HomeMy WebLinkAboutR-2007-187 Adopt 2007 Wastewater Cost of Service and Rate Study DRAFT COPYRESOLUTION NO. R-2007- 187
A RESOLUTION Adopting the 2007 Wastewater Cost of Service and Rate Study for
the City of Yakima, Washington.
WHEREAS, the City of Yakima is required to biannually review wastewater rates
and charges to comply with federally mandates Environmental Protection Agency and
State financing provisions, to satisfy bond covenants, and in accord with Yakima
Municipal Code; and
WHEREAS, a financing study is one element necessary to provide for the
wastewater needs of the area for the health, safety and well being of the people, as well
as complying with State and federal environmental laws and regulations; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has complied with statutory requirements for Public
Hearings on the findings of the Study; and
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF YAKIMA:
The document entitled 2007 Wastewater Cost of Service and Rate Study, dated October
2007, a true copy of which Study is on file in the City Clerk's Office and is incorporated
by reference herein, is hereby adopted by the City of Yakima.
ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL this 11th day of
City Clerk
cember 200
or David E•ler
ORDINANCE NO. 2007 - 65
AN ORDINANCE relating to wastewater rates, fees, and charges; adjusting various
wastewater rates, fees, and charges; amending Sections 7.60.020,
7.60.025, 7.60.035, and 7.60.105 of the Yakima Municipal Code; and
providing for related matters.
WHEREAS, the City of Yakima (the "City") is authorized by Title 35 RCW to acquire,
construct, own, operate, and provide financing for waterworks and systems of sewerage, and to
establish rates, fees, and charges therefore; and
WHEREAS, the City Council determines that it is in the best interests of the citizens of
the City that ordinances related to such systems of sewerage, wastewater rates, fees, charges,
and related matters be amended as set forth in this Ordinance; and
WHEREAS. the City Council determines that the rates, fees, and charges contained in
this Ordinance are fair, just, and reasonable;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY OF YAKIMA
Section 1. Section 7.60.005 of the Municipal Code reads as follows:
7.60.005 Definitions.
1. "Biochemical oxygen demand" (BOD) shall have the same meaning as in
Chapter 7.65.
2. "Fats, Oils, Grease" (FOG) means animai/vegetable (polar) based floatable oil.
fat waste, oil, or grease (whether or not emulsified), hexane or ether -soluble matter
content; or a mineral/petroleum (non -polar) based oil or grease (whether or not
emulsified), hexane or ether -soluble matter content; or any petroleum oil,
nonbiodeqradable cutting oil, or products of mineral oil origin; or any substance which
may solidify or become discernibly viscous at temperatures above zero degrees
Centigrade (0 degree C) (32 degrees F).
3. "Industrial discharger" shall have the same meaning as in Chapter 7.65.
4 "Industrial wastewater" shall have the same meaning as in Chapter 7.65.
5. "Minor industrial user" (MIU) shall have the same meaning as in Chapter 7.65.
6. "Sewer" shall have the same meaning as in Chapter 7.65.
7. "Significant industrial user" (SIU) shall have the same meaning as in Chapter
7.65.
8. "Suspended solids" (SS) shall have the same meaning as in Chapter 7.65.
2007 COS
12/5/07
1
"Total suspended solids (TSS) shall have the same meaning as suspended
solids.
10. "Wastewater" shall have the same meaning as in Chapter 7.65.
11. "Wastewater system" shall have the same meaning as "POTW" or "publicly
owned treatment works" in Chapter 7.65. The term includes all sewers and
wastewater treatment plants.
12. "Wastewater treatment plant" shall have the same meaning as in Chapter 7.65.
Section 2. Section 7.60.010 of the Municipal Code reads as follows:
7.60.010 City to fix and collect wastewater rates and charges.
A. The public health, safety and welfare require that the city of Yakima fix and
collect wastewater rates and charges upon, and measured by either the quantity of water
supplied to the premises or, if metered, the quantity of wastewater discharged into the
wastewater sewer system in the city of Yakima and in areas outside the corporate limits of the
city, for the carrying and discharge of all wastewater into the wastewater system of the city of
Yakima as presently maintained and operated, together with additions and betterments thereto
and extensions thereof, which rates and charges are fixed by this chapter; provided, that the
specifying of service rates and charges by this chapter shall not affect the financing of
construction of sewers and trunk sewers pursuant to the local improvement district process, the
imposition of a wastewater connection charge, or other alternate means of financing such
construction; provided further, the adoption of rates for service to property outside the corporate
limits of the city does not constitute an undertaking by the city to serve any or all such property
without compliance with other laws, regulations and policies of the city pertaining to the
furnishing of city sewer service outside city corporate limits.
B. Biennial Review. In accordance with federally mandated Environmental
Protection Agency requirements and to satisfy bond covenants, the city shall review not less
often than every two years the wastewater contribution of users and user classes, the total cost
of operation and maintenance of the wastewater system and the user charge system. The
charges for users or classes of users shall be revised as required.
Section 3.
follows:
Section 7.60.020 of the Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as
7.60.020 Owner (inside city) retail wastewater service charge.
A. Wastewater Service Charge. There shall be charged to and collected from all
premises within the city served by the city wastewater system a wastewater service charge
composed of a ready -to -serve charge and a volume charge based on either the quantity of
water supplied to the premises or, if metered, the quantity of wastewater discharged into the
wastewater sewer system; PROVIDED that in no event shall the total wastewater service
charge be less than the minimum charge indicated below:
2007 cos
12/5/07
2
Minimum charge effective
Minimum charge effective
Minimum charge effective
Charges effective
January 14, 2008
November 2, 2008
November 2 20C9
Bimo
$13.81 / month
$14.29 / month
$14.79 / month
$4,3.34
$0.45(' / Via„
$0.4698 / day
$0.4862 / day
4-
(1) Wastewater Service Charge --Schedules. The wastewater service
charge shall be calculated and charged according to the following schedules:
(a) Ready -to -Serve Charges. For all customers other than multiple -
unit residential customers:
For multiple -unit residential customers, the monthly ready -to -serve charge shall be based on
the number of accounts plus the number of dwelling units, according to the following:
2007 COS
12/5/07
3
Charges effective
vc car sJc�-?ffectiv
e-20 005
Ain^^
Charges effective
January
,^,
-€.
