Employers' Liability Insurance in an amount not less than
$1,000,000 per occurrence.Both the Workers' Compensation and Employers'
Liability policies shall contain the insurer's waiver of subrogation in favor of
City, its elected officials, officers, employees, agents and volunteers;
4, Professional Liability (Errors and Omissions) Insurance, appropriate to
Consultant's profession, against loss due to error or omission ar malpractice
in an amount not less than $1,000,000.
5. The City does not accept insurance certificates or endorsements with the
wording "but only in the event of a named insured's sole negligence" or any
other verbiage limiting the insured's insurance responsibility.
C. Any deductibles or self-insured retentions must be declared to and approved by City.
At the option of the City,either: the insurer shall reduce or eliminate such deductibles
or self-insured retentions as respects the City, its elected officials, officers,
employees, agents and volunteers; or the Consultant shall procure a bond
guaranteeing payment of losses and related investigations, claims administration and
defense expenses.
D. The General Liability shall contain or be endorsed to contain the following
provisions:
1. City, its elected officials, officers, employees, and agents are to be covered as
additional insured as respects liability arising out of work or operations
performed by or on behalf of Consultant; premises o ed, leased or used by
Consultant; or automobiles owned, leased, hired or borrowed by Consultant.
The coverage shall contain no special limitations on the scope of pratection
afforded to City, its elected officials, officers, employees, agents and
volunteers.
2. The insurance coverage of Consultant shall be primary insurance as respects
City, its elected officials, officers, employees, agents and volunteers. Any
Consulting and Professional Services Agreement Page 5 '
Rev.6/15
insurance or self-insurance maintained by City, its elected officials, officers,
employees, agents and volunteers, shall be in excess of Consultant's
insurance and shall not contribute with it.
3. Coverage shall state that the insurance of Consultant shall apply separately to
each insured against whom claim is made or suit is brought, except with
respect to the limits of the insurer's liability.
4. Each insurance policy required by this Contract shall be endorsed to state that
coverage shall not be canceled except after thiriy (30) calendar days' prior
written notice has been given to City. In addition, Consultant agrees that it
shall not reduce its coverage or limits on any such policy except after thirty
(30) calendar days' prior written notice has been given to City.
E. Insurance is to be placed with insurers with a c ent A.M.Best's rating of no less
than A-VII.
F. Consultant shall designate the City of Redding as a Certificate Holder of the
insurance. Consultant shall furnish City with certificates of insurance and original
endorsements effecting the coverages required by this clause. Certificates and
endorsements shall be ished to: Risk Management Department, City of Redding,
777 Cypress Avenue, Redding, CA 96001. The certificates and endorsements for
each insurance policy are to be signed by a person authorized by the insurer to bind
coverage on its behalf. Al� endorsements are to be received and approved by the
City's Risk Manager prior to the commencement of contracted services. City may
withhold payments to Consultant if adequate certificates of insurance and
endorsements required have not been provided, or not been provided in a timely
manner.
G. The requirements as to the types and limits of insurance coverage to be maintained
by Consultant as required by Section 5 of this Contract, and any approval of said
insurance by City, are not intended to and will not in any manner limit or qualify the
liabilities and obligations otherwise assumed by Consultant pursuant to this Contract,
including, without limitation,provisions concerning inde ification.
H. If any policy of insurance required by this Section is a"claims made"policy,pursuant
to Code of Civil Procedure § 342 and Gove ent Code § 945.6, Consultant shall
keep said insurance in effect for a period of eighteen(18)months after the termination
of this Contract.
I. If any damage, including death, personal injury or properiy damage, occurs in
connection with the performance of this Contract, Consultant shall immediately
notify City's Risk Manager by telephone at (530) 225-4068. No later than three (3)
calendar days after the event, Consultant shall submit a written report to City's Risk
Manager containing the following information,as applicable: 1)name and address of
injured or deceased person(s);2)name and address of witnesses; 3)name and address
Consulting and Professional Services Agreement Page 6
Rev. 6/15
of Consultant's insurance company; and 4) a detailed description of the damage and
whether any City property was involved.
SECTI N 6. IN E NIFICATI N AN L A LESS
A. Consistent with California Civil Code § 27$2.8, when the services to be provided
under this Contract are design professional services to be performed by a design
professional, as that term is defined under Section 2782.8, Consultant shall, to the
fullest extent pernnitted by law, indemnify protect, defend and hold harmless, City,
its elected officials, officers, employees, and agents, and each and every one of them,
from and against all actions, damages, costs, liability, claims, losses, penalties and
expenses (including, but not limited to, reasonable attomey's fees of the City
Attomey or legal counsel retained by City, expert fees, litigation costs, and
investigation costs) of every type and description to which any or all of them may be
subjected by reason of, or resulting from, directly or indirectly, the negligence,
recklessness, or willful misconduct of Consultant, its officers, employees or agents
in the performance of professional services under this Contract, except when liability
arises due to the sole negligence, active negligence or misconduct of the City.
B. Other than in the performance of professional services by a design professional,
which is addressed solely by subdivision(A)of this Section, and to the fullest extent
permitted by law, Consultant shall inde ify protect, defend and hold harmless,
City, its elected officials, officers, employees, and agents, and each and every one of
them, from and against all actions, damages, costs, liability, claims, losses,penalties
and expenses (including, but not limited to, reasonable attorney's fees of the City
Attorney or legal counsel retained by City, expert fees, litigation costs, and
investigation costs) of every e and description to which any or all of them may be
subjected by reason of the performance of the services required under this Contract
by Consultant its officers, employees or agents in the performance of professional
services under this Contract, except when liability arises due to the sole negligence,
active negligence or misconduct of the City.
C., The Consultant's obligation to defend, indemnify and hold harmless shall not be
excused because of the Consultant's inability to evaluate liability. The Consultant
shall respond within thirty (30) calendar days to the tender of any claim for defense
and indemnity by the City, unless this time has been extended in 'ting by the City.
If the Consultant fails to accept or reject a tender of defense and inde ity in writing
delivered to City within thiriy (30) calendar days, in addition to any other remedy
authorized by law, the City may withhold such ds the City reasonably considers
necessary for its defense and inde ity until disposition has been made of the claim
or until the Consultant accepts or rejects the tender of defense in writing delivered to
the City,whichever occurs first. This subdivision shall not be construed to excuse the
prompt and continued performance of the duties required of Consultant herein.
D. The obligation to indemnify, protect, defend, and hold harmless set forth in this
Section applies to all claims and liability regardless of whether any insurance policies
Consulting and Professional Services Agreement Page 7
Rev.6/15
are applicable. The policy limits of said insurance policies do not act as a limitation
upon the amount of indemnification to be provided by Contractor.
E. City shall have the right to approve or disapprove the legal counsel retained by
Consultant pursuant to this Section to represent City's interests. City shall be
reimbursed for all costs and attorney's fees incurred by City in enforcing the
obligations set forth in this Section.
SECTI N 7. C NT CT INTE '�",�:'�"� a� 'F�'"��� ATT EY FEES
A. This Contract shall be deemed to have been entered into in Redding, California. All
questions regarding the validity, interpretation or performance of any of its terms or
of any rights or obligations of the parties to this Contract shall be govemed by
California law. If any claim, at law or otherwise, is made by either p to this
Contract, the prevailing p shall be entitled to its costs and reasonable attorneys'
fees.
B. This document, including all exhibits, contains the entire agreement between the
parties and supersedes whatever oral or written understanding each may have had
prior to the execution of this Contract. This Contract shall not be altered, amended or
modified except by a writing signed by Ciry and Consultant. No verbal agreement or
conversation with any official, officer, agent or employee of City, either before,
during or after the execution of this Contract, shall affect or modify any of the terms
or conditions contained in this Contract, nor shall any such verbal agreement or
conversation entitle Consultant to any additional payment whatsoever under the
terms of this Contract.
C. No covenant or condition to be performed by Consultant under this Contract can be
waived except by the written consent of City. Forbearance or indulgence by City in
any regard whatsoever shall not constitute a waiver of the covenant or condition in
question. Until performance by Consultant of said covenant or condition is complete,
City shall be entitled to invoke any remedy available to City under this Contract or
by law or in equity despite said forbearance or indulgence.
D. If any portion of this Contract or the application thereof to any person or circumstance
shall be invalid or unenforceable to any extent, the remainder of this Contract shall
not be affected thereby and shall be enforced to the greatest extent permitted by law.
E. The headings in this Contract are inserted for convenience only and shall not
constitute a part hereof. A waiver of any p of any provision or a breach of this
Contract must be provided in writing, and shall not be cons ed as a waiver of any
other provision or any succeeding breach of the same or any other provisions herein.
F, Each Party hereto declares and represents that in entering into this Contract, it has
relied and is relying solely upon its own judgznent, belief and knowledge of the
nature, extent, effect and consequence relating thereto. Each Party further declares
Consulting and Professional Services Agreement Page 8
Rev.6/15
and represents that this Contract is made without reliance upon any statement or
representation not contained herein of any other Party or any representative, agent or
attorney of the other Pariy. The Parties agree that they are aware that they have the
right to be advised by counsel with respect to the negotiations, terms, and conditions
of this Contract and that the decision of whether or not to seek the advice of counsel
with respect to this Contract is a decision which is the sole responsibility of each of
the Parties. Accordingly, no party shall be deemed to have been the drafter hereof,
and the principle of law set forth in Civil Code § 1654 that contracts are construed
against the drafter shall not apply.
G. Each of the Parties hereto hereby irrevocably waives any and all right to trial by j
in any action, proceeding, claim or counterclaim, whether in contract or tort, at law
or in equity, arising out of or in any way related to this Agreement or the transactions
contemplated hereby. Each P further waives any right to consolidate any action
which a jury trial has been waived with any other action in which a j trial cannot
be or has not been waived.
H. In the event of a conflict between the term and conditions of the body of this Contract
and those of any exhibit or attachment hereto, the terms and conditions set forth in
the body of this Contract proper shall prevail. In the event of a conflict between the
terms and conditions of any two or more e�ibits ar attac ents hereto, those
prepared by City shall prevail over those prepared by Consultant.
SECTI N 8. 5U VIVAL
The provisions set forth in Sections 3 through 7, inclusive, of this Contract shall survive
termination of the Contract.
SECTI N 9. C PLIANCE T LA S -N N ISC INATI N
A. Consultant shall comply with all applicable laws, ordinances and codes af federal,
state and local governments.
B. In the performance of this Contract, Consultant shall not discriminate against any
employee or applicant for employment because of race, color, ancestry, national
origin,religious creed, sex, sexual orientation, disability,age,marital status,political
affiliation, or membership or no embership in any organization. Consultant shall
take affirmative action to ensure applicants are employed and that employees are
treated during their employment without regard to their race,color, ancestry,national
origin,religious creed, sex, sexual orientation, disability, age,marital status,political
affiliation, or membership or nonmembership in any organization. Such actions shall
include, but not be limited to, the following: emplo ent, upgrading, demotion or
transfer,recruitment or recruitment advertising, layoff or termination, rates of pay or
other forms of compensation and selection for training.
Consulting and Professional Services Agreement Page 9
Rev. 6/15
SECTI N 10. P SENTATIVE5
A. City's representative for this Contract is Ryan Bailey, telephone number (530) 224-
6030, email: rb�i�� ����t���`�z�t���t���r�. A11 of Consultant's questians pertaining to
this Contract shall be referred to the above-named person, or to the representative's
designee.
B. Consultant's representative for this Contract is Greg Clumpner, telephone number
(530) 297-5856, email: c�a�t� ��r ,��� ��.�c� . All of City's questions pertaining
to this Contract shall be referred to the above-named person.
C. The representatives set forth herein shall have authority to give all notices required
herein.
SECTION 11. NOTICES
A. All notices,requests, demands and other communications hereunder shall be deemed
given only if in writing signed by an authorized representative of the sender(may be
other than the representatives referred to in Section 10) and delivered by facsimile,
with a hard copy mailed first class, postage prepaid; or when sent by a co �er or an
express service guaranteeing ovemight delivery to the receiving party, addressed to
the respective parties as follows:
To City: ' To Consnitant:
City of Redding Public Works—Utilities NBS
Attn: Ryan Bailey Attn: Michael Rentner
' 777 Cypress Ave. 32605 Temecula Parkway, Ste. 100
Redding, CA 960Q3 Temecula, CA 92592
B. Either party may change its address for the purposes of this paragraph by giving
written notice of such change to the other pariy in the manner provided in this Section.
C. Notice shall be deemed effective upan: 1)personal service;2)two calendar days after
mailing or transmission by facsimile, whichever is earlier.
SECTI N 12. AUT TY T C NT CT
A. Each of the undersigned signatories hereby represents and w ants that they are
authorized to execute this Contract on behalf of the respective parties to this Contract;
that they have full right, power and lawful authority to undertake all obligations as
provided in this Contract; and that the execution, performance and delivery of this '
Contract by said signatories has been fully authorized by all requisite actions on the
part of the respective parties to this Contract.
Consulting and Professional Services Agreement Page 10
Rev.6/15
B. en the Mayor is si atory to this Contract, the City anager andlor the
Department Director having direct responsibility for managing the services provided
herein shall have authority to execute any amendment ta this Contract which does
not increase the amount of campensation allowable to Consultant or otherwise
substantially change the scope of the services provided herein.
SECTI N 13. ATE F C NT CT
The date of this Contract shall be the date it is signed by City.
IN ITNESS E F,City and Consultant have executed this Contract on the days and year
set forth below:
CITY F IN ,
A unici al Cor oration
Dated: , 2023
By: MICHAEL DACQUISTO,Mayor
ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FQRM:
A Ir E. e ALT
Ci Attorney
PAMELA MIZE, City Clerk By:
CONSULTANT
5 overn ent Finance Grou ,
a N S ;�,�
Dated: � 2023 �`` ���`��"��
By: David Ketcham,Vice President
Tax ID No.: 33-0712512
Consulting and Professional Services Agreement Page 11
Rev. 6/15
C SULT T SC PE F SE VICES
Water, Wastewater and Solid Waste Utility Rate Update
Tasks 1-3 and Tasks 6-8 address all three utilities while Tasks 4-5 below apply to water and wastewater,
followed by solid waste Tasks 4-5.These separate task descriptions distinguish the differences in the
technical approach (e.g., in the cost-of-service analysis).Although NBS updated the City's rates in 2020,
we will address changes in the utilities since then and adjust the methodology per Citizen Stakeholder
Group input(as directed by City staff).
. I I L I
T s jectives:Communicate and work with City staff to obtain necessary data and review study
objectives,tasks,and scheduPe.
T s eliver les:
Provide a data request to City staff one week prior to the kick-off ineeting.
Review the initial data provided.
Conduct a kick-off ineeting with City staff.
- DevePop preliminary schedules for meetings and workshops.
The kick-off ineeting will be used to review and discuss the most recent data from the City's billing and
accounting system and data requirements in general.
The water and sewer data the City will need to provide includes:
Customer accounts.
Meter sizes for each water account.
Monthly consumption records for each customer.
Total rate revenue collected by customer class.
Operating budgets, CIP project costs by year.
Financial data typically reported in financial statements.
Solid waste data includes:
r Number of solid waste accounts by customer class and type of service.
� Total annual tonnage collected and disposed by customer class.
� Number of collection vehicle by type and personneL
Food waste program details and costs.
v Transfer station, MRF and landfill records of annual tonnages by type.
a= Financial data (operating, rolling stock, and other CIP budgets).
. I II
Task jectives:Work with City staff to review and evaluate current water, sewer, and solid waste rate
structures and rate-related policies at the beginning of the study, as well as current financial policies.
This will address any specific new priorities and to set the direction for the study with a greater degree
of clarity and reduce the number of conflicts when the recommended results are presented to the City
City of Redding
���,,,,,� Water,Wastewater&Solid Waste UtiBity Rate Update 1
Council and public. Policies related to basic equity and fairness, revenue stability, and funding for capital
and repair and replacement costs will be reviewed.
Since solid waste services are fundamentally different than water and wastewater services, NBS will
review solid waste rates.We also note that a recent court casel appears to indicate that street sweeping
service should be included in solid waste rates(i.e.,the City's current practice).
s elim r l�s:
Assessment of the►mpacts of Covid-19 on water consumption by customer class.
Assessment of current rate structures(pros and cons, areas for improvement, how food waste
rates are handled, etc.).
� Assessment of equity of the rates for the various customer classes and any concerns about the
fairness of the fixed/volumetric relationship of the rates(e.g., low water users may want more
rate revenue collected from volumetric rates, low-income customers may want some form of
assistance,etc.).
Assessment of current reserve paticies compared to industry practices and how they may relate
to possible changes to existing reserve fund target balances.
Recommendations for changes to and/or additional policies for the Council ta consider adopting,
as well as a greater degree of direction on rate alternatives for further evaluation.
. I I L L I L I
T s je ives:The financial plan will focus on projections for the next four years(i.e.,20z4-2027)
although a 20-year planning period will be used for the rate models. NBS will update the detailed financial
plans for the revenues,expenditures, reserves,debt coverage ratios,capital improvement costs, repair and
replacement costs and net revenue requirements for each utility.Changes will be incorporated into the
financial plan to address each utility's current financial management concerns.
T sk Gver les:
Update the 20-year financial projection models that will serve as a financial roadmap for each of
the utilities.
n Summary of current and projected net revenue requirements.
Update the reserve fund policies and targets potentially including reserves for operations, rate
stabilization, repair and replacement, debt service and capital projects.
e Projected year-end reserve fund levels.
� Calculated debt service coverage ratios.
This financial plan will lay the groundwork for updating the cost-of-service and rate design analyses
addressed in Tasks 4 and 5.The following subtasks are anticipated:
d r jecte eve es an x e itures—Using a cash-basis reflecting the City's system of
accounts, NBS will prepare a 20-year projection of revenues, expenses,and increases in rate
revenue needed to meet all obligations.This will provide the City with the financial planning tools
needed for smoothing out future rate increases and maintaining appropriate reserve fund levels
as budget projections are revised.
1 Departmenf of Finance v. Commission on State Mandates, Court of Appeal, November 2022.
� City of Redding
���«,n• � Water,Wastewater&Solid Waste Utility Rate Update 2
, valuate eserve Fun S fficiency—NBS will evaluate the sufficiency of existing reserve funds,
target reserves, reserve fund policies, and related issues such as debt service coverage ratios. We
will provide recommendations for reserve fund targets that are tailored to each utility's specific
needs such as operating, capital rehabilitation/replacement and rate stabilization.
evie a ital I rove ent Fun i —NBS will incorporate the capital improvement plans, and
evaluate the timing, costs, and available reserves used to fund various projects.We will work
with City staff to develop a well-conceived approach to funding these capital needs.This includes
an appropriate balance between debt-funded and cash-funded projects.
. I I
T s jeciives:To equitably allocate the revenue requirements to each customer class based on cost-of-
service principles.This analysis establishes a de�ensibte administratrve record for cost-based rates.
7 s eliver les:Cost of service summary tables will be developed and incorporated into the rate design
and rate study report,
.1 ast of Se ice nalysis( ater)
The revenue requirements will be equitably allocated to individual customer classes based on industry
standard methodologies.We will analyze the historical characteristics of each customer class, including
changes related to Covid-19 impacts,and determine how to best project future water consumption.The
main components of the cost-of-service analysis are as follows:
valuate Tren s in ater Consu tion—NBS has seen changes in consumption patterns the last two years
related to Covid-14 restrictions.These impacts should be considered when projecting water sales going
forward.Although consumption patterns will have the greatest impact on proposed volumetric charges,
total water sales and consumption considered in wastewater volumetric charges will also impact the
financial plan projections of rate revenue.We will review these changes and, more importantly, how
consumption should be projected going forward as proposed water rates are developed.
nalysis af Consu tion atterns—NBS will update the detailed analysis of the number of customers at
various levels of consumption and the total water use by customer class.The City's most recent water
consumption data will be used for this analysis.This type of data analysis ensures an accurate projection
of the revenue that will be collected within each customer class and ensures that revenue is recovered
accurately from each customer class.
Functionalization/Classification of x enses—This task arranges water expenses into basic categories,such
as commodity (source of supply), capacity (treatment, transmission, and distribution), and customer
(administra�ive and overheadJ costs.
Ilocation of Costs to Custo er Classes—These costs are then allocated to individual customer classes
based on allocation factors specific to each cost classification. For example, commodity/variable costs
are allocated based on percentages of total annual consumption; capacity-related costs are allocated
based on the percentage of peak demand;and customer-related costs are allocated based on the number
of accounts.This process produces the fixed and variable revenue requirements for each customer class.
� City of Redding
����,,� Water,Wastewater&Solid Waste Utility Rate Update 3
. C st f e ice nalysis(Se er)
Trends in Water Consumption—The changes in consumption patterns the last#wo years related to Covid-19
restrictions and their potential impact on commercial sewer volumetric rates will be considered when
projecting sewer rate revenue going forward, including the impacts on the financial plan projections.
C st Ilacations a s—The Cit�s current rate structure is based on estimated household equivalent
units(HEUs),as well as volumetric rates for commercial customers.This scope of work assume�this same
approach will be used in this rate update. For fixed charges,the annual revenue requirement will be divided
by the total HEUs to determine the cost per HEU;customer class rates will be based on the number of HEUs
per residence,per apartment unit, per commercial customer,etc.,and commercial volumetric rates will be
based on the average monthly consumption.
C st of Service Iternatives—The City noted that it is interested in how other communities assign costs for
sewer customers. Most communities that are updating their single-family sewer rates are incorporating a
volumetric charge based on average winter water use,which is a reasonable proxy for sewer effluent
generation since outside water use and irrigation are at a minimum during winter.
VolumetricSewer Rates—This approach is the most equitable for individual single-family customers since it
adjusts volume-related costs to the estimated amount of effluent each customer produces. For example, a
single-person household typically generates far less effluent than a household of eight(8) people. Rates that
charge one fixed charge per household would charge the single-person household the same as the eight-
person household,which is much more than a consumption-based volumetric charge.
EDU-Based Sewer Rates—Many other communities use an Equivalent Dwelling Unit(EDU)basis for sewer
rates,which is similar to HEUs but would re-calculate equivalent unit assignments to non-�ingle-family
customers based on the average single-family residential customer; multi-family and non-residential
customers would be assigned EDUs in proportion to their flow and loadings(BOD and T55)as compared to
the average single-family customer.
This EDU approach is commonly used in the industry but would likely result in some non-single-family
customers being assigned a different number of EDUs compared to their current number of HEUs.
This approach can be easily modified to calculate EDUs for any individual customer or customer class,
assuming their monthly water consumption data is available.Treatment plant costs provides the basis for
distinguishing between low-, medium-,and high-strength customers. In the example above,flow-related
costs compose about 48%of treatment cost compared to about 25%for BOD and 27%for TSS.
If the City is interested in evaluating the use of volumetric sewer rates for single family customers and/or
EDU-based rates instead of HEUs, NBS could develop this analysis and compare it to the Cit�s current HEU-
based system as an optional task.
. I LY I
Task jectives: NBS will work with City staff to determine the rate structures best suited for the water
and sewer utilities by considering the City's broader rate design goals and objectives.This includes a
thorough discussion of changes in consumption patterns, such as Covid-19 impacts, drought restrictions,
State mandates, etc. If the City decides that volumetric rates for single-family customers using average
winter water use, and/or EDU-based fixed charges should be explored and compared to the rates under
the City's current rate design.
T sk elivera les: NBS will provide rate alternatives for water and sewer rate structures, including the
evaluation of the pros and cons of various rate structure alternatives.
� City of Redding
�����; Water,Wastewater&Solid Waste Utility Rate Update 4
Water Rate Design—The City currently has a uniform volumetric water rate. We do not believe the
restrictions of the San Juan Capistrano decision have diminished, so we assume that the City will want to
continue with a single-tier volumetric rate.Additionally,we will develop new drought rates for the City's
consideration.
Sewer Rate Design—As noted above,we assume that the City's current HEU-based sewer rates will be
used. However, if volumetric sewer rates and/or EDU-based sewer rates are requested, we will provide
these rate design alternatives as an optional task.
5.1 Develop Rate Design Recammendations—NBS will review the amount of revenue collected from
fixed vs.volumetric charges along with consumption patterns and total quantities of water included in
each customer class.A similar review will be made of the sewer rate design concerns.
Criteria for I ravi t e ate esi n—Revenue sufficiency and stability are critical components to
consider when evaluating rate designs. In projecting future rates and rate increases, NBS' approach is
generally a conservative one in which we want to ensure that there are no significant under-coflections
of rate revenue, which represents a worse-case scenario.
Erring on the conservative side (i.e.,where the chance of under-collecting is minimized)would
potentially enable each utility to potentially reduce future rate increases,without leaving reserves
under-funded.There are several criteria that NBS will discuss with City staff in considering new rate
structures, including:
How costs aliocated to fixed and volumetric rates affect revenue stability.
- How decreased water usage (conservation and or Covid-19 related changes) has affected rates
and projections of likely consumption in the future.
How price elasticity responses to rate increases may impact rates.
Impacts on customer monthly bills.
The rate structure selected will, in the end, provide the basis for comparing monthly customer bills
under both the current and new rate structures. However, all rate structures will be "revenue neutral„
because they wiPl all collect the same amount of revenue, both in total and within each customer class.
. Calc late Fixe an olu etric C ar es—Fixed costs consider the number of accounts, equivalent
meters, and the number and size of ineters. In contrast,variable costs are typically allocated in
proportion to consumption.Although a strict cost-of-service methodology would determine the
percentages of rate revenue collected from fixed and variable rates, other factors, such as revenue
stability,water conservation goals, ease of understanding, and ease of administration are also
considered.
Water Rate Design—In the last rate study update,the City selected a water rate design that recovered
40%of costs through fixed charges and 60%through volumetric rates. We assume that similar ,
alternatives will be considered. NBS will discuss what the pros and cons of these rate structure
alternatives are and how to strike the right balance between fixed and variable charges.
Sewer Rate Design—For sewer rates,we assume that the HEU-based rate design will be used, but we
can also develop the volumetric sewer rates and/or an EDU-based approach as alternatives to the HEU
methodology if requested.
5.3 Comparison af Mvnthly Bills—We will prepare an analysis of monthly water bills for various types of
customers, such as single-family customers with Iow-, average-, and high-water usage under each rate
alternative.
� City of Redding
���r�t,' '` Water,Wastewater&Solid Waste Utility Rate Update 5
.5 r t ates—NBS will develop drought rates for the City`s consideration.These will be volumetric
rates that apply to each of the four drought stages and are essentially the volumetric revenue ;
requirements divided by lower consumption quantities. However, these net revenue requirements will
account for the variable costs that are lower as a result of selling less water(e.g., CVP Improvement Act
Fees,WAPA forgone power costs, purchased Buckeye water, etc.).
. I (lncludes Solid asteJ
T sk jectives: Prepare study reports for water,sewer and solid waste rate updates.Also prepare
public notices for public hearings, and the necessary ordinances and resolutions.
T sk etivera tes: Program administrative draft, administrative draft, and fina! reports for review by
City Staff that include our final recommendations for the financial plans and rate structures. Sufficient
information will be provided in the report for staff,the Council and the public to review and understand
the study.
We will prepare a program administrative draft(five copies)for staff review,administrative draft report for
public review(20 copies), and final rate study report(20 copies)that include proposed rates for the next
four years,although the financial model will cover a 20-year period. Electronic files will be in Microsoft
Word and PDF.An executive summary will present the purpose of the report and results of the study.
Tables,graphs,and charts will be used as appropriate, but the emphasis will be on providing a clear,
concise, and understandable report that will provide each utility with a thorough administrative record that
addresses:
- Findings and recommendations.
= Overall study methodology,with reference to AWWA M1 Manual and industry standards as
needed.
= Five-year financial plan, including a revenue and expense projectian.
Description of the capital improvement program, as provided by each utility.
Supporting justification in the form of calculation tables that a judge and general public could
easily understand.
- Appropriate figures and tables summarizing key aspects and results of the study.
= Proposed water and sewer rate structures based on cost-of-service principles, including:
o Providing adequate revenue from rates.
o Adopting new rates that are both defensible and equitable across customer classes.
o Includes a multi-year adjustment schedule using a clearly defined inflationary formula that does
not exceed the cost of service.
TASK 7. MEETINGS AND PRESENTATIQNS (Includes Salid WasteJ
7.1 Coar in tion It Ci Sta
T sk jectives: Regular conference calls with City Staff to discuss progress, problems, and develop
solutions. NBS will identify discussion topics to be covered prior to each phone call and summarize
discussions and actions as needed.
Task eltvera les: Regular phone calls with City Staff, emailed agendas prior to and synopsis of
meetings following each discussion.
7.2 City 5ta /efrizens 5rake ol er rou eetin s
� City of Redding
��,r��,,; Water,Wastewater&Solid Waste Utility Rate Update 6
s jectiv s: Facilitate study progress, communication of resuBts, and meetings with City staff and
the Citizen Stakeholder Group.
s eliver ►es: Provide three (3)on-site meetings with City Staff and Citizen Stakeholder Group to
provide status updates, review work products, study progress, and receive input.
NBS proposes to have a total of three (3) on-site progress meetings with City staff and Citizen Stakeholder
Group to review initial work products and gain input from Staff on the direction of the study.We also
expect to have regular phone conversations with City staff prior to the public meetings to review and
discuss the study's initial results and work products.
7. ouncit eeti s/ resent ti ns
T s j ciives:Assist City staff in effectively communicating with the City Council and the public as
needed to successfully complete the study.
T s eliver tes:Presentation materials as requested by City staff.
NBS will plan to attend three(3) meetings with the Council, including an update and two public hearings.
After incorporating City staff's input,we will assist staff in preparing the final PowerPoint presentation.
. I I I I (Inclu es Solid asteJ
Task Objectives: Assist the City in developing Proposition 218 compliant water and sewer rates and
appropriate notifications.This also includes advising the City on the ordinances and resolution necessary
for implementation.
Task etiver tes: Guidance and advice to City staff on compliance with the Prop 218 process, as well
as the rate tables necessary for the Prop 218 notices.
NBS will provide the necessary tables,as well as general guidance as needed to comply with the
Proposition 218 process for adopting and implementing new water and sewer rates.This includes the
preparation of the draft notices, and/or additional assistance with adopting new rates. (Note:our
assistance is limited to the hours allocated in the study budget.)
This is an overview of the solid waste scope of services,although NBS will be prepared to make
adjustments during the study based on direction from staff and the Citizen Stakeholder Group.
. LI I I
4.1. Update Solid Waste Cost of Service
We will work with City staff to confirm the City's overall goals and objectives for existing solid waste rates
during the analysis.The basic components of the solid waste cost-of-service analysis are:
� Reviewing costs allocations by service component(currently residential, commercial, roll-offs,
and street sweeping) and levels of service (container siae and collection times per week).
4 Reviewing the unit costs by service component.
.r Reviewing the solid waste rates based on unit costs and levels of service.
Adjusting any of these components if needed.
�� City of Redding
����� Water,Wastewater&Solid Waste Utility Rate Update 7
Total annual revenue requirements determined in the financial plan (Task 3)will be the basis for projecting
solid waste rates. Allocating these costs will be based on factors such as total annual tonnages, number of
pickups, and personnel costs assigned to each service component (residential, commercial, roll-offs, and
street sweeping)and reasonable allocations for other overhead and admin costs included in the City°s solid
waste services.
. . r nics F o ste ates
State requirements (SB 1383) and other applicable requirements create the need to develop a new
commercial organic/food waste rate. NBS will work with City staff to evaluate the additional operating costs,
units of waste generated,and number of commercial customers affected.The cost-of-service allocations will
be developed which meet general Prop 218 requirements and can be practicably administered.
.3. Tras en ent C liance ates
The new State trash amendment regulations for MS4 permits required all trash larger than 5mm be captured
in the City's storm drain system. Solid Waste will likely be funding most of these costs. The City is currently
working on how many staff pasitions, capital improvement costs, and rolling stock equipment will be
needed,and this task will incorporate these additional funding requirements into the solid waste rates. This
analysis, the cost of service justification, and rate design will be discussed in the report outlining this new
requirement and the funding needed to support this new program.
. LI I I
Since this is an update to the existing rates,we do not expect significant changes to the City's solid
waste rate structure.The new rates will primarily be the product of the cost of service analysis.
However,the updated rates will include full cost-of-service rates for each residential customer by cart
siae, each commercial customer by bin size and number of pickups, and roll-offs by size.
Regarding rate design for residential rates by cart size, cost of service analysis allows for reasonable
adjustments within a customer class to account for other considerations such as recycling objectives and
waste reduction, and we will consider these factors.Also,food waste rates may be considered part of
the residential service, while any commercial food waste would be primarily allocated to commercial
customers.
Again,we note that sometimes,when rates that are intended to achieve broader community and
environmental goals become cost-prohibitive,some of these costs may be shared among a broader
group of customers (as in the case of the City's commercial food waste and AB 1383 programs). We will
discuss these considerations with City staff and develop a reasonable and defensible approach to these
issues.
I ' I I ITI
The Client shall furnish NBS with any pertinent information that is available to Client and applicable to
the Services.The Client shall designate a person to act with authority on its behalf in respect to the
Services.The Client shall promptly respond to NBS' requests for reviews and approvals of its work,and
to its requests for decisions related to the Services. Client understands and agrees that NBS is entitled ta
rely on all information, data and documents (collectively, "Information") supplied to NBS by Client or
any of its agents, contractors or proxies or obtained by NBS from other usual and customary sources
including other government sources or proxies as being accurate and correct and NBS will have no
obligation to confirm that such Information is correct and that NBS will have no liability to Client or any
third party if such Information is not correct.
a City of Redding
�����q,��� � Water,Wastewater&Solid Waste Utility Rate Update �
, ��� :�
���� t;
_ � �
. , �y
,
� � �
� .
� � � �
�, � �� �., � � �
s� �+ �$�>
� �� ��
� � � �
,�� ��
� -�°"
; �_w.�� � _
� ,�:; � �.
� t �
� °' �
c
� �" .`
`� >
m
m
, �
;€ ` �� ''h��at 2
� a
� ���?
��
� U���s a
4 ^
�� I��1� 6
��° ��` m
d„ � .,.
�
� , .
� � � ��
S j
��
� �
���cY��������}���
�'��kv���`��\,
Z ;` ����kt��\:
3;.,q���,
� . �\t��� g�t�.i�}�'}; � \�,�,� `����.,� `4'���`�� A
���� �h? 34�xU���(l�Z �p�1�*���,�'>��"��,`��� a�� P
�}������ ��t������,�'��� �"�ti,�������� C
�i O
'��?��� �}�l{L��'21���`� `�`�a �� �'.u�a°� �� .
�lY'k� �i��}'.-.U\1��\.�\`� �; ��} .��� . � '�0
� �� i�1�i�`��. e P z � � ; �y�� �t '�.
� � ���YLF��j; �,����{���� �s ?l'� � >�� �: � .
1 ' ` c
� ��y S}§ ��..,,{{{z � . ��jjY����� . �
�. ��� f������ 3:tj'�?a�lll��Z... � .��� �'�j��..U� S\ k� �
x ' 1 t }� �l .>> �1, � ` i
' �1� �`k�� �'<�3� , ��; }� a
� � �� ������� ���,�� ` , e
� ` ' ����` ����i� o
; �i � ��0� ' C3
; �
�° \�� �� ��� '
� � , �,�� 1r��� ;
° },��� � �
� � � ��" � :
_ �$`��x\� �}
�
. ,
�,r � �� �
� � �
�: �
� r �.
� � .. � � y
t
� { -� a�
� ; � �����������'���'���������� v a
, ,�
� � � �;���
f;� ..
�,..
k' m �
� ��.
�.� _' c
r ._„�: �
s� z:�
,. ,,. ,.. .. �....,,. .., ... ., ,,,,,,,,,,,,,, , ,, ,,, �..,....; .
�,
>r.,.__ ,�..��,,,.. . .. „ . .,,,�, y
m
r
; 2'
� a.,:s .t�; � T
N �'
N � a,
C y in � �
E C � c�i �
0
� < a�i .m � o, aNi �` a� � °J d'' a, 3
� ��, � • � � m �f a � � � � �
i� ���� Q a��i� v4j E V � i� � y � � � � � � � ° o
� �� � p � rn� �� � ..��., � � � � c p � "�
� ."� a!i � C� o � � � � ' C� .� � a c � � y o�
o m . y o � o
+� � tlJ d N y NC C y � � �N N � d � A "� N � pp � a�+
1 '�SYi r+ W .7 �� � L 0 � � � � � i+ � Y � r • f0
� ' � `� � �o N � ' �' a � �q U �n o u� ' a �. c+g - �, v� on 3
��y C C � f.a() � •{p �> d o � ,.� N � C •�N ` L � _ � � (q � "O N
� � � o � yon E �y � � , �y �ua a� �° Cdr- '.4 0 ��y � o a3
� `k�,Qp CS � f0 •� � (/1 � � X U � C i����� LL C � ` C C �'� ��.. � G O 9J
. � ,w a a ae a� .3 0'� ii = � o � 'o � a� os 3 m o U Cy �' p: � ', +J
o � � ia f0 � m m U `� v� �n v+ va �a �i° ` � '-' �
'4 � v � o � � � ° co >. � � � Y .� q�° � ` C c �:� � � � Q 'u3
= C r � = aL.+ � � 1 e�. �p C L �a+ � Q D N �S 'i l l. s
J '..... ,� _' y � y C C y� � � .+ � @ C � � �t . Q p) � "° ` 48 p L t o ,�.. C O�
q �;
�� Y � �L LL U � US � ❑ U � � � y � O h � d � U I- I- a q� (0 C
� ,,,�,� I I I I � I I � I I I I I ' � I I I I I I I I I � , .� � �
, r N M r � r N � r N M � � ;'� r (y M ►f? 60 la r N M �....' V W
V
• �� � YYriYvv � uiuiui �ndn � vvvYY ,c � � � Y Q0 �
"�+ '.ti4� N M! V! Pfi. ` �'A�� SY� M1I�3 Y�� tl�
(„) �: . � �� ` � l0 lC IC lkl� ;' t��� t� t� 41i. C�S �#'� i.��i,. ' .
'�^ H H H �^� ,�F'"°� �" � �':� �'� .�,; .
. . , . ... ..._ ..._ .. .. . . �. �
���<�� � �
SI t
Our professional fees are based on our experience with the City's utility rates and the effort we believe
is necessary to complete the scope of services in our proposal. ork will be performed on a ti e and
materials basis,at the hourly labor rates show below,with a not-to-exceed fee of$1 , .
'--. : . . -•.> � . � - - . . . , . • -. •
" ^ � �
��� , � , , . � , �
�
,
� „
.
� •
�
.. fr �, .. � . .
# . ,, .
. ;
a�`�"�ao� \� . `��`"`i���`��� � � ,,`.� ��{� ��. �� e ' .���'���~�°� ���t,`�`�i.`'�`��'��:,c�,� ,..��� ���� �..� .��������� ,, ��`�,`��;�'��``��;,,,,
t��I�� 4V� ,;.... ,� .. ,, ����,�� `� ��... .� .` ; �� �`�� .,. s���`�"�����"��,���`��`�`�"\o��,�"��\�°�� ,� `���a��`����''� , ���`������1,��,������.
� ����:
�, ��.,
�<� Task�1-KickoB Meefin��8 Data Collection � 6 0 �� � , � -i 2,0' 24.0� 320 �i3 430
���-0 Task 2-Rewew of Current Rates&Policies 9.0 2 D 2 0 i �� 4A 17A $4,01D
.,�._,�_u._. ��_��,_ 9 0 6 0 � 48 0 72 0 S14 830
1�� Task 3-Financial Plan and Rer�enue Re uirements 76 0 2
__....��..,_.�w���. �.���m== �..�._.,�.�...�.� ......0 ��...,, ..x�._ 1,�.ve�� � .,�.m.r �,�.. ��,�,�.
Task 4-Cost�of SenAce Analysis(COSA) ' ,
�. ,.. _
4 1-COSA:Water Utiloly 12 0 2.0; ; A 0 1 40A 58.0 S11,88d'
� 4 2-COSA:Sewer Ulihty 12.0 2 0 4 0 40.0 58.0 $11,980
�._. � ��•a t�+.�i��R��t�a���r�F2�����r � � .�. �.u__
�,
. . e �,,,,..�
��k LL Task 5 Rate�7�.*�r �p,+�r�s�! �as
�a"�4; � B r� a�rrd�a��d��9c�� 10 0�� 4��i 12 0� 26A 55�92Q�
�I,� 5 2-Galculate Fixed 8,Volumelric Charges 16 0 4 q; 2 0 60 0 82.0� $16,690
. .� ��s.. ._sons 4 0 , ^s � ' 16A 20.0 54.000
�,� 5 3-Monlhly Bill Compan��
��.�,�.W,�..�_�,�.�w.�.��.������,� ���.�
�� 5.4-Regianal Rale Comparisons 1.0 ,��� 16.0 17 0�� $3,224
�Nk 5 5-Prepare ConservatioNDrought Rates 2 0 1.0� � R� 6 0 9.0 a $1,880
a. � � ti
r� � �.� t�.o a� ��,� zes.� �i:a� ����
�,;'� �-�.<<
w .
a
� ���
��
�� . .;�. ��,.,.,. .��� � , �`�� � �, a,..u h„ �; .. ����� �, � � �. � :��`"`�� ��,�
�
t . , .