M
(Inches)
lenge
Bimo
^^44
ch
Monthly
3/4
$4,3.34
Bimonthly
26,68
Bimonthly
4-
4-694
Charge
;3,88
1
1/2
21.88
4.76
$13.81
$27.62
$14.29
$28.58
2
3522
1
70.44
$35.08
3
133,40
$18.78
266.80
1-1/2
$22.65
159432
$23.44
,39.64
$24.26
$48.52
`3
$36.46
509.58
$37.73
$75.46
,764
$78.10
703.28
$138.10
$276.20
$142.90
x328
456
$295.80
4
$175.80
For multiple -unit residential customers, the monthly ready -to -serve charge shall be based on
the number of accounts plus the number of dwelling units, according to the following:
2007 COS
12/5/07
3
Charges effective
Charges effective
Charges effective
January
14, 2008
November 2, 2008
November 2, 2009
Water Meter Size
Monthly
Bimonthly
Monthly
Bimonthly
Monthly
Bimonthly
(Inches)Charge
Charge
Charge
Charge
Charge
Charge
3/4
$13.81
$27.62
$14.29
$28.58
$14.79
$29.58
1
$17.54
$35.08
$18.15
$36.30
$18.78
$37.56
1-1/2
$22.65
$45.30
$23.44
$46.88
$24.26
$48.52
2
$36.46
$72.92
$37.73
$75.46
$39.05
$78.10
3
$138.10
$276.20
$142.90
$285.80
$147.90
$295.80
4
$175.80
$351.60
$181.91
$363.82
$188.28
$376.56
6
$263.77
$527.54
$272.94
$545.88
$282.49
$564.98
8
$364.03
$728.06
$376.68
$753.36
$389.86
$779.72
10
$728.06
$1,456.12
$753.37
$1,506.74
$779.73
$1 559.46
For multiple -unit residential customers, the monthly ready -to -serve charge shall be based on
the number of accounts plus the number of dwelling units, according to the following:
2007 COS
12/5/07
3
June 20, 2005
_•,
•
_,.. - -
Ready to serve charges
Effective
January 14, 2008
$7.18/account + $6.63/unit
Ready to serve charges
Effective
November 2, 2008
$7.43/account + 6.86/un
Ready to serve charges
Effective
November 2. 2009
7.69/account $7.10/'_snit
(b) Volume Charge. For all customers, the volume charge shall be
determined by the following:
June 20, 2005
Volume charge effective
January 14. 2008
Volume charge effective
November 2,2008
$2.42 per 100 cubic ft of
water consumption or, if
metered, quantity discharged
$2.51 per 100 cubic ft of
water consumption or, if
metered. quantity discharged
Volume charge effective
November 2, 2009
$2.59 per 100 cubic ft of
water consumption or, if
metered, quantity discharged
B. Strong Waste Surcharge. For customers located inside the city discharging wastewater
which contains more than three hundred parts per million of biochemical oxygen demand (BOD)
and/or total suspended solids (TSS), there shall be a surcharge, in addition to the ready -to -
serve charge and the volume charge, which shall be calculated utilizing the national average
values of BOD and TSS concentrations typical to each classification under the Standard
Industrial Code or by actual concentrations verified by the city. If the customer chooses, at its
expense, to install a sampling station, the strong waste charge shall be calculated based upon
actual concentrations. Any testing done by the city may be charged at the rates set forth in
section 7.60.105 of this title. The following formula shall be utilized to calculate the strong
waste charge:
Monthly surcharge = (unit costs per pound of BOD or TSS) times (weight of one
gallon of water) times (customer's monthly volume in one hundred cubic feet divided by
one thousand three hundred thirty-seven) times (customer's concentration of BOD or
TSS in parts per million per [the national average values] or [verified concentrations]
minus three hundred).
In the foregoing formula, the applicable values are as follows:
�f r r
Effective
Nov 10, January -1,
2003 2004
January 1,
2005
Et it: ave
January 1,
280€
$0-294
$0-31-2
$0-332
$0,332
2007 cos
12/5/07
4
Unit cost per po
and for TSS
$0,241-
80,286
$8-335
8.34 tbs
8:-34-Ibc
834 -lbs
Section 4.
follows:
Section 7.60.025 of the Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as
7.60.025 Non -owner (outside city) retail wastewater service charge.
A. Wastewater Service Charge. There shall be charged to and collected from all
premises outside the city served by the city wastewater system a wastewater service charge
composed of a ready -to -serve charge and a volume charge based on domestic water
consumption; provided that in no event shall the total wastewater service charge -be Tess than
the minimum charge indicated below:
Nev-4-07-2003
-$19 th
Minimum charge effective
Effective
Effective
Effective
January 14, 2008
November 2, 2008
November 2, 2009
Unit cost per pound
$0.355
$0.380
$0.407
for BOD
$0.6529 / day
$0.6888 / day
$0.7266 / day
Unit cost per pound
$0.363
$0.388
$0.415
for TSS
Unit cost per pound
$0.276
$0.276
$0.276
for FOG
Weight of one gallon
8.34 pounds
8.34 pounds
8.34 pounds
of water
Section 4.
follows:
Section 7.60.025 of the Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as
7.60.025 Non -owner (outside city) retail wastewater service charge.
A. Wastewater Service Charge. There shall be charged to and collected from all
premises outside the city served by the city wastewater system a wastewater service charge
composed of a ready -to -serve charge and a volume charge based on domestic water
consumption; provided that in no event shall the total wastewater service charge -be Tess than
the minimum charge indicated below:
Nev-4-07-2003
-$19 th
Minimum charge effective
Minimum charge effective
Minimum charge effective
January 14, 2008
November 2, 2008
November 2, 2008
$19.86 / month
$20.95 / month
$22.10 / month
$0.6529 / day
$0.6888 / day
$0.7266 / day
(1) Wastewater Service Charge --Schedules. The wastewater service charge shall be
calculated and charged according to the following schedules:
2007 cos
12/5/07
5
(a) Ready -to -Serve Charge. For all customers other than multiple -unit
residential customers:
Gh-afges-effective
Nov 10, -2003
as Ilett
Qi a /Inched
Monthly charge
3/4
$-19.78
$39:56
25.12
50,24
32.14
64,88
104.14
3
395.60
4
251.80
503-.60
6
377.80
755.60
8
524,40
47042,80
a-0
47042,80
2,0»60
For multiple -unit residential customers, the monthly ready -to -serve charge shall be based on
the number of accounts plus the number of dwelling units, according to the following:
Read -to -serve rarge efective
Nov 10, 2003
Ready to serve charges
Charges effective
Charges effective
Charges effective
Effective
January 14, 2008
November 2, 2008
November
2, 2009
Water Meter Size
Monthly
Bimonthly
Monthly
Bimonthly
Monthly
Bimonthly
IncIr___*§I
Charge
Charge
Charge
Charge
Charge
Charge
3/4
$19.86
$39.72
$20.95
$41.90
$22.10
$44.20
1
$25.22
$50.44
$26.61
$53.22
$28.07
$56.14
1-1/2
$32.57
$65.14
$34.36
$68.72
$36.24
$72.443
2
$52.43
$104.86
$55.31
$110.62
$58.34
$116.6$
3
$198.60
$397.20
$209.50
$419.00
$221.00
$442.00
4
$252.82
$505.64
$266.69
$533.38
$281.33
$562.6$
6
$379.33
'.758.66
$400.15
$800.30
$422.11
$844.2
8
$523.51
$1,047.02
$552.24
$1,104.48
$582.56
$1,165.1 t
10
$1,047.02
$2,094.04
$1,102 18
$2,208.96
$1,165.11
$2,330.21
For multiple -unit residential customers, the monthly ready -to -serve charge shall be based on
the number of accounts plus the number of dwelling units, according to the following:
Read -to -serve rarge efective
Nov 10, 2003
Ready to serve charges
Ready to serve charges
Ready to serve charges
Effective
Effective
Effective
January 14, 2008
November 2, 2008
November 2, 2009
$10.33/account + $9:53/unit
$10.89!acr;ount_1 10.06/unit
' 1.49/account + $10.61/un.t
2007 COS
12/5/07
(b) Volume Charge. For all customers, the volume charge shall be
determined by the following:
6
ue-effective
Nov 10, 2003
Volume charge effective
January 14, 2008
Volume charge effective
January 2,2008
$3.54 per 100 cubic ft of
water consumption or, if
metered, quantity discharged
$3.73 per 100 cubic ft of
water consumption or, if
metered, quantity discharged
Volume charge effective
January 2, 2009
$3.94 per 100 cubic ft of
water consumption or, if
metered, quantity discharged
B. Strong Waste Surcharge. For customers located outside the city discharging
wastewater which contains more than three hundred parts per million of biochemical oxygen
demand (BOD) and/or total suspended solids (TSS), there shall be a surcharge, in addition to
the ready -to -serve charge and the volume charge, which shall be calculated utilizing the
national average values of BOD and TSS concentrations typical to each classification under the
Standard Industrial Code or by actual concentrations verified by the city. If the customer
chooses at its expense to install a sampling station, the strong waste charge shall be calculated
based upon actual concentrations. Any testing done by the city may be charged at the rates set
forth in section 7.60.105 of this title. The following formula shall be utilized to calculate the
strong waste charge:
Monthly surcharge = (unit costs per pound of BOD or TSS) times (weight of one gallon
of water) times (customer's monthly volume in one hundred cubic feet divided by one thousand
three hundred thirty-seven) times (customer's concentration of BOD or TSS in parts per million
per [the national average values] or [verified concentrations] minus three hundred).