� #� Task 1-Kick-oR�t��tr�s�� 8 Llata Colleclion 2 0 � �� � 12 0 14.0� �2,740
� Task 2-Rewew of Current Rates 8 Polpcies 9 d 2 0� = SA. $1,21�
Task 3-Financial Plan and Rewnue Requlrements B 0 2 0! -� 24A 34A 56,950
' � Task 4 Cosl�of Ser�ce Analysis(CQSA) ' � �
�.n_� . � a .. � ._-
jd� 4.1 Updete Solid Waste Cost of Seevice 40.0 a' �' � 30A 70 0 $15,95Q
� 9�p �.���a�nkc��F�ead+���k��a��� �� 24A � ; ��.�; � 1&U 39.0 $8 7A5�
' '� 4.�-Trash�rr�ndsnenF��rr�qgyH���z�tes 25.0� =j 9�� -a 18A 44_0 510,045
� I� Task 5-Rate Design Anerysis 30 0 -� 12A 42.0 510,020'
ublotal t7�'.0 8.f1 t74.0' 24�.0 ��+66�
.� ' u
a.Y�� „���a,..,��l�;, �� ..���.... .:. ��.�::.n�'������, ��� �'�,�, ��'„��`�`����� �� � `�'�c ��. � '�
� �
s, , , �� , . m �
�� Task 6-Pfe re 1Nritte�a Sfudy f��pw�ts 40 0 4.Q 2 0 2 0 ���3 ' 7�� a'9d�,`��a,
; Task 7 Meetmgs and Presenlations I
M.r m.,. �.��... ...... _....m._ .. e� .. ,,,�:� ,�.....,, a � � �..,. .� �_�.. ..
� 7.1 Goordination with City Staff 12 0 ,; �� 12 0 24 0� $5,340
��� 7 2-Three(3)Cil�StafllBtakeholders Meetir�s� 24 0 � ��, �+ a 6 0 �� 30 0� $7,350�
4�l���r� i 3��n,ree�3a c��y co�nc�i�,���� �' ao.o�" �� , . �� � s.o �� .
_ p4�y ?�6.0� Sd,910
�,�� Task 8-ProHde Proposition 218 Guidance 16.0 2 f7 18A� 54,590
Su�tot� ' 122.0 4.0 4.0 2.Q 48.0, t80:0 542,890'
Reimbursakle�x��r�s��j � i S1,�CJ�k
-• . • ... _.. . � . a � '�. e " 7 ' : . « � : e.... . .....� e-'- 1.......�.
1 �t�SddRfiP�3�"Pk'�i��?'�fP�'SBfB(7Y•�3�ka'SZY#�{��`���d'kld;k•Cr�`�t?���d3{P�qM�I'�"I�fS��l�gR�7Qd�,�PaP�r&fSdSYkdBYY��F�1dt��.�Catt!°Fp{9EP{S4;'f��tfd�?AF7b9dki�r}�dPtf�'�d$�eYSfi���tb�fdl41$d}�;. .
2.Estimated travel expenses ioron-srte tra�3�rdral�;�arr���p�a7�Ha�a7�;'
ftional se ices re ueste ,such as additional public meetings or additional rate or fee alternatives,
can be provided based on these hourly labor rates.All tasks would be mutually agreed upon by NBS and
City prior to proceeding.
� City of Redding
��.,��,.�' Water,Wastewater&Solid Waste Utility Rate Update 10
' � ;:
. ,
-
� �
�
��
� � ,
: ��
s � �
�
� � �. �: . ...
� �
�n .
� : .
�" „ ' � , � �; � : .;...
� �� � . �� ° � �. � � � � �
�� � �
� `
; �� ` ��, �` � � �,� � � ��; ��� ;= i i i �i �� � �
� t �
; . �
� ���� ��,� ; � �.,
�� �. � �
� , ���� ��� �, � ,,� ���� �.
�- �`' `�
�,� �: � � . �►
� �
� �I��/ 1�� �E'CC�C�1�"1�
�� '� �, �Y� ��'�d��a�`��
�
<��
� �. �, r '•
�� �� ���.
Ut�I�ty Rate Prc�gram Update
� ,� � �� � ��,
��, � � � � �
��� � ��� �� �,�t� ���
,
���� � ,,�,�
'� i��+' My � t�� i ,N'4 �� Sx' ` '�" „
� � �al 4 � i�r,4����'4�;�, ����' �� �� t�
i�., ti �
,�,�� ���� � �,, �..
� �
� �
Jk ,
' i i > � � ,
� �. � ��„ �;, ,
�
.. s . . �.,.,,
t � � ,
ta`s a
1}
1Sr
� �.
� 4 �g� «�
t �
�r� `�r� „
��u, �r `�,,�», ',`�,,
s �
4�,
�� � �� � ���
� y�tr,i
� 4, R.
t
, , .� ..»m . .
; , � ���;�ti�Y3��j5„�,� ���.
:,�
�
t � ` �' '�
� � �
, ��' �� t
�,,
'".i,
u � �
V � ~� �'* �{f4 4�E:
YY I t�� t �� � � �
h I � I � ` � ,"•
�
1 i' e� Yt ., , a �.R,�,i
c
�.,Lrs'� �I � ' �i, , i ti .,..,. �.�.
�`
a
� , . ,.,�.s�
i
� ,�, �. . ,. v,..
� � Ak i `',' .,�4 t ,j,. . . .,�, . , ;�� ,c
i� 1"� ia i ,�. �,er,.., ,�
.; � r ., � ' ' �` w,
�
'����ti� � 4�� ���
�
t �tii �
�
i „<< ,�z �u� ;�_
i �.
� S,; �v �x� `.
M. '�1.;'+ ��
x° � _
I �
, �� , 4��r; � ,
PY'%
��.,
tt P.`.;`:.
�
t�.;' �„", �.�,
C}FPI�E LClCATIOIVS:
�� ����
T�mecula=�€orporateHeadquarters ��� ��k� �
3�6(35 T�m�cuia F�rkway,Suite 7(i0 `�� �
T�rnecula,GA 92592'�� �'��
�� � �°�.
�� � a v,
�,..r., ,. �
Sar��rancis�o—Regit�nal Offlce �� `�� �r� ;
� .�
870 Market'Street,Suite 122� 4 " _
San�rancisco,�A 94��2
California Satellite t7ffices $$ �
At�seaderc�,t�a+ris
Jos�rua Tree
��
��` ������ �� . �a���l�� ���� �� ��r�
� ,
, � �.�� �`�.`,���
This page intentional(y left blank.
TAB�E OF CONTENTS
SECTION PAGE
Section 1. Executive Summary 1
A. Background and Purpose .................................................................................................. 1
B. Key Findings....................................................................................................................... 1
C. Frequently Asked Questions About the Rate Study.......................................................... 2
D. Study Recommendations .................................................................................................. 3
Section 2. Overview of the Study Methodology 4
Section 3. Water Rate Study 8
A. Developing Recommended Water Rates.......................................................................... 8
B. Water Utility Revenue Requirements ............................................................................... 8
C. Characteristics of Water Customers by Class.................................................................. 11
D. Cost-of-Service Analysis .................................................................................................. 12
E. Current vs. Proposed Water Rate Structures.................................................................. 14
F. Comparison of Current and Proposed Monthly Bills ...................................................... 15
Section 4. Wastewater Rate Study 18
A. Developing Recommended Wastewater Rates............................................................... 18
B. Wastewater Utility Revenue Requirements.................................................................... 18
C. Cost-of-Service Analysis .................................................................................................. 20
D. Current vs. Proposed Wastewater Rates ........................................................................ 20
Section 5. Solid Waste Rate Study 23
A. Key Solid Waste Rate Study Issues.................................................................................. 23
B. Solid Waste Utility Revenue Requirements .................................................................... 23
C. Customer Class Characteristics and Cost-of-Service....................................................... 25
D. Rate Design and Proposed Solid Waste Rates ................................................................ 28
Section 6. Recommendations and Next Steps 35
Section 7. Abbreviations and Acronyms 37
Appendix A—Additional Water Rate Study Tables 39
Appendix B—Additional Wastewater Rate Study Tables 53
Appendix C—Additional Solid Waste Rate Study Tables 60
Appendix D—Additional Single-Family Residential Bill Comparisons 80
Prepared by NBS—February 2020 TOC
Final Utility Rate Program Update Report—City of Redding
TAB�E OF FIGURES
FIGURE PAGE
Figure 1. Recommended Annual Rate Increases..........................................................................................1
Figure 2. Primary Components of a Rate Study............................................................................................4
Figure 3. Summary of Water Revenue Requirements ...............................................................................10
Figure 4. Summary of Water Reserve Funds ..............................................................................................11
Figure 5. Water Consumption by Customer Class .....................................................................................11
Figure 6. Peaking Factors by Customer Class .............................................................................................12
Figure 7. Number of Accounts by Customer Class .....................................................................................12
Figure 8. Summary of Rate Revenue Requirements ..................................................................................13
Figure 9. Summary of Adjusted Rate Revenue Requirements by Customer Class ....................................13
Figure 10. Current and Proposed Water Rates for Fiscal Years 2019/20-2022/23 .................................14
Figure 11. Monthly Water Bill Comparison for SFR Customers .................................................................15
Figure 12. Regional Monthly Water Bill Comparisons................................................................................16
Figure 13. Nor-Cal Monthly Water Bill Comparisons .................................................................................16
Figure 14. Monthly Water Bil) Comparison for Commercial Users ............................................................17
Figure 15. Summary of Wastewater Revenue Requirements ....................................................................19
Figure 16. Summary of Wastewater Reserve Funds ..................................................................................20
Figure 17. Current and Proposed Wastewater Rates for Fiscal Year 2019/20-2022/23 ........................21
Figure 18. Regional Monthly Single-Family Wastewater Bill Comparisons................................................21
Figure 19. Nor-Cal Monthly Single-Family Wastewater Bill Comparisons..................................................22
Figure 20. Summary of the Revenue Requirements for the Solid Waste Utility .......................................24
Figure 21. Summary of the Reserve Funds for the Solid Waste Utility ......................................................25
Figure 22. Summary of Solid Waste Tonnage Allocation Factors ..............................................................25
Figure 23. Comparison of Solid Waste Tonnages .......................................................................................26
Figure 24. Summary of Solid Waste Account/Pickups-Per-Week Allocation Factors ................................26
Figure 25. Comparison of Solid Waste Account/Pickups-Per-Week...........................................................26
Figure 26. Summary of Solid Waste Combined Allocation Factors.............................................................27
Figure 27. Summary of Solid Waste Allocation Methodology ..................................................................27
Figure 28. Summary of Revenue Requirements by Customer Class...........................................................28
Figure 29. Summary of Current vs. Proposed Revenue Requirements by Customer Class........................28
Figure 32. Monthly Single-Family Solid Waste Bill Comparison with Other Communities .......................30
Figure 33. Summary of Calculated Unit Costs for Commercial Services ...................................................31
Figure 34. Summary of Commercial Service Rates.....................................................................................32
Figure 35. Summary of Roll-Off Service Costs ............................................................................................33
Figure 36. Summary of Roll-Off Service Rates ...........................................................................................33
Figure 37. Proposed Monthly Cannabis Rates............................................................................................34
Prepared by NBS-February 2020 TOF
Final Utility Rate Program Update Report-City of Redding
e
A. Background and Purpose
Background — The City of Redding (City) provides water, wastewater and solid waste services to its
residents and commercial businesses,and last updated rates for these services in 2016 after NBS prepared
cost-of-service rate studies. The City again retained NBS in October 2018 to update these studies as wel)
as review alternative rate structures and consider other rate-related issues, such as funding capital
improvements and changes in costs and how costs are allocated to each customer class.
Purpose—The overall purpose of this study is to provide a thorough review of rates and confirm the City's
broader rate-related goals and objectives, including key financial parameters. Rate studies in general
should reflect the City's unique characteristics and provide sustainable plans for each utility that promote
long-term revenue stability, while also ensuring overall fairness and equity.
The rates developed and discussed in this report are intended to meet the requirements of Proposition
218 (Prop 218), originally referred to as the "Right to Vote on New Taxes Act,"1 and were developed in a
manner that is consistent with industry standards. This report is also part of the City's continuing effort to
promote transparent communications with the residents and businesses it serves and to document the
basis for adopting new rates as required under Prop 218.
In developing the proposed utility rates, NBS and City staff worked cooperatively in evaluating various rate
alternatives and developing study recommendation. After review by the City's Utility Rate Advisory Group
(URAG), NBS and City staff refined the study results and rate alternatives which are reflected in the
recommendations to the City Council.
B. Key Findings
Revenue Requirements and Projected Rates—Although all three utilities are financially sound, both the
water and wastewater utilities are facing rising costs and significant long-term capital improvements.
Without the recommended rates increases, these utilities would see annuals deficits by the end of the 4-
year period and would make it difficult to complete ongoing capital projects and maintain healthy reserve
levels. The proposed rate increases, or more specifically the increases in the total rate revenue collected
each year,are shown in Figure 1. It is important to understand that a 4-percent sewer rate increase shown
in Figure 1 does not mean all sewer rates increase by 4 percent; due to the cost-of-service analysis,
individual sewer rates, such as residential vs. commercial, may increase by more or less than 4 percent.
Figure 1. Recommended Annual Rate Increases
� e f « r f f
Water 4% 4% 4% 4%
Sewer 4% 4% 4% 4%
Solid Waste 3% 3% 3% 3%
z California Constitution article XIII D,Section 6(commonly called Proposition 218,also referred to as Prop 218). The City's attorney
provided the opinion that recommended rates comply with Prop 218.
Prepared by NBS—February 2020 1
Final Utility Rate Program Update Report—City of Redding
Water Rates—During that last rate study,California was in a "state of emergency" due to a severe drought
and water shortages.z Since then, the City's annual consumption levels have been steadily increasing,
although new per-capita standards may affect future consumption levels and raise questions about
whether they will ever return to "normal levels." Because of this, NBS and City staff carefully considered
the projected consumption levels along with the significant capital repair and replacement needs when
developing the proposed rates and the 4-percent rate increases. Along with the Water Utility's capital
reserves, these rates will allow the City to fund necessary capital improvements. Even with the
recommended rate increases, customer bills still compare favorably to other communities in the region.
At this time, continuing with the City's current uniform-tier rate design is recommended.This is based on
advice from the City's attorney during the last rate study related to legal concerns about recent court
rulings,3 as well as concerns about conservation-related revenue instability that can be intensified by tiered
rates.
Wastewater Rates — The current wastewater rate design was largely retained, with 4% annual rate
increases recommended for each of the next four years. While the City's sewer rates are not the highest
in the regional comparison provided in Section 4, they are on the higher end when compared to other
communities in the region.
Solid Waste Rates — The full cost-of-service study performed in 2016 evaluated cost allocations for
equipment, administration,transfer station operations, street sweeping,and disposal services. Compared
to the results of the 2016 study, the percentage of costs allocated to various customer classes has shifted
slightly due to higher than normal, and unexpected, increases in the "cost-of-service" of commercial vs.
residential customers, as explained in more detail in Sections 2 and 5. These kinds of changes also explain
larger increases in commercial vs. residential rates and why rates do not increase in an "across-the-board"
manner in the first year of rate adjustments. The proposed solid waste rates still compare favorably with
other communities in the region.
C. Frequently Asked Questions About the Rate Study
Members of the general public, who are not typically familiar with utility rate studies, often have basic
questions about what the rate study is and how it might affect their monthly utility bills. This section on
frequently asked questions is an attempt to answer those basic questions.
Q: What is a rate study and why was it done? A:This rate study is a comprehensive analysis of the City's
water, wastewater and solid waste rates ("utility rates") that addresses a number of key factors, such as
the financial plan and revenue requirements, the cost-of-service for each customer class, and the fairness
and equity of the rate design.
z State Water Resources Control Board Resolution No. 2017-0024, Paragraph 16 states: "On April 7, 2017,the Governor issued
Executive Order B-40-17,directing the State Water Board to rescind portions of its existing emergency regulations that require a
water supply stress test or mandatory conservation standard for urban water agencies."
3 See Capistrano Taxpayers Association V.City of San luan Capistrano,Fourth District Court of Appeal,Division three,Aprit 18,2016.
This court ruling requires that tiered water rates demonstrate a clear"cost-basis".
Prepared by NBS—February 2020 2
Final Utility Rate Program Update Report—City of Redding
Q: How was the study conducted and who was involved? A: The City selected and retained NBS in 2018
to work with City staff to begin evaluating its utility rates. During this process, the City's Utility Rate
Advisory Group (URAG) reviewed the initial study results and provided recommendations to City staff and
the City Council. After the public hearings are held to discuss the proposed rates, the City Council will
ultimately decide whether or not to adopt the new utility rates.
What are the benefits of conducting such a study? A: First and foremost, it provides an independent, un-
biased evaluation of the City's utility rates. The study reviews the fairness and equity of the water,
wastewater and solid waste utility rates among the customer classes which are key requirements of Prop
218. The utility rate models are also intended to both document the study and ensure that the City's utility
rates are properly aligned with generally accepted rate study methodology.
What were the results of the rate study? A: The study resulted in several findings: (1) the water and
wastewater utilities show that they will need rate increases in order to generate enough rate revenue to
effectively fund capital projects and maintain adequate reserve levels; (2) the solid waste utility will
continue to run annual deficits without the recommended rate increases; (3) moderate increases in rate
revenue are recommended for each utility over the next four years in order to maintain their financial
health; and lastly, (4) no changes to the overall rate structures of the utilities are being recommended.
How and when will the recommended rate changes be implemented? A: In order to implement the new
rates,the City will need to: (1) mail written notices of the proposed rate adjustments to property owners
as mandated by Prop 218, and (2) after a 45-day protest period, hold a public hearing to adopt and
implement the new rates. Assuming there is no successfu) challenge during the Prop 218 process,the City
Council would implement the new rates in March 2020.
How can someone learn more about the rate study and the URAG's recommendations? A: The City's
website4 provides useful information about the rate study and the presentations and reports made before
the URAG and the City Council on this topic.
D. Study Recommendations
NBS recommends the City take the following actions:
• Review and adopt the long-term financial plans for the water,wastewater and solid waste utilities.
* Evaluate current reserve fund targets and adjust based on NBS' recommendations or per industry
standards.
+ Retain the City's current rate design for the water, wastewater and solid waste utilities.
Conduct a legal review of the proposed rates.
� Proceed with Prop 218 noticing requirements and the 45-day protest period.
• Assuming a successful Prop 218 process (that is, there is no majority protest of the rates), adopt
the rates summarized in this report.
The next section discusses the rate study.
°http://www.cityofredding.org/departments/public-works/public-works-utilities
Prepared by NBS—February 2020 3
Final Utility Rate Program Update Report—City of Redding
.
Comprehensive rate studies, such as this one, typically include three components: (1) preparation of a
financial plan which identifies the net revenue requirements for the utility;(2)analysis of the cost to service
each customer class;and,(3)the rate structure design. These steps are shown in Figure 2 and are intended
to follow industry standards and reflect the fundamental principles of cost-of-service rate-making
embodied in the American Water Works Association(AWWA) manual,Principles of Water Rates, Fees, and
Charges,5 also referred to as Manua/M1.
Figure 2. Primary Components of a Rate Study
, ��t� ��� �.a�.� ��.� � � �� i�..,.,...,... �,..�.,.. �'��ii�l'� '���
� �` , ��
� �
@. ��� e � � � � �� '���
h �a a \ 4�t
,� ` ���� �� � � � "a
� �i � . �.
���������t�.�� . � 3� � � i A
- :� � � � �s���� �
Compares current sources and Proportionately allocates the Considers what rate structure
uses of funds and determines revenue requirements to the will best meet the City's need to
the revenue needed from rates customer classes in compliance with collect rate revenue from each
and projects rate adjustments. industry standards and State Law. customer class.
This methodology also addresses requirements under Prop 218 that rates not exceed the cost of providing
the service and be proportionate to the cost of providing service to all customers. In terms of the
chronology of the study,these three steps represent the order in which they were performed in this study
for all three utilities.
As part of this rate study, NBS projected revenues and expenditures,developed net revenue requirements,
performed cost-of-service rate analyses, and prepared new utility rates for the City to consider. Annual
rate increases—or more accurately, increases in the total revenue collected from rates—are recommended
for each utility.
The City provided NBS with the data necessary to conduct the studies, including historical, current and
projected revenues and expenditures, number of customer accounts, and water consumption data along
with other operational and capital cost information.
Rate Design Criteria — It is important for utilities to send proper price signals to its customers about the
actual cost of providing service. This objective is typically addressed through both the magnitude of the
rates and the rate structure design. In other words, both the amount of revenue collected and the way in
which the revenue is collected from customers are important.
Several criteria are typically considered in setting rates and developing sound rate structures. The
fundamentals of this process have been well documented in a number of rate-setting manuals, such as
5 Principles of Water Rates,Fees,and Charges,Manual of Water Supply Practices,M1,AWWA,seventh edition,2017.
Prepared by NBS—February 2020 4
Final Utility Rate Program Update Report—City of Redding
James C. Bonbright's Principles of Public Utility Rates6 which outlines pricing policies, theories, and
economic concepts along with various rate designs.
The following is a simplified list of the attributes of a sound rate structure that applies to most water,
wastewater and solid waste utilities:
Rates should be easy to understand from the customer's perspective.
� Rates should be easy to administer from the utility's perspective.
• Rates should promote the efficient allocation of the resource.
• Rates should be equitable and non-discriminating (i.e., cost based).
• There should be continuity in the rate making philosophy over time.
• Other utility policies should be considered (e.g., encouraging conservation and economic
development).
� Rates should consider the customer's ability to pay.
Rates should provide month-to-month and year-to-year revenue stability.
Rate Structure Terminology — One of the most fundamental points in considering rate structures is the
relationship between fixed costs and variable costs. The vast majority of water and wastewater rate
structures contain a fixed, or minimum charge, and a volumetric charge, while solid waste rates have
similar assumptions built into the per-container rates.
The City's rate design criteria are unique to the characteristics of its utilities. The following discussion
summarizes general industry rate study practices in California.
�6�� C° �r �.s— Fixed charges can be called base charges, minimum monthly charges, customer charges,
fixed meter charges,etc. Although fixed charges are typically a significant percentage of the utility's overall
cost structure, utilities rarely collect 100%of their fixed costs through fixed charges. In general,customers
prefer to be charged on a volumetric basis, as there is an inherent equity in a "pay-for-what-you-use"
philosophy.
For a water utility,fixed charges typically increase by meter size. For example,a customer with a 2" meter
may have a fixed meter charge that is eight times greater than the 5/8" or 3/4" meter based on its safe
operating capacity.' Because a large portion of water utility costs are typically related to meeting capacity
requirements, individual capacity demands are important in establishing equitable rates for customers.
{��r� J�e(��rasc� fii�nm c�,s� )C' ar �s—In contrast,variable costs, such as the cost of electricity used in
pumping water and the chemicals used in the water and wastewater treatment facilities, tend to change
with the quantity of water produced (or wastewater effluent treated). For a water utility,variable charges
are generally based on metered consumption and charged on a dollar-per-unit cost (per Hundred Cubic
Feet, or CCF, in the City's case). Wastewater volumetric rates often rely on metered water consumption,
which can serve as a proxy for sanitary sewer effluent generation.
6 James C.Bonbright,Albert L.Danielsen,and David R.Kamerschen,Princ+ples of Public Utility Rates,(Arlington,VA:Public Utilities
Report,Inc.,Second Edition,1988),p.383-384.
'Principles of Water Rates,Fees,and Charges,Manual of Water Supply Practices,M1,AWWA,seventh edition,2017,pp.151-152.
Prepared by NBS—February 2020 5
Final Utility Rate Program Update Report—City of Redding
There are significant variations in the basic philosophy of rate structure alternatives for variable charges.
For instance, under a uniform (single-tier) rate structure, the cost per unit does not change with
consumption and the rate design provides a straightforward approach that is easy to understand from the
customer's perspective and simple to administer from the utility's perspective.
Key Financial Assumptions — The following is a summary of the key assumptions used in the water,
wastewater and solid waste rate analyses. Capital and operational reserve fund targets reflect input from
City staff in order to meet specific utility objectives.
Funding Capital Projects—The analysis for all three utilities assumes:
� Capital costs attributable to existing customers are funded with rate revenue.
�` Capital costs attributable to growth are assumed to be funded through development
impact fee revenue.
✓ All capital projects listed in the financial plans are the City's projections.
� Reserve Targets for Water — Reserves for operations and capital needs are set at levels jointly
recommended by City staff and NBS. Reserve targets used in the analysis are as follows:
✓ Operating and Maintenance Reserve —One hundred and twenty (120) days of operating
expenses.
�' Capital Rehabilitation and Replacement Reserve — Equal to 5% minimum of the water
utility's total expenses(i.e.,O&M, Personnel, Interdepartmental, Debt Service,and Capital
Expenditures). For most other utilities, capital reserves are based on a percentage of net
asset values according to industry standards.
• Reserve Targets for Wastewater — Reserves for operations and capital needs are set at levels
recommended by City staff and NBS:
a/ Operating and Maintenance Reserve — Ninety (90) days of operating expenses which
adheres to industry standards.
�' Capita) Rehabilitation and Replacement Reserve — The reserve target is set at 8% of
operating expenses plus $1 million capital. The typical industry standard target is based
on a selected percentage of infrastructure replacement values.
+ Reserve Targets for Solid Waste — Reserves for operations and capital needs are set at levels
recommended by City staff and NBS:
� Operating and Maintenance Reserve — Ninety (90) days of operating expenses less
administrative costs and utility expenses, such as tipping fees.
�' Capital Rehabilitation and Replacement Reserve—Equal to 7%of net assets which assumes
an average asset life expectancy of approximately 14 years. This represents rolling stock
and larger equipment used in transfer station and processing activities.
� Solid Waste Rolling Stock Purchases—All rolling stock purchases for the solid waste utility will be
paid from reserves or rates; no debt financing is assumed.
Inflation and Growth Projections(per City estimates):
Prepared by NBS—February 2020 6
Final Utility Rate Program Update Report—City of Redding
� General inflation—3%annually for water and wastewater and 2.5%for solid waste.
✓ Customer growth—Averages 0.34%annually for all utilities.
� �abor cost inflation—3%annually for water and wastewater and 3.5%for solid waste.
The next three sections discuss the water,wastewater and solid waste rate studies in further detail.
Prepared by NBS—February 2020 7
Final Utility Rate Program Update Report—City of Redding
.
A. Developing Recommended Water Rates
The water rate analysis was undertaken with a few specific objectives, including:
� Generating sufficient revenue needed to meet projected capital funding requirements;
• Providing revenue stability;
• Providing equity among customer classes; and,
� Incorporating projected water consumption levels.
NBS developed several water rate alternatives as requested by City staff over the course of this study. All
rate structure alternatives were developed using industry standards and cost-of-service principles. The
rate alternative recommended in this report was selected by City staff with input from the Utility Rate
Advisory Group. This analysis includes the following basic components:
• Developing Cost Allocations: The water revenue requirements were "functionalized" into three
categories: (1)customer service costs; (2)fixed capacity costs;and, (3)variable(or volume-based)
costs. Unit costs for each of these functions were determined based on the allocations to
functional areas, water consumption, peaking factors, number of accounts by meter size, and
customer class.
• Determining Revenue Requirements by Customer Class: The total revenue that should be
collected from each customer class was determined using the costs allocated to each class. For
example, customer costs are allocated based on the number of ineters, while volume-related
costs are allocated based on the water consumption of each class. Once the costs are allocated
and the net revenue requirement for each customer class is determined, collecting the revenue
requirements from each customer class is addressed within the rate design.
+ Rate Design and Fixed vs. Variable Costs: Fixed costs, such as customer service, billing, and
general administrative costs,are typically collected through a fixed monthly charge,while variable
costs,such as pumping costs and water supply,are typically collected through volumetric charges.
California law$and industry practices provide flexibility regarding the actual percentages collected
from fixed vs.variable rates. After evaluating various rate alternatives,the current rate structure
that recovers 60%of revenue from variable charges and 40%from fixed charges is recommended
based on input from City staff and the URAG.
B. Water Utility Revenue Requirements
It is important for municipal utilities to maintain reasonable reserves in order to handle emergencies,fund
working capital, maintain a good credit rating, and generally follow sound financial management
8 For example,AB 2882 allows a variety of conservation-oriented rate structures,including tiered water rates. While the California
Urban Water Conservation Council recommends recovering 70 percent of rate revenue through volume-based rates, water
utilities generally develop their own policy and conservation objectives which the City has done in this case.
Prepared by NBS—February 2020 8
Final Utility Rate Program Update Report—City of Redding
practices. Rate increases are governed by the need to meet these objectives. The current state of the
City's water utility,with regard to these objectives, is as follows:
Expected Consumption: At the time of the last study, the City asked for extraordinary
conservation (36 percent) from its customers in accordance with the State mandate. Between
March 2015 and February of 2016,only 8.1 million CCF of water was sold which equates to a 24%
reduction in water consumption compared to 2013 levels as a direct result of the City's
conservation efforts. That State mandate has since been rescinded and consumption levels have
returned to the levels from before the mandate. This recent increase in consumption has a
discernable impact on the budgeted rate revenue. After careful consideration and review of the
water utility's Proforma, the rate study used 10 million CCF9 as the best estimate for projecting
the rate revenue that should be collected from volumetric charges.
� Meeting Operating Costs: For Fiscal Years 2019/20 through 2022/23, the net revenue
requirement(i.e.,total annual expenses plus debt service and rate-funded capital costs, less non-
rate revenues) is estimated to be approximately $15.2 to $23.6 million. If no rate increases are
implemented,the City would continue to generate enough revenue to cover operating costs and
planned capital improvements. However, by FY 2022/23, the City would be faced with annual
deficits that would only increase over time and require more aggressive rate increases in the
future.
� Maintaining Adequate Bond Coverage: The City is required by its bond covenant to maintain a
debt service coverage ratio of at least 1.20 for the water utility's share of the outstanding 2013
Revenue Bonds. The added benefit of maintaining a higher coverage ratio is that it strengthens
the City's credit rating, which can help lower the interest rates for debt-funded capital projects
and, in turn, reduce annual debt service payments. This analysis assumes that the City will not be
incurrinp new debt in order to fund the planned capital expenses. It is projected that, with or
without the recommended rate increases, the City will meet the debt coverage ratio for all
existing and anticipated debt through FY 2022/23 when final payment is due.
+ Building and Maintaining Reserve Funds: If no rate increases are implemented, reserves
(excluding the Pump Nouse 1 reserve) are expected to be depleted by FY 2021/22. This is due to
the City's planned capital improvements which are estimated at $45.3 million over the next four
years. By implementing 4% annual rate increases, the water utility will be able to keep reserves
above the target balance and provide some leeway if consumption levels fail to rise to the
expected 10 million CCF target. The City staff has chosen to set the following reserve targets:
� Operating Reserve equal to 33.3% of the Utility's budgeted annual operating expenses.
This reserve target is equa)to a 4-month (or 120-day)cash cushion for normal operations.
For FY 2019/20, the operating reserve is estimated to be $5.3 million. This reserve is
intended to promote financial viability in the event of any short-term fluctuation in
revenues and/or expenditures, including fluctuations due to weather patterns, natural
9 The City calculated the estimated water usage by multiplying the number of housing equivalents by 266 CCF. Source file: Water
Proforma Working Version 7 2 2019.xtsx.
Prepared by NBS—February 2020 9
Final Utility Rate Program Update Report—City of Redding
billing cycle cash flows, variability in volume-based rates, and changes in the age of
receivables.
� Capital Reserve equal to 5% minimum of total expenses, which in FY 2019/20 is
approximately $1.6 million. If ratepayers can generate revenues at this level and pace,
the City will have reserved a partial cash resource that can be applied toward future
capital replacement and rehabilitation needs.
� Pump House 1 Reserve will continue to receive 6% of all fixed and commodity rate
revenue which will be used to fund capital improvements related to Pump House 1. This
6%is the City's established approach to funding the Pump House 1 Reserve.
� Debt Reserve is not a requirement of the 2013 Revenue Bonds and, therefore, the City
need not hold any reserves for outstanding debt.
Figure 3 summarizes the sources and uses of funds and net revenue requirements for the next four years,
and includes the recommended annual rate increases for the water utility.
Figure 3.Summary of Water Revenue Requirements
e o m e r � ^¢
� a e g e � � � e
Sources of Water Funds
Rate Revenue Under Prevailing Rates $ 22,557,780 $ 22,631,854 $ 22,708,121 $ 22,786,581 $ 22,866,991
Other Operating Revenue 508,490 520,798 535,291 550,282 565,793
Interest Earnings 118,530 542,063 510,160 440,566 415,435
Total Sources of Funds $ 23,184,800 $ 23,694,715 $ 23,753,572 $ 23,777,430 $ 23,848,219
Uses of Water Funds
Operating Expenses $ 15,095,122 $ 15,909,610 $ 16,346,700 $ 16,764,519 $ 17,203,674
Debt Service 342,061 354,924 354,924 354,439 355,895
Rate-Funded Capital Expenses - - 190,974 3,717,372 2,546,505
Total Use of Funds $ 15,437,183 $ 16,264,534 $ 16,892,598 $ 20,836,331 $ 20,106,074
`:5urpl�i�'(E��#���'�Yi2.�,y�'�a�f�r+�'#�afielncr�a�e,.� ���� �'
�� ,�..�T,7�k�,6�.7 ..$... �7�4�I),18�:::":_�\�°°�,BFiU,'��4': $> 2,941,�99 .<����3,�2�:4�4..
Additional Revenue from Rate Increases - 452,637 1,852,983 2,845,224 3,884,154
<5r1��'�It�'�:�p+���+��C'"�1t�7j,,,�"E���"'R�I�.IYI�i���`.� ��� $���,7,�"47�f17..:�:�0,.��8�;�'�5�:$..,.:..�.:��..8����;��s<i'° ,..� ...'a"�'7`t�6,3��...<,������0 7;�'r��"w;��°;
��� ��.. �� ti � 1:�� RV "��°' "�' �`�`
� � �
CumulaYive Rate increases 0.00% 4.00% 8.16% 12.49% 16.99%
� �
Total Rate Revenue(Current&Add'I.) $ 22,557,780 $ 23,084,491 $ 24,561,104 $ 25,631,805 $ 26,751,145
Debt Coverage With Rate lncrease 23.6 23.2 26.1 27.8 29.6
1. Total Useof Funds less non-rate revenues and interestearnings.This is the annual amounted needed from water rates
Prepared by NBS—February 2020 10
Final Utility Rate Program Update Report—City of Redding
Figure 4 summarizes the projected reserve fund balances and reserve targets. A summary of the water
utility's proposed 10-year financial plan is included in Appendix A —Additional Water Rate Study Tables.
The appendix tables include more detailed summaries of the revenue requirements, reserve funds,
revenue sources, proposed rate increases, and the City's capital improvement program.
Figure 4.Summary of Water Reserve Funds
- � � o � e � a
Operating Reserve
Ending Balance $ 5,031,707 $ 5,303,203 $ 5,448,900 $ 5,588,173 $ 5,734,558
Reeomrraended Mrnimum Target 5,031,707 5,303,ZQ3 5,448,9Q0 5,588,173 5,734,SS8
Capital Rehabilitation&Replacement Reserve
Ending Balance $ 18,645,837 $ 14,975,393 $ 8,963,018 $ 5,699,459 $ 7,418,764
Reeamrraended Minimum Farg�t 1,334,526 1,589,510 1,469,279 1,255,235 1,34Q,Q57
��� ti�� a�. , ��°` ;a� �, ��. �.
� �,
<.:7'rst�l����ezs���a����7�iir�sc?�.�'�����'` _ � �r' �i��.� �<°° ����,%�� $".:„_:�;`����.� ..� �r a ., s �°'_ ....:�',��`?9;���,
Rolling Stock Reserve(9193-70)
Ending Balance $ 491,308 $ 569,091 $ 623,106 $ 522,977 $ 648,762
Pump House 1 Reserve
Ending Balance $ 10,539,496 $ 11,924,565 $ 13,398,231 $ 14,936,140 $ 16,541,208
Beginning Balance $ 1,86�,057 $ 2,185,368 $ 2,440,5�9 $ 1,637,199 $ 1,409,408
Uses of Funds and Add'I.Revenues 318,311 255,210 (803,380) (227,791) 27,793
Ending Balance(lmpact Fees OnlyJ 2,185,368 2,440,579 1,637,199 1,409,408 1,437,201
C. Characteristics of Water Customers by Class
Both water consumption levels and number of accounts by customer class are used in allocating costs as
part of the cost-of-service analysis. The City's most recent consumption data by customer class, including
an adjustment to reflect more normal consumption levels, are summarized in Figure 5 while Figure 6
summarizes the peak consumption (peaking factors) by customer class. Figure 7 then compares the total
number of accounts by customer class.
Figure 5.Water Consumption by Customer Class
.- - om e � .. � a 4
e a , •
A
e
Single Family 5,743,516 4.58% 6,006,798 6U.1%
Multi-Family 1,027,601 4.58% 1,074,707 10.7%
Commercial 1,475,794 4.58% 1,543,444 15.4°l0
Industrial 435,506 4.58% 455,470 4.6%
Institutional 881,732 4.58% 922,151 9.2%
r�tai �,ss�,sas �.o,�z,ss� : �oa.a�.�
Projected Consumption° ��,����`�
Hydrant 43,666 0% 43,666 N/A
Grand Tt�t�l �,607r$15 10,046,�35
�1. Consumption rates and customerdass from Source file: REDDING SummoryRevenue-UPDATED06-19-2019.x1sx. �
2. Adjustmentfactorto match City's projected annual consumption forFY2019/20.
3. Adjusted to match City's projection.
4. City's projected consumption.Source file:WaterProformaforNBS.xlsx.
Prepared by NBS—February 2020 11
Final Utility Rate Program Update Report—City of Redding
Figure 6. Peaking Factors by Customer Class
,- .w . � � m o �
« . .
v
o ,«. a
Single Family 478,626 910,580 1.90 '63.4°l0
Multi-Family 85,633 120,400 1.41 8.4°10
Commercial 122,983 193,937 1.58 13.5% '
Industrial 36,292 73,961 2.04 5.2%
Institutional 73,478 136,731 1.86 9.5% '+
Tata! 797,C�12 3,�t3�,61t? 1.8U 1t�U.�l�,
Hydrant
GrandTc�tal ;797,�11� 1,4�5,610
1. Based on June 2017-May2018average peak monthlydata (peak daydata notavailable).
Figure 7. Number of Accounts by Customer Class
r- .� a + � � �
a� �
. � .
Single Family 23,346 81.5/0
Multi-Family 2,161 7�5%
Commercial 2,105 7'.3l
Industrial 374 1.31
Institutional 656 2.3°l0
7'�rtal 28,642' ' 10�.O1 `
Hydrant 47
Grand Tcstal 2�,689
1. Numberof ineters bycustomerclass from Source file:
REDDING Summary Revenue-UPDATED 06-19-2019.x1sx.
D. Cost-of-Service Analysis
As previously noted in Figure 2, the purpose of the cost-of-service analysis is to fairly and equitably
allocate annual revenue requirements to customer classes, while the rate design determines the actual
rates within each customer class. The first step in developing the recommended fixed and volumetric
rates is to allocate costs between fixed charges, which include capacity-related and customer-related
costs,and variable charges(or commodity-related costs). These results are summarized in Figure 8 below
and presented in more detail along with several other alternatives in AppendixA.
Prepared by NBS—February 2020 12
Final Utility Rate Program Update Report—City of Redding
Figure 8.Summary of Rate Revenue Requirements
m � �
., i�li I :�: �"� ���� � ���
9 d : W ���.�����..:�:z'v�a����!s17;aaa�����.�.�.�.a. ..�,�ati��:\�a�....
! °. • �
Single Family $ 14,064,462 63.4% $ 14,902,383 63.3%
Multi-Family 2,341,317 10.6% 2,285,987 9.7%
Commercia) 3,212,314 14.5% 3,297,715 14.0%
Industrial 806,417 3.6% 1,032,401 4.4%
Institutional 1,759,819 7.9% 2,018,643 8.6%
�ro��t � z�;�s�,�is �.c��:o� S z�,sa�,�.zs �.cac��
Developing revenue requirements by customer class is based on the allocation factors previously shown
in Figures 5 through 7, and the fixed and variable revenue requirements shown in Figure 8. The following
is a summary of the cost-allocation process,whereby each customer class is allocated a percentage of the
fixed and variable costs:
Allocation percentages for water consumption (from Figure 5) are used to allocate commodity-
related variable costs (shown in Figure 9); single-family commodity-related costs are 60.1% of
$14.122 million = $8,480,788.10
� Allocation percentages for peaking factors (from Figure 6) are used to allocate capacity-related
costs (shown in Figure 9); single-family capacity-related costs are 63.4% of $6.926 million =
$4,393,343.
• Allocation percentages for the number of ineters (from Figure 7) are used to allocate customer-
related costs(shown in Figure 9);single-family customer-related costs are 81.5%of$2.488 million
_ $2,028,251.
Figure 9. Summary of Adjusted Rate Revenue Requirements by Customer Class
a
,�, ,�,
SingleFamily $ 8,480,788 $ 4,393,343 $ 2,028,251 $ 14,902,383 63.3%
Multi-Family 1,517,340 580,904 187,743 2,285,987 9.7%
Commercial 2,179,134 935,703 182,878 3,297,715 14.0%
Industrial 643,061 356,847 32,492 1,032,401 4.4%
Institutional 1,301,952 659,698 56,992 2,018,643 8.6%
T�tal . $ 14,122,277 $ 6,926,495 $ 2,4�8,�57 � 23,537,12$ it1t�.U°Ja
T+ital Unl.and Fixed Rate Rev. S ��,��2,277` $9.414,851 $ , �3,537,1�8
1. This total is higherthan shown in the financial plan,which reflects revenue expected fora partial year,whereas the revenue used to
set rates needs to assume an entire yearof rate revenue.
As previously shown in Figure 3,the projected additional rate revenue from rate increases expected to be
collected in FY 2019/20 would be$452,637 which assumes rates are effective January 2020. When added
to the expected rate revenue from current rates (i.e., $22,631,854), the projected rate revenue for FY
2019/20 is $23,084,491, whereas Figure 9 reflects the adjusted rate revenue used to calculate rates
assuming a full year of rate revenue.11
10 Results shown may not exactly duplicate the actual calculation because there are more decimal places used in the calculations.
11 That is,the revenue for a fuli year is used to set rates vs.the actual revenue collected for only part of the year.
Prepared by NBS—February 2020 13
Final Utility Rate Program Update Report—City of Redding
E. Current vs. Proposed Water Rate Structures
Water rate design considers broader rate-design objectives and policies, including revenue stability,
equity among customer classes,and water conservation. During this analysis,City staff and NBS developed
several rate design alternatives with varying combinations of fixed and variable cost allocations:
1. 40% Fixed and 60%Volumetric
2. 45% Fixed and 55%Volumetric
3. 64% Fixed and 36%Volumetric
4. 71% Fixed and 29%Volumetric
After considering these options, City staff is recommending the City continue with the current rate design
of 40% fixed and 60%volumetric (#1 above) and also retain the uniform volumetric rate. As previously
noted, it is the opinion of City staff,the City's legal counsel, and NBS that a uniform volumetric rate is the
most defensible rate structure, because of the following: (1) it best represents the City's single-source of
water supply, and (2) it applies equally to all customer classes. The results of this analysis, including the
other rate structure alternatives, can be found in AppendixA.
Figure 10 compares the current and proposed rates for FY 2019/20 through FY 2022/23. The cost-of-
service adjustments are reflected in the FY 2019/20 rates; thereafter, rates reflect an across-the-board
increase of 4%annually.
Figure 10. Current and Proposed Water Rates for Fiscal Years 2019/20-2022/23
� , � g
p S , 1
.�i. .� , ,. ..,s.� .,�m,. .a.'a :,a �'a.�. ,... .�3ils......l�, i . ,mm.., s.a ..�O�. ...\.. ....o:�.�'c\x., a� .�ti..�.�.�1�.�
. e � ... s e.o ', R
� .�.�a.
e A a o � e e
"a 'r 's ^ m^ w � ° s ' q�°, , R!'e ' f1'a a I�°e
�s� ,. `�'� `. "q�'�'�ti `� �ti'���� `1'� . �. �s e�,"� '�'�: a��,��� �`�
ti ,�', a. � .t
Monthly Fixed Service Charge-Standard Meters:
5/8inch $21.37 '; $22,�.5i $23.04 $23.96 $24.92
3/4inch $28.04 $23.61' $30J9 $32.02 $33.30
1 i nch $41.77 , $44.52 i ' $46.30 $48.15 $50.08
1.5 inch $76.09 $81.79' $85.06 $88.47 $92A1
2 inch $117.27 $126.52 i $131.59 $136.85 $142.32
3 inch ; $227.10 ;$245.81ii ' $255.64 $265.87 $276.50
4 i nch $350.66 ;$380.Od' $395.20 $411.01 $427.45
6 inch $693.88 $752_77 ' $782.88 $814.19 $846J6
8 inch $1,105.75 $1,200.08' $1,248.08 $1,298.01 $1,349.93
� �� , � �� �
�.
Uniform Rate $1.43 , $1.41' ' $1.47 $1.53 $1.59
AppendixA provides more detailed tables showing the development of the proposed water rates.
Prepared by NBS-February 2020 14
Final Utility Rate Program Update Report-City of Redding
F. Comparison of Current and Proposed Monthly Bills
Single-Family Water Customers
Figure 11 compares monthly water bills under the current and proposed rates for single-family residential
customers in the first year of the new rate period.
Figure 11. Monthly Water Bill Comparison for SFR Customers
Residential Water Bill Comparisor�
Currentvs. Proposed 2019/2�D R�tes(3/4" M�eter)
s�oo
A�+erage
5�R Bi((-Cu rree�t Rates �������f��
(36 hcf/ma.}
�SFR Bill-Proposed Rates
$80
Average
A�»II�9�IAl Bili
{20 hcf/agtn,} �@ ��
� �
m $60 kverage � � ' � �
> 1N�NTER Ba11���', _ �°,� ,
_ ,
� $8�cfJma.} � ,
c � ` '
� ° �� ti u,
� " ' � ��
�
a
� . ,
��o � .
�
�
�� � � �
� '
� �'� ���
i Szo �� � � � � ����' � � _ �
��, � �, � � �
�� �
�� � �� ��, � � ,� �, � .
So �� � � ,� ���
......''..... 4 8 14 20 30 35
Water Consumption(HCF�
Figure 12 and Figure 13 compare the current and proposed monthly water bills for the typical single-
family to those of other surrounding communities.
In reviewing the bill comparisons under current vs. new rates, it should be noted that the average
residential customer's water use is higher than in previous years. Because of this, comparing monthly
bills under new rates should reflect a slightly higher average water consumption,while bills under current
rates should use a slightly lower average consumption.
Prepared by NBS—February 2020 15
Final Utility Rate Program Update Report—City of Redding
Figure 12. Regional Monthly Water Bill Comparisons
, iC�-�ity t��git�nal Water�ill Compar�sons�lVlr�nthly) ; �
Single�arnily R+�sicler�tial(�;/�"Meter�&21 ccf/mor�th)'� �
�sso�_� ��; ' � � �.
a
i �Water:Variable Charges
� $131 A9
� ■Water:Eixed Charges
k�f{4`t'�4Zft .
��.�rJ � _. .. .. ,. .......... ..... ......... ......... ......... �118Z$.�FZ��i�{ 4 .
*The2l;�cfilmon#htvase�donAuaeageqnnuslWater z�,� {tr,� ; s't`ti��f
� Cc�nsumpiron. t zt tt� � �r ? i
* UVaY�rand/orW�stewatetservieespraulded6y �. ��zr�tt'�. 5711`��
t iR �
$7�4 � _ mu[tiple egenc�es. ; � l�i`��}3� �r<'��`ia�%
...,._.... _....__ ._......:._..._�_ ...r ._ _ . _ .__ � it
j ._. . ��f44f}t' r(}sFy#�
.� � ��� t
�� � $7839 ���t��� �. �� � `�t
i�
�'� �x1i�}��c r
fr � �
� ��5 i i�i�� ,i
� } �s ,�' �?�� �r i
,r.r � �`�zt ' ti' �i�s�� �� � �S��
� $6394 1� � z�
� $5992 i s?�zi$ tta �I4 �ix ���t
� $5456 y 4 si f�� '� ��i z���l i 'sf ;"
$51.10 $5172 $5180 $5251 ��?,�� � �ptt� �` x�}s, > j�,�r}�,ttt
�50 .� .... .. $46 84 7£ `Ss �E ��� 1 t tiz z4t��s if}ry ��i J j t�3 t 3 s j".� �g.si sk �Ft t� .,t,..it, z1�
j $41 20 $42 10 �. s���+tlt S S�4 s3 rt si 2;���� �J�d i t C s. �� ����, ..
' t� jt�4 1 .r t >1R� U f ;J1� t z��tt' S.�t�'tS.
� t ��� t s�t t + T #�'7{ t G�a t r t {{ i i� f n� +7
3��tt Ft4 t�)�l�Stty Frzsi�i� dts{irt�tF ;�;1 �} � s�rit � �r 1���' }(�i�i z it�
jiz.sztd wtl}ti id�>�ss s t ,t a� �yi Sr s�st4�� � }iE :t s�{',~�1ir�
� ``{i`}�tt� �titaEt� jt�t; isS l��zisjF��i .z�, �{ts i�,..ti s ,2�:����?t 44y�t .
j� '£��f4itt ��iitlit 5�tit�&,<,s� tt`��rit� �a,,s�� .41s,1,.s � � 3ts��ti��t.
�`25 �i<i s 4s �.�is � � st (listli� �
� r�. h i
j{��,s�r t{,�,fl )5.i`,C� � � .f,Zr c}„t,Sik �� S$,.�,..Yc}s�t
w
I �,".e �,"�� �
, �� .� , . `��.� r��,
�i�� ��� ��v ����.\ ��# ���11 ���� . �0'� ������ ������" ��y�`� ����' ��c�
�° �'`��'� � �Qv�� � 4` �� ���` �� ��
���� , ���t �fT ,,
;��
Q-�,
Figure 13. Nor-Cal Monthly Water Bill Comparisons
,
Nt�r'-Cai Re�ic�nal Vltater Bill Comparisons(Mantl�ly)
��ng1e Family Ft+�sitlentiat�5 f S"Meter&21 c�f/mor�thj �
s��s j _ �
�Water:Variable Charges� ;
� ■Water:Fixed Charges Siso.2e
$2S0
� C���.22ccfjmqnYhaShasedpnRverageAnnualWateTConsumptian_� , �
$125 . �: �
��. ,� � [
�
�� S�a� u �� '
�, �� �
��°t �.. $86.11 $84.66
�
�
` ` �
� ��5 . .... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ....... $70 43 .....Q , ' , . ...�� ,. � �
� $63.�4 r r`", � , � � �
,
, , ,�� �t �� .
� ? �^,��" . , �,
; � $51.10 �� � $57 76 ,t �, z 1
Q�
�,
„
$50 . � * � � ✓� �, ` y �
� `�,. �''.. "' ��, (
$31.63 �
s
�
� �
$25.41 '� �, `ry ''
� \
$'25" L , �� r
�",
, , � '
;� � � � t ,. ., � )
� I
� 1
� ����`�� �
����, �.,��'�� ,
� - Aridersorr Red 8#uff F2edding Yrek� ttesld�ng -. 14or-CaI �Sh�sta Lake.. Eureke Arcata. �
(�urrentj (Prcrposed ' Average'
A%) �
Prepared by NBS—February 2020 16
Final Utility Rate Program Update Report—City of Redding
Commercia)Water Customers
Commercial customers are currently subject to the same fixed monthly charges and uniform volumetric
rate as single-family customers. Since the level of consumption for commercial customers varies
significantly within the commercial class and from residential customers, a uniform volumetric rate most
fairly reflects their actual cost-of-service (i.e., vs. a multi-tiered volumetric rate). Figure 14 compares
current and proposed monthly bills for commercial customers with a 2-inch meter at various levels of
consumption.
Figure 14. Monthly Water Bill Comparison for Commercial Users
Commercial Water Bill Comparison
Current vs. Proposed 2019/20 Rates (�'" Meter)
5soo .
�Comm. Bill-Current Rates ,�„�,.,��
$�� Comm. Bill-Proposed Rates sunnraex ar��
(32s",cct/mB.J ',
�
$6�
� '
Average �
— $5� ANI�YUAC Bill .,
m [lSl�ccffrrao,) � �"
}
� � �
p $400 Averag� � „ � �ti,
��fJWINTER E�}I �.
� �s9 ccf/rmta.) �
5300 � � , � .e �� �.�� , �,
�. �
�, � ,� � ���
� �
$200 � ,' � ,
a, ` * '
R s ,
�1� . �
_.
� � : s
� � � � 4�.
$p ,��. � �'. � �,� , '
50 89 150 181 300 326
Man#hly Water Cansumption jCCFj
Prepared by NBS—February 2020 17
Final Utility Rate Program Update Report—City of Redding
.
A. Developing Recommended Wastewater Rates
The wastewater rate study focused on key objectives similar to those considered in the water rate study.
One of the main concerns of the wastewater rate analysis was maintaining the financial health of the
Utility in light of project increases in capital improvement and replacement costs.
In addition,the study also performed similar tasks as the water rate study when determining the proposed
sewer rates, including the following: (1) developing cost allocations for each customer class; (2)
developing revenue requirements by customer class; and, (3) determining rates within the customer
classes. Detailed tables showing the step-by-step development of the analysis are presented in Appendix
8-Additionat Wastewater Rate Study Tables.
B. Wastewater Utility Revenue Requirements
To identify the wastewater utility's long-term financial needs, including funding for its planned capital
improvements, NBS developed a 10-year financia)plan that forecasts wastewater revenues,expenditures,
and reserves. This plan is based on the Utility's current operating budget, discussions with City staff and
the URAG, and other related information provided by the City, such as debt service schedules and capital
improvement plans. The financial plan addresses four primary objectives:
* Meeting Operating Costs: The wastewater utility must generate enough revenue to cover the
expenses of its operations, including administration, maintenance, collection system, and
wastewater treatment plant costs.
� Maintaining Adequate Bond Coverage: The wastewater utility just recently paid off its 2002
Series A Revenue Bonds, but it still has multiple outstanding State Revolving Fund (SRF) loans.
These loans have no specific coverage requirements yet maintaining adequate bond coverage
capacity demonstrates the Utility's ability to issue new debt, if and when it becomes necessary.
� Meeting Capital Improvement Costs: The wastewater utility plans to adequately fund necessary
capital improvements,which includes roughly$50.2 million in planned capital improvements over
the next four years through the use of both capital reserve funds and rate revenue.
� Maintaining Reserve Funds: The wastewater utility is not required to maintain a debt reserve
fund for the outstanding SRF loans; nevertheless, it has decided to do so in the amount of$4.1
million in order to cover debt payments should revenues not be adequate. Currently, the Utility
is financially healthy; however, the reserve balances will significantly decline within a few years
without the proposed rate increases and therefore require larger increases in the future.
After discussions with City staff and the URAG,the following target reserve levels are recommended:
� Operating Reserve equa)to 25%of the Utility's annual operating expenses. This reserve target is
equal to a 3-month (or 90-day) cash cushion for normal operations. An operating reserve is
intended to promote financial viability in the event of any short-term fluctuation in revenues
and/or expenditures.
� Capital Reserve equal to 8%of the Utility's annual operating expenses plus$1.0 million capital.
Prepared by NBS—February 2020 18
Final Utility Rate Program Update Report—City of Redding
� Debt Reserve equal to the existing SRF loan payments which have been factored into this analysis.
Even though the Utility is not legally obligated to maintain a specific reserve balance for the
outstanding loans, the City considers it prudent practice to do so in order to ensure the Utility's
ability to make its annual debt service payments.
For FY 2019/20, the net revenue requirement is approximately $27.7 million. The Utility is currently in
good financial health and annual revenues are sufficient to cover current operating expenditures, meet
debt service payments,and contribute towards planned capital improvement costs. However,considering
the planned capital improvements, modest rate increases are recommended. Otherwise, the Utility will
find itself facing a deficit of almost$1.5 million within two-years (by FY 2021/22).
Figure 15 summarizes the four-year financial plan that shows the sources and uses of funds along with
the net revenue requirements and the proposed annual rate increases of 4 percent. Figure 16 summarizes
the Utility's projected reserve funds and target reserve balances.
Figure 15.Summary of Wastewater Revenue Requirements
o a s m m e• a -o
. e � B a 1 ° O i / 1 6
Sources of Sewer Funds
Rate Revenue UnderPrevailingRates $ 28,961,550 $ 29,056,653 $ 29,154,571 $ 29,255,304 $ 29,358,541
Non-Rate Revenues (11,040) (9,192) (9,152) (9,071) (8,988)
Interest Earnings - 280,300 195,210 254,862 249,204
Total Sources of Funds $ 28,950,510 $ 29,327,761 $ 29,340,628 $ 29,501,095 $ 29,598,757
Uses of Sewer Funds
Operating Expenses $ 15,143,480 $ 15,245,120 $ 15,960,750 $ 16,387,235 $ 16,825,237
Debt Service 7,666,240 4,463,740 4,463,740 4,463,740 5,788,071
Rate-Funded Capital Expenses - 8,288,921 5,583,628 7,124,394 5,630,265
TransfertoRollingStock (350,000) (300,000) (300,000) (300,000) (300,000)
Total Use of Funds $ 22,459,720 $ 27,697,781 $ 25,708,118 $ 27,675,368 $ 27,943,573
"`°������ias��1e���i+���)i��f�r�°R�t�°'In�re��e :$ .�°�,��0,7�...,��,, i,���g1... .����„�,63�;�1�?' '_°� �.��5��� �.. 1,655;�,54:
��Additional Revenue from Rate Increases $ - $ 1,162,266 $ 2,379,013 $ 3,652,934 $ � 4,986,799�
�urpFus�E�eficiency a�ter:.�tate lncr�as�e f,�4�t1,'79�! . 2;��2,�47 6,tI1�,���.: . 5�A78.662 . 6<t�41,984°
.
n�.,.,� ,."�x�,�.�, �,�w, ,� ��..� „�.� �. �.. . .e�,o.�,�. �,���u��������. .,e, � �� �. , ���, ���� ��, �� » ��� .
Cumulative Rate Increases 0.00% 4.00% 8.26% 12.49% 16.99%
��'�}�£Y�2C1UL'�E�'#�U�C�fil�Ci�� .:''. y�# ��x���;�� � _�i�y���'l��Y�� ,� ��t$�v��:'.:;:.� :�����trJ�� .�* <�+�t��t���
1. Total Use of Funds less non-rate revenues and interestearnings.This is the annual amount needed from sewer rates.
Prepared by NBS—February 2020 19
Final Utility Rate Program Update Report—City of Redding
Figure 16. Summary of Wastewater Reserve Funds
9 '!
" 0 � m N � � � F � �
Operating Reserve
Beginning Balance $ 17,163,681 $ 3,821,000 $ 4,000,000 $ 4,107,000 $ 4,217,000
Fiecommeno`ed Minimurrr Target 3,786,000 3,821,000 4 QQO,Q00 4,1t17,OQ0 4�17,QQ0
Capita)Rehab&Replacement Reserve(Rates)
Beginning Balance $ - $ 9,814,587 $ 4,264,352 $ 7,922,803 $ 7,455,680
Reeommended n!linimum Target 2,24Q,OQ0 2,210,000 2,2�0,(�l30 2,3Q0,000 �33Q,000
DebtReserve
Beginning Balance $ 4,058,000 $ 4,058,000 $ 4,058,000 $ 4,058,000 $ 4,058,000
Recorr'mended/V(inimum Target 4,058,C)00 4,OS8,OOQ 4,05$,OOQ 4,QSS,OOC1 4,05$,000
,��T�t��`Be�ilYlYl�ngB�l��t�+�� �� �<..2�,�2��,,�"i81 ��:i�',�r3�„.��� „`�'.,.�.2�3�2,3.�,'2 ��"�fsfY�'7,8�� °'���.'S��?��
. 7"ts�r�l���c�rrrria��tde�P��r��rrt�rrar T�t���� � :��� � �` .....��, .�, °... � ���... �;. .< � .��� .�.. . � �tl� ..�,
A summary of the financial plan through FY 2029/30 showing the revenue requirements, revenue sources
(including rate revenue), and necessary rate increases is presented in Appendix e, along with a summary
of the Utility's capital improvement program.
C. Cost-of-Service Analysis
Due to the limitations of the wastewater utility billing system, the detailed customer data linking water
use to individual wastewater customer accounts is not available. The issue with the wastewater billing
system data is the reason why a full cost-of-service analysis has never been performed. As a result, NBS
reviewed and evaluated the Utility's revenue requirements and current rate design from a broader
perspective. In NBS' opinion, absent of the detailed customer data, the City's current rate design is
reasonably fair and equitable, and we and the City staff are not aware of any apparent inequities that
would necessitate a more detailed analysis.
In light of these factors, City staff has determined that across-the-board adjustments to current rates are
acceptable,with the provision that the City will work on acquiring the necessary billing data so that a more
detailed cost-of-service analysis can be performed in the future.
D. Current vs. Proposed Wastewater Rates
Currently, the City's wastewater rates consist of a fixed monthly charge per residence for single-family
dwellings and a fixed monthly charge per unit for multi-family dwellings. Standard commercial and
commercial food preparation customers are billed in two different ways;standard commercial customers
are charged either a volumetric ($/CCF) rate based on water consumption or a fixed charge per month
based on the number of equivalent housing units per location/account. The commercial food preparation
rate is twice the residential and commercial rates to account for the higher conveyance and treatment
costs associated with higher biochemical oxygen demand (BOD),total suspended solids (TSS), and oil and
grease from food preparation effluent.
As mentioned earlier, the City decided to continue using the current rate structure. The proposed rates
reflect the necessary increases in rate revenue each year.
Prepared by NBS—February 2020 20
Final Utility Rate Program Update Report—City of Redding
Figure 17 shows the current and proposed wastewater rates through FY 2022/23. Figure 18 and Figure
19 compare the FY 2019/20 monthly wastewater bill of the typical single-family residence to that of
surrounding communities.
Figure 17. Current and Proposed Wastewater Rates for Fiscal Year 2019/20-2022/23
. � 'aa
,, 0
A ° B ! i f i 1
6 a �r ^ .a ' r e a e m a A �li°. 6 I�'> � 6�', � If'e
Monthly Service Charges:
Single Family Dwelling($/residence) $54.86 $57.05 $59.33 $61.70 $64.17
Multi Family Dweiling($/unit) $40.59 $42.21 $43.90 $45.66 $47.49
Standard Commercial billed monthly($/ccf) $5.64 $5.87 $6.10 $6.34 $6.59
Standard Commercial calculated annually($/#HE)Z $54.86 $57.05 $59.33 $61J0 $64.17
Commercial Food Preparation billed monthly($/ccf) $11.28 $11.73 $12.20 $12.69 $13.20
Commercial Food Preparation calculated annually($/#HE) $109.72 $114.11 $118.67 $123.42 $128.36
1. Current rates are from source file: REDDING Wastewaterfee Schedule.pdf.
2. Includes Industrial,Otherand Unknown customers.
Figure 18. Regional Monthly Single-Family Wastewater Bill Comparisons
1fl-+�ity�tegic�nai Wastewater Bi11 Cc�mparisc�ns�1�Ic�nthly�
Sin,�le Family�t�sidential(�Y2U�9��t�)
S�.00 .. '!
� �Wastewater:Variable Charges
■Wastewater:Fixed Charges
� � -----_ -
,
$80 _ *WaterandJorWastewaterseruicesprouidedby �
multiple agencies. �
� �
�orCitiesvuithauolumefriccornponent,�ccf/manth $63.33 �
was used based on Average Wi nte r W ate r $62.15
., �,
$6t3 i ; Consumpt�on ___ � $57.05 �
r _ . _ _.__ _..__ w..___ . $53.15 $54.86
i� �
�` $46.38 $47.24 $48.52
�
� $42.95 ,�.
n,, � �
$40.40 $40.55 �
� �� , r.t s�� � ,
�,; $40
$34.00 �
;
` � ` ,� '
� � �
$22.98 ;, . �
�2C!
$0I � , - � � , ,
��� ���� ���;��� ���� ���,� ���,��� ���� ��� ��� ���� ` ��� ����� ����� �
� �� �,�' �c ������,, �, �*����,� ����� �� ,��� I
� �,�� ����
��
�
__�_,� .�.��.., vw� �.�� w._.w ��._� _.�__._� . �,w w.w.�.... ��.. �_�_.._ �w_.._�.� _.....w �_�._,� ._���.�..�.�_.a
Prepared by NBS-February 2020 21
Final Utility Rate Program Update Report-City of Redding
Figure 19. Nor-Cal Monthly Single-Family Wastewater Bill Comparisons
Mc�r-Cal Regic�t�al�lll�stewater�ill Cc�mparisc�r�s(Mc��thly) ;
Sin�le Farnily R�sid+�ntial ;
�1°0 } ��� _____.___.___.._______ � ;
; Tota)Wastewater �
i ��Wastewater:Variable Charges� �
i,
� '
_____, ______. _,_..__ _ ____� i
� $$� � ForCitieswithavoYumetriccomperne�rt,8ceffmonth _ 578.22 �
� wasused6asedonAverag�WinterWater ��� •
$74.47
� CcsnsurnpLicsn. �, �
j ._ . ___,___�_._ _ . _ ____._._ _.____._.. _.. $67.02 �`4� 1
i , �
m �6� � - - _ _ S�s� �s�.os � � �
�e � �
1 �. s;
� � , , , ;
� „
C I $4839 ti� �' ' s 1
C 't � �
� j $43.68 �1 � �� �
� . ,
� �� � ��
� � �
�40
! � ,;
� $34.00 $34.60 `. S
� � � ,
�� �
z ;
� ��e
, ,
��� i l
j i
? i
1 ;
�
�
;
i, ;
��'`- ... ��. ,,r. ...��.. a )
Red Bluff Antlerscrn Yreka , hlor-�aI R�dtltng R�dd"rng Shasta Lake; Eureka Arcata ;
Average (Gurrent) (Proprrsed i
4b/oj i
Prepared by NBS-February 2020 22
Final Utility Rate Program Update Report-City of Redding
.
A. Key Solid Waste Rate Study Issues
In evaluating solid waste rates, two of the City's key concerns were: (1) ensuring that rates adequately
considered new costs related to new programs and equipment needs,and (2)verifying that rates are cost-
based according to Prop 218 requirements. As a result of this rate study,there are cost-of-service based
adjustments to individual residential and commercial rates that better reflect the level of service based
on size and number of pickups per week.
The following sections summarize these results. More detailed tables showing the step-by-step
development of the analysis are documented in Appendix C—Additional Solid Waste Rate Study Tabtes.
Rate Study Methodology and Assumptions
The basic steps in a solid waste rate analysis are similar to that of the water and wastewater utilities but,
whereas water rates use a fixed charge plus a volume-related charge based on water consumption, solid
waste rates are determined by the fixed and variable costs based on the level of service provided to the
customer. The level of service refers to the number and size of containers, the number of pickups per
week, and the tonnage of waste collected.
Similar to the water and wastewater rate studies, the solid waste rate analysis addressed revenue
requirements and the cost-of-service and rate design analyses previously noted in Figure 2. In particular,
the cost-of-service analysis evaluated whether or not the current rates properly recover revenue from
each customer class, resulting in adjustments to individual rates attributable to their levels of service.
B. Solid Waste Utility Revenue Requirements
The solid waste utility's long-term financial needs are summarized in the 10-year financial plan in Appendix
C. It forecasts the amount of revenue needed to cover operating expenses, rolling stock replacements,
planned capital improvements, reserves, and other obligations. This plan is based on the Utility's current
operating budget and other planning projections, such as capital improvement projects and rolling stock
needs.The three basic objectives of the financial plan are:
Meeting Operating Costs: The solid waste utility must generate enough revenue to cover the
expenses of its operations, including transfer station and street sweeping services. For FY
2019/20, the net revenue requirement (i.e., total annual expenses, less non-rate revenues) is
approximately$17.7 million.
Meeting Capital Costs: The solid waste utility will need to fund approximately $1.7 million in
capital improvements over the next four years (see Appendix C, Table 14).
Maintaining Reserve Funds: The solid waste utility had a strong reserve fund balance of almost
$6.8 million at the start of FY 2019/20. Without the recommended rate increases, this balance
will dramatically decline over the next four years and the Utility would be faced with a deficit by
the end of FY 2022/23.
Prepared by NBS—February 2020 23
Final Utility Rate Program Update Report—City of Redding
As with the water and wastewater utilities,City staff worked with NBS to set the reserve targets according
to industry standards. The City recommended the following reserve levels that correspond to the Utility's
10-year financial plan:
Operating Reserve equal to 10% of the Utility's budgeted annual operating expenses less utility
expenses, such as tipping fees and administration costs. This reserve target is equal to a three-
month (or 90-day) cash cushion for normal operations.
Capital Reserve equal to 7%of net assets, which assumes an average asset life expectancy of 14
years.
Rolling Stock Reserve equal to the average annual rolling stock replacement costs of
approximately$1.5 million for the next four years.
Figure 20 summarizes the Utility's financial plan, including the sources and uses of funds along with the
estimated annual surplus assuming that rate increases are implemented. Figure 21 shows a summary of
the projected reserves for the solid waste utility.
Figure 20. Summary of the Revenue Requirements for the Solid Waste Utility
m m o � a � •Q
°-A � o a , M e � �
Sources of Solid Waste Funds
Rate Revenue Under Prevailing Rates $16,905,190 $16,960,702 $17,017,858 $17,076,658 $17,136,918
Fee Revenue 2,059,130 2,127,868 2,199,090 2,272,889 2,349,337
Other Revenue 1,547,160 1,552,180 1,557,348 1,562,664 1,568,113
Interest Earnings 161,740 122,017 90,354 83,582 84,765
Total Sources of Funds $20,673,220 $20,762,768 $20,864,650 $20,995,793 $21,139,134
Uses of Solid Waste Funds
Operating Expenses $20,136,650 $20,512,810 $20,610,470 $21,209,110 $21,821,640
DebtService - - - - -
Rate-Funded Capital Expenses 51,000 1,035,000 243,450 - -
Tota)Uses of Funds $20,187,650 $21,547,810 $20,853,920 $21,209,110 $21,821,640
..o�..J����ua�� vG���+��e����#�.IQI,�...I%rc�'4�i I��i��+1��..:::i.. !7 .."��O�J���,. +� ;.:'l�ct�yV�k���; �:� ....�...:������.....:�:..�����.SGJ:+�'IJ3���:.�;i�..�....<���rl�r'1���:
Additional RevenuefromRatelncreases $ - $ 286,329 $ 1,168,333 $ 1,788,027 $ 2,432,755
'....5�1�' '1�'s b�+fl�l�t"1Gy �ftt+��:Rat�"It'i�GC�.+�e��.'...:::: �`�,::;:::::.�85�5?t)'. +'�`i...:::::.�498��14 .."�":.1��.7��?�3,.,'�`�,�7�„i1tk,:<.:+�';::1,75t��2�48�
Projected Annual Rate lncrease 0.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00%
Cumulative Rate lncreases 0.00% 3.00% 6.09% 9.27% 12.55%
. ` �, ", �
; ti
Total Rate Revenue After Rate Increases $16,905,190 $17,247,031 $18,186,191 $18,864,685 $19,569,673
1.Total Use of Funds less non-rate revenues and interest earnings.This is the annual amount needed from solid waste rates.
Prepared by NBS—February 2020 24
Final Utility Rate Program Update Report—City of Redding
Figure 21.Summary of the Reserve Funds for the Solid Waste Utility
� W e � e a e
Operating Reserve
Ending Balance $ 6,833,634 $ 4,534,921 $ 3,813,984 $ 3,388,694 $ 3,138,942
Recommended Minimum Target 3,320,OOQ 3,447,QOQ 3,474,QOt� 3,57S,QQQ 3,677,000
Capital Rehab&Replacement Reserve
Ending Balance $ 868,550 $ 1,168,550 $ 1,462,000 $ 1,962,000 $ 2,011,000
Reeammended Minrmum Target 1,252,Q00 2,232,000 1,262,000 1,081,OQ0 1,034,000
Rolling Stock Reserve
Ending Balance $ 1,002,081 $ 1,427,935 $ 1,466,737 $ 1,382,273 $ 1,061,690
Recommended Minirrrum Target 7 1,Q02,0$1 1,427,935 2,466,737 1,382,273 1,Q61,69Q
T.�t�l Eridin 6alar>ce ''" .:� .:.:�,7U4,�f�r :� '7,��1,4(1� '$ . 6,?A��,�2� � 6,7��,9�i7. � 6,2�,���33
<.<7�c,tat Re�carxt�a��e�ed 1VFr`r�irraarm,7"c�rg�� � , __ >;: . ..` �< . �. .,.. �..
1.The RollingStock Reserve receives annual transfers-in to meet expenditures,sothe endingbalance is the target reserve.
A summary of the Utility's entire financial plan, including revenue requirements, revenue sources
(including rate revenue),and necessary rate increases, is presented in Appendix C. Summaries of the solid
waste utility's capital improvement program and rolling stock replacement plan are also included in
Appendix C.
C. Customer Class Characteristics and Cost-of-Service
Similar to the cost-of-service analysis for the water utility, the solid waste cost-of-service analysis relies
on specific allocation factors for each customer class and determines how costs are divided into various
types of service (e.g., collection, disposal, and transfer station). A detailed allocation of costs was
prepared based on input from City staff and a thorough review of collection,disposal,and transfer station
operations. Figure 22 through Figure 26 below summarize the basic allocation factors used in the cost-
of-service analysis.These figures also provide a comparison to the 2013-2015 annual averages used in the
previous rate study and indicate that commercial customers have significantly increased their level of
service compared to residential customers;this impacts the rate adjustments.
Figure 22.Summary of Solid Waste Tonnage Allocation Factors
. «
.
� e � � �, � �
. e . �
e . . . > � �
Residential 32,508 44% 28,459 48%
Commercial 30,522 41% 21,284 36%
Roll Off 9,414 13% 8,659 15%
Street Sweeper 1,138 2% 1,117 2%
Total 73,581 100'� 59,519 100%
75.0% Percent of TS greenwaste allocated to Residential Carts
Prepared by NBS—February 2020 25
Final Utility Rate Program Update Report—City of Redding
Figure 23. Comparison of Solid Waste Tonnages
Comparison of 2013-15 vs. 2016-18 Average Annual
Solid Waste Tonnages
35,000
32 508 1q�/ 30,522
30,000 28,459 Increase 43%
� Increase
� 25,000 21,284
0
�O 20,000 9/0
�
Increase
� 15,000
Q 10,000 8,659 9,414
5,000
Residential Commercial RollOff
�Avg.2013-15 Tonnage Avg.2016-18 Tonnage
Figure 24. Summary of Solid Waste Account/Pickups-Per-Week Allocation Factors
, a . , � ° �
• w � "��� � ���
.- . . � � �� � ����� �
" 0 ' �������������k���������n, ,uul� ��.
Residential(Includes Comm.Carts) 28,625 83% 30,415 88%
Commercial(Compactor&ContainerAccts) 4,541 13% 2,981 9%
Drop Boxes(No.of Unscheduled Pickups) 1,368 4% 1,311 4%
Total 34,534 100% 34,707 100%
Data is from source file: June 2028 Waste Wheeler Revenue.pdf and June 2018 Frxed Charge Report with notes.pdf.
Figure 25.Comparison of Solid Waste Account/Pickups-Per-Week
Comparison of 2013-15 vs. 2016-18 Average Annual
Solid Waste Accounts or Pickups
35,000
30,415
30,000 28 625
to 6%
� 25,000
� Decrease
�
�0 20,000
�
@ 15,000 52% 4%
Q' 10,00o Increase Increase
4,541
5,000 2,981
1,311 1,368
Residential Accts. Commercia)Pickups Roll Off(Pickups)
�Avg.2013-15 Accts./Pickups Avg.2016-18 Accts./Pickups
Since some of the solid waste operating costs are not easily allocated to the various types of services,the
average tonnage and the number of accounts/pickups were used to develop a combined allocation factor.
These factors are shown in Figure 26.
Prepared by NBS-February 2020 26
Final Utility Rate Program Update Report-City of Redding
Figure 26.Summary of Solid Waste Combined Allocation Factors
f 0 0 ^ B
� b 9
0 d 0 • 6 �
� e e
� W
Residential 44.2% 82.9% 57.0%
Commercial 41.5% 13.1% 32.0%
Roll Off 12.8% 4.0% 10.0%
Street Sweeper 1.5% 0.0% 1.0%
Total 100.0% 1�.0'� 100.0%
1.This is the weighted average of the Tonnage (2/3)and Accounts/pickups (1/3)factors.
In general, costs from street sweeping and recycling operations are not directly assigned to individual
customers through monthly rates, but instead are included in other rates based on the level of service
provided to each customer class.
Figure 27 summarizes the methodology and various allocations used for each customer class.
Figure 27.Summary of Solid Waste Allocation Methodology
a m , a � e
r
e m• •• a• e a a 'R � So r� r o 0
a e
550 Admin. ,y/� ti/` y�'� y� Avg.%of Tonnage&No.of Accounts
551 Residential Collection ,yI'� Customersserved
552 Commercial Collection y� Customersserved
553 Roll-OffCollection y�'� Customersserved
556 Resource Recovery y/�F y�` �/``F Avg.of Resid/Comm Accts.&Recy.tons
557 Transfer Station y'� y+� �/` y/f Annual T.S.Tonnage
558 Household Hazardous Waste y''� y+'� y� 6,886Resid.vs.186Comm.HHW customers
559 StreetSweeping ,y/r yJ MilesofStreetsSwept(46Res./54Comm.J
Less Non-Rate Rev. y/� y� y'� y/� Aliocated As All Operating Costs
The total revenue requirements for each customer class were calculated using the allocation factors and
target revenue requirements. Figure 28 summarizes these calculations and indicates that,overall,52%of
the rate revenue should be collected from residential customers, 38% from commercial customers, and
10%from roll-off customers. As noted previously, as a result of the cost-of-service analysis, adjustments
were made to both the amount of revenue required and the individual rates based on the level of service.
Figure 29 provides a comparison of the revenue currently collected by customer class and the costs
allocated to each customer class under the proposed rates. As this figure shows, residential customers
now pay a slightly smaller percentage of the total revenue requirements, commercial customers pay a
larger percentage under the proposed rates, and drop boxes pay less than their current revenue
requirement.
Prepared by NBS—February 2020 27
Final Utility Rate Program Update Report—City of Redding
Figure 28. Summary of Revenue Requirements by Customer Class
. �. :� v �
550 Solid Waste Administration' $ 1,633,029 $ 924,796 $ 284,203 $ 2,842,028 Avg.%of Tonnage&No.of Accounts
551 ResidentialColledion 3,261,958 - - 3,261,958 Customersserved
552 Commercial Collection Z - 3,262,949 - 3,262,949 Customers served
553 Roll-Off Collection - - 1,083,444 1,083,444 Customers served
552 CommercialContainerCosts - 78,490 78,490 156,980 50/SObetweencommercial&roil-offs'
556 Resource Recovery 3,370,701 1,530,925 80,575 4,982,200 Avg.of Resid/CommAccts.&Recy.tons
557 TransferStation 3 1,103,948 1,422,177 292,665 2,818,790 AnnuaiT.S.Tonnage
558 Hhld Hazardous Waste 497,629 15,391 - 513,019 6,886Resid.vs.186Comm.HHWcustomers
559 Street Sweeping 491,908 587,890 119,978 1,199,776 Mi/es of Streets Swept
Rate-FundedCapital 524,631 403,322 115,236 1,043,188 AliocatedAsAllOperatingCosts
Less Non-Rate Rev. (1,841,819) (1,504,037) (348,953) (3,694,809) Various-Changes by type of revenue
`� Adjusied to meet Target Rate Revenue
� `'�'� ``��'����� ``��',�'` ��' � `��� $ ��' 1T,469,5z4 Target Rev.(func.&Aliot.j
*Note:Total budgets byaccount number have been adjusted from"Net Revenue Reqt's."to 2019/20Target Rate Revenue reflecting recommended rate increases.
1. 46%ofthe StreetSweeping Costs in Admin.are allocated to Residential and 54%to Commercial.
2.7otal Commercial budgeted costs Iess sanitation containercosts.
3. 46%of the Street Sweeping Costs in TransferStation Expenses are allocated to Residential and 54%to Commercial.
4. Although there are fewer roll-offs,Citystafffelt an equal splitwas appropriate because oftheirlargersize and costvs.commercial containers.
Figure 29. Summary of Current vs. Proposed Revenue Requirements by Customer Class
s�� ^w a +° m• , ! e a 6 o e
Current Rates(FY 2019/20 Budgetj $ 9,075,093 $ 6,038,564 $ 1,847,045 $ 16,960,702
Proposed Rates(FY 2019/20) $ 9,041,985 $ 6,721,902 $ 1,705,638 $ 17,469,524
��,Z'c��, � 3 �. � ti
c
Current Rates-%of Total 54% 36% 12% 100%
Proposed Rates-%of Totat 52% 38% 10% 100%
D. Rate Design and Proposed Solid Waste Rates
Residential Container Rates—Based on the revenue requirements by customer class(see Figure 28), rate
design analysis determines the individual rates within each customer class. Figure 30 below summarizes
the calculations and basis for residential container rates. This includes various adjustments, such as the
inclusion of revenue from a second green waste cart.
Figure 28 also shows the residential programs costs, including the costs for recycling (resource recovery)
and the household hazardous waste program, and how these costs were allocated to each container size.
The recommended residential solid waste rates are provided in Figure 31. A comparison of the typical
single-family monthly solid waste bill with that of other communities is provided in Figure 32.
Prepared by NBS—February 2020 28
Final Utility Rate Program Update Report—City of Redding
Figure 30.Summary of Proposed Residential Container Rates
. o o-
. o - ,m-
����.�a "� �, �` � `��''� �' ��' � `
�
No.of Carts�Qnd.Comm.Carts)
Standard Service(All Carts) 981 4,269 23,375 28,625 From City's Waste Wheeler Revenue Report
AdditionalCart(Nolongeroffered) 0 0 0 0 (Adjustedtobettermatchcurrent'18/19raterevenueJ
Total No.of Carts 981 4,269 23,375 28,625
No.of°Equivalent Carts"3 461 2,860 23,375 26,696 45-gai.=47%of 96-gal.,64-ga1=67%of 96-gal.