In the foregoing formula, the applicable values are as follows:
Section 5. Section 7.60.030 of the Municipal Code reads as follows
7.60.030 Wastewater charge added to and payable with water bill.
The wastewater service charge provided for in this chapter shall be payable at the office of
the treasurer of the city, and shall be billed for and payable at the same time as the water bill for
the premises is payable; and payment for water service shall not be accepted unless payment
of the wastewater service charge is made at the same time. The same shall be payable
bimonthly and shall be added to city water bills as a separate charge thereon.
2007 cos
1215107
7
Effective
:7 -January 14,
2008
Unit cost per pound for BOD
$0.537.470
Unit cost per pound for TSS
$0.52 467_
Weight of one gallon of water
8.34 pounds
Section 5. Section 7.60.030 of the Municipal Code reads as follows
7.60.030 Wastewater charge added to and payable with water bill.
The wastewater service charge provided for in this chapter shall be payable at the office of
the treasurer of the city, and shall be billed for and payable at the same time as the water bill for
the premises is payable; and payment for water service shall not be accepted unless payment
of the wastewater service charge is made at the same time. The same shall be payable
bimonthly and shall be added to city water bills as a separate charge thereon.
2007 cos
1215107
7
Section 6. Section 7.60.035 of the Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows:
7.60.035 Septage and exceptional wastewater disposal charges.
A. Septage Wastewater Disposal Charge. For septage wastewater
disposed pursuant to Chapter 7.63, the following charge shall apply:
Charge effective
Nov 10, 2003 January 14 2008
$0. 3381 /gal
B. Exceptional Wastewater Disposal Charge. For exceptional wastewater disposed
pursuant to Chapter 7.63, the charge shall be calculated by reference to the following formula:
Exceptional wastewater Charge = (Treatment Costs) + (Receiving Costs) + (Testing Costs)
2007 cos
12/5/07
(1) Treatment costs. Treatment costs shall be determined by reference to
the following formula:
Treatment costs = [(UBOD/TSS) x (WW) x (V/1,337) x (CBOD/TSS)] + [(UV) x
(V)] where:
V = Volume discharged (in one hundred cubic feet);
CBOD/TSS = Concentration of BOD or TSS (in parts per million); and
the remaining values are as follows:
Abbreviation
Meaning
Value Effective
No-
2003January 14,
2008
UBOD/TSS
Unit cost per pound of BOD or TSS
$0.537-470
(BOD)
$0. 467 (TSS)
WW
Weight of one gallon of water
8.34 pounds
UV
Unit cost per one hundred cubic feet
of volume
$0.
(2) Receiving Costs. Receiving costs shall be calculated by the wastewater
manager and based on actual or estimated staff time, materials, and related
costs incurred in connection with receiving the particular waste at issue.
8
(3) Testing Cost. The costs of any testing are set forth in Section 7.60.105.
The wastewater manager shall have final authority over what tests shall be
required for any discharge.
C. The amount of the disposal fee, at the rate specified in subsections A or B of this
section, shall be based upon the actual quantity measured and discharged. Measurement shall
be through methods and instruments as determined by the city.
Section 7. Section 7.60.050 of the Municipal Code reads as follows:
7.60.050 Meters required --Penalty for violations --Rates for metered and
unmetered premises.
A. Meters Required --Penalty. Commencing September 1, 1977, all premises
thereafter newly connected or reconnected to the wastewater system shall have a meter,
approved by the city Utility Services manager, installed to measure either the quantity of water
supplied to the premises or the quantity of wastewater discharged into the wastewater system;
and it shall be unlawful for any person, firm or corporation to thereafter connect any premises
so as to be served by the wastewater system without installing a meter as required by this
subsection.
Any property connected to the wastewater system prior to September 1, 1977 shall have a
meter, approved by the Utility Services manager, installed to measure either the quantity of
water supplied to the premises or the quantity of wastewater discharged into the wastewater
system. This installation shall be made the first time the property changes ownership after the
effective date of this ordinance.
Any person, firm or corporation who connects any premises so as to be served by the
wastewater system in violation of this subsection shall upon conviction thereof be subject to a
fee not exceeding two hundred fifty dollars or subject to imprisonment in the city jail facility for a
term not exceeding ninety days.
B. Rates for Metered Premises. All premises served by either city domestic water
service or by some other source of domestic water, and which have meters to measure all
water supplies which are ultimately discharged into the city wastewater system shall pay
wastewater service charges according to the rates specified in Section 7.60.020 or 7.60.025 of
this chapter, and all premises which have meters to measure the quantity of wastewater
discharged into the wastewater system shall likewise pay wastewater service charges
according to the rates specified in Section 7.60.020 or 7.60.025 of this chapter.
C. Rates for Unmetered Premises. Premises with existing connections to the city
wastewater system, but which have no meter to measure either the domestic water supplied to
the premises or the wastewater discharged therefrom, shall be charged a wastewater service
charge according to rates specified in Section 7.60.020 or 7.60.025 of this chapter in an amount
determined by the wastewater manager to be based on the average charge for wastewater
service to similar premises.
2007 cos
12/5/07
9
Section 13. Section 7.60.100 of the Municipal Code reads as follows:
7.60.100 Additional collection method --Water service suspension --Notice and
hearing procedure.
A. As an additional and concurrent method of collection of any such delinquent
wastewater rate or charge, the customer service manager may suspend the water service or
supply from the premises to which such charge for wastewater has attached until such rates
and charges are paid.
B. No water service shall be suspended until a written notice has been served upon
or mailed to the customer at least seven days prior to suspending service. Such notice shall
state the date on which service is to be suspended, the amount of delinquent wastewater
charges, and that a customer may request in writing a hearing before the customer service
manager or his designee to contest the suspension, provided such request is received by the
customer service manager or his designee before the date service is to be suspended.
C. Upon timely receipt of a request for hearing, the customer service manager or
his designee shall conduct a hearing, and the customer requesting the hearing shall be notified
in writing by the customer service manager or his designee of the time, date and place of such
hearing. Pending the outcome of a hearing, no service shall be suspended.
D. When water service has been suspended for nonpayment of a wastewater
charge, water service shall not be resumed until all delinquent service charges have been paid,
together with an additional fifteen -dollar reconnection charge.
E. In the event the occupant of a premises is someone other than the customer, the
occupant or, in the case of a multiple dwelling, the manager or person in charge shall be
notified in writing of the date of the suspension of service and the amount of delinquency at the
same time such customer is so notified.
Section 14. Section 7.60.105 of the Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as
follows:
7.60.105 Rates, charges and fees for pretreatment program.
A. It is the purpose of this section to provide for the payment of rates, charges, and
fees for certain discharges to the wastewater system, to compensate the city for the cost of
administration of the pretreatment program established in Chapter 7.65. Connection charges
for dischargers subject to Chapter 7.65 are as set forth in Chapter 7.58 of this Code.
B. Rates, Charges and Fees to be Published. The wastewater manager shall
maintain a schedule of current rates, charges and fees, shall post such schedule
conspicuously, and shall make copies available to interested persons. Upon request, the
wastewater manager shall prepare an estimate of annual rates, charges and fees for a
significant industrial user.
2007 cos
12/5/07
10
C. Significant Industrial Users (SIUs). Commencing on the effective date of the
ordinance codified in this section, SIU permit fees amounts shall be set at 90% of that amount
identified in the Industrial Facility Categories of WAC Chapters 173-224-040. The permit fee
shall cover the costs of administering the SIU wastewater discharge permit program including
inspections, technical assistance, education and compliance administration. Costs associated
with any sampling and testing shall be in addition to the permit fee. This annual fee is based on
the state's fiscal year (July 1 - June 30).
Base Rate for Minor Industrial Users (MIUs). Commencing on the effective date
of the ordinance codified in this section and er until amended pursuant to subsection €-F
of this section, minor industrial users (as defined in Chapter 7.65) shall pay a base rate for
pretreatment service.
MIU Base fee
Charge effective
January 14. 2008
$80.13 / month
Owner @ 75%
$56.11 / month
Charge effective
November 2, 2008
$90.54 / month
$59.19 / month
Charge effective
November 2, 2009
$102.32 / month
$62.45 / month
Significant industrial users shall not be subject to a base rate.
. Charges and Fees for Related Services. Commencing on the effective date of
the ordinance codified in this section and until amended pursuant to subsection E below,
significant industrial users shall pay the sampling and laboratory testing charges and fees
provided below for those specific services described or listed below. All customers shall also be
subject to the sampling, laboratory testing, and flat rate charges and fees provided below, in
addition to any base rate provided for in subsection C, but only for those services requested by
the customer or provided as part of a required compliance inspection.
(1) Sampling Charge. The sampling charge includes sampler set-up, pick-up,
and statistical analysis, as well as billing program charges from the customer
service manager. The sampling charge is based on the length of the sampling
period, pursuant to the following schedule:
Sampling-Reriod
Charge
effest+ve
Nov --1-07
2003
G r•h uh ora ion#
day -in -the -same
Sampling Period
First Da\
$ 100.71
effective
January 1-
2004
$-J-0 3
Charge effective
January 14, 2008
charge
effest+ve
January 1,
2005
$ 275.94
$-1-06,84
Charge effective
November 2, 2008
Charge
effcrf esti e
January 1,
2006
$ 28'1.22
$ 110.05
Charge effective
November 2, 2009
$209.82
$216.11
$222.60
Each subsequent day
in the same sampling
period.
2007 COS
12/5/07
$86.22
$88.81
$91.47
11
2007 cos
12/5/07
(2) Laboratory Testing Fees. A laboratory testing fee is assessed for each type
of test conducted on each sample. Fees are assessed pursuant to the following
schedule.
Test
Charge
Effective
Nov -10,
2003
Charge
Effective
January 1,
Chargc
Effective
January 1,
2005
Charge
Effective
Januarys
2006
2004
-_. .::.4chem+sal
Oxygen -Demand
$
39.51
$
40.70
$
41.92
43.17
TSS Tot=
39.54
40.70
41.92
43.17
Suspene Solids
-P44
19.75
20.31
20.95
21.58
BC_ _ _ , _ ,_,
59.26
61.04
62,87
64,76
COD
39.54
40 70
41.92
43.17
COD Soluble
59.26
61.04
62.87
64.76
SOS
39.54
40.70
41.92
43.17
19.75
20.34
20.95
21.58
Ammonia -(len
19.75
20.31
20.95
24-58
i
(Colorimetric)
19.75
20.34
20.95
2 58
Dissolved -O
(Aziele)
19.75
20.34
20.95
2-1,58
Dissolved -Oxygen
(Membrane)
19.75
20.34
20.95
24,58
F
59.26
6-1.04
62,8-7
64.-76
FOG Fats. Oils &
79 01
84:38
83.82
86-34
Grease
MRN
395.06
406.91
419.12
43
.69
Nitrate
39-54
40.70
41.92
43.17
Nitrite
39.54
45:70
41.92
43.17
OrganicNolatile
Asi4s
19.7;:
20.34
20.95
24,58
t
39--5
1--70
41.92
43.17
12
2.444)
der +ve4at+les
BTEX (b)
Market
cost (a)
Market -oast
(a)
Market
sect (a)
Metals
Metals-G-ra-phite
Furnace
Pc ti
TPH (b)
Velat+le-Organics
231.83
289.79
405.71
63-7-54
Market
tea)
231.83
238,74
298-48
41-7,88
656.67
Market -Gest
238:78
245.95
Market --oast
307.14
430.42
676.37
Market
cost (a)
215.95
253.33
3-1-6.66
443.33
696-66
Market -oast
253.33
Notes:
2007 cos
12/5/07
Test
Charge
Effective
January 14,
2008
Charge
Effective
November
2 2008
Charge
Effective
November 2,
2009
BOD -Biochemical
Oxygen Demand
TSS -Total
Suspended Solids
PH
$45.48
$46.84
$48.25
$45.48
$46.84
$48.25
$22.74
$23.42
$24.12
BOD Soluble
$68.22
$70.27
$72.37
COD
$45.48
$46.84
$48.25
COD Soluble
$68.22
$70.27
$72.37
TDS
$45.48
$46.84
$48.25
Alkalinity
(Carbonate)
$22.74
$23.42
$24.12
Ammonia (Ion
Seleave -..-
$22.74
$23.42
$24.12
Chlorine Residual
(Colorimetric)
$22.74
$23.42
$24.12
Dissolved Oxygen
(Azide)
$22.74
$23.42
$24.12
Dissolved Oxygen
(Membrane)
Fecal Coliform
$22.74
$23.42
$24.12
$68.22
$70.27
$72.37
FOG -Fats. Oils &
Grease
$90.96
$93.69
$96.50
13
2007 cos
12/5/07
MPN
$454.80
$468.44
$482.50
Nitrate
$45.48
$46.84
$48.25
Nitrite
$45.48
$46.84
$48.25
OrganicNolatile
$22.74
$23.42
$24.12
Acids
Total Volatile Solids
$45.48
$46.84
$48.25
BNA (b)
Outside
Market
Costs
Semivolatiles_
BTEX (b)
$277.58
$285.91
$294.48
Metals
$346.98
$357.38
$368.11
Metals Graphite
$485.77
$500.34
$515.35
Furnace
Pesticides/PCB's
$763.35
$786.25
$809.83
TPH (b)
Outside
Market
Costs
Volatile Organics
$277.58
$285.91
$294.48
(a) This testing is conducted by an outside laboratory. The actual fee
will be based on the actual cost of the test performed, plus any related
costs and taxes incurred.