No.ofLifts/yr. 50,990 221,973 1,215,523 1,488,486 Onelift/weekforallcontainers.
� �. �.
Admin.Costs $55,942 $243,528 $1,333,560 $1,633,029 Allocatedbynumberofaccounts
Residential Collection
CostofContainers°($/yr.) 170 1,054 8,616 9,840 Proportionaitocurrentcontainercosts.
CostofDisposal 259 1,607 13,134 15,000 Proportionaltonumberof"EquivalentCarts".
CostofCollections 110,801 482,341 2,641,301 3,234,443 Costaresameregardlessofsizecontainer.
ResourceRecovery 115,468 502,661 2,752,572 3,370,701 Costaresameregardiessofsizecontainer.
TransferStation 19,058 118,268 966,622 1,103,948 Proportionaltonumberof"EquivalentCarts".
HHWProgram 17,047 74,210 406,372 497,629 Costaresameregardlessofsizecontainer.
StreetSweeping 16,851 73,356 401,701 491,908 Costaresameregardiessofsizecontainer.
Rate-FundedCapital 17,972 78,236 428,422 524,631 Costaresameregardlessofsizecontainer.
(ess Non-Rate Rev.Credits (59,274) (265,223) (1,517,322) (1,841,819) Costare proportional to%of othercosts.
Add-back(NCC Surchargesi6 N.A. N.A. N.A. $ 2,675
Total Annual Costs $ 294,293 $ 1,310,038 $ 7,434,978 $ 9,041,985 '
less 2nd GW Cart Revenue' $ (8,952) $ (38,970) $ (213,399) $ (261,321)
Net Revenue from Rates $ 285,341 $ 1,271,068 $ 7,221,579 $ 8,780,663 ' L`�swr�s��as�.d���r Rtr�e�e�s��'ca��k�•�aa9,����
Total Costs($/mo./container) $24.25 $24.81 $25.74 $25.56 �'GS-�ac�f�crtrt. au�-Gerf�"e,r�t.' �v-�r�l C tsr,t
Fra artionaiN+ewRates� ; $23�16 $24.2Q $25.�? tt�k"�� If��!' f2��i�
dncrease vse 45-Gale Rafe lV..4. $1.05 $2.74
CaerrenY�ates $22.36 .�23.37 $25.01 1[N7;"o ?�Sra, ' .����°`�
%Otaer�as��+s.Currenf RoYes 3.6% ,�.6% 3.6%
1. Includes both residential and commercial cans(carts).
2.Source file:City's Waste W heeler Revenue Report for lune 2018 dated 07/03/2018(File:June 2018 Waste Wheeler Revenue.pdf).
3.Assumes a 45-gal.cart is 47%of a 96-gaI cart and a 64-gal.cart is 67%of a 96-gaI cart.
4. Budgeted cost for"Waste Wheelers."
5.Total Residential Collection budget less the cost of contai ners,disposal,and NCC charges.
6. Non-CurbsideCollection�NCC�surchargerevenueisassumedtobeaboutthesameandisdeductedfromtheCostofCollectionrevenuerequiremeMsandadded
back here.This cost is not induded when calculating residential rates.
7.AssumestheCitybeginschargingforthesecondgreenwastecartat$4.00/mo.andthecurrentnumberofGWcartsis5,077. Revenueisallocatedtoresidential
carts based on total carts in each size.
8.Thi s ma i nta i ns the cu rrent proporti ona I d i fferences between 45-,64-a nd 96-ga I I on ca rts.
Prepared by NBS-February 2020 29
Final Utility Rate Program Update Report-City of Redding
Figure 31. Current and Proposed Solid Waste Rates Fisca)Year 2019/20-2022/23
�ma -� �
� P d
! e Y 8 8 i 6
� r 'e ^t r e a e ` e II°, IB', !/°, if'.
Residential Wheeled Cart Monthly Rate 1
45-Gal Container $22.36 $23.16 $23.85 $24.57 $25.30
64-Gal Container $23.37 $24.20 $24.93 $25.68 $26.45
96-Gal Container $25.01 $25.90 $26.68 $27.48 $28.30
Additional Green Waste Container $4.00 $4.00 $4.00 $4.00 $4.00
landfill Monitoring ($0.22/month-no increases)
Automated Cart Special Collection Rate(per cart)
45-gal lon
Same Day(50%of monthly fee) $11.18 $11.58 $11.93 $12.28 $12.65
Not Same Day(65%of monthly fee) $14.53 $15.05 $15.50 $15.97 $16.45
64-gal lon
Same Day(50%of monthly fee) $11.69 $12.10 $12.46 $12.84 $13.22
Not Same Day(65%of monthly fee) $15.19 $15.73 $16.20 $16.69 $17.19
96-gal lon
Same Day(50%of monthly fee) $12.51 $12.95 $13.34 $13.74 $14.15
Not Same Day(65%of monthly fee) $16.26 $16.84 $17.34 $17.86 $18.40
1.Residential Service includes trash,recycling,and green waste containers.
Figure 32. Monthly Single-Family Solid Waste Bill Comparison with Other Communities
Nar-C�) ��gic�n�l Sc�Fid 1Na�te Mo. Bttl C�mparlsons(�Y'19f�fl� .
S�ngle ��mi�y Residenti�l(inclu€�ing refu�e�, recy�ling& ycrrc�wastej
,��.. �:.�. , . :a.,a,,��,..�. , �a�,l ,�����`$32.31
AC�Cat3 '�; $57.48 �:
$46.99
Et�pt.+�td ? $62.80
I , ,ti� � , � , �.���.. . . , , ..�. ..:: ..a ,�..< $90.96�'.
„S�1s35Y21 Lit�CE �. � $25�25 :
�`������������3���`���������������`��vv� $30.75
. ..... �.\�.. � ��� . . ... ..:� , . $31,41 _.-___. ....... �.: .._...__-._ __._..._.�:._._____ ���
�vc�r-��tavera�e ! � saa.�e �Solid Waste: 45 gallon or less�
� d �.`;�`,�',�ti' �,�, Sa6:�a
'Solid Wast�: 64 gallan'
ttreka szs.x5 �?Salid Waste: 96 gallon �
,��^ � �, sao.�s
.. v"���:���,.,�`'��`y�i"��\a.."iv,�, $23.16 i._......�._._�____._',_._. _�._�.W�__..r._.,.._�.,._._..._._, .�....�,
I�gdtiing(Prop6sed II '�° � nlndiCatesPriva�eSa(idWaste �� !
!Sza.zo
� 3Ya� �� ��,k�., a e � _ �Seruice Pravider '� ' � �
��>� � �� S2s.eo '�
� $2236
Reddir�g(Gurrent) , Szs.a�
�;'`a, `�`���`� �. Szs.oi
- R�i�Bll►{f ' �� � ��� 'I � $i590 .:
�.���;.�.�a�."�.�����`�"�'.,����.�,��."��.�.�'�.���..:`���.i��� $31.20
}kY{��K5Oi7 � � $20.20
'1��,����.�i`�'����..�. ���ti $21.72
�-' �z� Sa� �sa �sc� �a.00
Montht�rBil!
Prepared by NBS-February 2020 30
Final Utility Rate Program Update Report-City of Redding
Commercial Container Rates—Calculating commercial container rates involves first determining the cost-
of-service for specific service components, such as costs per container lift, costs per cubic yard of waste
collected, and costs for the containers themselves. Figure 33 summarizes these unit costs which are then
used to allocate the commercial revenue requirements to each level of service (i.e., size of container and
number of pickups per week).
Proposed commercial container rates are summarized in Figure 34.A detailed comparison of the current
and proposed rates indicates that costs are not equally distributed among individual services. As a result,
some types of services increased more than the average while others actually decreased.
Figure 33.Summary of Calculated Unit Costs for Commercia) Services
, v � a
,i
��BV�',�"�� 'I' ��
. �
. . ����� �� � �.� ti s Z, � e ,,���o,�. �� �s� �. �;���,� � ��� _-, �
�
.
�� � � , , �
�
Admin.Costs $ 924,796 190,745 Total Lifts/Yr. $4.85/lift App(ies to each lift regardless of containersize.
Commercial Collection Z
Cost of Containers 3($/yr.) 78,490 2,549 No.of Cont. $30.79/Cont./Yr Costs wilf be adjusted to account forsize.
Cost of Disposal 1,253,316 714,644 CY/Year $1J5/CY Proportionat to numberof"EquivalentCarts.,,
Cost of Collection 4 2,009,248 190,745 Tota)Lifts/Yr. $10.53/lift Appties to each tift regardless of containersize.
Total Comm.Collection 3,341,053 N.A. N.A. N.A.
Resource Recovery 1,530,925 190,745 Tota)Lifts/Yr. $8.03/Lift Applies to each lift,regardtess of containersize.
Allocated T.S.Costs 1,422,177 714,644 CY/Year $1.99/CY Proportional to numberof"EquivatentCarts."
HHW Program 15,391 190,745 Total Lifts/Yr. $0.08/Lift Appties to each tift,regardless of containersize.
Street Sweeping 587,890 190,745 Total Lifts/Yr. $3.08/Lift Applies to each tift regard(ess of containersize.
Rate-Funded Capital 403,322 190,745 Total Lifts/Yr. $2.11/Lift Appties to each tift regardless of containersize.
less Non-Rate Rev.Credits (1,504,037) 190,745 Total Lifts/Yr. ($7.89)/Lift Applies to each lift regard(ess of containersize.
Add-back(NCC Surcharges)5 $ 386 $386
Total Annual Costs 6 $ 6,721,902 $398
Total�ift Costs in$/Lift $26.8UJLift Cnst will be adjustecl based on contai»ersrzes.
Total Disposal Costs in$/CY $3,?4JCY
TotalContainerCostsin$/Container $3i1.7�Jtont./Yr Cast'witlbead}ustedbasedancontainersizes,
1. Includes onlycommercial containers thatare charged fees;excludes recyclingservices.
2. Includes additional carts and assumes a 64-gal.cart is 67%of a 96-gal cart.
3. Costs are those budgeted for"Sanitation Containers." Commercial and Roll-offs splitthis cost perCitystaff.
4. Total Commercial Collection budgetforCarts(vs.Compactors/Containers)less the costof containers and disposal.
5. Non-Curbside Collection(NCC)surcharge reveoue is assumed to be aboutthe same and is deducted from the Costof Collection revenue
requirement and added back here. This cost is not included when calculating commercial rates.
6. This does not reconcile with the summaryof costs due to adjustments forcontainer costs which are split between comm.&roll-offs.
Prepared by NBS—February 2020 31
Final Utility Rate Program Update Report—City of Redding
Figure 34.Summary of Commercia)Service Rates
i3z r }t��rzrzrzrzrzrzrzrz
�Y��Ic �}� F�i4����t} r� irt.1J}1{�1j2��¢s �}1��1
I��i,��J.�ris£�rtat4���3�a �S���usa� ���e�l�x��
i�}t�`�t(W��yi�t ��rr�t �y ft a t r
t � .��43:�{�k � �P� �hlt S kt f� 3 tt 2 y 1
e #t��i�i3�?.''�3� �t a3�I s�r.t�c} szjt t«f}ts������ '
.�t � t�y�I. �4��IS�','�fi�tl t j t?t�£ 1i t r�.
t:r.,t�„t�`` ��t;�ti ,zt��" a 1tis.7 �.�YJ?�fi�t,�ilj,�� ,
2.0 3 308 $16.37 $3.74 $18.82 $49.00 $169.85 $338.13 $506.42 $674,70 $842.98 $1,011.26
3.0 2 132 $19.10 $3.74 $28.24 $66.67 $231.13 $459.91 $688.69 $917.47 $1,146.24 $1,375.02
Front Load 4.0 7 617 $21.83 $3.74 $37.65 $84.35 $292.41 ;$581.68 $570.96 $1,160.23 $1,449.51 $1,738J8
Compactors S.0 0 0 $24.55 $3.74 $47.06 $102.03 $353.69 $703.46 $1,053.23 $1,403.00 $1,752J7 $2,102.54
6A 14 1,366 $27.28 $3.74 $56.47 $119.70 $414.97 $825.24 $1,?35.50 $1,645 76 $2,056.03 $2,466.29
8.0 0 0 $32J4 $3J4 $75.30 $155:06 $537.53 $1,068J9 '$1,600.04 $2,131.30 $2,662.55 $3,193.81'
Total 25 2,423
1.0 1 44 $13.64 $3J4 $9.41 $21:96 1$76.12 $151.46 $226.80" $302.14 $377.48 $452.82 =
1.5 438 24,939 $15.01 $3.74 $14.12 $26.12 $90.54 $ll9.90 $269.26` $358.63 $447.99 $537.35 %
2.0 531 31,152 $16.37 $3.74 $18.82 $30.28 $104.95 $208�34 $311.73' $415.11 $518.50 $621.88
Commercial 3.0 526 38,422 $19.10 $3.74 $28.24 $38:59 $133.79 $265.22 $396.65 $528:08 $659.52 $790.95 '
Containers
4.0 680 56,047 $21.83 $3.74 $37.65 $46.91 $162.62 $322.10 $481.58` $641!O6 $800.54 $960A2 -
6A 291 30,667 $27.28 $3.74 $56.47 $63:54 $220.2$ `$435.85 $651.43 $867:00 $1,082.58 $1,298.15
8.0 57 7,050 $32.74 $3.74 $75.30 $$0.18 $277.94 $549.61 ' $821.28 $1,092.95 $1;364.62 $1,636.29
Total 2,524 188,322
Grand Total-Commercial 2,549 190,745
1. Data was provided in the Solid Waste Fixed Charge Summary ReportforJune 2018 dated 07J03/2018. Source file: June 2018fixed Charge Report.xisx.
2.This is the adjusted cost per Iift and assumes that 50%of cost/Iift is related to container volume(it reflects higher cost of handling and fewer pickups per collection vehicle).
3. includesa25%surchargeforintermittentservice(vs.scheduled).
4. Rates are determined using liftcosts(times the numberof lifts),disposal costs(times the amountof disposal percontainer�,and containercosts�adjusted to accountforsize of container�.
Also,compactorrates were adjusted to reflectthe higherdisposal tonnages that resultfrom compaction vs.loose-fill waste in non-compactorcontainers.
Prepared by NBS-February 2020 32
Final Utility Rate Program Update Report-City of Redding
Roll-Off Container Rates - A similar analysis of roll-off containers was used to calculate the proposed
rates.
Figure 35 summarizes the roll-off costs by budget category, including adjustments for other revenues
collected outside the monthly service charges or per pickup charges. These were the adjustments
deducted from the rate revenues.
Roll-off services are primarily provided on an "as-needed,"or unscheduled, basis and consist of two basic
types of containers: (1) Roll-off Compactors,and (2} Roll-off Containers(i.e., non-compactor bins). Figure
36 summarizes the costs allocated to each type of container and each size of container, resulting in a rate
per lift (or pickup).
Figure 35. Summary of Roll-Off Service Costs
. mm- w
°W `I � 0 Y e t
550 Solid Waste Administration $ 284,203 $ (157,918) $ 126,285 Avg.%of Tonnage&No.of Accounts
551 Residential Collection - - - Customersserved
552 Commercial Collection - - Customersserved
553 Roll-Off Collection 1,083,444 (602,017) 481,427 Customers served
552 Commercial ContainerCosts 78,490 (43,613) 34,877 50/50between commerciai&roil-offs
556 Resource Recovery 80,575 (44,772) 35,803 Avg.of Resid/Comm Accts.&Recy.tons
557 Transfer Station 292,665 (162,620) 130,045 Annual T.S. Tonnage
558 Hhld Hazardous Waste - - - 6,886Resid.vs.186Comm.HHWcustomers
559 StreetSweeping 119,978 (66,666) 53,312 MilesofStreetsSwept
559 Rate-FundedCapital 115,236 (64,031) 51,205 AllocatedAsAllOperatingCosts
less Non-Rate Rev. (348,953) - (348,953) Various-Changes by type of revenue
�` � � ,�,, "� '`��` �� '�` � `����� ���`�� ��'�� °� � �`�� � �
1. FromSummaryof5olidWasteCostAllocationstoCustomerClasses,withoutadjustmentsfortonnagerevenues.
2. The Citycollects additional revenue from Roll-Offservices fortonnages overthe weight limits. This revenue,based on the current landfill
tippingfee of$82.50/ton,is deducted equallyfrom revenue requirements ofothercostcategories to calculate fixed charges.
3. Roll-Off Costs less Tonnage Adjustment.
Figure 36.Summary of Roll-Off Service Rates
, �. m
�{�� �Si' 14}?skt�y,�Sta� Jk{ti) }t}s t� t� � ; i�� {s at�� lf��:�tt� f��;ait
J `5SS 7 � ��zft�}���''"��4 e�1 43��i���ft�� �'� ��P����`�r t � £t
F���A� .? � i ��xsd�� ?it'sgib.i t `�rriirt} tf�.�ss r �� rjru�j�r� i Fit
�e� ,r� �'` ������
�,rs�r.ts`,11{�ilfj<i�>rrk4{r�'T�������$tc�;yi ,�11t�i�y�.�r�,��ts2�ss�,s'l�ii'? ��,.:E�3'�i�t u.irt.s. ��;:?,.
10.0 12 360 $1,342 $4,223 $666 $761 ($3,061) $3,931 $327.5�
zs.o 0 0< i Sn So r So $o So; So 53az o�
RoII-off ZOA 36 2,160 $4,025 $12,669 $3,997 $4,566 ($9,183) $16,074 $446.50
Compactors Z5.0 60 4,500 $6,708 $21,115 $8,328 $9,512 ($15,305) $30,358 $505.97
30.0 108 9,720 $12,074 $38,007 $17,988 $20,546 ($27,549) $61,067 $565.43
37.0 12 1,332 $1,342 $4,223 $2,465 $2,816 ($3,061) $7,784 $648.69
40.0 228 27,360 $25,490 $80,238 $50,632 $57,834 ($58,159) $156,036 $684.37
Totai-Compactors I 456 45,432 $SQ980 $160,476 $84,077 $96,034 ($116,318) $275,250
� 10A....��. 24 240 $2,683 $8.446 $444 $507 ($6.122) $5,959 ...$248.28.....�
Roli-Offs Z0.0 300 6,000 $33,540 $105,576 $11,104 $12,683 ($76,525) $86,378 $287.93
30.0 492 14,760 $55,005 $173,145 $27,315 $31,200 ($125,500) $161,164 $327.57
40.0 96 3,840 $10,733 $33,784 $7,106.31 $8,117 ($24,488) $35,253 $367.21
Total-RoII-Offs '�. 912 24,840 $101,961 $32Q952 $45,969 $52,507 ($232,635) $288,753 �
, . . , .. ... ...
^ , ,�. , , ti . ' ,, , 3_ .
GrandTotal '�.. '� 1,368 70,2'72 $152,941 $481,427 $130,045 $148,541 ($348,953) $564,003 �.:
rarger Re�enue Sa�z,�a �.a�a,��� �.�sa,v<as 9a���a� f.���+s,ss�l �s���o,�
1. Includes Container,Resource Recovery,Rate-Funded Cap�tal,and Street5weeping Costs.
2. Compactors are allowed an additional ton in theirmaximum weight limitvs.containers;additionally,mmpactorwaste is more dense. Therefore,rates reflect
highertonnages disposed from similarsire containers. This difference can onlybe estimated since actual weightdifferences of Compactors vs.Roll-0ffs
are unknown.
Prepared by NBS-February 2020 33
Final Utility Rate Program Update Report-City of Redding
Cannabis Rates—The City is implementing a cannabis program, like many other California communities,
and needs separate disposal rates for cannabis due to new State requirements on how it is handled and
disposed. Based on the cost information provided by the City, these rates were calculated using the
following components: (1)cost of the driver; (2)cost of the truck; and, (3) cost of disposal. The new rates
are shown in Figure 37.
Figure 37. Proposed Monthly Cannabis Rates
,. e A w o�
� � �� � ` � `�."��"�'
� �
��� �. �
Driver $45.00 hours 0.5 $22.50
Truck $10.00 hours 0.5 $5.00
Total (Driver&Truck)/pickup $27.50
Disposal $2.25 32 gal.bag 1 $2.25
w. . m � e. .� o a
t' � � � � ` ��.� ,� � ��
�
One 32 gal.bag $27.50 $2.25 $29.75
Two 32 gal.bag $27.50 $4.50 $32.00
Three 32ga1.bag $27.50 $6.75 $34.25
Four 32 gal.bag $27.50 $9.00 $36.50
Final Rate Adjustments—The solid waste rates for residential, commercial, and roll-off containers were
adjusted based on the cost-of-service analysis for FY 2019/20. After FY 2019/20, the annual 3-percent
rate increases were applied across-the-board through FY 2022/23. The detailed rates for commercia)
containers, roll-offs, and roll-off compactors are provided in Appendix C.
Prepared by NBS—February 2020 34
Final Utility Rate Program Update Report—City of Redding
.
Consultant Recommendations
This rate study reflects input from City staff and the Utility Rate Advisory Group and is intended to meet
the requirements of Proposition 218. Public hearings and protest balloting requirements are the next
steps required to complete the adoption and implementation process. As a part of this process, NBS
recommends the City take the following actions:
Approve and Accept This Study Report: NBS recommends the City Council formally approve and
adopt this report and its recommendations. This will provide the documentation and
administrative record necessary to adopt and implement the proposed rates.
� Implement Recommended Levels of Rate Increases and Proposed Rates: Based on successfully
meeting the Proposition 218 requirements,the City Council should proceed with implementing
the rate increases and rate structures recommended in this report for each utility over the next
four years (see Figure 10, Figure 17, Figure 28, Figure 29, Figure 32, and Figure 34, plus more
detailed solid waste rate tables in Appendix C). These rate increases are necessary to ensure the
continued financial well-being of the City's water,wastewater and solid waste utilities. No
structural changes are recommended for any of the utilities, although cannabis collection and
disposal have been added to the solid waste rates.
� Adopt Reserve Fund Targets: NBS recommends the City Council continue with the recommended
reserve fund targets for each utility presented in this report. While there are variations in reserve
targets used in the industry, those recommended in this report are intended to maintain and/or
strengthen the financial health of the utilities. The City should periodically evaluate reserve levels
with the purpose of maintaining the following levels for the Operating and Capital Reserves:
✓� Operating Reserves—90 days (i.e., 25%) of operating expenses for the water, sewer and
solid waste utilities, although City staff have decided to increase the operating reserves
for the water utility to 120 days and decrease for the solid waste utility to 30 days.
�' Capital Reserves —Three percent of net assets for the water and sewer utilities which
equates to a 33-year life expectancy of water and sewer assets and provides a reasonable
target for future planning purposes.
Next Steps
Annually Review Rates and Revenue — Any time an agency adopts new utility rates, those new rates
should be closely monitored over the next several years to ensure the revenue generated is sufficient to
meet the annual revenue requirements. Changing economic and drought-related water consumption
patterns underscore the need for this review, as well as potential and unseen changing revenue
requirements, particularly those related to environmental regulations that can significantly affect capital
improvements and repair and replacement costs.
Prepared by NBS—February 2020 35
Final Utility Rate Program Update Report—City of Redding
Principa) Assumptions and Considerations
In preparing this report and the recommendations included herein, NBS has relied on a number of
principal assumptions and considerations with regard to financial matters, including the City's utility
budgets, number of customer accounts,water consumption records,and other conditions and events that
may occur in the future. This information and these assumptions were provided by sources we believe to
be reliable, although NBS has not independently verified this data.
While we believe NBS' use of such information and assumptions is reasonable for the purpose of this
report and its recommendations,some assumptions will invariably not materialize as stated herein or may
vary significantly due to unanticipated events and circumstances. Therefore, the actual results can be
expected to vary from those projected to the extent that actual future conditions differ from those
assumed by us or provided to us by others.
Prepared by NBS—February 2020 36
Final Utility Rate Program Update Report—City of Redding
� 12
AAF Average Annual Fiow
AF Acre Foot,equal to 435.6 HCF/CCF or 325,851 gailons
Alt. Alternative
Avg. Average
AWWA American Water Works Association
BMP Best Management Practice
BOD Biochemical Oxygen Demand
CA Customer
CAP Capacity
CCF Hundred Cubic Feet(same as HCF);equal to 748 gallons
CCI Construction Cost index
COD Chemical Oxygen Demand
COM Commodity
Comm. Commercial
COS Cost of Service
COSA Cost of Service Analysis
CPI Consumer Price Index
CIP Capital Improvement Program
DU Dwelling Unit
Excl. Exclude
ENR Engineering News Record
EDU Equivalent Dwelling Unit
Exp. Expense
FP Fire Protection
FY Fisca)Year(e.g.,luly 1st to June 30th)
FY 2019/20 July 1,2019 through June 30,2020
GPD Gallons per Day
GPM Gallons per Minute
HCF Hundred Cubic Feet;equal to 748 gailons or 1 CCF
Ind. Industrial
Irr. Irrigation
LAIF Local Agency Investment Fund
Lbs. Pounds
MFR Multi-Family Residential
MGD Million Gallons per Day
MG/L Milligrams per liter
Mo. Month
Muni. Municipal
NH3 Ammonia
NPV Net Present Value
N/A Not Available or Not Applicable
O&M Operational and Maintenance Expenses
Prop 13 Proposition 13(1978)—Article XIIIA of the California Constitution which limits taxes on real
property to 1%of the full cash value of such property.
Prop 218 Proposition 218(1996)—State Constitutional amendment expanded restrictions of local
government revenue collections.
Req't Requirement
Res. Residential
Rev. Revenue
RTS Readiness-to-Serve
12 This section identifies abbreviations and acronyms that may be used in this report.This section has not been viewed,arranged,
or edited by an attorney,nor should it be relied on as legal advice.The intent of this section is to support the recognition and
analysis of this report. Any questions regarding clarification of this document should be directed to staff or an attorney
specializing in this particular subject matter.
Prepared by NBS—February 2020 37
Final Utility Rate Program Update Report—City of Redding
s � e
R&R Rehabilitation and Replacement
SFR Single Family Residential
SRF Loan State Revolving Fund Loan
SWRCB State Water Resources Control Board
TSS/SS Total Suspended Solids
V./Vs./vs. Versus
WWTP Waste WaterTreatment Plant
Prepared by NBS—February 2020 38
Final Utility Rate Program Update Report—City of Redding
TABLE 1: FINANCIAL P�AN AND SUMMARY OF REVENUE REQUIREMENTS
a
t : e ' a e f c f e i � f f . e f 1 e ° t
Sources of Water Funds
RateRevenueUnderPrevailingRates $ 22,557,780 $ 22,631,854 $ 22,708,121 $ 22,786,581 $ 22,866,991 $ 22,949,837 $ 23,035,120 $ 23,123,083 $ 23,213,970 $ 23,308,025 $ 23,405,491 $ 23,506,855
Non-Rate Revenue SOS,490 520,798 535,291 550,282 565,793 581,848 598,472 615,693 633,540 652,043 671,237 691,154
InterestEamings3 118,530 542,063 510,160 440,566 415,435 470,418 511,661 430,090 293,293 184,255 196,756 153,O1S
Total 5ources of Funds $ 23,184,800 $ 23,694,715 $ 23,753,572 $ 23,777,430 $ 23,848,219 $ 24,002,103 $ 24,i45,253 $ 24,168,867 $ 24,140,803 $ 24,144,322 $ 24,273,483 $ 24,351,028
Uses of Water Funds
Operati ng Expenses:
Personnel $ 4,347,930 $ 4,490,120 $ 4,717,040 $ 4,848,251 $ 4,993,699 $ 5,143,510 $ 5,297,815 $ 5,456,749 $ 5,620,452 $ 5,789,065 $ 5,962,737 $ 6,141,620
Operating&Materials(Moterials,Supplies&Svcs) 5,687,452 6,357,270 6,165,130 6,306,928 6,451,987 6,600,383 6,752,192 6,907,492 7,066,365 7,228,891 7,395,155 7,565,244
CostAllocation&InterdepartmentalCharges 5,059,740 5,062,220 5,464,530 5,609,340 5,757,988 5,910,574 6,067,204 6,227,985 6,393,027 6,562,442 6,736,347 6,914,860
Subtotal:OperatingExpenses $ 15,095,122 $ 15,909,610 $ 16,346,700 $ 16,764,519 $ 17,203,674 $ ll,654,467 $ 18,117,211 $ 18,592,227 $ 19,079,843 $ 19,580,399 $ 20,094,240 $ 20,621,724
Other Expenditures:
ExistingDebtService° $ 342,061 $ 354,924 $ 354,924 S 354,439 $ 355,895 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
FutureDebtService - - - - - - - - - - - -
Rate-fundedCapitalExpenses - - 190,974 3,7ll,372 2,546,505 2,933,132 2,515,503 7,491,144 15,118,606 17,728,746 24,347,000 23,25Q022
Subtotal:OtherExpenditures $ 342,061 $ 354,924 $ 545,895 $ 4,071,811 $ 2,902,401 $ 2,933,132 $ 2,515,503 $ 7,491,144 $ 15,118,606 $ 17,725,746 $ 24,347,000 $ 23,250,022
Total Uses of Water Funds S 15,437,183 $ 16,264,534 $ 16,892,598 $ 20,836,331 $ 20,106,074 $ 20,587,599 $ 20,632,714 $ 26,OS3,372 $ 34,198,449 $ 37,309,145 $ 44,441,240 $ 43,871,746
Plus:RevenuefromRatelncreasess 452,637 1,852,983 2,845,224 3,884,154 4,972,149 6,391,913 9,370,262 12,669,199 16,323,385 20,371,357 23,976,897
Increase/Decrease to Reserves $ 7,747,617 $ 7,882,818 $ 8,713,957 $ 5,786,323 $ 7,626,299 $ 8,386,653 $ 9,904,452 $ 7,455,757 $ 2,611,552 $ 3,158,562 $ 203,600 $ 4,456,179
' e , ,
Total Rate Revenue After Rate Increases $ 22,557,780 $ 23,084,491 $ 24,561,104 $ 25,631,805 $ 26,751,145 $ 27,921,986 $ 29,427,033 $ 32,493,345 $ 35,883,169 $ 39,631,410 $ 43,776,845 $ 47,483,752
F1'o]2#�dJ#n�dlRilteREVet7aattice�eaSE . a t�.flU�G � A.Dtl% �: 4.Ot�% �4.00% 4,0056'� . ..,.,.,.,...+�Ql?%� � ,,...S.il�96 . 3fJAD�' .,._.,.,...1D:ttD� ..,,,�1l.UU%. ...:.2R.tl�l26 S.i�i?9S
Cumulative Increase from Annual Revenue increases�� �� 0.00% 4.00% 8.16% 12.49% 16.99% 21.67% ����27J5% 40.52% � 54.58% ���70.03% � �87.04% 102.00%
DebtCoverage Without Rate increase� �3.64 2193 �' 20:86 �:19.78 18.66�: N/A N/A N/A 'N/A N/A N/A��. '.N/A<
DebtCovera eWithRateincreasefi � � 23.64 23.20 � 26.08 � 27.81 29.58� N/A � N/A N/A � � N/A � N/A N/A �N/A
1.Revenue forFY20ll/18&2018/19 is perthe City's Proforma(source file:REDDIN6_WaYerProformaforN85.x�sx)and expenses are perthe Citys 8udget(source file:REDDIN6_doc20190617092128(Water).pdf).
2.Revenue and expenses forFV2017/18are based on actuals.Source file:REDDING_WaterProformaforNBS.xlsx&REDDING_doc201906ll092128(Wa[erJ.pdf.
3.Interest Earnings are forOperating,Capital Rehabilitation&Replacement,and Pump House 1 Reserves.
4.Approximately49%of annual debtservice is allocated to waterrates;the remaining is allocated to capacityfees(new developmentj.
S.Initial rate increases are anticipated to be effective lanuaryistand lulylsteach yearthereafter.
6.Debtcoveragerequirementis115orgreaterperOfficial5tatement.Sourcefile:RfDDING_Woter&Wosiewo[er2013RefundingRevenueBonds.pdf.
Prepared by NBS-February 2020 39
Final Utility Rate Program Update Report-City of Redding
. _.
m •
TABLE 2: RESERVE FUND SUMMARY
t : � � e > e t w t e � � � c e . e • o
�.`l', � �� � ,� ;,, � ,�, ;�`. `c3. ,�, e4 ,,,� .�:a �' '�,�3' ��
e�
BeginningReserveBalance� $ 4,770,635 $ 5,031,707 $ 5,303,203 $ 5,448,900 $ 5,588,ll3 $ 5,734,558 $ 5,884,822 $ 6,039,070 $ 6,197,409 $ 6,359,948 $ 6,526,800 $ 3,904,010
PIus:NetCashFlow(AfterRatelncreases) 7,747,617 7,882,818 8,713,957 5,786,323 7,626,299 9,057,854 11,683,887 9,378,329 3,608,824 3,184,924 (860,645) 4,042,931
Plus:Expected Savings @ 1.5%Pers/O&M 150,531 162,711 163,233 167,328 171,685 176,158 180,750 185,464 190,302 195,269 200,368 205,603
Plus Expected Savings @ 3%Capital 53,894 305,703 410,913 342,755 207,177 269,615 270,394 456,512 635,691 549,609 769,813 697,501
PIus:TransferofDebtReserveSurplus - - - - - - - - - - - -
Less:Transfer Outto Pump House 1 Fund 3 $ (1,353,467) $ (1,385,069) $ (1,473,666) $ (1,537,908) $ (1,605,069) $ (1,715,591) $ (1,833,894) $ (1,960,556) $ (2,096,199) $ (2,315,161) $ (2,557,326) $ (2,825,242)
Less:TransferOuttoRollingStockReserve $ (175,000) $ (175,000) $ (175,000) $ (175,000) $ (175,000) $ (175,000) $ (ll5,000) $ (ll5,000) $ (ll5,000) $ (ll5,000) $ (175,OOO) $ (ll5,000)
Less:TrensferOuttoCapitalReplacementReserve (6,162,502) (6,519,666) (7,493,739) (4,444,224) (6,078,708) (7,462,772) (9,971,889) (7,726,411) (2,001,079) (1,272,790) - -
;�rri�J'�13p�tatii3'r,�R�sarvrBclance.�... .� .��vD32�tlT::' .:���u3U3,2Q3 �;....\�','�«f,����U6 $��\�584.�7'3 =< ` ..,3734,558.'� `.�.SS848�7 "$.��`S,Y?39Y77(i'. .��....... b`��9�?'}U�.. "�..6,359�AS::`$:.:�6;.��6�UU� ,\\��.�;�iYlA,���7 •°.�548'8Q3=�.
oa.o.: S.. . . �.... . �... , . .`�. , � . ��. �v . �. , r. ,... . $� < �._ . �"a , ,.
TargetEndingBalance,120daysOpe�atingExpenses° S 5,031,707 S 5,303,203 �S 5,448,900 $� 5,588,173 $� 5,734,558 �$ 5,884,822 $ 6,039,070 $�� 6,197,409 $ 6,359,948� $ 6,526,800 $ 6,698,080 $ 6,873,908��
BeginningReserveBalance $ 14,279,789 $ 18,645,837 $ 14,975,393 $ 8,963,O1S $ 5,699,459 $ 7,418,764 $ 8,827,512 $ 11,670,831 $ 9,960,162 $ 3,978,535 $ 3,605,700 $ 2,203,166
Plus:Grant Proceeds - - - - - - -
Plus:Transfer of Operating Reserve Surplus 6,162,502 6,519,666 7,493,739 4,444,224 6,078,708 7,462,772 9,971,889 7,726,411 2,001,079 1,272,790 - -
Less:Useof Reserves for Capital Projects (1,796,454) (10,190,110) (13,506,114) (7,707,782) (4,359,403) (6,054,024) (7,125,570) (9,437,079) (7,982,706) (1,645,624) (1,402,534)
�rrdir�Go�rttat&&�g��erue 8olt�xres � $ 28 G�3837 $,�!�,4�5,�93°..� 8,$E3 t7,�8�.<$ .'f,899,�9°�.<� ;7&28,76�k�.$ 8;���,5��`.._$ 1�„6T(��32 �� 9,96t�1B2 y� �3,978,335 $ 3�+63,7Uv $ .�,�(!,?16& � 2 2v3;1S6
TargeE Ending Bafance,5%Minimum of Toto!Expenses' S 1,334,526 $ 1,589,520 $ 1,469,279 $ 1,255,235 $ 1,3A0,057 $ 1,36A,7A1 $ 1,698,9A2 $ 2,233,751 $ 1,977,A56 $ 2,332,911 $ 2,203,?66 $ 2,273,686
mt � �•�� � i er e :e
�c• � :e .� � •e
Ending Surplus/(De�citJ us.Minimum Reserve Targets $ 17,311,312 $ 13,385,883 $ 7,493,738 $ Q444,223 $ 6,078,707 $ 7,462,771 $ 9,972,888 $ 7,726,410 $ 2,001,079 $ 1,272,789 $ (2,794,O70J $ (1,09Q614/
DoysCosh on Hand 560 456 325 241 274 305 357 32S 198 189 121 143
a
BeginningReserveBalances $ 729,747 $ 491,308 $ 569,091 $ 623,106 $ 522,977 $ 648,762 $ 705,540 $ 767,265 $ 856,920 $ 845,495 $ 1,033,889 $ 1,225,268
PIus:SaleofRollingStock 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 2,500 2,500 2,500 2,500 - -
PIus:TransferofOperatingReserve5urplus 175,000 175,000 175,000 175,000 175,000 175,000 175,000 175,000 175,000 175,000 175,000 175,000
PIus:InterestEarnings 11,561 7,783 9,015 9,871 8,285 10,278 11,225 12,155 13,575 13,394 16,379 19,411
Less:Useof Reserves for Vehicle Purchase (435,000) (115,000) (140,000) (295,000) (60,000) (125,000) (130,000) (100,000) (200,000) - - -
,.�mdin�gRi+fli+5�3tz+c�it,R?F,eCu2'$riftrnce"� � $ 491,3f��'$ 5ii9,lt�Y'..;;� 623`,3176�,$` 3�2$7� GA�,#GZ��.... 70$,i4p.:: �67„�S5
°:� � '�� � sss,�ao.'� s�s,aas � s,qs�,sa� `�' �,a���ss'S �:�s�sz�:`
TargetEnding8alonce� $ 510,000 $ 520,000 $ 530,000 $ 540,000 $ 550,000 $ 560,000 $ 570,000 $ 590,000 $ 610,000 $ 630,000 $ 650,000 $ 670,000
BeginningReserveBalancea $ 9,186,029 $ 10,539,496 $ 11,924,565 $ 13,398,231 $ 14,936,140 $ 16,541,208 $ 18,256,800 $ 11,258,694 $ 4,387,249 $ 2,409,123 $ 2,376,522 $ 2,487,628
Plus:Transfer of 6%rate revenue 1,353,467 1,385,069 1,473,666 1,537,908 1,605,069 1,715,591 1,833,894 1,960,556 2,096,199 2,315,161 2,557,326 2,825,242
less:Useof Reserves for Capital Purchase - - - - (8,832,000) (8,832,000) (4,074,325) (2,347,762) (2,446,221) -
�r�dirtgPumpH�u�ettresen�eBaln{+ce �,�t�539�196^$,�3,�,�A"�&5 $ 1���$,��3 � 1¢,4.�fi34it` � �Ba�d1,2D$�„$ 9Y.256,8U1!'..� 32,2�8,89-0,«$ 4„3872+A�,� 2��[7#;123:S.'2,376,522 $�� .2.9876�28 $ S.>1�`8��1
Tar etEndin eolance' S - 5 - 5 - 5 - 5 - 5 - 5 - 5 - 5 - 5 - S - S -
Prepared by NBS-February 2020 40
Final Utility Rate Program Update Report-City of Redding
� e
TABLE3: RESERVEFUNDSUMMARY,cont.
�
e : e • e a a t e a ' � , e . , B : 1 ` B
`� � ...� � ��'�a`,� � � w'ti `�ye�� '� a' , 1�.,� �'�.s�,� �Q.
�
e-
BeginningReserveBalance $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
Plus:interestEarnings - - - - - - - - - - - -
I.ess:TransferofSurplusto0peratingReserve - - - - - - - - - - - -
F�dattg77eb#1t�se?'�e&7tGAc� ��' S ^ $ <.. ., ,� . $ . 5 � �+<<� ^. �f . ,��� ;:� . $ . :#.<<< � S
Targerendingsalance S - S - S - S - S - S - S - S.. - S - S - S - S -
BeginningReserveBalance $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $
PIus:SRFLoanFundingProceeds - - - - - - - - - - - -
PIus:Revenue Bond Proceeds - - - - - - - - - - -
I.ess:Use of Bond&Loan Funds for Capital Projects - - - - - - - - - - - -
`y � , � �
TargerEndingealance $ - S - $ - $ - $ - $ \ $ - $ - s - $ - S - $ -
BeginningReserveBalance10 $ 1,867,057 $ 2,185,368 $ 2,440,579 $ 1,637,199 $ 1,409,408 $ 1,437,201 $ 2,376,124 $ 3,396,839 $ 4,504,326 $ 1,608,719 $ 1,434,685 $ 2,087,899
Plus:impact Fee Revenue 770,370 825,659 883,977 938,258 1,002,825 1,070,881 1,142,594 1,ri8,142 1,306,362 1,399,435 1,506,901 1,620,394
Plus:interestEamings 29,578 34,620 38,663 25,936 22,328 22,768 37,642 53,812 71,357 25,485 22,728 33,076
�ess:Use of Reserves for Debt Fundi ng (362,639) (376,276) (376,276) (375,761) (377,305) - - - - - - -
I.ess:Use of Reserves for Capital Projects (122,679) (235,870) (1,391,490) (841,468� (639,232) (159,511) (164,455� (169,553) (4,405,492) (1,648,406) (903,521) (191,576)
Plus:Expected Savings @3%Capital 3,680 7,076 41,745 25,244 19,177 4,785 4,934 5,087 132,165 49,452 27,106 5,747
pt�d3nghnpaciFee,Fund�rrlar+�.., ,:.� ���5,3�i8 $ �;�&fT,SY�",� 1,8�7,499� � ;�,�PB,GU� $ ��.1,4�7,21� $ 2,378,�24�.$ �,��G83Q' $ .�3(t*�,�36 S i�&tl,��9'$ ,ix�r6�5,;.<�5' 2,0$7,$9�' $ 3f�55,r+3�
Annual interest Earnings Rate jl 1.58% 1.58% 258% 1.58% 1.58% 1.58% 1.58% 1.58% 1.58% 1.58% 1.58% 1.58%
1. BeginningcashbalanceforFiscalYear20ll/18isperFY2016/17CAFR.Sourcefile:REDDING_CAFRFYEJune30,2017.pdf,page46.
2. Beginning Operating Reserve balance forPY20ll/18 is the totai beginning cash netof cash allocated to reserved funds via proforma.Source file:REDDING_WoterProformaforNBS.xlsx.
3. 6%of alI rate revenue is allocated to the Pump Nouse 1 reserve until FY 2029/30when project is mmpleted.
4. TheCitymaintains90daysor25%ofOperatingExpensesasanOperatingreserve.
5. The Citymaintains a 5%minimum reserve requirementforCapital Rehabilitation and Replacement.
6. Beginning Rolling Stock Reserve balance for FY 2017/18is perwaterproforma.Source file:REDDING_WaterProformaforNBS.xlsx.Citypolicyis to transfer6%of rate revenue to the Pump House 1 reserve fund.
7. Target balance forthe rolling stock reserve is setequal to$SOOK.
8. BeginningPumpHouselReservebalanceforFY2017/18isperwaterproforma.Sourcefile:REDDING_WaterProformaforNBSxlsx.
9. Target balance for Pump House 1 Reserve is zero.Requested explanation from the City.
10.8eginninglmpactFeeReservebalanceforFY2017/18isperwaterproforma.Sourcefile:REDDiNG_WaterProformaforN85.xlsx.
11.Interest earning rate based on the City's Pooled Cash Interest Rate.Source file: Oecember2018_IntEaming.pdf.
Prepared by NBS—February 2020 41
Final Utility Rate Program Update Report—City of Redding
� e
water Revenue Requirementsvs. Water Utility-Ending Cash Balances vs.
Revenue Under Existing and Increased Rates Recommended Reserve Targets
Recommended Rate Scenario $so,000.000
,,, $60 mil ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... .., ,.,..
'���, '���, '���,. �Ending Gash Balance '���..
',,. $50 mil ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ,,$25.000,000 ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... C_7Rolling Stock Reserve ..._ ,
'��., '��, • �Minimum Target Reserve Balance �'��..
,,, ,,, �.�• '�.
e .
� ��.� ,S2Q000,000 ..... ..... ..... ..._ ..... ..... ..... .....
,,. $40mi1 ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... - ...•. ,�..
• �
,.o , ��. �� ..
« ' ' "
� •
m � •
,,.a$30 mil ..... _. ___. ♦__•.. '1 . . ' ..'m� ,$15,000,000 ..... - ..... ..... ..... ,
o � • • � � , � ,,.
— ......... ,� �.e ,���..
� .
c
� . .�� . .. .. �, .
aS2o mu . : ; $10,000,000
'��.. 0 Reserve Funded Cap tal Expenses ''�..
'�, �Rate funded Capital Expenses �'��..
'�, L.�.�7 Rolling Stock Expenses ''�..
'..,. $10m11 Deb[Service ...,. $5,000,000 ',.
'��, ���� 0&M Expenses ''�..
'�, �Revenues under Existing Rates �'��..
�'��. > RevenuesunderincreasedRates ''�..
',,. $mll ..: _, , .• .: ',, $� _: , , ��'��..
''���.. 2019 2020 � 2021 2022 2023 2024�� 2025 ��� 2026 ��� 2027 �� 2025 2029 �� 2030 2079 2020 2023 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 �'��..
'���,. Fiscal Year Ending lune 30 Fiscal vear EndinB nne ao �'���..
Number of Days Cash on Hand Projected Increases to Rate Revenue
',,. 600 ..... ..... ..... ..... ..._ ,.,
......... �� ... �Days�Cash on Hand ........ 71% ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..._ �,�...
�....... . .� �120 Day Operating Reserve Target ���.. 10.00% 10.00% 10.00%I ���..
........ 500 ��. ..... ..... ..... ..... . . . . 150-Days Cash on Hand 70% .... ... ... .... ... ... .... ,�..�,.
�
9%
= 400 � � __ ____. ____. ____. _... ..... ..... ..... $�^ .. __ __ _. __ __ ___.
� � �% . 6.SOf 6.�t1'� 6.�0/ 6:50/
� ,
u � �
� � 6^/0
>300 — — �. ..... ..... .....
I � � '� � . . � ....�� . 5� � �'�
� ��� � ,, � ����� 4.00% 4.00% 4.00% 4.00% ��
��� � � _' � � _� � � a� ��
� zoo � � �� � � � ��
_ ��� � � �� � � � ,
.
. � . �. •� , .�. � '. A •��'�, . . . . . . 3% ....
I � \ l �• � F
z
y \ 2% '
100 � �- �—� � � �� �� � � �� 1% - '��
����� ��� ,� ���� � �� _�� �� _�\ � ��� �� o� .
''.... � .... 2019 ... 2020 � 2021 .... 2022 � 2023 � 2024 ... 2025 ... 2026 ... 20D .... 2028 � 2029 ... 2030 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 � 2025 ... 2026 2027 2025 2029 2030 '.,.
, Fiscal Year Ending lune 30 �..
'��, Fiscal Year Ending lune 30 ���..
Prepared by NBS—February 2020 42
Final Utility Rate Program Update Report—City of Redding
� e
TABIE 11: CAPITAL PUNDING SOMMARY
� e�
� i : a ^ i e � e o i a , a � , � e ; � • a
Grants $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
Use of Impact Pee Reserves 124,714 122,679 235,870 1,391,490 841,468 639,232 159,511 164,455 169,553 4,405,492 1,648,406 903,521 191,576
SRFloanfunding - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Use of Future Revenue Bond Proceeds - - - - - - - - - - - -
UseofCapitalRehabilitationandReplacementReser 2,351,742 1,796,454 10,190,110 13,506,114 7,707,782 4,359,403 6,054,024 7,128,570 9,437,079 7,982,706 1,645,624 1,402,534 -
Rate Revenae 190,974 3,717,372 2,SG6,505 2,933,132 1,884,573 5,779,982 13,206,988 16,674,683 2R,257,915 23,250,022
�OtalSvuK�S .�4d�IFU�rd3 � $ 8��5� � .5,41913� .<$ tt�42�,�J�� � lS�iB$,57$:$ '��i�'66,62�' $ ��545.1AU ,$ ..9146�67 $ ��917�599'$ 1��$6,6i5:� 25.535,�86=$ 99 ��,�14 $ 365�3,9?0� $ 23�4�^59$�
Total ProjedCostr $ 2,476,456 $ 1,919,133 $ 10,425,980 $ 15,088,578 $ 12,266,623 $ 7,545,140 $ 9,146,667 $ 9,177,599 $ 15,386,615 $ 25,595,SS6 $ 19,968,714 $ 26,563,970 $ 23,441,595
;��GPltb��t7tidiflgS4YYplttS!)2�7t7Elt.� ::.� ��. ^ �':� .'` �� - '� ._ " � . ._,,..ri` - ,� .- �J .....�. � :' ,�` : :-:+�` ,:' - .{, ..:,�{+ ,.
SRF Loan iunding $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $
Future Revenue Bond Proceeds $ • $ - $ - $ - $ • $ • $ - $ - $ - $ • $ • $ - $
TABLE 14: EXISTING DEBT OBIIGATIONS
/ •e B
1 6 : 8 ° / @ 0 & / 1 t � S i . 8 8 : 1 ° 0
WaterShareRefundineRevenueBonds 20135eries1
Principal PaymentZ $ 555,000 $ 570,000 $ 625,0�0 $ 650,000 $ 675,000 $ 705,000 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
InterestPayment 156,900 134,700 106,200 81,200 55,200 28,200
Subtotal:Annual Debt Service $ 711,900 $ 704,700 $ 731,200 $ 731,200 $ 730,200 $ 733,200 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $
CoverageRequirement�$-Amntaboveannualpayment�3 $ 889,875 $ 880,875 $ 914,000 $ 914,000 $ 912,750 $ 916,500 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
ReserveRequirement�totalfundbalance)° $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - S - $ - $ -
Grand Totai:Existing�Annual DebtSeruice $ 71Y,900 $ �.` 704,700 `$ 731,200� $ 731;200 $ 73Q200 $ 1733,200 $i =:�. $ - $ - $ -�. - $�3 -�; $ '.- $
Debt Seraice Allocated to Rate Revenue $ 345,556 $ �: 342,061 '$ 354,924: $ 354;924 $ 354,439 $ �:355,895 $'. -:' $ - $ - S ': - $:: -�: $ ':- $
Debt Service Allocated to Wastewater Utility:' $ 366,344 $ �:�. 362,639 :$ 376,276'�. $ 376;276 $ 375,761 $ ::377,305 $�: -'; $ - $ - $ ; - $r: -��: $ '.:- $
Grand Total:Facisting:Annual Cove�age Requirement $ :889,875 $ -880,875 :$ 914,000: $ 914;000 $ 912,750 $ d 916,500 $�: -��:�� $ • $ - $ r. - $�: -.$ f- $
Grand Total:Existin'��:Debi Reserve Tar et $ - $ I'. - -$ •: $ - $ - $ �:�: - $; -' $ • $ • $ ��. - $l'� -4 $ - $
1.Official Statement describes the bond was used to refund 2003A Water Certificates&2002 Wastewater Certificates.Source file: Woter&Wostewoter2013 Refunding Revenue Bonds,page 5.
2.FullDebtServiceSchedulefromOfficialStatement.Water'ssharedevelopedasnetofWastewaterpayment.Sourcefiles: Woter&Was[ewoter2013RefundingRevenuebonds,pogeSandWastewoterDebtServire,pogel.
3.Netrevenuesmustbe atleastequalto1.25timestheannualdebtservicepayment.Sourcefile: Woter&Wastewater2013RefundingRevenueBonds,pagel0.
4.Therearenoreservefundrequirementsforthisdebtissuance.Sourcefile: Water&Wostewoter2013RefundingRevenueBonds,pogell.
Prepared by NBS-February 2020 43
Final Utility Rate Program Update Report-City of Redding
� e
TABLE 20: ADJUSTMENTS TO CLASSIFICATION OF EXPENSES
e • e•
" a e • e ea
� a n • •
Target Rate Rev.After Rate Increases** $ 23,537,128
Projected Rate Revenue at Current Rates 22,631,854
Rate Increase(FY2019/20J 4.0°0
l�+djUSted Net Ft�VenUe R�q`t5 $ ; 23,53�,12$, � $,39�,4�2 $ 12,652,37� $ 2i4$$,357
Percent of Revenue 35.7% 53.8°0 20.6%
Uariable{Uc�lumetricl2at�s) ,�5:7t'
Fixed�harges 6�.3�6,'
**Proposed FY2019/20 rates are effective January 1,2020.Assume 12 months of revenue vs. the partial revenue shown in the financial plan.
TABLE 21 : CURRENT RATE DESIGN-NET REVENUE REQUIREMENTS
' e °� 0- a � e �a .�. ^ e • - a
at' •� al' a ra •a -e 0 R e
Rate-Design Adjustments to Fixed/Variable% 100% 60.0% 29.4% 10.6%
Rate-Design Adjustments to Fixed/Variable($) $ 23,537,128 $ 14,122,277 $ 6,926,495 $ 2,488,357
Variable(Volumetric Rates} 60%
Fixed Charges 40%
Prepared by NBS—February 2020 44
Final Utility Rate Program Update Report—City of Redding
� e
t�. ����,� �� �„ �� �
��` '�. ' �... `:. � \ � �,� �.�� ��� � .., � *�
�� ��� ��, ��, � , � � � b�`*� � �
Rate-Design Adjustments to Fixed/Variable% 100% 55.0% 34.4% 10.6%
Rate-Design Adjustments to Fixed/Variable($) $ 23,537,128 $ 12,945,421 $ 8,103,351 $ 2,488,357
Variable(Volumetric Rates) 55%
Fixed Charges 45%
Alternative#3-Net tieuen+�e Rec�uirements Tc�#al Rate Fteverrue Commodity Capacity Relat+�d Custorner Related '
(64l�ixec!/36�1/ariable) R�quirements�Y Related Costs Costs Costs
Rate-Design Adjustments to Fixed/Variable% 100% 36.0% 53.4% 10.6%
Rate-Design Adjustments to Fixed/Variable ($) $ 23,537,128 $ 8,473,366 $ 12,575,405 $ 2,488,357
Variable(Volumetric Rates) 36%
Fixed Charges 64f
� �� � � � � � � � � �. . �
l � z ��' \ � �
Rate-Design Adjustments to Fixed/Variable% 100% 29.0% 60.4% 10.6%
Rate-Design Adjustments to Fixed/Variable ($) $ 23,537,128 $ 6,825,767 $ 14,223,004 $ 2,488,357
Variable(Volumetric Rates) 29%
Fixed Charges 71%
Prepared by NBS—February 2020 45
Final Utility Rate Program Update Report—City of Redding
� e
TABLE 25:AILOCATION Of WATER REVENUE REQUIREMENTS
�� � � � � � � � � � � � � �� � � Q. �.����,
AlternatiVe#3-Net Reuenue ����������k�, �� �
� r�
� s , ' � � .� �� Requiremen#s �`�����
•a . a � ��
..� e �
. . . , ., • . ., . a ti , , °. -m '. . {64°10 Fixed/3590 Vari�b(e� �1
�
, � � �
�3�`�
��� 4..�� e, , � : �� 'a. .`�'� .& 4I�,��1`��„��1��",���\4\�����'��`���
e a o e P a e o
Commodity-Related Costs Variable $ 14,122,277 60.0% $ 12,945,421 SS.O% $ 8,473,366 36.0% $ 6,825,767 29.0%
Capacity-Related Costs Fixed 6,926,495 29.4% 8,103,351 34.4% 12,575,405 53.4% 14,223,004 60.4%
Customer-Related Costs Fixed 2,488,357 20.6% 2,488,357 10.6% 2,488,357 10.6% 2,488,357 10.6%
N€t R�venue fte �uirerr�ent $ 23,537,12� 1UU9p $ 23,537,128 2U�9�a ` $ 23,��7.128 .�0�% $ 23,537,128 317(?9a <
1. To make sure rates are based on the full net revenue requirements,these rates assume 12 months of revenue vs.the 6 months of revenue shown in the financial plan.
Prepared by NBS—February 2020 46
Final Utility Rate Program Update Report—City of Redding
� e
TABLE 27:AILOCATION OF ADJUSTED NET REVENUE REQUIREMENTS
,.i.... �.s.,��.�.�.�.�.�.�.�.�.�.�.�.�.�.�.�.
SingleFamily $ e 8,480,788 $ 4,393,343 $ 2,028,251 $ 14,902,383 63.3%
Multi-Family 1,517,340 580,904 187,743 2,285,957 9.7%
Commercial 2,179,134 935,703 182,875 3,297,715 14.0%
industrial 643,061 356,847 32,492 1,032,401 4.4%
instimtional 1,301,952 659,698 56,992 2A1S,643 8.6%
Ybtal" � $ 1t,i22;2'"!7 $ 6.*�36.455 ��- 2JYE&.35��: $ 23,S3Y,Yt$ �-" id0.0"/a �.
Tatal�iol.8nd FPxO[i#zt8 h0W �,$,54.12�,277 ' '3.314.$^�1 ;.'$ �3,8'3`i.228 -
1.This total is higherthan shown in the financial plan,which refiects revenue expected fora partial Y�ar,whereas thc reven�e used to
set rates needs to assume an entire year of rate revenue.
TAeLE 28:CALNLATION OF MONTHLV FIXED METER SERVICE CHARGES
SingleFamily� 22,855 - 481 4 6 - - - - 23,346
Multi-Family 1,075 457 424 81 109 7 2 6 - 2,161
Commerciai 976 284 383 171 257 23 9 1 - 2,104
Industriai 178 63 62 25 42 1 1 1 - 373
Institutional 256 84 93 56 122 23 11 6 4 655
To2at MeterslAccatrt�zs� 25�340 888 S A43�...., � 337 936 54 23 14 4 � 2$.639�.:.
HydraulicCapacity Fpcior 3 I.00 1.50 2.50 5.00 8.00 26.00 25.00 50.00 80.00
Total Equivalent Meters 25,340 1,332 3,608 1,685 4,258 S64 5�5 700 320 35,712
Monthly Fixed Service Charges
Customer Costs($/Acct/mo.)° $7.24 $7.24 $7.24 $7.24 $7.24 $7.24 $7.24 $7.24 $7.24
CapacityCosts(S/Acct/mo.)s $14.91 $2237 $37.28 57455 $119.25 $235.57 $372.76 $745.53 $1,192.84
Tatal Mernfhl Me#er Char $�t,3S $29.81 $44.52'.. - �$8i.79 , $126,52 $2k9.81 $38U.OU $?52.97 � $1�OP.US
Annual�Fixed Costs Aliowted to Monthiy Meter Charges
Customer Costs $ 2,4SS,357
Ca pa ci ty Costs&Fi re Cos ts 6,926,495
Total Fixed Meter Costs $ 9,414,851
Annual Revenue from Monthly Meter Charges
CustomerCharges $ 2,201,716 $ 77,156 S 125,375 $ 29,251 $ 46,571 $ 4,692 $ 1,995 $ 1,216 $ 348 $ 2,488,357
CapacityCharges 4,533,985 235,329 645,476 301,490 767,235 154,592 102,882 125,245 57,256 6,926,495
Totai Revenue from Manthly N$ 6,735,702 $ 315,485 $ 770,854 $ 330,771 $ 813,806 $ 159,284 $ 104,581 $ 126,465 $ 57,604 $ 9,414,851
1.NumberofineiersbyslzeanddassarefromtheCltyofReddinguTilltyb111ingsystem.5ource: REDDIN6_SummaryRevenue-UPDATED06-19-2019.x1sx.
2.Singie Family3/4"and 5/8"meters reflectbuilding codes ratherthan actual use and are mmbined here because theyhave equivalent usage patterns.
3.Source:AWWA Manual Ml,"Principles oF Water Rates,Fees and Charges",Table VI.2-5.Assumes displacement meters For 5/8 through 2 inch meters,Compound 3-8 inch meters,Turbine for 30&12 inch,unless noted oth
4.Customer costs are aliocated to each customer by dividing the total customer cosis by the total number of customers.
5.Capacitycosts are aliocated bymetersfze and the hydraullccapaGtyofihe meter.
TABLE 29:PROIECTED REVENUE FROM FOCED CHARGES BY CUSTOMER CLASS �%*'*,
SingleFamily� 22,855 - 481 4 6 - - - - 23,346
Multi-Family 1,075 457 424 81 109 7 2 6 - 2,161
Commercial 976 284 383 171 257 23 9 1 - 2,104
industrial 178 63 62 25 42 1 1 1 - 373
institutional 256 84 93 56 122 23 11 6 4 655
Tptal MeFerSlAccitWnts' '25.3#0 �� �.. $S8 3,d43���.� ,,�. �37 ' S36 � SA �� t8 i4 A ' t$.639;..
Fixed Charges by Meter Size $22.15 �$29.61 $44.52 $81.79 $126.52 $245.81 $380.00 $752.77 � $1,200.08
SingleFamily� $ 6,075,157 $ - $ 256,951 $ 3,926 $ 9,110 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 6,345,144
Multi-Family 285,749 162,361 226,502 79,503 165,494 20,645 9,120 54,199 - 1,003,576
Commercial 259,434 100,898 204,599 167,839 390,202 67,843 41,040 9,033 - 1,240,889
industrial 47,315 22,352 33,121 24,538 63,765 2,950 4,560 9,033 - 207,667
institutional 68,045 29,843 49,681 54,965 185,23z 67,843 50,160 54,199 57,604 61�,576
Prepared by NBS-February 2020 47
Final Utility Rate Program Update Report-City of Redding
� e
�
SingleFamily $ 0 7,774,056 $ Sg,139,801 $ 2,028,251 $ 14,942,108 63.5% m
Multi-Family 1,390,895 679,603 18�,743 2,258,242 9.6%
Commercial 1,997,540 1,094,684 182,878 3,275,102 13.9%
Industrial 589,473 417,477 32,492 1,039,443 4.4%
Institutional 1,193,456 771,785 56,992 2,022,234 8.6%
TUYaI " $ 12�945,421 $ - S,�.U3��,351 $ : 2488.3��' $ 23,53�,12$�..��� �,80.i1%' ,
Trt+tal'Voiurrtetric and Fixed Rat $"9.2�;915 421 ; , $10 591 70## �... "5 � 23,537,�28'.�.,
a a
SingleFamilys 22,855 - 481 4 6 - - - - 23,346
Multi-Family 1,075 457 424 81 109 7 2 6 - 2,161
Commercial 976 284 383 lll 257 23 9 1 - 2,104
Industrial 178 63 62 25 42 1 1 1 - 373
Institutional 256 84 93 56 122 23 11 6 4 655
Tatal Meters/AccounYs , ..: 2S,3Ad ; -��588 i.44.3 3�7�:���� 536 ���' S4 23 Sd�; 4- 2$839';
HydraulicCapacity Factor 3�� 1.00 1.50 2.50 5.00 8.00 16.00 25.00 50.00 �80.00
Total Equivalent Meters 25,340 1,332 3,608 1,685 4,288 864 575 700 320 38,712
Monthly Fixed Service Charges
Customer Costs($/Acct/mo.)° $714 $7.24 $7.24 $7.24 $�.24 $714 $7.24 $714 $7.24
Capacity Costs($/Acct/mo.)5 $17.44 $26.17 $43.61 $87.22 $139.55 $279.10 $436.10 $872.19 $1,395.51
soxar�non�r�ry meter c�,ar�e �z�t.ss ���.a� �sa.ss i S�n.�t� , �sas.z� 5�ss.�a ,ua�.�a" �s�s.aa' ��,aoz.�s
a
Annual Fixed Costs Allocated to Monthly Meter Charges
Customer Costs $ 2,488,357
Capacity Costs&Fire Costs 8,103,351
TotalFixed Meter Gosts $ 10,591,708
Annual Revenue from Monthly Meter Charges
CustomerCharges $ 2,201,716 $ 77,156 $ 125,378 $ 29,281 $ 46,571 $ 4,692 $ 1,998 $ 1,216 $ 348 $ 2,488,357
CapacityCharges 5,304,339 278,823 755,146 352,716 897,593 180,858 120,363 146,529 66,985 8,103,351
Total Revenue from Monihly N $ 7,506,055 $ 355,979 $ 880,524 $ 381,996 $ 944,164 $ 185,550 $ 122,361 $ 147,745 $ 67,332 $ 10,591,708
a a
SingleFamilys e 22,855 - 481 4 6 - - - - 23,346
Multi-Family 1,075 457 424 81 109 7 2 6 - 2,161
Commercial 976 284 383 171 257 23 9 1 - 2,104
Industrial ll8 63 62 25 42 1 1 1 - 373
Institutional 256 84 93 56 122 23 11 6 4 655
„ Total Meters Accour�is �: :; 25,34tl '; -.�888 1.443� 337��'�. S36 '... SA 23 14; 4 28,639:��'.
Fixed Charges by Meter Size $24.68 $33.41 $50.85 $94.46 $146J9 $286.34 $44334 � $579.44 $1,402J5
SingleFamily� $ 6,769,964 $ - $ 293,508 $ 4,534 $ 10,569 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 7,078,575
Multi-Family 318,430 183,201 258,726 91,815 192,004 24,053 10,640 63,319 - 1,142,188
Commercial 289,105 113,849 233,708 193,832 452,706 79,031 47,880 10,553 - 1,420,664
Industrial 52,726 25,255 37,833 28,338 73,983 3,436 5,320 10,553 - 237,444
Institutional 75,831 33,674 56,749 63,477 214,903 79,031 58,521 63,319 67,332 712,836
a a:
Prepared by NBS-February 2020 48
Final Utility Rate Program Update Report-City of Redding
� e
Aiternatfve Jf3-lY'ee Xevenr�elteguiremerits 1�4�6 Fix,�d 136%YarierbieJ
.. . .,.. o .. - . . - - - �.. c� .
SingleFamily $ •5,088,473 $ 7,976,340 $ 2,028,251.36 $ 15,093,064 64.1% •
Multi-Family 910,404 1,054,661 187,743 2,152,805 9.2%
Commercial 1,307,481 1,698,816 182,878 3,1S9,ll4 13.5%
Industrial 385,837 647,873 32,492 1,066,203 4.5%
Institutional 781,171 1,197,716 56,992 2,035,879 8.6%
�rmaC � sia�s,�ss S �x.�is;aos 5 z.aas,as� � z�.s��a�s ioo,tr�" .
7ota[�Vokumetrac�ntl Fixed ltat $ 8;473,386 ��: $Y5,463,762 '�: $ , 23,537,128 ':
Alternative#3-Net Reuenue Re r�irements 496 Fixed 136%VarFnbJe i
� a
SingleFamily� 22,855 - 481 4 6 - - - - 23,346
Multi-Family 1,075 457 424 81 109 7 2 6 - 2,161
Commercial 976 284 383 ll1 257 23 9 1 - 2,104
Industrial 178 63 62 25 42 1 1 1 - 373
Institutional 256 84 93 56 122 23 il 6 4 655
TaLaI:�Meters/Ar�sunta ,.:, 25,�40 � 888 1,4d3:�,. 33T ��... � 53b I 54� 23 14 '� +1 , ,28.539�
Hydraulic Capacity Factor 3 1.00 1.50 2.50 5.00 8.00 16.00 25.00 50.00 80.00
Total Equivalent Meters 25,340 1,332 3,605 1,685 4,288 864 575 700 320 35,712
Monthly Fixed Service Charges
Customer Costs($/Acct/mo.)4 $724 $�24 $724 $�24 $724 $7.24 $7.24 $724 $724
Capacity Costs($/Acct/mo.)s $27.07 $40.61 567.68 $135.35 $216.57 5433.13 $676J7 $1,353.54 $2,165.66
rot��nnonx�,Cvn+i��e.�n�r e S�a.�� ' Sa�.ss ��a.szi S�.nxss �zx�.sa Saao.�� Sssa.ox 5�,��o.�a ; �z.��z.so
Annual Fixed Costs Allocated to Monthly Meter Charges
Customer Costs $ 2,488,357
Capacity Costs&Fire Costs 12,575,405
Total Pixed Meter Costs $ 15,063,762
Annual Revenue from Monthly Meter Charges
Customer Charges $ 2,201,716 $ 77,156 $ 125,378 $ 29,281 $ 46,571 $ 4,692 $ 1,998 $ 1,216 $ 348 $ 2,488,357
CapacityCharges $ 8,231,682 $ 432,699 $ 1,171,894 $ 547,371 $ 1,392,954 $ 280,670 $ 186,788 $ 227,395 $ 103,952 12,575,405
Total Revenue from Monthly N $ 10,433,399 $ 509,855 $ 1,297,272 $ 576,652 $ 1,439,525 $ 285,362 $ 188,787 $ 228,611 $ 104,299 $ 15,063,762
Alternative�i3�-Na#iteuehueRequiwements�495FixedJ3b%varisrbleJ��:':
a e
Single'Family� • 22,855 - 481 4 6 - - - 23,346
Multi-Family 1,075 457 424 81 109 7 2 6 - 2,161
Commercial 976 284 383 171 25� 23 9 1 - 2,104
Industrial 178 63 62 25 42 1 1 1 - 373
Institutional 256 84 93 56 122 23 il 6 4 655
7otal MetersJAcmunts �:: i� 25 340 �': 8&8 S,A43��.: 337 ; S3B �54 23 14 �i 1 2tF.639:
n
Fixed Charges by Meter Size $34.31 $47.85 $74.92 �$142.59 $223.81 $440.37 $684.01 $1,360.75 $2,1�2.90
SingleFamily� $ 9,410,234 $ - $ 432,424 $ 6,545 $ 16,114 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 9,865,617
Mufti-Family 442,6ll 262,392 381,180 138,602 292,739 36,991 16,416 97,976 - 1,668,913
Commercial 401,855 163,062 344,321 292,604 690,220 121,543 73,873 16,329 - 2,103,807
Industrial 73,289 36,ll2 55,739 42,778 112,799 5,284 8,208 16,329 - 350,599
Institutional 105,405 45,230 83,608 95,523 327,653 121,543 90,259 9�,9�6 104,299 1,074,826
e.
Prepared by NBS-February 2020 49
Final Utility Rate Program Update Report-City of Redding
� e
�t t �. 4.. ������������������������������������������������������
� r� _�.
.
SingleFamily $ 04,099,045 $ 9,021,380 $ 2,028,25136 $ 15,148,679 64.4% •
Multi-Family 733,351 1,192,840 187,743 2,113,964 9.0%
Commercial 1,053,245 1,921,391 182,878 3,157,Sll 13.4%
Industrial 310,813 732,756 32,492 1,076,062 4.6%
Institutional 629,277 1,354,638 56,992 2,040,907 SJ%
To#ai�l $ 6„825:��'� $ I4.223�UOA $", ';2.48$,357; $ 23.537,T28 ��.. it1�.Ci96
;T+tkal���.YotumetricantlFixedRat S 8;825.�87 $1+5,7Si,3Cs1 , ...- $ -23,533;�28 !.
. �
B
SingleFamily� 22,855 - 481 4 6 - - - - 23,346
Multi-Family 1,075 457 424 81 109 7 2 6 - 2,161
Commercial 976 284 383 171 257 23 9 1 - 2,104
Industrial 178 63 62 25 42 1 1 1 - 373
Mstitutional 256 84 93 56 122 23 il 6 4 655
Yc,fiai��.M�:ter�}AGcuun#s �:.. 25 34�Y' ':� l388 1,�43��� 33T '.. 53S ' �:54 23 i+� ':���. 4 28,��9�..:
Hydraulic Capacity Poctor 3� 1.00 1.50 2.50 5.00 8.00 16.00 25_00 50.00 80.00
Total Equivalent Meters 25,340 1,332 3,608 1,655 4,288 864 575 �00 320 35,712
Mo�thly Fixed Service Charges
Customer Costs($/Acct/moJ° $724 $7.24 $7.24 $7.24 $7.24 $7.24 $7.24 $7.24 $7.24
Capacity Costs($/Acct/mo.)5 $30.62 $45.93 $76.54 $153.09 $244.94 $489.88 $765.44 51,530.88 $2,449.40
Totai���.ManthF Meier thar e ;� $37.86 �-. $53.17 $$3='�5�..: �$160.33 ': $35t.1$ � $497.i2 $772,68 � $1,53$.i2 '�� $2,456.64
Annual Fixed Costs Albcated to Monthly Meter Charges
Customer Costs $ 2,488,357
Capacity Costs&Fire Costs 14,223,004
Total Fixed Meter Costs $ 16,711,361
Annual Revenue from Monthly Meter Charges
Customer Charges $ 2,201,716 $ 77,156 $ 125,378 $ 29,281 $ 46,571 $ 4,692 S 1,998 $ 1,216 $ 348 $ 2,488,357
CapacityCharges $ 9,310,177 $ 459,391 $ 1,325,433 $ 619,086 $ 1,575,455 $ 317,443 $ 211,261 $ 257,157 $ 1ll,571 14,223,004
7otal Revenue from Monthi N $ 11,511,894 $ 566,546 $ 1,450,811 $ 645,367 $ 1,622,027 $ 322,134 $ 213,259 $ 258,404 $ 117,919 $ 16,711,361
�1 �"
W
SingleFamilyZ a 22,855 - 481 4 6 - - - - 23,346
Multi-Family 1,0�5 457 424 81 109 7 2 6 - 2,161
Commercial 976 284 383 171 257 23 9 1 - 2,104
Industrial 1�8 63 62 25 42 1 1 1 - 373
Institutional 256 84 93 56 122 23 11 6 4 655
',7oCat MeYers/lActount& ':� '�:� 25,�40 : 888 1,443'. 33�' .� ' S36 ',...64 2:3 " "1+1 : # 26,639��';
Fixed Charges by Meter Size $37.86 $53.17 $83.78 �$160.33 $25238 $497.12 $772.68 $1,538.12 $2,456.64 '
SingleFamily� $ 10,352,965 $ - $ 483,604 $ 7,696 $ 18,157 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 10,892,421
Multi-Family 488,370 291,567 426,295 155,839 329,852 41,755 18,544 110,744 - 1,862,970
Commercial 443,394 181,193 385,073 328,993 777,726 13�,205 83,449 18,457 - 2,355,491
Industrial 80,865 40,194 62,336 48,098 127,099 5,965 9,272 18,457 - 392,287
Institutional 116,300 53,592 93,503 10�,�41 369,193 137,205 101,994 11Q744 117,919 1,208,191
Prepared by NBS-February 2020 50
Final Utility Rate Program Update Report-City of Redding
� e
� g ,,.. .��.�.�. ��.�. .�.�.�.� ,�. �.� .�.�.�.�.�.�.�.�.�.�.�.�.�.�.�.�.�.�.�
s � >,�,.� � �,o .�� ., � �. � .. �, � >a,�. ,� �� � ��.�����������������������
> a-
i ' B 8 0 8 C �
we ^a �^ w s a • I ��°. f If°s t I�°. ! /t'a
� � ti��� ,`� , �� � °` ,"�� � � �'
�
Monthly Fixed Service Charge-Standard Meters:
S/8inch $21.17 $21.30 ' $21.30 $21.30 $21.30
3/4inch ; $28.04 $2$.47 $28.47 $28.47 $28.47
linch $41.77 $42.80 $42.80 $42.80 $42.80
1.5 inch $76.09 $7$.65 ' $78.65 $78.65 $78.65
2inch $117.27 $121.66 $121.66 $121.66 $121.66
3 inch ' $227.10 ' $236.35 $236.35 $236.35 $236.35
4 i nch $350.66 , $365.3� ; $365.39 $365.39 $365.39
6inch ' $693.$8 $723.81 $723.81 $723.81 $723.81
8inch $1,105.75 $1,153.92 ��i $1,153.92 $1,153.92 $1,153.92
�� ;�:., �
�, ��� q . � `
� ,
Uniform Rate $1.43 $1.36 $1.36 $1.36 $1.36
���
_o - -
� � ° ��� ��� s
'• - av - �- e s m m 0 f1'. • t!'a I t/"< i f�°.
.�; •`�,U�`�;;�� .,'. ; �„v.` .�.. ��,.. ''�r e�.,� ," ".,... ��;�� �. �ti `�.., `�..`
Monthly Fixed Service Cnarge=5tandard Meters:
5/Sinch $21.17 $2�.7A $23J4 $23.74 $23J4
3/4inch < $28.04 $32.12 ' $32.12 $32.12 $32.12
linch $41.77 ' $48.8� $48.89 $48.89 $48.89
1.5 inch $75.09 ' $90.83 $90.83 $90.83 $90.83
2 inch $117.27 ; $141.15 ' $141.15 $141.15 $141.15
3inch $227.10 ' $275.33 $275.33 $275.33 $275.33
4inch $350.66 ; $426�29 $426.29 $426.29 $426.29
6inch $693.88 $845.61 ' $845.61 $845.61 $845.61
8inch $1,105_75 $1,348.$0 �" $1,348.80 $1,348.80 $1,348.80
� ,l�
Uniform Rate $1.43 $1.24 $1.24 $1.24 $1.24
Prepared by NBS-February 2020 51
Final Utility Rate Program Update Report-City of Redding
� e
A/ternafi ve#3-Net Rewenue Re�uirement$IpS4�fJxed f 36%Vvriub/e)
� ° f B f 0 i
oa � o� •' e � � � P BI°. � P/'. � �/'a • ��'.
�ti �a,; .� �� .�� w.ti� e `�,�' `�.'� •�• "�•`� •� .� ���� � ��"y
q �' �
Monthly Fixed Service Charge-Standard Meters:
S/8 inch $21.17 $�2.99 i $32.99 $32.99 $32.99
3/4 inch $28.04 $45.01 ' $46.01 $46.01 $46.01
1 inch ; $41.77 $72.04 I $72.04 $72.04 $72.04
1.5 inch ; $76.09 ; $137.11 i $137.11 $137.11 $137.11
2inch $117.27 i $215.2� i $215.20 $215.20 $215.20
3 inch $22�.10 ; $423.44 ' $423.44 $423.44 $423.44
4inch $350.66 '; $657.70 $657J0 $657.70 $657.70
6inch ; $693.88 $1,30$.44 + $1,308.44 $1,308.44 $1,308.44
8 inch $1,105.75 $2,0$9.33 $2,089.33 $2,089.33 $2,089.33
„ s . ti � �,
� e �� � �' v� � �'��' �
Uniform Rate $1.43 $0.$1 $0.81 $0.81 $0.81
,.� .n, �«�u ���,�..� ,{�n.�����lt. �.���. `�«. ... .�tt.<. �{ «,«��.� .� u�>ti����������������\����������~`�
� � , , » � f
•. - - -� � .a � � _ � � sa°. � ts°o � ee°, r •�•,
�� �� � �� � � � < �� � �
ti' e � ` � � �° �. �
� °�
Monthly Fixed Service Charge-;Standard Meters:
5/8 inch $21.17 $36.40 ' $36.40 $36.40 $36.40
3/4�ncn ; S2s.on $sz.i2 Sss.s2 Ssi.12 Sss.sz
1 inch $41.77 $80.56 I $80.56 $80.56 $80.56
1.5 inch $76.09 i $154.16 ' $154.16 $154.16 $154.16
2 inch i $117.27 I $242.48 $242.48 $242.48 $242.48
3 inch $227.10 $478.0� $478.00 $478.00 $478.00
4inch ' $350.66 $742.96 $742.96 $742.96 $742.96
6inch $693.88 $1,478.96 $1,478.96 $1,478.96 $1,478.96
8inch $1,105.75 $2,362,16 i $2,362.16 $2,362.16 $2,362.16
� � � � �
ti
Uniform Rate $1.43 $�.65 'i $0.65 $0.65 $0.65
Prepared by NBS-February 2020 52
Final Utility Rate Program Update Report-City of Redding
a
+ , r e c � e e o � e w c t r e
Sources of Wastewater Funds
RateRevenueUnderPrevailingRates $ 28,961,550 $ 29,056,653 $ 29,154,571 $ 29,255,304 $29,358,541 $ 29,464,905 $ 29,574,399 $ 29,687,333 $ 29,804,021 $ 29,924,776 $ 30,049,911 $ 30,180,052
Non-RateRevenues (11,040) (9,192) (9,152) (9,071) (8,988) (5,904) (8,821) (8,738) (8,655) (8,574) (5,495) (8,418)
InterestEarnings(in 0&M,Capital and Debtreserves)Z - 280300 195.210 254.862 249,204 269.907 302.352 235J94 253.613 319163 286.363 238.572
Tota�Sourcesoffunds S 28,950,510 $29,327,761 $29,340,625 $29,501,095 $29,598,757 $29,725,908 $ 29,867,930 S 29,914,389 $ 30,075,979 $ 30,235,466 $ 30,327,780 $ 30,410,205
Uses of Wastewater Funds
Operating Expenses:
Personnel $ 5,391,260 $ 5,296,300 $ 5,504,890 $ 5,67Q037 $ 5,840,138 $ 6,015,342 $ 6,195,802 $ 6,381,676 $ 6,573,127 $ 6,77Q320 $ 6,973,430 $ 7,182,633
Operating&Materials(Moteriols,5upplies&Svcs/ 4,533,870 4,399,220 4,497,830 4,601,280 4,707,110 4,815,373 4,926,127 5,039,428 5,155,334 5,273,907 5,395,207 5,519,297
CostAllocation&Interdepartmental Charges 5,218,350 5,549,600 5,955,030 6,115,918 6,277,990 6,444,356 6,615,132 6,790,433 6,970,379 7,155,094 7,344,704 7,539,339
Subtotal:OperatingExpenses $ 15,143,480 $ 15,245,120 $ 15,960,750 $ 16,387,235 $ 16,825,237 $ 17,275,071 $ 17,737,061 $ 18,211,537 $ 18,698,840 $ 19,199,322 $ 19,713,341 $ 20,241,269
OYher Expenditures:
ExistingDebtService(fundedbyrates)3 $ 7,666,240 $ 4,463,740 $ 4,463,740 $ 4,463,740 $ 5,788,071 $ 4,599,704 $ 4,523,176 $ 4,443,078 $ 4,349,308 $ 4,251,134 $ 3,865,033 $ 3,426,352
RateFunded DebtReserve - - - - - - - - - - - -
Rate-FundedCapitalExpenses 5,288,921 5,583,628 7,124,394 5,630,265 5,961,082 11,565,784 9,516,167 8,849,505 12,702,733 18,092,105 22,261,108
Subtotal:Other Expenditures $ 7,666,240 $ 12,752,661 $ 10,047,368 $ 11,588,133 $ 11,418,336 $ 10,560,786 $ 16,088,960 $ 13,959,245 $ 13,198,813 $ 16,953,867 $ 21,957,138 $ 25,687,460
Total Uses of Wastewater Funds $ 22,809,720 $27,997,781 $26,008,118 $ 27.975,368 $28,243,573 $27,835,557 $33,526,021 $ 32,170,782 $ 31,597,653 $ 36,153,189 $ 41,670,479 $ 45,928,729
p�us: RevenuefromRatelncreases 581,133 2,379,013 3,652,934 4,986,799 6,211,308 7,487,698 8,818,417 10,399,363 12,056,148 14,214,387 16,498,746
A�nual Surplus/(Deficit) $ 6,140,790 $ 1,911,114 $ 5,711,523 $ 5,178,662 $ 6,341,954 $ 8,101,359 $ 3,529,607 $ 6,562,025 $ 8,580,659 $ 6,138,425 $ 2,871,687 $ 980,222
e .e o. :,e =, �
Total Rate Revenue After Rate Increases o $ 28,961,550 $29,637,786 $31,533,584 $ 32,908,239 $34,345,340 $35,676,214 $37,062,096 $ 38,505,750 $ 40,203,384 $ 41,980,925 $ 44,264,298 $ 46,678,798
��Prtrls�sdAnnual Ratelncrease 8.0% �.i3�b 4,fl5b :. d.0% 4.036�... 3546 : 3.5% 3.5%.'..�, 4:056 �:. t.D% 5.!?���, 5.0%^.