(b)Glossary:
BNA: Base Neutral Acids (Semivolatile Organic compounds).
BTEX: Benzene, Toluene, Ethylbenzene, and Zylene-Highly volatile
hydrocarbons.
TPH: Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons (includes oils, gasoline, diesel, and
other fuels).
14
(3) Other related services are assessed on each of certain transactions or
services, pursuant to the following schedule:
Transaction or
Service
Discharge
Authorization(a)
Compliance
Ins•ection
Dye testing
LS
HR
Charge Effective
January 14, 2008
$475.00
$125.24
$125.24
Charge
Effective
November 2,
2008
$489.25
$129.00
$129.00
Charge Effective
November 2,
2009
$503.93
$132.87
$132.87
Smoke testing
$125.24
$129.00
$132.87
TVing (location)
$180.00
Tying new
construction we do
Tying new
construction (they
do)
2007 cos
12/5/07
LF
$1.25
15
185.40
$1 96
$1.29
190.96
$2.02
1.3
Cis
ge
Effect
ive
Nev
2003
Charge
Effective
January 1,
2004
C1;arge Effective
January 1,
2005
k.,t+a+i i-yia
January 1,
t , _ _
2006
_ }afge
Authorization
$
467.2
$
481.23
$
495.66
$
510.53
(a)
1-
4R
159.3
16417
469.10
174.17
9
.. ,:..;, - ang
HR
159.3
164.17
169.10
174.17
9
Smoke- -
k'
58.41
60.16
61.97
63.83
TV-knew-6421-11Stlizi-G1-1-0-141
L--
1.87
1.93
4-98
204
g -(location)
..
.13 6
n
342-80
322.18
381-.85
Transaction or
Service
Discharge
Authorization(a)
Compliance
Ins•ection
Dye testing
LS
HR
Charge Effective
January 14, 2008
$475.00
$125.24
$125.24
Charge
Effective
November 2,
2008
$489.25
$129.00
$129.00
Charge Effective
November 2,
2009
$503.93
$132.87
$132.87
Smoke testing
$125.24
$129.00
$132.87
TVing (location)
$180.00
Tying new
construction we do
Tying new
construction (they
do)
2007 cos
12/5/07
LF
$1.25
15
185.40
$1 96
$1.29
190.96
$2.02
1.3
Notes:
( a) Includes only the first 50,000 gallons of flow. See Chapter 7.65.
F. Amendment of Base Rates, Charges and Fees.
1. The base rate or rates ("rates" for purposes of this subsection) set forth
in subsection D of this section may be amended from time to time by
ordinance of the city council. Any such amendment shall be based upon
changes in the city's cost of providing wastewater pretreatment service as
reflected in the city's annual budget. The base rates set forth in subsection D
of this section are to be billed at 75% for customers located within the city limits.
Other customers will be billed at 100% of base rates. These percentages may
be amended by ordinance of the city council.
2. The charges and fees set forth in subsection E_of this section may be
amended from time to time by ordinance of the city council upon
recommendation of the wastewater manager. Such amendments shall be based
on changes in the costs of providing sampling, laboratory and miscellaneous
wastewater pretreatment services. In determining whether there has been a
change in the costs of providing service, the city council may consider the city's
expenses associated with obtaining services from private laboratories and other
third persons, and the city's own administrative and other costs. The charges
and fees set forth in subsection D E of this section are to be billed at 75% for
customers located within the city limits. Other customers will be billed at 100%
of the charges and fees set forth in subsection E. These percentages may be
amended by ordinance of the city council.
G. Money to be Credited to Wastewater Operating Fund. All moneys collected
pursuant to this part shall be paid into and credited to the wastewater operating fund as
provided in Chapter 3.101.
Section 15. Section 7.60.115 of the Municipal Code reads as follows:
7.60.115 Sunset Clause.
Effective January 1, 2024, Wastewater Rates for all retail customers shall be reduced by
the percentage established by dividing $886,666 by the total gross revenue received from all
retail customers during the previous fiscal year.
Section 16. Section 7.60.120 of the Municipal Code reads as follows:
7.60.120 Severability.
If any section, clause, or phrase of this ordinance is declared unconstitutional or invalid for
any reason, such decision will not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this ordinance,
which shall continue in full force and effect.
2007 cos
12/5/07
16
Section 17. This ordinance shall be in full force and effect (30) calendar days after its
passage, approval and publication as provided by law and by the City Charter.
PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL, signed and appro this day of
December, 2007.
ATTEST:
City Clerk
Publication Date:
Effective Date:
2007 cos
12/5/07
17
David Edler, ' ayor
MEMORANDUM
TO: Honorable Mayor, Members of the City Council
FROM: Dick Zais, City Manager
Dave Zabel!, Assistant City Manager
Doug Mayo, Wastewater Manager
SUBJECT: Wastewater Rate Proposal - Strong Waste Alternative
DATE: December 4, 2007
Mayor Edler and staff met with representatives of Del Monte Foods on November 27 to
discuss their concerns regarding the wastewater rate increase policy issue, or more
specifically, the proposed strong waste increase. Del Monte Foods is far and away the
City's largest strong waste generator. In previous correspondence and during the
meeting, Del Monte Foods have expressed concern with the financial impact to their
business should the three annual increases of 10% each be adopted by Council as
proposed in the Wastewater Utility Cost of Service Study.
As background, the rate increases as proposed would reduce the existing strong waste
cost share with city retail customers from over 40% to Tess than 10%. The goal of
reducing the cost share to a level Tess than 0% while appropriate is nonetheless
somewhat arbitrary. The primary objective in reducing the cost share was to correct a
shift that has occurred over time by making a significant shift of the cost to treat strong
waste more directly on the strong waste generators. The amount of cost share is
appropriately a legislative determination.
Based on our discussions with Del Monte representatives, and staff follow up to the
information provided, staff is submitting as an altemative for Council consideration, a
revised proposal that would increase the strong waste rate 7% for each of the next
three years. Del Monte officials indicated that they were hopeful of a significant
decrease in the strong waste rate proposal, ionetheless if the City Council ultimately
were to adopt the rate as proposed they would strive to work with it.
While this revised proposal does not lower the cost share as much as the previous
proposal, it does significantly lower the cost share from over 40% to a level of 15-18%.
This revised proposal would reduce estimated strong waste revenues by approximately
$157,000. Staff considers the 7% per annum altemative as fiscally viable and consistent
with the objective of reducing what is currently an imbalance in the cost share for strong
waste.
(REVISED)
COUNCIL STUDY SESSION
TRANSMITTAL
October 30, 2007
To: Honorable Mayor, Members of the City Council
From: Dick Zais, City Manager
Dave Zabell, Assistant City Manager
Doug Mayo, Wastewater Manager
Subject: Transmittal of Mandated 2007 Wastewater Cost of Service and
Rate Study
OPENING:
This memorandum transmits the accompanying 2007 Wastewater Cost of
Service and Rate Study (COS). The need for this COS update was outlined in a
Council Information Item of October 4, 2006 titled Wastewater Utility
Improvement Planning (see Attachment "A"). This COS is presented for your
review, analysis, and comment. This COS and its recommendations shall be
presented as a policy issue with the 2008 budget. Your final deliberation and
action will come during the deliberation of the 2008 budget policy issues. The
COS analyzes the mandated requirements and financial condition of the
Wastewater Operating and Capital Funds and recommends action and adjusted
wastewater rates to meet those conditions.
In October 2004, Council adopted the 2004 Mandated Wastewater Facility Plan
(Facility Plan). This Plan identified over $26.1 million of capital improvements
required within the first 6 years (2004-2010). to maintain our ability to serve
the community. Of this, $20.2 million (77%) is due to the Gity's legal,
mandated. and contractual obligations. We have completed several of the
identified projects and others are under construction. However, due to rapidly
escalating construction costs, the current cost estimate to complete these
projects is over $23 million.
The Facility Plan also identifies the need for an additional $39.5 million of
capital improvements during the years 2011-2016, and $20.2 million of capital
improvements during the years 2017-2024. The total financial obligation over
the next 17 years (2007-2024) equals over $70 million in expenses. in addition
to existing programs, for Wastewater Facility operations.
2007 cos
REVISED Transmittal page 1
11/30/07
On October 4, 2006, Council was transmitted for Council information a white -
paper titled Wastewater Utility Improvement Planning. This document outlined
the Division's progress and position toward meeting the mandates outlined in
the 2000 Wastewater Facilities Plan and the 2004 Wastewater Facility Plan.
This paper concludes "The Wastewater budget is fully obligated and spending on
any new or non -emergency projects is on hold for at least 15 Months. In addition,
the City's level of participation in collection system expansion and participation in
non -emergency projects will need to be reevaluated as there are many existing
lines in need of replacement and /or repair. Growth needs to pay for growth.
However, the City's assistance in this area has been a powerful tool for economic
expansion. Both of these efforts will require significant funding". This paper also
states as "Long Term Funding Strategies: Alternatives to fund mandated
improvements to the WTF include a cost of service evaluation including connection
fees (to be completed in 2007), low interest loans, and additional revenue bonds
depending on capacity available for debt service. For instance; one loan
repayment will be complete in 2008, this will unlock debt service capacity for a
revenue bond of approximately $4,500,000, which could be obtained as early as
2007 with first payments due in 2008. The current dept service is approximately
19.2% of our current budget. The maximum of the budget allowed is 25% ".
The Wastewater Division's ability to meet the needs of the environment and
community continue to face a very expensive future. There will be grave
-. -
c
0
-.
•& .l0
0
111.1 07119_10
if these challenges are not adequately met.
REFLECTION:
Staff reviewed the predictions and proposals made in the 2001 Cost of Service
Plan. During the period 2001 through 2006, Operation and Maintenance (0&M)
expenses for the Wastewater Division showed a cumulative savings of $2.0
million (4.7%) ($40.9 v. $42.9) from that predicted and revenue showed an
increase of $5.6 million (7.5%) ($81.1 v. $75.4). However, Capital Transfers
showed an increase of $7.8 million (38.5%) ($27.9 v. $20.2). Of the increased
transfers, $1.9 million went toward Treatment Facility projects; a portion of the
remaining $5.9 million was invested in the ;expansion of the collection system.
This investment is a plays a critical role in enabling economic development
throughout the community and to bring much needed service to previously
unsewered existing City neighborhoods.
2007 COS
REVISED Transmittal page 2
11/30/07
Staff also reviewed staffing levels during the period 2002 to that recommended
in this COS for 2008. Staffing levels for the entire Wastewater Division decrease
1.52 FTEs. Treatment Facility Operations and Maintenance show a decrease of
1.22 FTE. Increases of 0.03 FTE are shown in Collection Maintenance (in
addition to assisting on projects for several other City divisions, our service area
has increased significantly) and the Pretreatment program that became
delegated during this period increased 1.95 FTE.
During this same period (2002-2008) our payroll expenses have increased 3.7%
0
These other ex ep nses include .utilities. chemicals, fuel, and other private sector
furnished items required by our operation. Overall, during the period 2002
actual through our 2008 projection, our total expenses, including debt service
and capital transfers, have increased at an annual rate of 6.36%.
As indicated on TABLE 1-4, for 2008, the system's expenses are budgeted
to be:
1) Operation and Maintenance Expense % of Total
a) Labor + benefits $4,747,720 (28.6%)
b) Other * $4,015,599 (24.2%)
2) Capital Transfers $2,431,850 (14.7%)
3) Capital Debt Service $3,477,845 (21.0%)
4) Utility Tax $1,918,150 (11.6%)
TOTAL $16,591,164
* Chemicals, utilities, fuel, etc.
REQUIREMENTS FOR SEWER RATE ADJUSTMENTS:
This study makes recommendations to adjust the current rate and fee
schedules to accommodate the demands outlined in the 2004 Facility Plan and
satisfy the City's legal, mandated, and contractual obligations.
An accompanying 2007 Update to the Wastewater Connection Charge Study
has also been prepared and is under your consideration. Any adjustment in
Connection rates and charges will have an effect on the rates in this report.
Each $130,000 worth of revenue from any other source translates to a 1%
savings to City retail customers.
2007 COS
REVISED Transmittal page 3
11/30/07
• As a prior recipient of Federal grant assistance. the City is required toa
"Generate sufficient revenue to pay the total operation and maintenance
costs necessary to the proper operation and maintenance (including
replacement) of the treatment works." 40 CFR 35.929-2(b) (2).
• "The user charge system must be designed to produce adequate revenues
required for operation and maintenance (including replacement). It shall
provide that each user which discharges pollutants that cause an increase in
the cost of managing the effluent or sludge from the treatment works shall
pkv for such increased cost." 40 CFR 35.2140.