Cumulative Increase from Annual Rate Increases 0.00% 4.00% 8.16% 12.49% 16.99% 21.08% 25.32% Z9J0% 34.89% 40.29% 47.30% 54.67%
CoverageAfterRatelncrease 1.80 1.43 2.28 2.16 2.10 2J6 1.78 2.48 2.97 2.44 1J4 119
CoverageAfterRatelncrease(ExdudingRateFundedCapitaiJ 1.80 319 3.53 3J6 3.07 4.06 4.34 4.62 5.01 5.43 6.42 7J8
l. RevenueforFY2018/19ispertheCity'sProForma(Sourcefile: WWproformofor8udget2019-21 5 9 2019xIs�andexpensesarepertheCity's8udget�5ourcefile:REDDING_doc20190617100115(SewerJ.pdf).
L ReferstotheCity'sbudgetforinterestearningsinFY2018/19.Forallfutureyears,interestearningsarecalculatedherebasedontheCitysPooledCashinterestRate.Sourcefile: REDOtNG_PooledCashlnterestRateDec2018.x1sx.
3. Debt service that cannot be fully paid through the impact Fee Reserve Pund has been added to De6t Service to be funded by rates.
Prepared by NBS—February 2020 53
Final Utility Rate Program Update Report—City of Redding
� �
. _
TABLE 2: RESERVE FUND SUMMARY
e r
e : o � � � � e � � i < e e . ¢ e : e � i
Total Beginning Cash 1 $26,311,059
o:
BeginningReserveBalance2 $17,163,681 $ 3,821,000 $ 4,000,000 $ 4,107,000 $ 4,217,000 $ 4,329,000 $ 4,445,000 $ 4,564,000 $ 4,686,000 $ 4,512,000 $ 4,941,000 $ 5,073,000
PIus:NetCashFlow(AfterRatelncreases) 6,140,790 1,911,114 5,711,523 5,178,662 6,341,984 8,101,359 3,529,607 6,562,025 8,580,689 6,138,425 2,871,687 980,222
PIus:TransferofDebtReserveSurplus - - - - - - - - - - - -
Plus:Expected Savings @ 1.5%Pers&0&M 3 148,877 145,433 150,041 154,070 158,209 162,461 166,829 171,317 175,927 180,663 185,530 190,529
Plus:Expected Savings @ 3%Capital 3 292,817 476,805 228,239 232,949 232,347 344,771 554,764 377,355 442,463 637,217 713,297 741,939
Less:TransfertoRollingStock (350,000) (300,000) (300,000) (30Q000) (30Q000) (300,000) (30Q000) (300,000) (300,000i (300,000) (300,000� (309,300)
Less:TransfertoDebtReserve - - - - - - - - - - -
Less:Transfers0uttotheCapitalReserve (19,575,166) (2,054,352) (5,682,803) (5,155,680) (6,320,539) (8,192,591) (3,832,200) (6,688,697) (8,773,078) (6,527,305) (3,338,514j (1,467,390)
�" '.tY RT' erv�Bm xe''' .� �...' ° 1 t?U� q.tltJi7 °. Y17D ' ` .22� D.°=:a`.A�29t1 ." '_:••°:F4 D�t' �'i =46$6 U .
.r�tlt� Fi �5, . J�rt .. ..��o =:rtirt.:=.>..... �' 3,�+�,.� .�. ,, U�lO. �...A.�.��,t�G $.4,. . �Q, $....., . .�t17,3.�, �.Q �_$�°"�S�Y5t7b �. , 017 ��'.....�$5�;0�1� �....,���i�7t!' Sti�<.+�U73;t111U''?",...5,2��tJOtJi
Target Ending Balance(90 days of 0&M) $ 3,786,000 $ 3,821,000 $ 4,000,000 S 4,207,000 S� 4,217,000 $ 4,329,000 $ 4,445,000 $ 4,564,000 $ 4,686,000 $ 4,812,000 $ 4,941,000 $ 5,073,000
BeginningReserveBalance $ - $ 9,814,587 $ 4,264,352 $ 7,922,803 $ 7,455,680 $ 8,650,539 $ 1Q582,591 $ 6,262,200 $ 9,158,697 $ 11,283,078 $ 9,077,305 $ 5,928,514
PIus:GrantRevenue - - - - - - - - - - - -
PIus:TransferofOperatingReserveSurplus 19,575,166 2,054,352 5,682,803 5,155,680 6,320,539 8,192,591 3,832,200 6,688,697 8,773,078 6,527,305 3,338,514 1,467,390
less:Capital Projects Funded (9,76Q578) (7,604,587) (2,024,352) (5,622,803) (5,125,680) (6,260,539) (5,152,591) f3,792,200) (6,648,697) (5,733,078) (6,487,305) (3,298,514)
�r��� ca nc���e'orr� t���m�nx��,���,��e � �ssa ss� � a�c��s�; S ���z:sv� � �.ns�ssn � .s,ss�,sa�: �sv,���,��s � s:zc�,ann � ��ss ss� �xz,za:�v�s .� s,��� ��_ # s�as �� � �o�����
TargetEnding8alance(8%of0&Mp�us51Mil1ionCapitatJ S 2,240,000 $ 2,210,000 $ 2,240,000 $ 2,300,000 $ 2,330,000 $ 2,390,000 S 2,430,000 $ 2,470,000 $ 2,520,000 $ 2,550,000 $ 2,590,000 $ 2,630,000
BeginningReserveBalancel $ 394,850 $ 466,136 $ 659,520 $ 556,718 $ 515,938 $ 477,361 $ 423,923 $ 697,389 $ 984,687 $ 1,300,287 $ 1,326,386 $ 1,647,398
PIus:InterestEarningsb 6,256 7,384 10,445 8,819 8,173 7,562 6,716 11,048 15,599 2Q599 21,012 26,098
PIus:TransferinfromOperations $ 350,000 $ 300,000 S 300,000 5 300,000 $ 300,000 $ 300,000 $ 300,000 $ 300,000 $ 300,000 $ 300,000 $ 300,000 $ 309,300
PIus:SaleofRollingStock(5%ofExpenses) $ 15,000 $ 6,000 $ 21,750 $ 18,400 $ 18,250 $ 19,000 $ 1,750 $ 1,250 $ - $ 15,500 $ - $
Less:RollingStock Expenses $ (300,000) $ (120,000) $ (435,000) $ (368,000) $ (365,000) $ (380,000) $ (35,000) $ (25,000) $ - $ (310,000) $ - $ -
�d,n��Qurr� �c�r��nd�cr�«n�e S ass,��s S �s� �n, � . �ss�a�° � sas,s�s � �rz���� � . �z�y�z� � . ssa,�s� S . ssa,ss� 3 s v�r;�sz S �.�zr,��� � ;�,s�� �s � s,����s�,
Target Ending Balance(Avg.of'17/IS-'23/24 R.S.fxpenses) $ 350,000 $ 361,000 $ 372,000 $ 384,000 $ 396,000 $ 408,000 $ 421,000 $ 434,000 $ 447,000 $ 461,000 $ 475,000 $ 49Q000
o •��
.�o� ee� �r� eoe �i� e�e ,ace :�e� ��� 601 : G1.fEi eie
Ending Surplus/tDeficitJ Compared to Reserve Tarqets $ 7,725,723 $ 2,531,872 $ 5,974,521 $ 5,397,618 $ 6,513,900 $ 8,324,515 $ 4,227,589 $ 7,361,384 $ 9,752,365 $ 7,521,691 $ 4,642,912 $ 3,096,186
DaysCosh on Hand 226 117 177 160 174 203 125 169 200 155 111 90
Prepared by NBS-February 2020 54
Final Utility Rate Program Update Report-City of Redding
r •
TABLE 3: RESERVE FUND SUMMARY,cont.
� ��z.,�...�,�.:�� c�1,
„ ,,, ,,, ,,,,, ,,, ,,, ,,,, ,,, ,,, ,,,, ,,, ,,, ,,, „
BeginningReserveBalance� $ 8,752,49& $ 6,962,029 $ 4,562,258 $ 2,539,098 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
PIus:InterestEarningss 138,656 11Q292 72,275 40,224 - - - - - - - -
PIus:ImpactFeeRevenue 931,890 992,980 1,057,020 1,115,530 1,185,498 1,258,698 1,335,226 1,415,324 1,509,094 1,607,268 1,720,764 1,839,768
PIus:Savings to Capital Expenditures(3%� 1Q861 3Q718 19,875 190,740 93,125 22,554 37,925 22,573 23,179 6,039 24,830 25,618
Less:ReserveFundingfromlmpactFees - - - -
Less:ExistingDebtService(fundedbylmpactFees) (2,509,829) (2,509,829) (2,509,829) (2,509,829) (1,185,498) (1,258,698) (1,335,226) (1,415,324) (1,509,094) (1,607,268) (1,720,764) (1,839,768)
Less:Use of Reserves for Capital Projects(Future Needs) (362,048) (1,023,931) (662,500) (1,375,763) (93,125) (22,554) (37,925) (22,573) (23,179) (6,039) (24,830) (25,618)
<��ed�+�rir+a�r���nd s����e . <� ��sz oz9� ��� a��z zs �� �s,�sa . ,_� -; � ��� .; ,� .� r ,� _:� - � � -_� __
,., .. . _ ,
BeginningReserve8alance1 $ 4,058,000 $ 4,058,000 $ 4,058,000 $ 4,058,000 $ 4,058,000 $ 4,OSS,000 $ 4,058,000 $ 4,058,000 $ 4,058,000 $ 4,058,000 $ 4,058,000 $ 4,058,000
Less:Transfer of Surplus to Operating Reserve
Fndt'�1`�3btltCs�[r�E.$trtallcC= ,'.. �,,,483$;f1�#0 $ 4,'�58,t7i�D?:�'..4�J��itJUi3:`$`�rt75$'�Qi7 $",�9,�5�;d130.=$ 4Et�8{1tFY7 =� �,U3�flUt7 $..=4U5�,O�U".$' +�b3$,Udf}:$='A�SB,OtJO $ ?1,058,UDff=$ ".A=;�58{ltld
TargetEnding8alance $ 4,058,000 $ 4,058,000 $ 4,058,000 $ 4,058,000 $ 4,058,000 $ 4,058,000 $ 4,058,000 $ 4,058,000 $ 4,058,000 $ 4,058,000 $ 4,058,000 $ 4,058,000
AnnuallnteresfEarningsRate 5 1.58% 1.58% 1.58% 1.58% 1.58% 1.58% 1.58% 258% 1.58% L58% 1.58% 1.58%
1. BeginningcashbalanceforFY2018/19ispertheCity'sProforma.Sourcefile: REDDING_WWProformafor8udget2019-21Updated.xlsx.
2.The total beginning cash balance forthe Operating Reserve is calculated as the total amouot of unrestricted cash as of June 30,2018Iess the begi�ning balances of the following fundr.Capital R&R,Rolling Stock and Impact Fee Reserves.
3.Expected savings do notrepresent actual reve�ue,but ratheranticipated savings based on historical differences between budgeted expenses and actual expenses. Expected savings amounts are from the City's proforma.Source file:
REDDING_WW Proformo for Budget 2019-Z1 Updotedxlsx.
4.PerCityStaffrecommendation,thetargetCapitalReservebalanceissetto$SMin2019dollarvaluesplusS%O&Mexpensesannually.Sourcefile: REDDING_WWProformofor8udget2019-21Updoted.xlsx,5ummoryta6.
5.Interestearnings rate is based on the City's Pooled Cash Interest Rate.Sourw file: December2018_IntEoming.pdf.
Prepared by NBS—February 2020 55
Final Utility Rate Program Update Report—City of Redding
r •
���� ���� ���� WastewaterRevenueUnderExistingandProposedRates �� �� ��� ��� EndingCashBalancevs.RecommendedReserveTargets ��� ��� ��� ������...
����..... ComparedtoAnnual RevenueRequirementsbyType Szomd .-- --� --- --� --� --- --- --� --� --� '����...
Ssomd .. ... ... ... .. . .
R II g5t�kE p es �� °�t�
��r�R F d dC ptalExpendture ��. � �
$45 mil. ��R t F d d C P tal Expend tures ... __ ... ... � ������ 518 mil. . ----. ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ---- ----. ----.
5 1
DebtServce
�0&M ExPenses ..._ � •..� .,� % 3 $16 mil. . ..... ..... ..... ..... .. ..... .....
$40 mA e m Revenues underincreased Rates ����� � e � i
'��, '�� �RevenuesunderEzstngRates ��.;, � � � • � �'� � . '�,.
• �
$35 mtl . . . • � • • � \� � j $14 miL � .... ... ..... ..... . .....
- • . ...., � � `�
� �. . � '
. • e � � j i
oSaom�i ....,� , , Sizma. i --__ . _. ___.
_
m �, � � � :�^, , �, , i ..., i � . ,j
�
( , � , � r
; t
° Szs mn. � !- � � � ; --i i t : � ; ? Sao mn. - .
, o � ? �..,. i ' ' ' � ,
� ; I
......... Szomn. .. . ':... Sam�i i .........
$IS m�l -.. $6 m�l i .
,,,, $ .... ',,.
,,,. ... j .,,, ;
,,. Siomn _. ... ._... ,,, iama ..... ; ',,.
. $Smil. ... �R&RFundR . ... ........
'�, $2m�1 -- �R011ing5tockF�ndfteserve - � � '�..
''��. �''�.. �'��.. 0&M Fund Reserve �'���.
�''�, $0 mil. ��.---� �--� -�.--- . �-�- � '�, ^^*^Recommended Target Reserve Balance(0&M&R&R) ; '�,.
.''... 2019 2020�.... 2021 2022 2023 2024 ..... 2025 ...2026 2027 2028 �� 2029 � 2030 $Omil. .... . .- . , '.,,.
.''... 2019 ...2020 2021 � 20R ...2023 ...2024 2025 2026 ... 2027 .....2028 ......2029 2030 .... .''...
'�., Fiscal Year EndingNne 3U Fiscal Year EndingJune 30 ''�..
�� �� � � �� �� �� �� �� �� �� �� � ProjectedAnnualRatelncreases �� �� � ��
.. Number of Days Cash on Hand ...
....... ss% :_. ____. ____. ..... ..... ..... __... ..... ..... ____ ......
uo ____. ____. ____. ..... ..... .....
aDays Cash on Hand S.OY 5.0% '��
,,, 90DaYOPeratingReserve 5.0% ;. ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... . ',,.
'��.. � • 150 Days Cash on Hand '��.. '�,.
.
Jo0 � ... ..... .... .... ..... ..... ..... 4.5% . ___. ____. _. __. __ ____. ____. .
� �.L �, �� 4.0% 4.0% 4.0% 4.0% 4.0% 4.0%
� � � \ 1 � ._ . ,
s 3.5
=vso ......� . �� y .. .. �.........._ � .�. ` ................
3.5% 3.5% 3.5%
%
� � � � �� � ��� � � 3.0% - -
� �
q
0
e ���.� � � ,:. 'ti 2.5% ..
a�oo � � �. � �
E
� �. � � � '� _ .
Z
2.0%
I � � � � � _ _
,, 5� .� �. � �.. ~ 1l� � � � _� 1.5% ',, ,.
� � �� � � � � j}� �
,,,,. ....il�� �� ��.'..�� �„ .����.. �i.�...._� 7� .:� _.�. ttt44�� .:1�_._:� ,,,,. 0:5% '.,. ,,,. . .. ,,,,.
, o , , , , , . .. , , , , , , , ..
�'��. )019 10>0 2021. )022 20>3 2024 )025 10>6 202I 2028 2029 2030 ''��.
',, ',, 0.0% ,,,, . . .,.. _ __.. . . . . , ',,.
�'��.. fival Year Entl�ng lune 30 Fi5t21 V¢d�End�nglUn2 30 ',..
Prepared by NBS—February 2020 56
Final Utility Rate Program Update Report—City of Redding
r •
Annual Sewer Capital Expenditures Annual Sewer Debt Service
'���,. fisml Vears 2018/19-2029/30 Fiscal Years 2018/29-2029/30 '���,
',,. 530 M I ..... ..._ ..... ...._ ..... ._.. ..... ..... $9 M I ,. ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ,,,,.
',, _ g �.�. f ',,.
F �
e
,, n+ r $8 MI ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ,,.
Q � N
,', 325 m I ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... .... .�n ',..
,',. � � ,',.
,',. . � $)MI �: ..__. ____. ____. ____. ____. ____. ____. ____. ,',.
� _
�
.°'. m
� �
�,,, v $20 MI ..... ..... ..... ..... » .. ..... a $6 MI ��. ..... ..... ....w. ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... �,,..
`s = `3
= � �
� m �
p � — _
� x .^�+ ' '^ x' S5 M I _....e e .___. u `g° .___. g __.v_ N ____. � ____. ____.
w . � .^ w e e v d
n � u a _
U S15 MI ____. ____. _ ... a a a '^' w v m �n
.n V » w w �n � rv
,,. 'c n _�._ m a �F
y . ev .mr 2 �n
2 rv = � h d �
'... c .'�n f r c $4 M I m � .... �
C
�
,,. m $30 M I . � ._ �. � � ,,.
,., 3 M ..._ m $3 M I _.._ ,,.
',,. a ¢` ',,.
',, Sz M I ',,.
',, Ss m i �. ',,.
,', '....... ,',. $I M I ��:. ..... ,.
,',. S MI ,... .... . . ��..� ,', S MI ��:. .... , . , , ,.
�'�, 2020 2021 2022 ����2023 �� 2024 2025 ��� 2026 ���202] 2028��� 2029 2030 2019 2020 2021 ��� 2022 ��� 2023 2024 ��2025 ��� 2026 202) � 2028 �� 2029 2030��
'�, FiscalYearEndinglune 30 Fis<alYearEndinglu�e 30
TABLE 12: SOURCES AND USES OF CAPITAL FUNDS
! Q°
o . a • r s e a r e e � r � . s e e ° c
Grant $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
State Revolving Fund Loan Proceeds(Rates) - - - - - - - - - - - -
Revenue Bond - - - - - - - - - - -
UseofCapitalReserveFunds(FutureNeeds) 362,048 1,023,931 662,500 1,375,763 93,125 22,554 37,925 22,573 23,ll9 6,039 24,830 25,618
UseofCapitalReserveFunds(ExistingNeeds) 9,760,578 7,604,557 2,024,352 5,622,803 5,125,680 6,260,539 8,152,591 3,792,200 6,648,697 $733,078 6,487,305 3,298,514
Rate Revenue 8,288,921 5,583,628 7,124,394 5,630,265 5,961,082 11,565,784 9,516,167 8,849,505 12,702,733 18,092,105 22,261,108
�randm��m�Q�a����,��n so�r�e� �� <<����o,zzzszs° �=�s,��.z�a,ao � .s,a�u,�a�a ���.�.zz�,�e�=°���„sa�,���� �s,a�z�s�,�.S a.�,�s. �uuo S s�,��n,��u�� ��s,sz�,����r .�x�aaa,as�.. �x�,so�sa�== �zs,s�a�o,
Total Projects Costs 1 $ SQ122,626 $ 16,917,440 $ 8,27Q480 $ 14,122,960 $10,849,070 $ 12,244,175 $19,756,300 $ 13,330,940 $15,521,380 $21,441,850 $24,604,240 $25,585,240
�a�atu�es�#�e���at�unds ���=��z,rz�� 5�.G,��.�a�o � ��z�ap�n ,5 2�,�2z,�� ��o����o�a�..��z�z��.�s� ���;�����oa• 5 s���o,s� S�s.���,a�o=��2��ki,as�°.<�2a�soa za�r ������zs,�ss,�u��,
Surplus/(Deficiency of Funding forGP).1.... $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
1. Projectfundingdetailsareinsourcefile: REDDING_WWGroformafor8udgei2019-22Updated.xlsx.
2.Anysurplus available will be carried overforuse in lateryears.
Prepared by NBS—February 2020 57
Final Utility Rate Program Update Report—City of Redding
r •
TABLE 15: EXISTING DEBTOBIIGAT10N5
a o: o
r � e � � � 6 6 e e v e � F i
WastewaterftefundineRevenueBonds 2002SeriesA
Principal Payment $ 1,525,000 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
InterestPayment 76,250 - - - - - - - - - - -
Subtotal:Annual Debt Service $ 1,601,250 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
DebtService Paid by Rates $ 1,602,250 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
DebtService Paid by lmpad fees $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - 5 - $ -
Coverage Requirement(%aboveannualpayment)1 25% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
Reserve Requirement(total fund balance) � $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $
California SWRCB Revolvine Fund Loans 3
Total Principal Payment $ 6,779,799 $ 5,378,638 $ 5,505,512 $ 5,635,495 $ 5,768,666 $ 4,789,938 $ 4,90Q,741 $ 5,014,203 $ 5,13Q420 $ 5,249,450 $ 5,098,757 $ 4,897,949
Total InterestPayment 1,507,509 1,334,932 1,236,273 1,135,223 1,031,724 925,714 834,964 742,062 646,923 549,503 449,746 350,866
TotalServiceCharge 287,511 259,999 231,784 202,851 173,179 142,750 122,697 102,138 81,060 59,450 37,294 17,305
Subtotai:Annual Debt Service $ 8,574,819 $ 6,973,569 $ 6,973,569 $ 6,973,569 $ 6,973,569 $ 5,858,402 $ 5,858,402 $ 5,858,402 $ 5,858,402 $ 5,858,402 $ 5,585,797 $ 5,266,120
DebtServire Paid by Rates $ 6,064,990 $ 4,463,740 $ 4,463,740 $ 4,463,740 $ 4,463,740 $ 3,716,578 $ 3,716,578 $ 3,716,578 $ 3,716,578 $ 3,716,578 $ 3,506,672 $ 3,260,521
DebtServicePaidbylmpactFees $ 2,509,829 $ 2,509,829 $ 2,509,829 $ 2,509,829 $ 2,509,829 $ 2,241,824 $ 2,141,824 $ 2,142,824 $ 2,141,824 $ 2,141,824 $ 2,079,125 $ 2,005,600
CoverageRequirement(%aboveannualpaymentJ° 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
Reserve Requirement(total fund balance)5 $ 4,057,969 $ 4,057,969 $ 4,057,969 $ 4,057,969 $ 4,057,969 $ 4,057,969 $ 4,057,969 $ 4,Q57,969 $ 4,057,969 $ 4,057,969 $ 4,057,969 $ 4,Q57,969
Grand Total:Existin Annual Debt Service $ 10,176,069 $ 6,973,569 $ 6,973,569 $ 6,973,569 $ 6,973,569 $ 5,858,402 $ 5,858,402 $ 5,858,402 $ 5,858,402 $ S,S58,402 $ 5,585,797 $ 5,266,120
DebtServiceAllocatedtoRates $ 7,666,240 $ 4,463,740 $ 4,463,740 S 4,463,740 $ 4,463,740 $ 3,716,578 $ 3,716,578 $ 3,716,578 $ 3,716,578 $ 3,726,578 $ 3,506,672 $ 3,260,521
DebtServiceAllocatedtolmpactfees $ 2,509,829 $ 2,509,829 $ 2,509,829 $ 2,509,829 $ 2,509,829 $ 2,141,824 $ 2,141,824 $ 2,141,824 $ 2,141,824 $ 2,141,824 $ 2,079,125 $ 2,005,600
Grand Total:Existin Debt Reserve Tar et 6 $ 4,057,969 $ 4p57,969 $ 4,057,969 $ 4,057,969 $ 4,057,969 $ 4,057,969 $ 4,057,969 $ 4,057,969 $ 4,057,969 $ 4,057,969 $ 4,057,969 $ 4,057,969
DebtS�rvicePnidbyRates '..5 7,666,.29i1 S 4,463,74d $ A,463,7�iD $ 4,�163,710 $ �;5,788,Q71'��,$ 4,599,70d $ 4,523,i76 5��: 4,443,078 $ 4.3d9,308 $ 4,251,134 $ 3,865,033 $ 3,426;352���:
DebtSer�icePaidbylmpactFees 5 2,509.829 $ 1.5�9,829 S 2.509,829 S 2,509.8�9 $ 1,155.498 $ 1.258,fi9$ $ 1.335,216 5 1,415,324 $ 2,509,094 $ 1.6�9,268 $ 1,120,764 $ 2.839;758:
Grantl Tota1:ExtstingAnnunl DebCService S 10,�76,t76� $ 6�973,569 $ 6,373�SG9 $ 6,973,569 $ ',G.973,569,$ 5,858,d02 $ 5,858,4tl2 S; 5,858,4d2 $ 5,858,4t72 S 5,858,402 5 5,583,797 $ 5,26b,120;
:�`t>dl���� 7�`tJ� tRttE 7Ft(t� '..:lf{?iE 7lfiUE��: It,"L+E F€�t1� i�tl� 'f�Ui �hi'u't; FRtlt"
1.The�debtwverage requirementforthis bond issue is 25%above�the annual debtservice�payment plus 100%of anypolicycosts due to the�insurec Forpurposes of this analysis,NBS assumes thatnothing is owed to the insurer.
2.There is no reserve requirementforthis bond issue perthe Official Statement,because there is a suretybond in place of a reserve fund.
3.This schedule includes the payments forthe State Water Resources Control Board Revolving Fund Loans forthe following Agreement Nos.00809-550-0,06803-550-0,07819-550-0,07826-550-0,11809-550-0, 10807-S50-Q 11810-550-0,
09824-550-Q 11800-550-0,10802-550-0,llS49-S50-0,and 13836-550-0.The percentage ofthe annual paymentattributable to rates and impactfees varies bydebt issue.Source files:REDDING_WWProformaforBudget2019-21 Updated.xtsx
and REODING_WostewaterDebtService.pdf.
4. NBS assumes that there is no coverage requirement forthese debt issues.
5. NBS assumes thatthere is no reserve requirementforthese debt issues.
6. Principal and Interestpayments,and reserve requirementare perGityStaffestimates provided inthe Wastewaterproforma files.
Prepared by NBS—February 2020 58
Final Utility Rate Program Update Report—City of Redding
r •
� �, �
>.� s�
�,
�,.� . :��.ti. ��,,,r�;�v<�, � .� �� . ,��. , �„ G..a .� .�,, �,�� a��,4.a,..,�.,'at ,.x.�,.��,.a�. .�� �a;.�.�v��,�*,�. ,r.,�_ �,v�,.
' � a m. � . � e e e ' m
� � e B i A / / 1
-o s e e II"e � i1°. � �I°@ � /I'a
Single-Family Residential 23,506 $ 15,474,154 $ 16,091,879 $ 16,734,990 $ 17,403,487 $ 18,100,191
Multi-Family Residential 1 �.1,929 5,810,377 6,042,277 6,284,197 6,536,138 6,798,099
Commercial, No Food 8,296 5,461,647 5,679,674 5,906,662 6,142,610 6,388,514
Commercial, Food Prep 2,007 2,642,905 2,748,650 2,858,490 2,972,906 3,091,900
Industrial Z 197 129,386 134,551 139,929 145,518 151,344
OtherZ 403 265,184 275,771 286,792 298,248 310,188
Unknown z 2 1,317 1,369 1,424 1,481 1,540
Tota� 46,34b � 29,784,97f� ;$ �0,974,1?i' $ 32„212,A8� � 33,5�,�$8 $ 34,f#41,77A� '
F'r�}�.��'i����r ik�.��.���.`���a C'L�� �.� �7f[7.7�����:" � ,����..7Jr�04 y� ������.7� .� ��f��#� :
1. Multi-FamilyResidentialbilledbynumberofaccounts,nothousingequivalentunits.
2. Billed atthe Standard Commercial ($/#HE)
Prepared by NBS—February 2020 59
Final Utility Rate Program Update Report—City of Redding
0
i . 1 • 1 h R ! i 0 f � 1 1 1 1 . i ° i
Sources of Solid Waste Funds
Rate Revenue Under Prevailing Rates $ 16,905,190 $ 16,960,702 $ ll,017,858 $ 17,076,658 $ 17,136,918 $ 17,199,004 $ 17,262,9ll $17,325,838 $17,396,950 $ 17,467,436 $ 17,540,479 $ ll,616,443
Fee Revenue 2,059,130 2,127,868 2,199,090 2,272,889 2,349,337 2,452,163 2,559,726 2,672,281 2,790,096 2,885,442 2,984,433 3,087,279
Other Revenue 1,547,160 1,552,180 1,557,348 1,562,664 1,568,113 1,573,727 1,579,506 1,585,467 1,591,626 1,597,999 1,604,604 1,611,473
InterestEarnings(in0&M,CapitalandDebtReservesj2 161,740 122,017 9Q354 83,582 84,765 81,585 87,560 95,749 117,222 146,783 153,600 126,528
Total Sources of Funds $ 20,673,220 $ 20,762,768 $ 20,864,650 $ 20,995,793 $ 21,139,134 $ 21,306,479 $ 21,489,709 $21,682,335 $21,895,894 $ 22,097,661 $ 22,283,117 $ 22,441,724
Uses of Solid Waste funds
Operating Expenses:
Solid WasteAdministration $ 2,532,420 $ 2,896,710 $ 2,779,980 $ 2,868,580 $ 2,960,200 $ 3,055,010 $ 3,153,140 $ 3,254,560 $ 3,359,530 $ 3,468,100 $ 3,580,A60 $ 3,696,640
Residential Collection Expenses 3,303,070 3,324,720 3,337,790 3,436,180 3,537,400 3,641,520 3,748,640 3,858,830 3,972,170 4,088,790 4,208,780 4,332,400
Commercial Collection Expenses 3,590,250 3,485,730 3,459,320 3,591,910 3,697,350 3,805,730 3,917,120 4,031,670 4,149,410 4,27Q450 4,394,890 4,523,010
Rol l-Off CoI lection Expenses 1,076,000 1,104,290 1,134,450 1,168,510 1,203,520 1,239,510 1,276,540 1,314,590 1,353,740 1,394,010 1,435,420 1,478,090
Resource Recovery Expenses 5,274,040 5,132,530 5,253,640 5,440,740 5,598,490 5,763,080 5,932,640 6,107,270 6,257,170 6,472,540 6,663,470 6,860,460
TransferStationExpenses 2,681,350 2,822,780 2,512,560 2,898,000 2,985,970 3,076,510 3,169,750 3,265,770 3,364,670 3,466,510 3,571,370 3,679,480
Hazardous Household Waste Expenses 453,920 522,890 537,770 554,640 572,060 589,990 608,530 627,650 647,370 667,760 688,800 710,540
Street Sweeping Expenses 1,225,600 1,222,860 1,234,960 1,250,550 1,266,650 1,283,260 1,300,440 1,315,140 1,336,440 1,355,320 1,374,540 1,394,980
Subtotal:OperatingExpenses $ 20,136,650 $ 20,512,810 $ 20,610,470 $ 21,209,110 $ 21,821,640 $ 22,454,610 $ 23,106,800 $23,778,480 $24,470,500 $ 25,183,480 $ 25,918,030 $ 26,675,600
Other Expenditures:
Rate-funded Capital Expenses 3 51,000 1,035,000 243,450 - - - - - - - 1,893,000 5,723,521
Subtotal:Other Expenditures $ 51,000 $ 1,035,000 $ 243,450 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 1,893,000 $ 5,723,521
Total Uses of Solid Wasfe Funds $ 20,187,650 $ 21,547,830 $ 20,853,920 $ 21,209,110 $ 21,521,640 $ 22,454,610 $ 23,106,800 $23,778,480 $24,470,500 $ 25,SS3,480 $ 27,811,030 $ 32,399,121
plus: RevenuefromRatelncreases - 286,329 1,168,333 1,788,027 2,432,755 3,325,278 4,264,046 5,251,587 6,290,599 7,116,156 7,976,038 8,872,009
Annual Surplus/(Deficit) $ 485,570 $ (498,714) $ 1,179,063 $ 1,574,710 $ 1,750,248 $ 2,177,147 $ 2,646,954 $ 3,155,441 $ 3,715,993 $ 4,030,336 $ 2,448,124 $ (1,085,388)
� et :e oa� i o.°
Total Rate Revenue After Rate Increases $ 16,905,190 $ 17,247,031 5 18,186,191 $ 18,864,685 $ 19,569,673 $ 20,524,282 5 21,526,963 $22,580,424 $23,687,549 $ 24,583,592 $ 25,516,517 $ 26,488,453
>ruec[�tedAnrtuall3ate9ncr '° �: Dvo36:�=:�::";.,�<;�.t�.�;`•::�..��,.�.i�7S�,`:�.=.:`::'':�:�,�X�t15d :°_,:_.,:'':�;:;3:4i�S6� q�ltn9G ?Ti7U� ..... . 4.0(J% . ...�,taU% . ....�.tNt,% 3.r1U9b... �.aD9b'
Nmulative Inaease from Annual Rate Inaeases 0.00% 3.00% 6.09% 9.27% 12.55% ll.05% 11J4% 26.60% ���31.67% ���35.62% 39.69% 43.88%
1.RevenuesandexpensesForFY2018/19throughFY2028(29arepersourcefile: REDDWG_SW10YearPlanfYl9-21061819.x1sx.
2.Beginning in FY 2019/20,interestearnings are caiculated in this exhibit based on projected pooled cash eamings shown in the Reserve Fund Summarytabie.
3.These are the onlycapital expenditures funded directlywith rate revenue.Rolling stock expenditures are shown in the Rolling Stock Reserve Fund.
4.Rate increases appiyto both solid waste rates and fees,and are selected in the Financial Plan Alternatives.
Prepared by NBS—February 2020 60
Final Utility Rate Program Update Report—City of Redding
_
r •
TABLE2: RESERVEFUNDSUMMARY Alt¢fttOtiV¢:$2COfttt»2II.d8dIAC[B(t5E5
e e
1 A 1 P 1 8 W 9 6 � b 1 B 1 B ' B
Total Beginning Cash� $ 9,754,926
QBeginningReserveBalance� $ 8,373,064 $ 6,833,634 $ 4,534,921 $ 3,813,984 $ 3,388,694 $ 3,138,942 $ 3,016,089 $ 3,363,044 $ 3,818,485 $ 4,534,478 $ 6,264,814 $ 6,612,939
Plus:NetCash Flow(After Ratelncreases) 485,570 (498,714) 1,179,063 1,574,710 1,750,245 2,ll7,147 2,646,954 3,155,441 3,715,993 4,030,336 2,448,124 (1,085,358)
Less:TransfertoRolling5tock3 (1,SOQ000) (1,50Q000) (1,60Q000) (1,500,000) (1,500,000) (1,800,000) (1,800,000) (1,80Q000) (1,800,000) (1,800,000) (7,800,000) (1,500,000)
Net:Transfers To the Capital Reserve° (525,000) (300,000) (300,000) (500,000) (500,000) (500,000) (500,000) (900,000) (90Q000) (800,000) (300,000) (300,000)
�r�dita'�?$�+4f Reserue 13a1dnre r $ e5k833,S34, .� �t,5�R,921 =$ 3,823 984. .� ,3�38+694 $ 313&,�42 <$ �(72G tk89 $ .3,363,f7 A� ;$ 3,8��9�5 � t,��4;�X8 $' �;2�r4 BS+� :� 8 G#2 939 =$ 3,427iS�'
TargeY Ending Ba�ance(90 Days of Operating Expenses��s $ 3,320,000 $ 3,447,000 $ 3,474,000 $ 3,575,000 $ 3,677,000 $ 3,783,000 $ 3,893,000 $ 4,006,000 $ 4,123,000 $ 4,243,000 $ 4,367,000 $ 4,495,000
BeginningReserveBalancee $ 343,550 $ 868,550 $ 1,168,550 $ 1,462,000 $ 1,962,000 $ 2,017,000 $ 2,511,000 $ 2,681,000 $ 3,581,000 $ 4,431,000 $ 3,431,000 $ 1,374,000
Plus:Net Debt Proceeds - - - - - - - - - - -
Net:Transferfrom/�To)theOperatingReserve 525,000 300,000 30Q000 500,000 500,000 SOQ000 500,000 900,000 900,000 800,000 300,000 300,000
Less:Useof Reserves for Ca ital Pro'ects and E ui ment (6,550) (451,000) (330,000) (50,000) (1,800,000) (2,357,000) (3,000)
�'nefin' air& � lqcement 8al�rnce $ � 5.50, �'.... ,�,SGB"Sft=� 1!i6�dtOtt $ i�962,000 .$',. p�2,1tA0 $ 7�',��,P;tt# 'S '..,2,d'$�2 UAU '��..$.3,551 ' _$ 4,d,�2 0(tEt $ 3 4.�1,f1�1P $i I.,��d,UpO.�_$ 1&��...0,. .......
TargetEndMgBatance(7%ofNetAssets)� $ 2,252,000 $ 2,232,000 S 1,262,000 $ 2,081,000 $ 1,034,000 $ 962,000 $ 916,000 $ 852,000 S 796,000 $ 857,000 $ 1,074,000 S 1,371,000
DaysCash on Hand 158 127 120 216 304 101 112 132 151 153 125 82
Endingvs.Target-AnnuatSu�plus/(Deficit) $ 2,632,265 $ 952,406 $ 506,721 $ 576,967 $ 633 $ (353,231) $ 429,383 $ 1,910,837 $ 3,374,965 $ 3,624,301 $ 1,574,425 $ (1,738,963)
e: o e >. o: .¢�� �� e�
. >.,... . . ;, , _;, _,
e: .
�.;. ._ , eoe � . •�o� , . .oeo � . .��s � ��� . , ��� � :�•��� , : :e�o , . .�ao ����� , �e� ..a��
BeginningReserveBalancea $ 1,038,312 $ 1,002,081 $ 1,427,935 $ 1,466,737 $ 1,352,273 $ 1,061,690 $ 664,650 S 994,339 $ 1,169,352 $ 828,486 $ 828,486 $ 828,486
PIus:TransfersinfromOperating Reserve 1,500,000 1,500,000 1,600,000 1,500,000 1,500,000 1,800,000 1,800,000 1,800,000 1,800,000 1,800,000 1,800,000 1,800,000
Plus:lnterest 16,449 15,875 22,621 23,236 21,898 16,819 10,530 15,752 18,525 13,125 13,125 13,125
Less:UseofReservesforRollingStock (1,552,680) (1,090p20) (1,553,820) (1,607,700) (1,842,0.80) (2,213,830) (1,480,870) (1,640,7A0) (2,159,390) (1,813,125) (1,813,125) (1,813,125)
�ridt�!Ni!!t't3 5#tlCk�tiFir#SGftlriCe $ 2,V02fi8� $ �,A2T,935 $ =l,+iGC+,73T $ �';�82,�73 .� 1.V61,69� � 6�4,68t1 a'� 49�,339 '+�.:�,�6935;2 �` $28,486==$ 82S,48S°�` $,28,9$B'= $ $2$t86•
Target Ending Ba�once 1,500,000 1,500,000 1,600,000 1,500,000 1,500,000 1,800,000 1,500,000 1,800,000 1,800,000 1,800,000 1,800,000 1,800,000
v� ��. e �e• � s
.o aat •eca .�oo ,a�� ��i �e� ,�•��� ��o Fir ^es t�k ��� t�¢
AnnuallnterestEarningsRaYe y 1.58% 1.58% 1.58% 1.58% 1.58% 1.58% 1.58% 1.58% 1.58% 1.58% 1.58% 1.58%
7.TOTaI beginning cash for FY 2018/I9 is perCitystaff estimates.Source file: REDDING_SW 20Yea�Plon FY19-21.xlsx.
2 Beginning0&MReserveBalanceforFY2018/19isnetoftotalbeginningcashalbcatedtoreservedfunds.
3.Transferfromthe0&MReserveFundtoRolling5tockisperCitystaffestimates.Sourcefile:REDDWG_SWZOYearPlartfYl9-11.xlsx.
4.Transfers to the Capital R&R Reserve Fund are perthe Gitys 10-Year Financial Plan.NBS assumes thatthe Citywill be transferring a minimum of 5300K peryear in orderto meei the reserve targetforfuture years beyond FY 2028/29.
5.The O&M Reserve fund is based on 90-days of operating wsts Iess utilityand administration expenses.
6.The beginning Capital R&R Reserve Fund balance is perCityStaff estimates. Source file: REDDING_SW SOVearPlon FY19-21.xlsx,GAPPLAN tab.
7.The Citymaintains 7%of netassets forthe Capital R&R Reserve Pund based on an averege 15-yearexpected iife of assets.
8.ThebeginningreservebalancefortheR011ingStockFundisperCityStaffestimates.Sourcefile: REDDING_SWIOYeorPlpnFY19-ZS.zIsx,Rotling5tocktab.
9.The interesiearning rate is based on the City's Pooled Cash Interest Rate.Source file: December2018_IntEpming.pdf�
Prepared by NBS-February 2020 61
Final Utility Rate Program Update Report-City of Redding
r •
_ .. .
Solid Waste Revenue Requirements vs. Ending Cash Balance vs.Recommended Reserve Targets
Revenue Under Existing and Recommended Rate Increases Sio :-
saomu. . ...._ .____... .:._.. ..... . ..... . ..... .. .,..�..
R FndtlCP IEP d"ure.c I $9 . ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... .. ..... .....
11 gS ckP h
$35mi1. �ftateFundedCptalExpentltures -- -- -- -- --
', Deb[Service $8 . ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... .. .....
�, 0&MErperves
�Revenuesund F' gR p m � �
$30mi1. •n ftevenuesund crcasidfldtes ..... ..... ..... ..... ....o ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... .....
o $7 ..
� �
� � e
� �
o � °
« $25mi1. . ..... ..... ..._ ..... ...• ,.,.,.,.,... 'n $b . ..... ..... ..... ..... .....
m m a �
m o �
a 8 ,e
O N
��. _ , ',.. a �5 .:
o $20 mil - � �
� c
��.... ',,. w $4 ..: .._. ���.
��: SSSmd. ,,.._ ...:
�. ,, $3 _.: ...: .: .__.. _..._ .:�. __ .. __
$SOmil. 1 EndingCashBalanceOperating&CapitalReserves
1
52 --�� ftemmmendedTargetReserveBalanceOperating&CapitaiReserves
��. $5 m 1 ..... ..�. ��� ',,. $1 .: ...� ���:
iSOmI. :.... ..��. ..... ..... ..... __... ..... ..... '., ,,, $p ..: :... : , , , ..
2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030
Fiscal Year Ending lune 30 Fiscal Year Ending June 30
Soiid Waste Utility-Number of Days Cash on Hand 5% Projected Solid Waste Rate Increases
'�.. iso ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... .....
160 ., .. .. .. .. .. .. ..... ... .. ._.. ..... ..... ..... 4 00.6 . 4 00% 4 OOY 4 00% .... ..... .....
��
� • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •�., � .� .. • • • • 4% � F? 3 t
140 �� ,.. tt � �� s2t t }Z l S��E
.. ... .. .. .. ._ � � .. ��{t{3 Pf Y is tt
� � ' � ...� k;`yl k>i,� Fy{s t41 '{S
q izo g--� -.--- ,�, --� -- :L --� 3 00% 3 OOY 3 00% 3 00% {jl�i �t��t4 yt�'ils {�t�� 3 OOY 3 00% 3 00%
� � � � `' � � .�.� �� 3� ¢, � 1�! it � 9 1 ...� S f cizF}t
,,, ° .`� ���.� �..:. , '. �.� � � �� j�t.�r' �.}.. f yi.. 31i 1� � ��3z�,?. i�s ; 'fsy�;�.. ?ts i{l� . ztl{f j�, l...
�100 �� � V �.� . . �, .�. .._ � tl t i i tt �t5 # s t s� 31(. r � S>,{z
. � �U s (d. S i ai S y. ti ft z 41��
. . . � - � �` ' .j x/ r��� i{F�� �t 1. . rt�} �ttij„ f�tz i4ttaf�3 �,r�'sJ J�t
o .... '.� � � ,,r'... . �. �.�.t. .�.� .� ,. . .t,.. ks y.y �j3}�Y.. �'y. F4l��ir } tI{', Zt}G t?�"14 'tF t t5'ii cShf'n lit`Z�t',
.,, — so � �, �. Z� .� ti .:�,� t� .. , �- .tt,:�yt v�! :ss �4tii; ;r71 �+:S� a z.t sy tf �f 1��.t tt ji�
e �..._ � ��. � .��. . ` .� ... _.1.� ��.� �.. � _. 2% 1£�51i1t '�5��{ JS l}E.. IS� .... 1�,1 .. .1„�, ��}`�T$t ��S" £ 1.z1{� {t'�. 44 ;..
,,. �� . �, ,� ..� _� ;��c +#:9 �I.t. �.at�! ,F,.�} �t,ilt� � �yctiz ��;..t �. IS.}>. :..t t{t�
���.. E � � �� � � � � � {xi.?��, 3iu�� f.�k. t5.v t �.i. iiaki .ttr"' �js. 3 .f. utv}.:,
. � �1.� 4 t 4i ��
� � � � � \ �
`� �t: t ; � �s �� �,,<,. �r? �i s 't t{ Gr�t t
,. z W �� i'. � �- � '. � '., � .�.-�< a�4i{,. �t. .,� ,4:1. .,�:t 3<,,.t, ,. .,�. 's:4>. „ St{
, �.� >.t�r. r r,��-. .r,:J �}{s r�t. <�1,,.1<>i� t,,,>.<,<„ s;�....,} �,�:� �+
,. �.._ ��,.� . � . �. �... }�Sy,> :}f .( d S 4 i {.. .
. � , :�. , <>r>:t+4c,'FJ Yt: � 4,);�,'t {f.t? 4
, . � � , .�t. � Y.+},,,a .S; 7..i :� .>: S l , I i...� �m...: .l�..:-
,, �� � � i � � .pk:. �:. ,ti. t. �3ttr ,7.., .l,c� :r{.S .t�?i . �l. ..ls .Sk:t
,. � .,,�;4f� :.�3i, .�..t�SE yt,r �2.� 1a f ts t �s �.�,a.t,.e.,
, � � i �>,2iE.. t �i�� �a�v.,, �. .,. �t. rr, � tf.� i..t, r �r� ..�,,
, '.� �� � � � � .f;;t. .t4 :c4.�t, as.k�. :p�,?,. .�,� .} ..t r{l #1<::
, � � `�� � :,�.,. .<s.:,..t a.5,t: a...z.:.. t ,i�:. .r. :�. tr.. tl� t.St�;.
. ao . ., . t . eti, .. S , i.. . �, e
. -��� � ,< .t. .,. , r z. ,c, r � 1 .s
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�.
� � ��� � �
. 1% .. .41 ..,- s >, a { r .y..
. �u... ��8 4 t �.. �.. �$ t r .�r..1: 'F.
, � �,a E. � E'. �i „ 4 t �„. .i 1,.«��i.i, t :,�
, ....�� ,,.i � ,� .}.§s ��<.� �,s� f k k �....�..
.. � ..� � �a*,,> �k�' ,�r,.<:, �.a `i�,.. �s x ��:.��,
, ��DaVsCashonHand � � ,;tt. S} .�, y,{ t�f'�` s�i i(�,t
.,. � 't �, ...� .t�.t ,ytlt Skf:a t..,, i }S�S� � �.t. ':i"' ..)t ,t-. },£��s+'s.
, � ...� . :�s) y� . u C s ii y ;1,.{�..� ti I i. .t ;i. � 1:.1. tfrk
� � >.r, , r,<: �t t <,t y r ,.
. :: ...�. � �.�,. ts>.ti,4,c ,f .. .s .�.,, ,7u,�. .� .�„
. ' �� � .. . ',, : �.s, � ... . . .. S. 4 .. ... �r}ttt ..: .i r.,... t,.,J1 y i?>Y. ' '� ��
, 20 :� 90DayOperatingReserveTarget � � � �;,,s,ta�} ,y. y.y {;t„ �, �,* ;a � ��� .. � t.{. t,a.>. }.
, � . . ��,. . �..... ,,, .. ...i.. . ., .� ti t�r. .,,r�;t ., .1 .F .'� t4�.. �F . :�.� � 4.n�. ',:
,, ...� �� � ..� � � � , ,, �,: ,s.�:t s� �;.�. .1.;f ,.,t.: .,v��s,,ti<„ ..�.§�,s,i�,� S, tJ tc r. ,t . 1 }a . ..., ,
, :� .� �.' �.. �����\\ , , .. ,t.�?�.. . . . .... . �.�„i„( ..r .. .,f�. <s,,...tks, rS�,t. .�,.s>#. . .S .<�,,, ,
, ��.: � • •150-DasCashonHand . .( �. � � � , .., . ,....€tis1 �.{4�s S`�.:S,r ti:t . ;st�7 }.,I...i b�'� ;:.s}� ,.,aiat , :lsl.. 1�1,:t ��;
... �, v � �\\ �((� .��\\\\ � ��a isr,t .ru„«y} �� tts t .s�.« .,�s,,:i�.�;. „a'£,,t��,
���, .�)� ,._ _._ _.: ._.. ¢� ��....'til\1� ..:»� .:�\L"\\\\\\\\ ...� . � ..._tt� ', o ..,s:{'Lr�z, ..;.;5$,,,� r�1�.ii_ .r,4�rrtas'..... ��a,t,s..,t.(' .._ t,�,.�`� .....��.;�is, ._.�,a.t __�.:,u� ..,�;t..iv� :.;t�t;�s.. '�.:
... p , .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. . .. , . .. . 0� . .. . .. .. . . . . .. .. ..
', 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 20D 2028 2029 2030 2020 2021 2a22 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030
�. Fxal Vear End nglune 30
��� Fiscal Year Ending June 30
Prepared by NBS—February 2020 62
Final Utility Rate Program Update Report—City of Redding
r •
_ .. .
TABIE 14: SOURCES AND USES OF CAPITAL FUNDS
B 9'
a ° � ^ 1 : '�� ! : ° i ° ! ��. t B ! W f � 0 � 0 . 1 . 6 : 9 ; ° A ° i
Grant $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
StateRevolvingFundLoan - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Revenue Bond - - - - - - - - - - - -
Surplus Capital Reserve 501,250 - - 6,550 - 451,000 - 330,000 - 50,000 1,800,000 2,357,000 3,000
Rate Revenue - 51,000 1,035,000 243,450 - - - - - - - 1,893,000 5,723,521
<. .. , �i <.: <. . <.. ..::... ,.... � .:<.:<.:<.:<.:... .� ... ... . <.. .. ... <.... . . .. .. ,..
yy � .:..�V.:=:::s=: L ::_::_:::, �.. :::.::.::. :.::=::t::,_<< ,. .
� .. , p
r � . t F� u........: _.5 t�0 , � 0 __ . ��}'. 45 0 : 330 t� � ti13 : ' '11 d#� 2'
G�t� TOt 1;C taM ��Vtn Ssr �es;:<:<:<: t1125� _ -: i � � _ 2 DQ� . � �0�1 ': � _ t� . �t�_ 1 t3U tJ i� 4 25�Q ���t�a 1.
�l z � .5 0 �, t7d �.. �� � � �.
,.b. �� i� ..... 1 �.....I , t .,... ,r . t�'.:.._:: �� k .Y'�.:=::,::: �. ..k ...... � '�._ ,i. .......i'?' Y .. .� ! .t ... , e., l
EffectiveAnnual FundingofCapital Expenditures $ 501,250 $ 51,000 $1,035,000 $ 250,000 $ - $ 451,000 $ - $ 330,000 $ - $ 50,000 $1,800,000 $4,250,000 $5,726,521
<itd�.. �...y „i�r�1..
_�� u..tit.�� �,� .... :..<.., <;.� ..<......; . . .. .�, ,..... ,. .<.... ..., ....... ... . ,,,,,
.F t�.. IT ..JC7�?f . . ` ^_^<. �* . ,,..., ; .. ..,:<. � <.,<. ..�, �,
f .." ... ,:. :. ...'�� .,......,t=:tt:
. . '<<< .� <<<' .�: ... �w�' .� .csa... � r�:t �"- r� <..,:,,�,:_;...'�.: :::_:_� �i',.....'''..:.<. ° ��... „' �._
w „� .. P . 1 .,.. .. �._ . ,. . � �* < ..:. '''`=3rr��.... . e �... _'s� .� <' ' „' .
TABLE 26: ADJUSTMENTTO CIASSIFICATION OF EXPENSES
> . � 0 .- o �4 �
FY 2019/20Target Rate Rev.After Rate Increases 1 $ 17,469,524
Current Level of Rate Revenue 16,960,702
FY 2019/20 Projected Rate Increase 3.0%
�������r�R{�.��1At�.'Xi4�R�+�.�.i���^o.�C����\\� \\��\�..yl �..�����fi�L� .�..\.R.j.�'47�j�+7.� ..yl..y.�k�f��.�.... .��������V4� �...���������.7+'�J ..
Percent of(ievenue 52% 39°0 12°p 3%
1.This was adjusted to reflectthe full rate increase vs.revenue from delayed effective date ofJan.1,2020forrate increases.
Prepared by NBS—February 2020 63
Final Utility Rate Program Update Report—City of Redding
r •
_ .. .
0 " 0 • i � f f F ' Q
_�1111111111 11 .
1 1
e o e m � a �. ...... ......
e e i @ ° �
" ' ,�..,...*....x,ci.._ ..�....�..a�,.:�b:v
.�.t�� ..,.y..� � ��� ..��,
� d �
8 � ' • �� � ` .�
� 1�
� � � d �� \.
R y
Residential:
Residential Min Charge 122 $ 2,378 $ 28,540 $ -
Residential 45-Gallon 938 19,841 238,094 285,341
Residential64-Gallon 3,870 86,590 1,039,080 1,271,068
Residential96-Gallon 21,823 522,197 6,266,360 7,221,579
2nd Green Waste Cart 5,077 19,870 238,445 261,321
Subtorat 32,830 $ 650,877 $ 7,820,518 $ 8,746,848
Residential NCC 730 $ 2,675 $ 2,675 $ 2,675
Commercial:
Commercial Min Charge 113 $ 2,360 $ 28,321
Commercial 45-Gallon 8 142 1,710
Commercial64-Gallon 239 5,440 65,275
Commercial96-Gallon 705 17,014 204,163
Subtotal 1,065 $ 24,956 $ 299,469 $ 328,244
Cc�mmercial NCC 104 $ 386 $ 4,633.44
Total 32,895 $ 675,832 $ 8,109,987 $ 9,075,093 $ 9,041,985
Data is from the City's Waste Wheeler Revenue Report forlune 2018 dated 07/03/2018.
Prepared by NBS-February 2020 64
Final Utility Rate Program Update Report-City of Redding
r •
_ .. .
, aa
o . . � .
� a � ' o ' e
d t "m �e r e i � ' r IiWa RI°a &I�m ti°,
Residential Wheeled Cart Monthly Rate 1
45-Gal Container $22.36 $23.16 $23.85 $24.57 $25.30
64-Gal Container $23.37 $24.20 $24.93 $25.68 $26.45
96-Gal Container $25.01 $25.90 $26.68 $27.48 $28.30
Additional Green Waste Container $4.00 $4.00 $4.00 $4.00 $4.00
Landfill Monitoring ($0.22/month-no increases)
Automated Cart Special Collection Rate (per cart)
45-ga I I o n
Same Day(50%of monthly fee) $11.18 $11.58 $11.93 $12.28 $12.65
Not Same Day(65%of monthly fee) $14.53 $15.05 $15.50 $15.97 $16.45
64-ga I I on
Same Day(50%of monthly fee) $11.69 $12.10 $12.46 $12.84 $13.22
Not Same Day(65%of monthly fee) $15.19 $15.73 $16.20 $16.69 $17.19
96-ga I I o n
Same Day(50%of monthly fee) $12.51 $12.95 $13.34 $13.74 $14.15
Not Same Day(65%of monthly fee) $16.26 $16.84 $17.34 $17.86 $18.40
1.Residential Service includes trash,recycling,and green waste containers.
Prepared by NBS-February 2020 65
Final Utility Rate Program Update Report-City of Redding
r •
_ .. .
. , o � . a . a
��s�,w, � y� • .c�,���� �� � ���•��.�� .�.����Y�<�- �. w..; �� �: � � s `.�� '� , �� '� � , e.
b „ `�v
Adjusted Container Cost($/year)by Size 1: $9.42 $14.12 $18.82 $28.24 $37.65 $56.47 $75.30 �t'.fk. $75.30 Adjusted avg.cost
Numberofcontainersbysize 1 438 534 528 686 305 57 2,549 $30.79 COSAveragecost
Annual ContainerCost Recovery: $8 $6,185 $20,049 $14,906 $25,840 $17,227 $4,275 $78,490
Adjustment factor(Ea
TotalAnnualContarnerCostRecovery: $78,490 2.445 generatesufjicient
TargetCantainerCostRecovery: $78,490 revenue)
1.Calculation is the average cost adjusted forcontainersize in proportion to volume.
, � .,��� � � .Y' �" M1����y`'. .t � �3
�
Adjusted Lift Cost($/lift)by Size:� $13.64 $35.01 $26.37 $19.10 $21.83 $27•28 $32J4 �f.A. $32J4 Ad}usted avg.cost
Number of Lift/year by size 44 24,939 31,460 38,554 56,664 32,033 7,050 190,745 $20.80 COSAverage cost
AnnualLiftCostRecovery: $601 5374,214 $514,980 $736,287 52,236,721 $873,927 $230,803 $3,967,533
Rdjusfinerrt factor(to
TatalAnnualContarnerCostRecavery: $3,967,533 1.574 generatesuJfictent
TargetContarnerCostRecovery: $3,967,533 revenue)
�,.... , .�, , :�.:.�.,.,,.. ?�,_�..�,�w..a . ,,.....���. ., ....t..�,...��, .�,.ut. o,.,,.. .. .., ,..xa,,_�, . �.%�..»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»,
. 8 . � .... ..e....! .-..-. .
c
2.0 0 $ 1,727 $ 3,438 $ - $ 6,860 $ - $ - $ 12,026
Front Load 3.0 0 2,350 4,676 - - - - 7,027
Compactors 4.0 0 11,893 17,744 - 11,797 - - 41,435
6.0 0 16,878 75,520 37,688 - - - 130,087
Total $ 190,574
Z.o o $ ��4 S - S - $ - S - S - S ��4
1.5 0 430,848 89,634 - - - - 520,482
Commercial 2•0 0 589,093 148,291 15,848 - - - 753,233
Containers 3.0 0 576,793 418,003 141,163 21,479 6,706 16,085 1,180,229
4.0 0 762,275 818,787 337,877 58,666 81,400 29,285 2,088,290
6.0 0 358,376 421,026 298,073 158,685 187,133 118,799 1,542,093
8.0 0 70,655 89,417 91,860 88,906 55,503 49,914 446,255
Total $ 6,531,355
Prepared by NBS-February 2020 66
Final Utility Rate Program Update Report-City of Redding
r •
_ .. .
CITY OF REDDING CITY OF REDDING
SOLID WASTE DIVISION SOLID WASTE DIVISION
Commercial Container Rates PROPOSED NEW Commercial Container Rates
Fiscal Year 2018-2019 Fiscal Year 2019-2020
SIZE/COLLECTIONSPERWEEK ONE TWO THREE FOUR FIVE SIX SIZE/COLLECTIONSPERWEEK ONE NJO THREE POUR FIVE SIX
1.0 Yard $ 70.07 $ 139.48 $ 208.88 $ U8Z9 $ 347.69 $ 4ll10 1.0 Yard $ 76.12 $ 151.46 $ 226.80 $ 302.14 $ 377.48 $ 452.82
Landfill Monitoring (136%) 0.95 1.90 2.84 3J8 4.73 5.67 Landfill Monitoring �136%) 1.04 2.06 3.OS 4.11 5.13 6.16
MonthlyCharge $ 71.02 $ 14137 $ 271.72 $ 282.07 $ 352.42 $ 422.77 MonthlyCharge $ 77.16 $ 153.52 $ 229.88 $ 306.25 $ 382.67 $ 458.97
1.5 Yard $ 83.69 $ 16638 S 249.07 $ 331.76 $ 414.46 $ 497.16 1.5 Yard $ 90.54 $ 179.90 $ 269.26 $ 358.63 $ 447.99 $ 537.35
�andfill Monitoring (736%) 114 L26 3.39 4.51 5.64 6J6 i.andfill Monitoring (136%) L23 2.45 3.66 4.88 6.09 7.31
MonthlyCharge $ 84.83 $ 168.64 $ 252.46 $ 336.27 $ 420.10 $ 503.92 MonthlyCharge $ 91.77 $ 182.35 $ 272.93 $ 363.50 $ 454.08 $ 544.66
2.0 Vard $ 9731 $ 193.29 $ 289.27 $ 355.25 $ 481.23 $ 577.20 2.0 Yard $ 104.95 $ 208.34 $ 311.73 $ 415.11 $ 518.50 $ 621.58
�andfill Monitoring (7.36%) 1.32 2.63 3.93 5.24 6.54 7.85 landfill Monitoring �136%) 1.43 2.83 4Z4 5.65 7.05 8.46
MonthlyCharge $ 98.63 $ 195.91 $ 293.21 $ 390.49 $ 487.77 $ 585.05 MonthlyCharge $ 106.38 $ 211.17 $ 315.97 $ 420.76 $ 525.55 $ 63034
3.0 Yard $ 124.55 $ 24711 $ 369.65 $ 49210 $ 614.76 $ 73731 3.0 Yard $ 133.79 $ 265.22 $ 396.65 5 528.08 $ 659.52 $ 790.95
landfill Monitoring (1.36%) 1.69 336 5.03 6.69 836 10.03 landfill Monitoring �136%) 1.82 3.61 539 718 8.97 10J6
MonthlyCharge $ 12634 $ 250.47 $ 374.68 $ 498.90 $ 623.12 $ 74].34 MonthlyCharge $ 135.61 $ 268.83 $ 402.05 $ 535.27 $ 668.49 $ 801J1
4.0 Yard $ 15178 $ 300.91 $ 450.04 $ 599.11 $ 748.29 $ 897A2 4.0 Yard $ 162.62 $ 322.10 $ 481.58 $ 641.06 $ 800.54 $ 960A2
Landfill Monimring (136%) 2.06 4.09 6.12 8.15 10.18 1Z20 Landfill Monitoring (136%) 221 438 6.55 8.72 10.89 13.06
MonthlyCharge $ 153.85 $ 305.01 $ 456.16 $ 607.32 $ 758.46 $ 909.62 MonthlyCharge $ 164.83 $ 326.48 $ 485.13 $ 649.78 $ 871.42 $ 973.07
6.O Yard $ 20617 $ 405.54 $ 610.81 $ 813.08 $ 1,01536 $ 1,217.63 6.O Yard $ 220.25 $ 435.85 $ 651.43 $ 867.00 $ 1,082.58 $ 1,298.15
Landfill Monitoring (736%) 2.51 5.56 5.31 11.06 73.81 16.56 i.andfill Monitoring (1.36%) 3.00 5.93 8.86 11.79 14J2 17.65
MonthlyCharge $ 209.07 $ 414.10 $ 619.12 $ 824.14 $ 1,029.17 $ 1,234.19 MonthlyCharge $ 223.28 $ 441.78 $ 660.29 $ 878.79 $ 1,097.30 $ 1,315.81
8.0 Yard $ 260.75 $ 516.16 $ 771.58 $ 1,027.00 $ 1,282.42 $ 1,537.84 S.0 Yard $ 277.94 $ 549.61 $ 821.28 $ 1,092.95 $ 1,364.62 $ 1,63629
�andfill Monitoring (7.36%) 3.55 7.02 10.49 13.97 17.44 20.91 landfill Monitoring �136%) 3J8 7.47 ll.11 14.86 15.56 2225
MonthlyCharge $ 26419 $ 523.18 $ 782.07 $ 3,040.97 $ 1,299.86 $ 1,558.75 MonthlyCharge $ 28172 $ 557.09 $ 832.45 $ 1,107.81 $ 1,383.18 $ 1,658.54
tandfiil Monitoring fee is caiculated at 1.36%on the total soiid waste charge. Landfill Monitoring fee is calculated at 1.36%on the total solid waste charge.
Soecial Collection Fees: Snecial Colleaion Fees:
25%above weekly rate(monthly L/F Monitoring 25%above weekly rate(monthly L/f Monitoring
rate/4.33) Rate (136%) Total rate/4.33) Rate (136%) Total
1.O Yard Non-compacted $ 20.23 02S $ 20.51 1.O Yard Non-compacted $ 21.96 030 $ 22.0
7.5 Yard Non-compacted $ 24.16 0.33 $ 24.49 1.5 Yard Non-compacted $ 26.12 0.36 $ 26.47
2.0 Yard Non-wmpacted $ 28.09 038 $ 28.47 2.0 Yard Non-compacted $ 3025 0.41 $ 30.69
3AYardNon-compacted $ 35.95 0.49 $ 36.44 3.OYardNon-compacted $ 38.59 0.52 $ 39.12
4.O Yard Non-compacted $ 43.52 0.60 $ 44.41 4.O Yard Non-compacted $ 46.91 0.64 $ 47.55
6A Yard Non-compacted $ 59.55 0.81 $ 60.36 6.O Yard Non-compacted $ 63.54 0.86 $ 64.41
8.0 Yard Non-compacted $ 75.27 1.02 $ 76.29 8.0 Yard Non-compacted $ 80.18 1.09 $ 81.26
Prepared by NBS-February 2020 67
Final Utility Rate Program Update Report-City of Redding
r •
_ .. .
CITY OF REDDING CITY OF REDDING
SOLID WASTE DIVISION SOLID WASTE DIVISION
Front Load Compactor Rates PROPOSED Front Load Compactor Rates
Fiscal Year 2018-2019 Fiscal Year 2019-2020
SIZE/COLLECTIONSPERWEEK ONE TNO THREE FOUR FIVE SIX SI2E/COLLECTIONSPERWEEK ONE TWO THREE FOUR FIVE SIX
2.0 Vard $ 160J7 $ 32011 $ 479.66 $ 639.10 $ 795.53 $ 957.97 2.0 Yard $ 169.85 $ 338.13 $ 506.42 $ 674.70 $ 842.95 $ 1,011.26
Landfill Monitoring (1.36%) 2.19 435 6.52 8.69 10.56 13.03 �andfill Monitoring (136%) 231 4.60 6.89 9.18 11.46 13J5
MonthlyCharge $ 162.96 $ 324.57 $ 486.18 $ 647.79 S 809•39 $ 971.00 MonthlyCharge $ 172.16 S 342•73 $ 513.30 $ 683.87 $ 854.45 5 1,025.02
3.OYard $ 219J4 $ 437.49 $ 655.23 $ 87L98 $ 1,090J1 $ 1,308.46 3.OVard $ 231.13 5 459.91 $ 688.69 $ 917.47 $ 1,14624 $ 1,375A2
Landfill Monitoring (136°�,) 2.99 5.95 8.91 11.87 14.83 77.80 Landfill Monitonng (136%) 3.14 625 9.37 12.48 15.59 18.70
MonthlyCharge $ 222.73 $ 443.44 $ 66414 $ 884.85 $ i,105.55 $ 3,326.25 MonthlyCharge $ 234.27 $ 466.16 5 698.05 $ 929.94 $ 1,161.83 $ 1,393J2
4.0Vard $ 27571 $ 55476 $ 830.81 $ 1,106.86 $ 1,382.90 $ 1,65895 4.0Yard $ 292.41 $ SS1.6S $ 870.96 $ 1,16013 $ 1,449.51 $ 1,738J8
landfill Monitoring (136%) 3J9 7.54 11.30 i5A5 SS.Sl 2256 landfill Monitoring (136%) 3.95 7.91 11.85 15J8 19.71 23.65
MonthlyCharge $ 282.50 $ 56231 $ 842.11 $ 1,121.91 $ 1,401J1 $ 1,681.51 MonthlyCharge $ 29639 $ 589.60 $ 882.80 $ 1,176.01 $ 1,469.22 $ 1,762.43
5.0 Yard* $ 337.68 $ 672.04 $ 1,006.39 $ 1,340.73 $ 1,675.09 $ 2,009.44 S.0 Yard* 5 353.69 S 703.46 $ 1,053.23 $ 1,403.00 $ 1,752.77 $ 2,102.54
Landfill Monitoring (1.36%) 4.59 9.14 13.69 18.23 22.78 27.33 Landfill Monitoring (1.36%) 4.81 9.57 74.32 19.08 23.84 28.59
MonthlyCharge $ 342.28 $ 681.18 $ 1,020.08 S 1,358.97 $ 1,697.87 $ 2,036.77 MonthlyCharge $ 358.50 $ 713.03 5 1,067.55 $ 1,422.08 $ 1,776.60 5 2,131.13
6.O Yard $ 396.65 $ 78931 $ 1,187.97 $ 1,574.61 $ 1,96727 $ 2,359.93 6.O Yard $ 414.97 $ 825Z4 $ 1,235.50 $ 1,645J6 $ 2,056.03 $ 2,46629
landfill Monitoring (136%) 539 1073 16.07 21.41 2675 32.10 Landfill Monitoring (136%) 5.64 11.22 16.80 2238 27.96 33.54
MonthlyCharge $ 402.05 $ 800.04 $ 1,198.04 $ 1,596.03 $ 1,994.03 $ 2,392.02 MonthlyCharge $ 420.61 $ 836.46 $ 1,252.30 $ 1,668.15 $ 2,083.99 $ 2,499.83
8.0 Yard* $ 525.87 $ 1,023.86 $ 1,533.12 S 2,04238 S 2,551.64 $ 3,060.91 8.0 Yard* $ 537.53 $ 1,068J9 $ 1,600.04 $ 2,131.30 $ 2,662.55 $ 3,193.81
Landfill Monitoring (136%) 7.19 13.92 20.85 27J8 34.70 41.63 �andfill Monitoring (1.36%) 7.31 14.54 21J6 28.99 36.21 43.44
MonthlyCharge $ 536.06 $ 1,037J8 $ 1,553.97 $ 2,W0.15 $ 2,58635 $ 3,102.54 MonihlyCharge $ 544.84 $ 1,08332 $ 1,621.80 $ 2,160.28 $ 2,69SJ6 $ 3,237.24
L/F Monitoring I./F Monitoring
Soecial Goliection Fees Rate (136%) Total Snecial Collection Fees Rate (1.36%) Total
2.0 Yard Compactor $ 37.13 0.50 $ 37.64 2.0 Yard Compacior $ 49.00 0.67 $ 49.66
3.0 Yard Compactor $ SOJS 0.69 $ 51.44 3.0 Yard Compactor $ 66.67 0.91 $ 67.58
4.0 Yard Compactor $ 6437 0.85 $ 65.24 4.0 Yard Compactor $ 5435 1.15 $ 85.50
5.0 Yard Compactor $ 77.99 1.06 $ 79.05 5.0 Yard Compactor $ 102.03 139 $ 103.41
6A Yard Compactor $ 91.61 1.25 $ 92.85 6.O Yard Compactor $ 119J0 1.63 $ 12133
7.0 Yard CompacTor $ 103.00 1.40 $ 104.40 7.0 Vard Compacior $ 13738 1.87 5 139.25
8A Yard Compactor $ 122.14 1.66 $ 123.80 8.O Yard Compacior $ 155.06 2.11 $ 157.17
landtill Monitoring fees are calculated at 1.36%on the total soiid waste charge. Landfill Monitoring fees are wlculated at 136%on the total solid waste charge.
Special wilection fees are caicuiated at 63%higher than the weekty rete for uncompacted fronbload containers to reflect the heavier Special coliection fees are calculated at 63%higher than the weekiy rate for uncompacted fronbload mntainers to refiect the
weight.�The weekly rate is calculated by dividing the monthly rate by 4.33) heavier weight.(The weekly rate is calculated by dividing the monthly rate by 4.33)
Monthly compactor retes are calculated by multiplying single collection rate(special collection fee)by number of collections per week Monthly mmpactor rates are calculated by multiplying single mllection rote(special collection fee)by number of collections per
and then multiplying by 4.33) week and then multiplying by 4.33)
*The City has no acrounts for this size,so rates are interpolated based on larger and smalier compactorsizes. *The City has na attouMs for this size,so rates are interpolaYed based an largerand smafter rompadorsizes.
Prepared by NBS-February 2020 68
Final Utility Rate Program Update Report-City of Redding
r •
_ .. .
CITY OF REDDING CITY OF REDDING
SOLID WASTE DIVISION SOLID WASTE DIVISION
PROPOSED NEW Commercial Container Rates PROPOSED NEW Commercial Container Rates
Fiscal Year 2020-2021 Fiscal Year 2021-2022
SIZE/COIIECTIONSPERWEEK ONE TWO THREE FOUR PIVE SIX SIZE/COILECTI0N5PERWEEK ONE TWO THREE FOUR PIVE SIX
1.0 Yard $ 78.41 $ 156.01 $ 233.60 $ 311.20 $ 388.80 $ 466.40 1.0 Yard $ 8076 $ 160.69 $ 240.61 $ 320.54 $ 400.47 $ 48039
Landfill Monitoring (136%) 1.07 2.12 3.18 4.23 5.29 6.34 Landfill Monimring (136%) 110 2.19 3.27 436 5.45 6.53
MonthlyCharge $ 79.47 $ 158.13 $ 236.�8 $ 315.44 $ 394.09 $ 472.74 MonthlyCharge $ 81.86 $ 162.87 $ 243.58 $ 324.90 $ 405.91 $ 486.93
1.5 Yard $ 93.26 $ 185.30 $ 277.34 $ 369.38 $ 461.43 $ 553.47 1.5 Yard $ 96.05 $ 190.86 $ 285.66 $ 380.47 $ 475.27 $ 570.07
Landfill Monitoring (136%) 1.27 2.52 3.77 5.02 628 7.53 Landfill Monitoring (1.36%) 131 2.60 3.85 5.17 6.46 7J5
MonthlyCharge $ 94.52 $ 187.82 $ 281.11 $ 374.41 $ 467.70 $ 561.00 MonihlyCharge $ 97.36 $ 193.45 $ 289.55 $ 385.64 $ 481.73 $ 577.83
2.O Yard $ SO8.10 $ 214.59 $ 321.08 $ 427.57 $ 534.05 $ 640.54 2.O Yard $ 111.35 $ 221.03 $ 330.71 $ 440.39 $ 550.07 $ 659.76
i.andtill Monitoring (136%) 1.47 2.92 4.37 5.81 716 8.71 Landfill Monitoring (1.36%) 1.51 3.01 4.50 5.99 7.48 8.97
MonthlyCharge $ 109.57 $ 217.51 $ 325.44 $ 433.38 $ 541.32 $ 649.25 MonthlyCharge $ 112.86 $ 224.03 $ 335.21 $ 446.38 $ 557.56 $ 668J3
3.0 Yard $ 137.80 $ 273.18 $ 405.55 $ 543.93 $ 679.30 $ 814.68 3.0 Yard $ 141.93 $ 28137 $ 420.81 $ 56025 $ 699.68 $ 839.12
landfill Monitoring (1.36%) 1.87 3.72 5.56 7.40 924 11.08 Landfill Monitoring (1.36%) 1.93 3.83 5.72 7.62 9.52 11.41
MonthlyCharge $ 139.67 $ 276.89 $ 41411 $ 55132 $ 685.54 $ 825J6 MonihiyCharge $ 143.86 $ 285.20 $ 426.53 $ 567.86 $ 70910 $ 550.53
4.0 Yard $ 167.50 5 331.76 $ 496.02 $ 66029 $ 824.55 $ 988.82 4.0 Yard $ 172.52 5 341.71 $ 510.91 $ 680.10 $ 84929 $ 1,018.48
�andtill Monitoring (136%) 218 4.51 6J5 8.95 1121 13A5 Landfill Monitoring (136%) 235 4.65 695 925 11.55 13.85
MonthlyCharge $ 169.77 $ 336.27 $ 502J7 $ 669.27 $ 835J7 $ i,002.27 MonthlyCharge $ 174.87 $ 34636 $ 517.85 $ 689.35 $ 860.84 $ 1,03233
6.OYard $ 226.89 $ 448.93 $ 670.97 $ 893.01 $ 1,115.05 $ 1,337.10 6.OYard $ 23370 $ 462.40 $ 691.10 $ 919.80 $ 1,148.51 $ 1,37711
Landfill Monimring (136%) 3.09 6.11 9.13 12.14 15.16 18.18 Landfill Monimring (136%) 318 629 9.40 12.51 SSb2 18J3
MonthlyCharge $ 229.97 $ 455.04 $ 680.10 $ 905.16 $ 1,730.22 $ 7,355.28 MonihlyCharge $ 236.87 $ 468.69 $ 700.50 $ 932.31 $ 1,764.13 $ 7,395.94
S.OYard $ 286.28 $ 566.10 $ 845.92 $ 1,125.74 $ 1,405.56 $ 1,685.37 S.OYard $ 294.87 $ 583.08 $ 877.30 $ 1,159.51 $ 7,447.72 $ 1,735.94
Landtill Monitoring (136%) 3.89 7J0 11.50 75.31 1912 22.92 Landfill Monitoring (1.36%) 4.01 7.93 11.85 15J7 19.69 23.67
MonthlyCharge $ 290.18 $ 573.80 $ 857.42 $ 1,141.05 $ 1,424.67 $ 1,708.29 MonthiyCharge $ 298.88 $ 591.01 $ 883.15 $ 1,175.28 $ 1,467.41 $ 1,759.54
landfili Monitoring fee is calculated at 136%on the total solid waste charge. Landflll Monitoring fee is caiculated at 136%0�the total soiid waste charge.
Soecial Collection Fees: � Suecial Collection Fees: �
25%above weekly rate L/F Monitoring 25%above weekly rate L/F Monitoring
(monthly rate/4.33) Rate (1.36%) Total (monthty rete14.33) Rate (1.36%) Total
1.0 Yard Non-compacted $ 22.62 0.31 $ 22.93 1.0 Yard Non-compacted $ 23.30 0.32 $ 23.62
1.5 Yard Non-compacted $ 26.90 0.37 $ 27.27 1.5 Yard Nomcompacted $ 27J7 0.38 $ 28.08
2.0 Yard Non-compacted $ 31.18 OA2 $ 31.61 2.0 Yard Nomcompacted $ 3212 0.44 $ 32.56
3DYardNon-compacted $ 39J5 0.54 $ 40.29 3.OYardNommmpacted $ 40.94 0.56 $ 41.50
4.OYardNon-compacted 5 48.32 0.66 $ 48.97 4.OYardNommmpacted 5 49.77 0.68 $ 50.44
6.OYardNon-compacted $ 65.45 0.89 $ 6634 6.OYardNon-compacted $ 67.41 0.92 $ 6833
8.0 Yard Non-compacted $ 82.58 1.72 $ 83.69 8.0 Yard Non-compacted $ 85.06 1.76 $ 86.21
Prepared by NBS-February 2020 69
Final Utility Rate Program Update Report-City of Redding
r •
_ .. .
CITY OF REDDIN6
SOLIO WASTE DIVISION
PROPOSED NEW Commercial Container Rates
Fiscal Year 2022-2023
SIZE/COLLECTIONSPERWEEK ONE TWO THREE FOUR FIVE SIX
1.0 Yard $ 83.78 $ 165.51 $ 247.83 $ 330.16 $ 412.48 $ 494.80
Landfill Monitoring (136%� 1.13 2.25 337 4.49 5.61 6J3
MonthlyCharge $ 8431 $ 167J6 $ 251.20 $ 334.65 $ 418.09 $ 501.53
1.5 Yard $ 98.93 $ 196.58 $ 29423 $ 391.SS $ 489.53 $ 587.18
Landfill Monitoring (136%) 1.35 2.67 4.00 5.33 6.66 7.99
MonthlyCharge $ 300.28 $ 199.26 $ 298.23 $ 397.21 $ 496.19 $ 595.16
2.0 Yard $ 114.69 $ 227.66 5 340.63 $ 453.60 $ 566.58 $ 679.55
Landfill Monitoring (1.36%) 1.56 3.10 4.63 6.1� 7.71 9.24
MonthlyCharge $ 116.25 $ 230.76 $ 345.26 $ 459.77 $ 574.28 $ 658.79
3.0 Yard $ 146.19 $ 289.81 $ 433.43 $ 5��.05 $ 720.67 $ 864.29
Landfill Monitoring (136%� 1.99 3.94 5.89 7.85 9.80 11.75
MonthlyCharge $ 14818 $ 293J5 $ 43933 $ 584•90 $ 730.47 $ 876.05
4.0 Yard $ ll770 $ 351.96 $ 526.23 $ 700.50 $ 874J7 $ 1,049.04
Landfill Monitoring (736%) 2.42 4J9 7.16 9.53 11.90 14.27
MonthlyCharge $ 180.11 $ 356.75 $ 533.39 $ 710.03 $ 886.67 $ 1,063.30
6.OYard $ 240J1 $ 47627 $ 711.83 $ 947.40 $ 1,182.96 $ 1,41853
Landfill Monitoring (136%� 327 6.48 9.68 12.88 16.09 19.29
MonthlyCharge $ 243.98 $ 482.75 $ 721.51 $ 960.28 $ 1,199.05 $ 1,437.82
B.OYard $ 303J2 $ 600.58 $ 897.44 $ 1,194.29 $ 1,491.15 $ 1,788.01
Landfill Monitoring (1.36%� 4.13 5.17 1221 16.24 20.25 24.32
MonthlyCharge $ 307.85 $ 608J4 $ 909.64 $ 1,210.54 $ 1,Sll.43 $ 1,812.33
Landfill Monitoring fee is calculated at 1.36%on the total solid waste charge.