The City of Yakima is responsible for securing adequate collection, treatment,
and administrative programs to meet Federal, State, and local wastewater
obligations. In general, those obligations are public health, regulatory
compliance, financing, and community growth. Today there are no more Federal
Grants. However, as a prior recipient of earlier Federal and State grants. the
City remains bound to the terms of the Federal requirements cited above. The
City's financing choices are loans. revenue bonds, or cash. All choices are
entirely supported by wastewater customer rates.
The Proposed Rates Increases are driven by:
• Federal NPDES Permit/Clean Water Act: Failure or delay to
authorize the Plan and rate increase recommendations could lead to
violations of the City's NPDES permit which could mean fines and other
civil and criminal penalties against the City of Yakima and make the City
vulnerable to third party lawsuits. (See Appendix I for existing NPDES
permit.)
• Mandates/Contractual Obligations: Federal and State laws,
Regulatory Agencies, and Contractual Obligation of the City including
obligations of the 4 -Party Agreement and maintaining debt coverage
requirements on existing bonded debt. (See Appendix I for Regulations,
Rules and Citations.)
• Capacity: Without improvements, the capacity of the treatment facility
and some of our trunk pipes will soon be fully utilized.
2007 COS
REVISED Transmittal page 4
11/30/07
• Service: Our ability to provide adequate, professional service to the
community and to new customers of our area is diminishing annually.
• Declining Reserves: In spite of a drop in actual and budgeted
expenditures, all Wastewater funds are experiencing declining reserves
levels. The reserves are declining at over $700,000 per year. This
situation cannot be allowed to continue. If all new construction activity
was halted, and NONE of the Facilities Plan recommendations were
enacted the operating reserve would still fall to ZERO within four years.
CONCLUSION:
If the City does not take decisive action and obtain the resources necessary for
the future, the following consequences could arise:
• The capacity of the Treatment Facility and of several of our major
interceptors will soon be exhausted. A Moratorium on new services
(residential, commercial, and industrial) will likely be required within
ten years or Tess effectively stopping development;
• The City's ability to remain in compliance with all elements of our
Federal NPDES Permit would be in severe jeopardy;
• The City would be unable to meet existing contractual agreements
together with new obligations within our service area limiting
development to the area already served; and
• The City could be unable to meet adequate debt coverage/bond
covenant requirements. This could put the City's credit rating and
ability to borrow money at risk.
2007 COS
REVISED Transmittal page 5
11/30/07
RECOMMENDATIONS:
The following recommendations of rate adjustments are provided to adjust
current rate and fee schedules to generate a target revenue increase required
to meet the 2010 funding requirements of the Wastewater Division's existing
programs and the 2004-2010 phase of the Updated 2004 Wastewater Facility
Plan ($26.1 million over 6 years). The recommendations for all customer
classes are for a phased rate adjustment beginning Spring 2008. This option
would allow some reserve capacity to transfer into the second phase 2011-
2016 of the Facility Plan capital requirements.
Implementation of the recommendations in this "cost of service evaluation" will
increase the average City retail customer's bill, over three years, a total of
$3.95 per month (10.8%). During the same period (2008-2010), rates paid to
the Division from all customers will cumulatively increase $4,010,290. This
increase will predominately be used to meet our obligations to provide
wastewater service to existing City neighborhoods.
Summary of the net effect of the additional revenue (REVISED)
2008 2009 2010 Cumulative
$453,046 1,448,779 2,108,415 /1,010,290
Additional Revenue revised $434,954 1,396,289 2,012,956 3,853,199
Increased Capital Transfers: 000 950,000 1,600,000 2,550,000
$453,096 324,926 255,405 1,033,427
Increased 473 Reserve revised: $434,954 272,436 168,946 876,336
2007 COS
REVISED Transmittal page 6
11/30/07
The proposed level rate adjustments of major user groups
being:
User Group
Pretreatment Program
County Retail
Wholesale Municipal
City Retail Strong Waste
City Retail
2008
2009 2010 Cumulative
5.5% 5.5%
5.5% 5.5%
5.5%
5.5%
Adjustment per 1976 agreement
10.0% 10.0% 10.0%
3.5% 3.5% 3.5%
17.4%
17A%
33.1%
10.8%
• Pretreatment - Section
Current Rate:
Proposed Rate:
Phase One (13%)/ (5.5%)
Phase Two (13%)/ (5.5%)
Phase Three (13%)/ (5.5%)
Cumulative Increase %
6
Outside
$70.91
$80.13
$90.54
$102.32
45.3%
City
$53.18
$56.1 1 (includes 40% cost share)
$59.19 (includes 40% cost share)
$62.45 (includes 40% cost share)
17.4%
The Targe percentage increase is due to the requirement to add a permit writer to staff.
Proposed adjustments of Sampling and Testing Fees and SIU Permit Fees are listed in Section 6.
2007 COS
REVISED Transmittal page 7
11/30/07
• City Strong Waste Retail
Current Rate:
Proposed Rate:
0
Phase One (7.0%)
Masa Two (10.0%)
Phase Two (7.0%)
Phase ea-(1-O.O%)
Phase Three (7.0%)
Cumin o
Cumulative Increase %
Customers (REVISED) - Section 10
BOD/ib. TSS/Ib, FOG/Ib.
$0.332 $0.339 none
$0.365 $0.373 $4.-2.7-6
$0.355 $0.363 $0.276
$0.402 S&410 $0276
$0.380 $0.388 $0.276
$0A42
$0.407 $0.415 $0.276
33.1% 33.1% t
22.5% 22.5% n/a
Large increase in rate for BOD and TSS due'to considerably less loading than anticipated in previous COS. FOG
charge is initiated with this Study. Even with these adjustments, there remains a subsidy by City retail ratepayers of
approximately 4.O% 15-18%. Note that businesses have control over reducing these charges by good management
practices to reduce loadings.
Working on the hypothesis that the above outlined adjustments are substantially approved by
City Council, the following adjustments to City retail customers are recommended.
• City Retail Customers - Section 11
Ready to Serve
$13.34
Current Rate:
Proposed Rate:
Phase One (3.5%)
Phase Two (3.5%)
Phase Three (3.5%)
$13.81
$14.29
$14.79
Cumulative Increase % 10.9%
Volume/UOC Increase@1 0 UOC $ Increase
$2.34 $36.74
$2.42 $38.01 $1.27
$2.51 $39.39 $1.38
$2.59 $40.69 $1.30
10.7% 10.75% $3.95
2007 COS
REVISED Transmittal page 8
11/30/07
RUESTED ACTION:
Staff respectfully requests City Council review and analyze this study, which will
be submitted as a policy issue with the 2008 budget for action during the
budget process. A Public Hearing on this issue will be held on November 20,
with Council Action scheduled for early December. In the interim, staff will
schedule meetings with council committees and with various community groups
to discuss the Study's recommendations.