Soecial Collection Fees: e
25%above weekly rate L/F Monitoring
(monthly ratel4.33)
Rate (1.36%) Total
1.0 Yard Non-compacted $ 23.99 0.33 $ 2433
l.5 Yard Non-compacted $ 28.54 0.39 $ 28.93
2.O Yard Non-compacted $ 33.08 0.45 $ 33.53
3.O Yard Nomcompacted $ 42.11 0.57 $ 42J4
4.0 Yard Non-compacted $ 51.26 0.70 $ 51.96
6.O Yard Non-compacted $ 69.43 0.94 $ 70.35
SA Yard Non-compacted $ 87.61 1.19 $ SSJ9
Prepared by NBS-February 2020 70
Final Utility Rate Program Update Report-City of Redding
r •
_ .. .
CITY OP REDDING CITY OF REDDING
SOLID WASTE DIVISION SOLID WASTE DIVISION
Front Load Compactor Rates PROPOSED Front Load Compactor Rates
Fiscal Year 2018-2019 Fiscal Year 2019-2020
S2E/COLLEQIONSPERWEEK ONE iW0 THREE FOUR FIVE SIX SIZE/COIIECTIONSPERWEEK ONE TWO TNREE FOUR FIVE SIX
2A Yard $ 160.77 $ 320.21 $ 479.66 $ 63910 $ 798.53 $ 957.97 2.O Yard $ 169.85 $ 338.13 $ 506.42 $ 674J0 $ 542.98 $ 1,01116
Landfili Monitoring (1.36%) 2.19 435 6.52 8.69 10.86 13.03 Landfili Monitoring (1.36%) 2.37 4.60 6.89 9.18 11.46 73.75
MonthlyCharge $ 762.96 $ 324.57 $ 486.78 $ 647.79 $ 809.39 $ 977.00 MonthlyCharge $ 172.16 $ 342.73 $ 513.30 $ 683.87 $ 854A5 $ 7,025.02
3.OYard $ 279J4 5 437.49 $ 65523 S 572.98 $ 1,09071 $ 1,308.46 3.OYard $ 23113 $ 459.97 $ 688.69 5 917.47 $ 1,74624 $ 1,375A2
Landfili Monitoring (136%) 2.99 595 8.91 11.87 14.53 ll.80 Landfili Monimring (136%) 3.14 6.25 937 12.48 15.59 SS.70
MonthlyCharge $ 222.73 $ 443.44 $ 664.14 $ 884.85 $ 1,105.55 $ 1,326.25 MonthlyCharge $ 234.27 $ 466.16 $ 698.05 $ 929.94 $ 1,161.83 $ 1,393.72
4.O Yard $ 278.71 $ 554.76 $ 830.81 $ 1,106.86 $ 1,382.90 $ 1,658.95 4.O Yard $ 292.41 $ 581.68 $ 870.96 $ 1,160.23 $ 1,449.51 $ 1,738.78
landfili Monitoring (7.36%) 3.79 7.54 1130 15.05 18.81 22.56 Landfili Monitoring (7.36%) 3.98 7.91 11.85 15.78 19.71 23.65
MonthlyCharge $ 282.50 $ 562.31 5 54211 5 1,72L91 $ 1,401J7 $ 7,681.51 MonthlyCharge $ 296.39 $ 589.60 5 882.80 $ 1,176.07 $ 1,469.22 $ 7,762.43
5.0 Yard* $ 337.68 5 672.04 $ 1,00639 $ 1,340.73 $ 1,675.09 $ 2,009.44 5.0 Yard* 5 353.69 $ 703.46 $ 1,053.23 $ 1,403.00 $ 1,752J7 5 2,102.54
Landfili Monitoring (136%) 4.59 9.14 13.69 18.23 22J8 2733 Landfili Monitoring (136%) 4.81 9.57 14.32 19.08 23.54 2859
MonthlyCharge $ 342.28 $ 68118 $ 1,020.08 $ 7,358.97 $ 1,697.87 $ 2,036.77 MonthlyCharge $ 358.50 $ 713.03 $ 1,067.55 $ 1,422.08 $ 1,776.60 $ 2,137.13
6.O Yard $ 396.65 $ 78931 $ 1,181.97 $ 1,574.61 $ 1,967.27 $ 2,359.93 6.O Yard $ 414.97 $ 825.24 $ 1,235.50 $ 1,645.76 $ 2,056.03 $ 2,466.29
Landfili Monitoring (1.36%) 5.39 10.73 16.07 21.41 26.75 32.10 Landfili Monitoring (1.36%) 5.64 11.22 16.80 22.38 27.96 33.54
MonthlyCharge $ 402.05 $ 800.04 S 1,198.04 5 3,596.03 $ 1,994.03 $ 2,392.02 MonthlyCharge $ 420.61 $ 836.46 5 3,25230 $ 1,668.15 $ 2,083.99 $ 2,499.83
S.O Yard* $ 528.87 $ 1,023.86 $ 1,533.12 $ 2,042.38 $ 2,551.64 $ 3,060.91 8.O Yard* 5 537.53 $ 1,068.79 $ 1,600.04 $ 2,13130 $ 2,662.55 $ 3,193.51
landfili Monitoring (1.36%) 7.19 13.92 20.85 27.78 34.70 41.63 landfili Monitoring (1.36%� 7.31 14.54 21.76 28.99 36.21 43.44
MonthlyCharge $ 536.06 $ 1,037.78 $ 7,553.97 $ 2,070.75 S 2,586.35 $ 3,702.54 MonthlyCharge $ 544.84 $ 7,083.32 $ 1,623.80 $ 2,160.28 $ 2,698.76 $ 3,237.24
L/F Monitoring L/F Monitoring
Soecial Coliection Fees Rate (1.36%) Totai Soecial Coliection Fees Rate (1.36%) Total
2.OYardCompactor $ 3713 0.50 $ 37.64 2.OYardCompactor $ 49.00 0.67 $ 49.66
3.OYardCompactor 5 50.75 0.69 $ 53.44 3.OYardCompactor $ 66.67 0.91 $ 67.58
4.OYardCompactor 5 64.37 0.88 $ 65.24 4.OYardCompactor $ 5435 1.15 $ 85.50
S.OYardCompactor $ 77.99 1.06 $ 79.05 S.OYardCompactor $ 102A3 139 $ 103.41
6.OYardCompactor $ 91.61 1.25 $ 92.85 6.OYardCompactor $ 119J0 1.63 $ 121.33
7.OYardCompactor $ 103.00 1.40 $ 704.40 7.OYardCompactor $ 137.38 1.87 $ 139.25
B.OYardCompactor $ 122.14 1.66 $ 723.80 B.OYardCompactor $ 155.06 2.11 $ 157.17
Landfiil Monitoring fees are caicuiated at 1.36%on the total solid waste charge. Landfiil Monitoring fees are caicuiated at 1.36%on the total solid waste charge.
Special collection fees are calculated at 63%higher than the weekly rate for uncompacted front-load containers to reflect the heavier Special collection fees are calculated at 63%higher than the weekly rate for uncompacted front-load containers to reflect the
weight(The weekly rate is calculated by dividing the monthty rate by 4.33) heavier weight.(The weekly rete is calmlated by dividing the monthty rate 6y 4.33�
Monthly compac[or retes are wlculated by multiplying single collec[ion rate(special collectio�fee)by number of colleRions per week Monthly compac[or retes are wicula[ed by multiplying single colleRioo rate(special collection fee)by number of colleRions per
and then multiplying by 433) week and then multiplying by 4.33)
*The City has no accounts for this size,so rates are interpolated based on larger and smaller compactorsizes. *The City has no accountr for this size,so rates are interpolated based on larger and smaller compactorsizes.
Prepared by NBS-February 2020 71
Final Utility Rate Program Update Report-City of Redding
r •
_ .. .
CITY OF REDDING CITY OF REDDING
SOIID WASTE DIVISION SOLID WASTE DIVISION
PROPOSED Front Load Compactor Rates PROPOSED Front Load Compactoe Rates
Fiscal Year 2020-2021 Fiscal Year 2021-2022
SIZE/GOILECTiONSPEftWEEK ONE TWO THREE FOUR FIVE SIX SIZE/COLLECTIONSPERWEEK ONE TWO THREE FOUR FIVE SIX
2.OYard $ 174.95 $ 34818 $ 521.61 $ 694.94 $ 86817 5 1,041.60 2.OYard $ 18020 $ 358J3 $ 53716 $ 715J9 $ 894.32 $ 1,072.85
tandfill Moniroring (136/) 2.35 4J4 7.09 9.45 11.81 14.17 Landfiil Monitoring (136%) 2.45 4.58 7.31 9J3 1216 1459
MonchlyGharge $ 177.33 $ 353.01 $ 528.70 $ 70439 $ 580.08 $ 1,055.77 MonthlyCharge $ 182.65 $ 363.60 $ 544.56 $ 725.52 $ 906.48 $ 1,087.44
3.OYard $ 235.07 $ 473J1 $ 70935 $ 944.99 $ 1,180.63 $ 1,41617 3.OYard $ 24521 $ 457.92 $ 730.63 $ 97334 $ 1,216.05 $ 1,458J6
tandfill Moniroring (136/) 324 6.44 9.65 12.85 16.06 1926 Landfill Monitoring (136%) 3.33 6.64 9.94 1314 16.54 19.84
MonihlyCharge $ 241.30 $ 480.15 $ 718.99 $ 957.84 $ 1,196.69 $ 1,435.53 MonthlyCharge $ 248.54 $ 494.55 $ 740.56 $ 986.58 $ 1,232.59 $ 7,478.60
4.OYard $ 301.SS $ 599.14 $ 897.09 $ 1,195.04 $ 1,492.99 $ 1,790.94 4.OYard $ 310.22 $ 617.11 $ 924.00 $ 1,230.89 $ 1,537.78 $ 1,844.67
landtill Monitoring (736%) 4.10 8.15 12.20 16.25 2030 24.36 Landflll Monimnng �136%) 4.Z2 839 12.57 16.74 20.91 25.09
MonthlyCharge $ 305.28 $ 607.28 $ 909.29 $ 1,217.29 $ 1,513.29 $ 7,875.30 MonthlyCharge $ 314.44 $ 625.50 $ 936.57 $ 1,247.63 $ 1,558.69 $ 7,869.76
S.OYard* $ 364.30 $ 724.56 $ 1,084.83 $ 1,445.09 $ 1,80535 $ 2,165.61 S.OYard* $ 375.23 $ 74630 $ 1,17737 $ 1,488.44 $ 1,859.51 $ 2,230.58
Landtill Monimring (736%) 4.95 9.55 14.75 19.65 24.55 29.45 Landflll Monitonng �136%) 5.10 10.15 15.20 20.24 25.29 30.34
MonthlyCharge $ 369.26 $ 734.42 $ 1,099.58 $ 1,464.74 $ 1,829.90 $ 2,195.06 MonthlyCharge $ 380.33 $ 756.45 $ 1,132.57 $ 1,508.68 $ 1,884.80 $ 2,260.92
6AYard $ 427.42 $ 849.99 $ 1,272.56 $ 1,695.14 $ 2,117.71 $ 2,540.28 6.OYard $ 44024 $ 875.49 $ 1,370.74 $ 1,745.99 $ 2,18124 $ 2,616.49
Landfill Moniroring (1.36�) 5.81 11.56 1731 23.05 28.80 34.55 Landfill Monitoring �1.36%) 5.99 11.91 17.83 23.75 29.66 35.58
MonthlyCharge $ 433.23 $ 867.55 $ 1,289.87 $ 1,718.19 $ 2,146.51 $ 2,574.83 MonthlyCharge $ 446.23 $ 887.40 $ 1,328.57 $ 1,769.74 $ 2,210.91 $ 2,652.07
S.OYard $ 553.66 $ 1,100.85 $ 1,648.04 $ 2,19524 $ 2,742.43 $ 3,289.62 8.OVard* $ 57027 $ 1,133.87 $ 1,697.48 $ 2,261.09 $ 2,824.70 $ 3,388.31
tandfill Moniroring (7.36�) 7.53 14.97 22A1 29.86 3730 44.74 Landflil Monitoring (136%) 7.76 15A2 23.09 30.75 38A2 46.08
MonthlyCharge 5 561.19 $ 1,115.82 $ 1,670.46 $ 2,225.09 $ 2,779J3 $ 3,334.36 MonthlyCharge S 578.02 $ 1,149.30 $ 1,720.57 $ 2,297.84 $ 2,863.12 $ 3,434.39
L/F Monitoring L/F Monitoring
Soecial Coliection Fees Rate (1.36%) Total Scecial Collec[ion Fees Rate (1.36%) Total
2.0 Yard Compactor $ 50.47 0.69 $ 51.15 2.0 Yard Compactor $ 51.98 0.71 $ 52.69
3.0 Yard Compactor $ 68.67 0.93 $ 69.61 3.0 Yard Compactor $ 7073 0.96 $ 71.69
4.0 Yard Compactor $ 86.88 1.18 $ 88.06 4.0 Yard Compactor $ 89.49 112 $ 90J0
5.0 Yard Compactor $ 105.09 1.43 $ 106.52 5.0 Yard Compactor $ 10814 1.47 $ 109J1
6.0 Yard Compactor $ 72319 1.68 $ 124.97 6.0 Yard Compactor $ 726.99 1J3 $ 128J2
7.0 Yard Compactor $ 14150 1.92 $ 143.43 7.0 Yard Compactor $ 14575 1.98 $ 147J3
8.0 Yard Compactor $ 759J1 2.17 $ 161.88 8.0 Vard Compactor $ 764.50 224 $ 166J4
Landfili Mo�itoring fees are calcuiated at 136%on the total solid waste charge. La�dfill Monitoring fees are caiculated at 136%0�the total soiid waste charge.
Special collection fees are calculated at 63%higher than the weekly rete for unmmpacted front-load containers to reflect the heavier Special collection fees are calmlated at 63%higher than the weekly rate for uncompacted front-load containers to reflect the heavier
weight.(The weekly rate is calculated by dividing the monthly rate by 4.33) weight.(The weekly rate is caI<ulated by dividing the monthly rate by 4.33)
Monthly compactor rates are calculated by multipiying single collection rate(spetial coliection fee)by number of collections per week Monthly compactor rates are caiculated by multiplying singie coilection rate(special collection fee)by number of coliections per week
and then muitiplying by 4.33) and then multipiying by4.33)
*The Ciry has accounts for this size,so rotes are interpoloted based on largerand smoiler rompactorsizes. *The Ciry has no acrounn for this size,so rotes are interpoloted based on largerand smollercompaaorsizes.
Prepared by NBS-February 2020 72
Final Utility Rate Program Update Report-City of Redding
r •
_ .. .
CITY OF REDDING
SOLID WASTE DIVISION
PROPOSED Front Load Compactor Rates
Fiscal Year 2022-2023
SIZE/COLLECTIONSPERWEEK ONE TWO THREE FOUR PIVE SIX
Z.OYard $ 185.60 5 369.49 5 55337 $ 737.26 $ 921.15 $ 1,105.04
Landfill Monitoring (136/� 2.52 5.03 7.53 10.03 12.53 15.03
MonthlyCharge $ 188.13 $ 374.51 $ 560.90 $ 747.29 $ 933.68 $ 1,120.06
3.0 Yard $ 252.56 $ 502.56 $ 752.55 5 1,002.54 5 1,252.53 $ 1,502.52
Landfill Monitoring (136%) 3.43 6.53 1013 13.63 ll.03 20.43
MonthlyCharge $ 256.00 $ 509.39 $ 762.78 $ 1,016.17 $ 1,269.57 $ 7,522.96
4.OYard $ 319.53 $ 635.62 $ 957.72 $ 1,267.82 $ 1,583.91 $ 1,900.01
Landfill Monitoring �1.36%� 4.35 8.64 12.94 77.24 27.54 25.84
MonthlyCharge $ 323.87 $ 644.27 $ 964.66 $ 1,285.06 $ 1,605.45 $ Y,925.85
S.OYard* $ 386.49 $ 768.69 5 1,150.89 $ 1,533.09 $ 1,91530 $ 2,297.50
Landfill Monitoring �1.36%� 526 SOAS 15.65 20.85 26.05 31.25
MonthlyCharge $ 391.74 $ 779.14 $ 1,166.54 $ 1,553.94 $ 1,94134 $ 2,328.74
6.OYard $ 453.45 $ 901J6 $ 1,350.06 5 1,79837 5 2,246.68 $ 2,694.98
Landfill Monitoring (136/� 6.11 12.26 18.36 24.46 30.55 36.65
MonthlyCharge S 459.62 $ 914.02 $ 1,368.42 $ 1,822.83 $ 2,277.23 $ 2,73L64
8.DYard* $ 58737 $ 1,167.89 $ 1,748.47 $ 2,328.93 $ 2,909.44 $ 3,489.96
Landfill Monitoring (1.36%) 7.99 55.88 23JS 31.67 39.57 47.46
MonthlyCharge $ 595.36 $ 1,183.77 $ 1,772.19 $ 2,360.60 $ 2,949.01 $ 3,537.42
L/F Monitoring
Soecial Coilection Fees ftate �136%) Total
2.OYardCompacior $ 53.54 0J3 $ 5417
3.OYardCompactor $ 7285 0.99 $ 73.85
4.OYardCompactor $ 92.11 1.25 $ 93.42
S.OYardCompactor $ 717.49 1.52 $ 113.00
6.OYardCompactor $ 130.50 1.78 $ 132.58
7.OYardCompacior $ 15012 2.04 $ 352.16
S.OYardCompactor $ 169.43 230 $ 171.74
Landfill Monitoring fees are calculated at 1.36%on the totai solid waste charge.
Special collection fees are caiculated at 63%higher than the weekiy rate for u�wmpacted fronbload<ontaioers to reflect the heavier
weight.(The weekly rete is wlculated by dividing the monthly rete by 4332
Monthiy compactor ra[es are wlculated by multiplyiog single collection rate(special wllectioo fee)by�umber of collections per week
and then multiplying by 4.33)
*7he Ciry has no oaounts jor this size,so mtes are interpola[ed based on lorqei and smollercompacrorsires.
Prepared by NBS-February 2020 73
Final Utility Rate Program Update Report-City of Redding
r •
_ .. .
CITY OF REDDING CITY OF REDDING
SOI.ID WASTE DIVISION SO�ID WASTE DNISION
Roll Off Compactor Rates PROPOSED Roll Off Compactor Rates
Fiscal Year 2018-2019 Fiscal Year 2019-2020
Overweight Overweight
Roil Off Size: Rate Per Puli: Wei ht Limit: Fee: Roli Off Size: Rate Per Puil: Wei ht�imit: Fee:
10 Cubic Vards $ 327.66 2.50 Tons $84.00/Ton 10 Cubic Yards $ 327.57 2.50 Tons $81.00/Ton
landfiil Monitoring Fee(1.36%) 4.46 �andfili MonitoringFee(1.36%) 4.45
$ 332.72 $ 332.02
15 Cubic Vards* $ 380.67 2J5 Tons $84.00/Ton 15 Cubic Yards* $ 357.04 2.75 Toos $81.00/Ton
Landfill Monitoring Fee(1.36%) 5.18 Landfili Monitonng Fee(1.36%) 526
$ 385.85 $ 392.30
20 Cubic Yards $ 433.69 3.50 Tons $84.00/Ton 20 Cubic Yards $ 446.50 3.50 Tons $81.00/Ton
landfiil MonitoringFee(136%) 5.90 tandfili MoniToringFee(1.36%) 6.07
$ 439.59 $ 452.57
25 Cubic Vards $ 486.71 4.00 Tons $84.00/Ton 25 Cubic Yards $ 505.97 4.00 Tons $81.00/Ton
landfill Monitoring Fee(1.36%) 6.62 tandfili Monitoring Fee(7.36�) 6.88
$ 49333 $ 512.85
30 Cubic Yards $ 539.72 4.50 Tons $84.00/Ton 30 Cubic Yards $ 565.43 4.50 Tons $87.00/Ton
landfiil Monitoring Fee(1.36%) 734 Landfill Monitoring Fee(1.36%) 7.69
$ 547.06 $ 573.12
35 Cubic Yards* $ 592.J4 5.00 Tons $84.00/Ton 35 Cubic Yards' $ 624.90 5.00 Tons $81.00/Ton
landfiil Monitoring Fee(1.36%) 8.06 �andfili Monitoring Fee(1.36%) 8.50
$ 600.80 $ 633.40
37 Cubic Vards 5 613.94 5.25 Tons $84.00/Ton 37 Cubic Yards $ 648.69 5.25 Tons $81.00/Ton
Landfill Moniroring Fee(1.36%) 835 Landfili Monitonng Fee(1.36%) 8.82
$ 622.29 $ 657.51
40 Cubic Yards $ 645.76 5.50 Tons $84.00/Ton 40 Cubic Yards $ 68437 5.50 Tons $87.00/Ton
Landfiil MonitoringFee(136%) 8.75 landfili Monitoringfee(1.36%) 931
$ 654.54 $ 693.67
Landfill Monitoring fees are calculated at 1.36%on the total soiid waste charge. Landfiil Monitoring fees are caicuiated at 1.36%on the total solid waste charge.
Unable to Coliect Fee:An additional fee of$84.00 shall be charged if by reason of inaccessibility,the trash wmpactor wnnot be Unable to CoIIeR Fee:An additional fee of$81.00 shall be charged if by reason of inaccessibility,the trash compactor cannot be
coliected,and an additionai coliection trip is necessary. collected,and an additional collection trip is necessary.
*TheCityhosnoacrounts orYfiissize,soratesareinterpolatedbasedonlarge�andsmallercompadorsizes. *TheCit hasnoaccounts orthissize,soratesareinterpolatedbasedonlargerondsmallercompoctorsizes.
Prepared by NBS-February 2020 74
Final Utility Rate Program Update Report-City of Redding
r •
_ .. .
CITY OF REDDING CITY OF REDDING
SO�ID WASTE DIVISION SOIID WASTE DIVISION
PROPOSED Roll Off Compactor Rates PROPOSED Roll Off Compactor Rates
Fiscal Year 2020-2021 Fiscal Year 2021-2022
Overweight Overweight
Roll Off Size: Rate Per Puli: Wei M Limit: Fee: Roll Off Size: Rate Per Puli: Wei ht limit: Fee:
10 Cubic Yards $ 337.40 2.50 Tons $81.00/Ton 70 Gubic Yards $ 347.52 2.50 Tons $81.00/Ton
Landfill Monitoring Fee(1.36%) 4.59 Landtill Monitoring Fee(1.36�) 4.73
$ 341.99 $ 352.24
15 Cubic Yards* $ 398.65 2.75 Tons $81.00/Ton 75 Cubic Yards* $ 410.61 2.75 Tons $81.00/Ton
landflll MonlCoring Fee(1.36%) 5.42 I.andflll Monitoring Fee(1.36�) 5.58
$ 404.07 $ 416.19
20 Cubic Yards $ 459.90 3.50 Tons $81.00/Ton 20 Gubic Yards $ 473.69 3.50 Tons $81.00/Ton
Landflll MonlCoring Fee(1.36%) 625 Landflll MoniYoring Fee(1.36�) 6.44
$ 466.15 $ 480.14
25 Cubic Vards $ 521.15 4.00 Tons $81.00/Ton 25 Gubic Yards $ 536.78 4.00 Tons $81.00/Ton
landfill Monitoring Fee(1.36%) 7.09 Landtill Monitoring Fee(1.36%) 7.30
$ 528.23 $ 544.08
30 Cubic Vards $ 582.40 4.50 Tons $81.00/Ton 30 Gubic Yards $ 599.87 4.50 Tons $81.00/Ton
landfill Monitoring Fee(1.36%) 7.92 Landtill Monitoring Fee(1.36%) 8.16
$ 59032 $ 608.03
35 Cubic Vards* $ 643.65 5.00 Tons $81.00/Ton 35 Cubic Yards* $ 66L96 5.00 Tons $51.00/Ton
landfili Monitoring Fee(1.36%) 8.75 Landtill Monitoring Fee(1.36%) 9.02
$ 652.40 $ 671.97
37 Cubic Yards $ 668.15 5.25 Tons $81.00/Ton 37 Cubic Yards $ 688.19 5.25 7ons $81.00/Ton
landfili Monitoring Fee(1.36%) 9.09 Landtill Monitoring Fee(1.36%) 9.36
$ 677.23 $ 697.55
40 Cubic Vards $ 704.90 5.50 Tons $81.00/Ton 40 Cubic Yards $ 726.04 5.50 7ons 5 81.00/Ton
�andfili Monitoring Fee(1.36%) 9.59 Landtill Monitoring Fee(1.36%) 9.87
$ 714.48 $ 735.92
Landfill Monitoring fees are calculated at 1.36%on the to[al solid waste charge. Landfill Monitoring fees are calculated at 1.36Y on the total solid waste charge.
Unable to Collect Fee:An additional fee of$81.00 shall be charged if by reason of inaccessibility,the trash compac[or cannot be Unable to Collect Fee:An additional fee of$81.00 shall be charged if by reasan of inaccessibility,the tresh compactor cannot be
coilected,and an additional collettion trip is necessary. coliected,and an additional coilec[ion trip is necessary.
*The City has no accounts for ffiis size,so mtes a�e interpolated based on torger ond smatler compactorsizes. *The City has no occounts for this size,so rates are inYerpolated bosed on largerand smallercompodo�sizes.
Prepared by NBS-February 2020 75
Final Utility Rate Program Update Report-City of Redding
r •
_ .. .
CITY OF REDDING
SOLID WASTE DIVISION
PROPOSfD Roll Off Compactor Rates
Fiscal Year 2022-2023
Overweight
Roli Off Size: Rate Per Pull: Wei ht Limit: Fee:
10 Cubic Yards $ 357.94 2.50 Tons $81.00/Ton
Landfill Monitoring Fee(1.36%) 4.8�
$ 362.81
15 Cubic Yards* $ 42292 2J5 Tons $81.00/Ton
Landfiil Monitoring Fee(1.36%i 5.75
$ 42S.6S
20 Cubic Yards 5 487.90 3.50 Tons S 81.00/Ton
Landfiil Monitoring Fee(1.36%) 6.64
$ 494.54
25 Cubic Yards $ 552.88 4.00 Tons $SS.00/Ton
Landfill Monitoring Fee(1.36%) 7.52
$ 560.40
30 Cubic Yards 5 617.87 4.50 Tons 5 87,00/Ton
Landfill Monitoring Fee(1.36%) 8.40
$ 626.27
35 Cubic Yards* $ 682.85 5.00 Tons S 81.00/Ton
Landfill Monitoring Fee(1.36%) 9.29
$ 692.13
37 Cubic Vards $ 708.84 5.25 Tons 5 81.00/Ton
Landfiil Monitoring Fee(1.36%) 9.64
$ 71S.4S
40 Cubic Yards $ 747.83 5.50 Tons $81.00/Ton
Landfill Monitoring Fee(1.36%) 10.17
$ 758.00
Landfili Monitoring fees are calculated at 1.36%on the total solid waste charge.
Unable to Coilea Fee:An additional fee of$81.00 shali be charged if by reason of inaccessibility,the trash compactor cannot be
collected,and an additional collection trip is necessary.
*The City has no acmunts farthis size,so rotes are interpolated based on largerand smallermmpoctorsizes.
Prepared by NBS-February 2020 76
Final Utility Rate Program Update Report-City of Redding
r •
_ .. .
CITY OF REDDING CITY OF REDDING
SOLID WASTE DIVISION SOIID WASTE DIVISION
Roll Off Rates PROPOSED Roll Off Rates
Fiscal Year 2018-2019 Fiscal Year 2019-2020
Rate Per 14 Extended Time: Rate Per 14 Extended Time:
Days or Per (Rate/Day Over Overweight Days or Per (Rate/Day Over Overweigbt
Roll Off Size: Pull: 14 Da s Wei ht Limit: Fee: Roll Off Size: Pull: 14 Da s Wei ht Limit: Fee:
30 Cubic Yards $ 256.95 5 18.36 1.50 Tons $84.00/Ton 30 Cubic Yards $ 24815 $ 17.73 5.50 Tons $57.00/Ton
Landfiil Monitoring Fee(136%) 3.49 0.25 Landfill Monitoring Fee(136%) 3.38 0.24
$ 260.47 $ 18.61 $ 251.66 $ 17.98
16 Cubic Yards $ 278.18 $ 19.8� 1.�5 Tons $84.00/Ton 16 Cubic Yards $ 272.07 $ 19.43 1.75 Tons $81.00/7on
Landfiil Monitoring Fee(1.36%) 3J8 0.27 Landfill Monitoring Fee�1.36%) 3J0 0.26
$ 281.96 $ 20.14 $ 275.77 $ 19.70
20 Cubic Yards $ 292.32 $ 20.85 2.50 Tons $84.00/Ton 20 Cubic Yards $ 287.93 $ 20.57 2.50 To�s $SS.00/Ton
Landfill Monitoring Fee(136%) 3.98 0.28 Landfill Monitoring Fee(1.36%) 392 0.28
$ 296.30 $ 21.16 $ 291.84 $ 20.85
25 Cubic Yards $ 309.99 $ 2214 3.00 Tons $54.00/Ton 25 Cubic Yards $ 307J5 $ 21.98 3.00 Tons $81.00/Ton
Landfiil Monitoring Fee(7.36%) 422 030 Landfill Monitoring Fee(1.36%) 4.19 0.30
$ 314.21 $ 22.44 $ 311.93 $ 22.28
30 Cubic Yards $ 327.66 $ 23.40 3.50 Tons $84.00/Ton 30 Cubic Yards $ 327.57 $ 23.40 3.50 Tons $51.00/Ton
Landfiil Monitoring Fee(136%) 4.46 032 Landfiil Monitoring Fee(136%) 4.45 032
$ 332.12 $ 23.72 $ 332.02 $ 23.73
40 Cubic Yards $ 363.01 $ 25.93 4.50 Tons $84.00/Ton 40 Cubic Yards $ 367.21 $ 26.23 4.50 Tons $81.00/Ton
Landfiil Monitoring Fee(1.36%) 4.94 035 Landfiil Monitoring Fee�7.36%) 4.99 036
$ 367.95 $ 26.28 $ 372.21 $ 26.60
Landfiil Monitoring fees are wlculated at 1.36%on the total solid waste charge. Landfill Monitoring fees are calculated at 1.36%on the total solid waste charge.
Unable to Collect Fee:An additio�ai fee of 5 54.00 shall be charged if by reason of inaccessibility or over filling,the roll off box Unable to Collect Fee:An additional fee of$81.00 shall be charged if by reason of inaccessibility or over filling,the roll off box
cannot be collected,and an additional wllection trip is necessary. cannot be collected,and an additional wllection trip is necessary.
(Temporary Boxes Must Be Pulled Every 14 Days) (Temporary Boxes Must Be Puiled Every 14 Days)
(Permanent Boxes Must Be Pulled Every 30 Days) (Permanent Boxes Must Be Pulled Ever 30 Days)
Prepared by NBS-February 2020 77
Final Utility Rate Program Update Report-City of Redding
r •
_ .. .
CITY OF REDDING CITY OF REDDING
SOLID WASTE DIVISION SOLID WASTE DIVISION
PROPOSED Roll Off Rates PROPOSED Roll Off Rates
Fiscal Year 2020-2021 Fiscal Year 2021-2022
Rate Per 14 Extended Time: Rate Per i4 Extended Time:
Days or Per (Rate/Day Over Overweight Days or Per (Rate/Day Over Overweight
Roll Off Size: Pull: 14 Da s Wei ht Limit: Fee: RollOff Size: Pull: 14 Da s Wei ht Limit: Fee:
10 Cubic Yards $ 255.73 $ 1817 1.50 Tons $81.00/Ton 30 Cubic Yards $ 263.40 $ 18.S1 1.50 Tons $81.00/Ton
Landfill Monitoring Fee(1.36%� 3.48 0.25 Landfill Monitoring Fee(1.36%) 3.58 0.26
$ 259.21 $ 18.51 $ 266.98 $ 19.07
16 Cubic Yards $ 280.23 $ 20.02 1.75 Tons $81.00/Ton 16 Cubic Yards $ 288.64 $ 20.62 1.75 Tons $81.00/Ton
Landfill Monitoring Fee(1.36%� 3.81 0.27 Landfill Monitoring Fee(1.36%) 3.93 0.28
$ 284.04 $ 20Z9 $ 292.56 $ 20.90
20 Cubic Yards $ 296.56 $ 21.18 2.50 Tons $81.00/Ton 20 Cubic Yards $ 305.46 $ 21.82 2.50 Tons $87.00/Ton
Landfill Monitoring Fee(1.36%� 4.03 0.29 Landfill Monitoring Fee(136%� 4.15 030
$ 300.60 $ 21.47 $ 309.61 $ 22.12
25 Cubic Yards $ 316.98 $ 22.64 3.00 Tons $81.00/Ton 25 Cubic Yards $ 326.49 $ 2332 3.00 Tons $81.00/Ton
Landfill Monitoring Fee(1.36%� 431 031 Landfili Monitoring Fee(136%) 4.44 032
$ 321.29 $ 22.95 $ 330.93 $ 23.64
30 Cubic Yards $ 337.40 $ 24.10 3.50 Tons $81.00/Ton 30 Cubic Yards $ 347.52 $ 24.82 3.50 Tons $81.00/Ton
Landfill Monitoring Fee(136%� 4.59 0.33 Landfill Monitoring Fee(1.36%) 4.73 034
$ 341.99 S 24.44 $ 352.24 $ 25.17
40 CubicYards $ 378.23 $ 27A2 4.50 Tons $81.00/Ton 40 CubicYards $ 389.SS $ 27.53 4.50 Tons $81.00/Ton
Landfill Monitoring Fee(1.36%� 5.14 037 Landfill Monitoring Fee(1.36%) 530 038
$ 383.37 $ 2739 $ 394.88 $ 28Z2
landfiil Monitoring fees are calculated at 1.36%on the total solid waste charge. Landfill Monitoring fees are calalated at 1.36%on the total solid waste charge.
Unable to Collect Fee:An additional fee of$81.00 shall be charged if by reason of inaccessibility or over filiing,the roll off box cannot Unable to Collect Fee:An additional fee of$81.00 shall be charged if by reason of inaccessibility or over filling the roll off box
be collected,and an additional collection trip is necessary. wnnot be collected,and an additional collection trip is necessary.
(Temporary Boxes Must Be Pulled Every 14 Days) (Temporary Boxes Must Be Pulled Every 14 Days)
(Permanent Boxes Must Be Pulled Every 30 Days) (Permanent Boxes Must Be Pulled Every 30 Days)
Prepared by NBS-February 2020 78
Final Utility Rate Program Update Report-City of Redding
r •
_ .. .
CITY OF REDDING
SO�ID WASTE DIVISION
PROPOSED Roli Off Rates
Fiscal Year 2022-2023
Rate Per 14 Extended Time:
DaysorPer �Rate/DayOver Overweight
Roll Off Size: Pull: 14 Da s Wei ht Limit: Fee:
10 Cubic Yards $ 271.30 $ 1938 1.50 Tons $81.00/Ton
Landfill Monitoring Fee(136%) 3.69 026
$ 274.99 $ 19.64
16 CubicYards $ 29730 $ 21.24 1.75 Tons $51.00/Ton
Landfill Monitoring Fee(136%) 4.04 0.29
$ 301.34 $ 21.52
20 Cubic Yards $ 314.62 $ 22.47 2.50 Tons $57.00/Ton
Landfill Monitoring Fee(1.36%) 418 0.31
$ 318.90 $ 22.78
25 Cubic Yards $ 336.28 $ 24.02 3.00 Tons $81.00/Tan
Landfill Monitoring Fee(136%) 4.57 033
$ 340.86 5 2435
30 Cubic Yards $ 357.94 $ 25.57 3.50 Tons $81.00/Ton
Landfiil Monitoring Fee(136%) 4.87 0.35
$ 362.81 $ 25.93
40 Cubic Yards $ 401.26 $ 28.66 4.50 Tons $51.00/Ton
Landfill Monitoring Fee(136%) 5.46 0.39
$ 406.72 $ 29.06
Landfill Monitoring fees are calculated at 136%on the total solid waste charge.
Unable to Collect Pee:An additional fee of$81.00 shail be charged if by reason of inaccessibility or over filling,the roll off box cannot be
wllefted,and an additional collection trip is necessary.
(Temporary Boxes Must Be Pulled Every 14 Days)
(Permanent Boxes Must Be Pulled Every 30 Days)
Prepared by NBS-February 2020 79
Final Utility Rate Program Update Report-City of Redding
Regional Bill Comparison (Water,Wastewater and Solid Waste)
,
1U�C�ty Regic�nal �ill Cc�mparisor�s�Monthly) ` �
5i�ngle Family R�sider�ti�l jWa#er, Wastew�ter&�5�►lid Waste) �
��sc� _ _ _ �
❑Total Solid Waste(96 gai.) �
$z2� . �Total Wastewater(8 ccf/month) Szi9.s6 �
$211.99
Total Water(21 ccf/month) �
________ ______.______ __r ____.___ m___�__.� �___._._�
��t�� �
$18830 a
*Waterandjt�rWastewaterser�ices ". � ,
$175
" pravidedbymultipleag�nc�es � �`"� '
____ _ _. ._�______.__m,__w.__�_ ,_�___�_ .____.. �
$152.44 $153J8 ':, �, �.
�15� $141.45 ._.: � ,
" $134.17 $137.16 � ��� � �
� �' ' � ;'
°° $127.05 $129 52 $130.97 :;;: �
� � ' ��� � �
120J5 ° ' '` �
� � $125 . _ $ << �
� , � $109J9 `�\\\\�°� � ��� � � � 1
�
.,_ < � � �
<< ,
e <<< ;< ,.<;.' .
�
;���.{�{� .: t r� ,�
.., . s+'� �, � t, 'l �^� '
�, � � '�
� ,�'y� '�`�. � ���, .� ,' . � �.
` �
�
�
� v� �
� e
��� ,, �� • `. 3 � ,
�,�� � � �
�� � � � : ti, s, A < <,�.�"� :
� �
� � � . .. , „� ;,� � �
�
�
� ;
E
�' , , � s , '. � . . . � , , �� �
� � !
�`5L� ~ " z . � � ,� � ��
:���� �
� �
���,�.� °�°��,``�
$25 �"��,� ���
�� :��� �
$0 .,. t , s � � � - , � � ;
��,��a '��„� �,��� ���,��`� �����"'� ��+��'` ����� �������� ���y���` ��c�,�'� �'� �f�*�� ;����`� �
�8 �` �����,� ����° '� � �,��` y�° �
'�-`r'�' v,��t *s�
�.
_..._...- ..__ ..,. ...._._'_ __.��._u..�' _. ..: _..._�._. . ._��
Prepared by NBS—February 2020 80
Final Utility Rate Program Update Report—City of Redding
� 8
. ......... . ..... . ............ „ ...... . ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... .........
Nor-Cal Single-Family Residential Bill Comparison (Water&Wastewater)
.�._.. ......_.____ _...�. ____� _..._. _.,.. ....�._______...____ ____._.... ..._.....
� �
N�r-.CaI R+��ic�r�a1 Wat�er�. S�euuer M+a. Bill +Comparrsc�ns
�in�l� �am�ly Resic�er��ial {SJ8'" Meter&2�. cc�'/'rnonth)
���� .�
� $ZZs.si
��2� ..� ■Total Water ,
_ �
� � �Total Wastewater ��' � ' �
� �
�2d� ' �
� ����� �
��.� z�
$1�5 � � e , ' ,,
$159.13 �` �
$153.19 '�
� � �.
°� $15t7 �. � �
� . x
�, � ;
;c �. e' �
a„ � ,
o � $125.69 ` z; '' � ���
� �125 _ � � ' � .
55 26 � �
$105.96 $107.42 $108.87. �$ � , : ��� � � �'
n �
�
�
�it}0 __ _... $54.86 �����' � � $57.U5 � � � �� ���� ��
,
A
�
' � . .� � , t � � � � �
�� , � �.`� �. �
�
'
b �
��� , . .
� � � >. •�
W $65.63 "� , •0
��.� �. � �r ��
$60.01 � � �'�'
.
�, $70.43
� a, w, ,
o q
$5C} ."���,� � �; ,� � ' � � � � �
� e � ;'� � �$51.10� `"� $51 76`
. r
�� � �'� �' �' ���°��"��� °���.,�.���
� G
°
��, � �
�����`�
�
s�� . � � R ��j��� ���
,t ��4��� - "���'��
� ',.' �� "� � —f, ; , "0 ., .: ""- '"" ; T , , ,;':" .. ,, ., 'k , ;�,..
Andersc�n Red�1uff Redd�ng Yre1�a Redd�ng ritor-Gal Shasta Lake Eureka Arcata 1
(Current) (Prapcas�ed A�erage
, 4%)
Prepared by NBS—February 2020 81
Final Utility Rate Program Update Report—City of Redding