2007 COS
REVISED Transmittal page 9
11/30/07
2007 Wastewater Cost of Service
and Rate Study
oc%9 I `37
CITY OF YAKIMA
WASTEWATER UTILITY
2007
COST OF SERVICE
AND RATE STUDY
DRAFT
SECTIONS 1 THROUGH 11
October, 2007
by
Wastewater Staff
2007 WASTEWATER UTILITY
COST OF SERVICE AND RATE STUDY
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Transmittal
SECTION 1 Introduction and Executive Summary
SECTION 2 Background Information
SECTION 3 Capital Improvement Program
SECTION 4 Operation, Capital, and Debt Service
SECTION 5 Plant Flows and Pollutant Loading
SECTION 6 Pretreatment Program
SECTION 7 Outsid e City Domestic Retail
Customers
SECTION 8 Outside City Strong Waste / Septic
Customers
SECTION 9
SECTION 10
SECTION 11
Municipal Wholesale Customers
City Strong Waste Customers
City Retail Domestic Customers
COUNCIL STUDY SESSION
TRANSMITTAL
October 30, 2007
To: Honorable Mayor, Members of the City Council
From: Dick Zais, City Manager
Dave Zabell, Assistant City Manager
Doug Mayo, Wastewater Manager
Subject: Transmittal of Mandated 2007 Wastewater Cost of Service and
Rate Study
OPENING:
This memorandum transmits the accompanying 2007 Wastewater Cost of
Service and Rate Study (COS). The need for this COS update was outlined in a
Council Information Item of October 4, 2006 titled Wastewater Utility
Improvement Planning (see Attachment "A"). This COS is presented for your
review, analysis, and comment. This COS and its recommendations shall be
presented as a policy issue with the 2008 budget. Your final deliberation and
action will come during the deliberation of the 2008 budget policy issues. The
COS analyzes the mandated requirements and financial condition of the
Wastewater Operating and Capital Funds and recommends action and adjusted
wastewater rates to meet those conditions.
In October 2004, Council adopted the 2004 Mandated Wastewater Facility Plan
(Facility Plan). This Plan identified over $26.1 million of capital improvements
required within the first 6 years (2004-2010) to maintain our ability to serve
the community. Of this. $20.2 million (77%) is due to the City's legal.
mandated. and contractual obligations. We have completed several of the
identified projects and others are under construction. However. due to rapidly
escalating construction costs. the current cost estimate to complete these
projects is over $23 million.
The Facility Plan also identifies the need for an additional $39.5 million of
capital improvements during the years 2011-2016. and $20.2 million of capital
improvements during the years 2017-2024. The total financial obligation over
the next 17 years (2007-2024) equals over $70 million in expenses. in addition
to existing programs. for Wastewater Facility operations.
2007 cos
Transmittal page 1
10/26/07
On October 4, 2006, Council was transmitted for Council information a white -
paper titled Wastewater Utility Improvement Planning. This document outlined
the Division's progress and position toward meeting the mandates outlined in
the 2000 Wastewater Facilities Plan and the 2004 Wastewater Facility Plan.
This paper concludes "The Wastewater budget is fully obligated and spending on
any new or non -emergency projects is on hold for at least 15 Months. In addition,
the City's level of participation in collection system expansion and participation in
non -emergency projects will need to be reevaluated as there are many existing
lines in need of replacement and /or repair. Growth needs to pay for growth.
However, the City's assistance in this area has been a powerful tool for economic
expansion. Both of these efforts will require significant funding". This paper also
states as "Long Term Funding Strategies: Alternatives to fund mandated
improvements to the WTF include a cost of service evaluation including connection
fees (to be completed in 2007), low interest loans, and additional revenue bonds
depending on capacity available for debt service. For instance; one loan
repayment will be complete in 2008, this will unlock debt service capacity for a
revenue bond of approximately $4,500,000, which could be obtained as early as
2007 with first payments due in 2008. The current dept service is approximately
19.2% of our current budget. The maximum of the budget allowed is 25% ".
The Wastewater Division's ability to meet the needs of the environment and
community continue to face a very expensive future. There will be grave
consequences to the City's ability to meet regulatory and community demands
if these challenges are not adequately met.
REFLECTION:
Staff reviewed the predictions and proposals made in the 2001 Cost of Service
Plan. During the period 2001 through 2006, Operation and Maintenance (0&M)
expenses for the Wastewater Division showed a cumulative savings of $2.0
million (4.7%) ($40.9 v. $42.9) from that predicted and revenue showed an
increase of $5.6 million (7.5%) ($81.1 v. $75.4). However, Capital Transfers
showed an increase of $7.8 million (38.5%) ($27.9 v. $20.2). Of the increased
transfers, $1.9 million went toward Treatment Facility projects; a portion of the
remaining $5.9 million was invested in the expansion of the collection system.
This investment is a plays a critical role in enabling economic development
throughout the community and to bring much needed service to previously
unsewered existing City neighborhoods.
2007 cos
Transmittal page 2
10/26/07
Staff also reviewed staffing levels during the period 2002 to that recommended
in this COS for 2008. Staffing levels for the entire Wastewater Division decrease
1.52 FTEs. Treatment Facility Operations and Maintenance show a decrease of
1.22 FTE. Increases of 0.03 FTE are shown in Collection Maintenance (in
addition to assisting on projects for several other City divisions, our service area
has increased significantly) and the Pretreatment program that -became
delegated during this period increased 1.95 FTE.
During this same period (2002-2008) our payroll expenses have increased 3.7%
annually compared to an annual increase of 8.5% for our other O&M expenses.
These other expenses include utilities. chemicals. fuel, and other private sector
furnished items required by our operation. Overall, during the period 2002
actual through our 2008 projection, our total expenses, including debt service
and capital transfers, have increased at an annual rate of 6.36%.
As indicated on TABLE 1-4, for 2008, t
to be:
1) Operation and Maintenance
a) Labor + benefits
b) Other *
2) Capital Transfers
3) Capital Debt Service
4) Utility Tax
TOTAL
* Chemicals, utilities, fuel, etc.
he system's expenses are budgeted
Expense
$4,747,720
$4,015,599
$2,431,850
$3,477,845
$1.918.150
$16,591,164
% of Total
(28.6%)
(24.2%)
(14.7%)
(21.0%)
(11.6%)
REQUIREMENTS FOR SEWER RATE ADJUSTMENTS:
This study makes recommendations to adjust the current rate and fee
schedules to accommodate the demands outlined in the 2004 Facility Plan and
satisfy the City's legal, mandated, and contractual obligations.
An accompanying 2007 Update to the Wastewater Connection Charge Study
has also been prepared and is under your consideration. Any adjustment in
Connection rates and charges will have an effect on the rates in this report.
Each $130,000 worth of revenue from any other source translates to a 1
savings to City retail customers.
2007 cos
Transmittal page 3
10/26/07
• As a prior recipient of Federal grant assistance. the City is required to:
"Generate sufficient revenue to pay the total operation and maintenance
costs necessary to the proper operation and maintenance (including
replacement) of the treatment works." 40 CFR 35.929-2(b) (2).
• "The user charge system must be designed to produce adequate revenues
required for operation and maintenance (including replacement). It shall
provide that each user which discharges pollutants that cause an increase in
the cost of managing the effluent or sludge from the treatment works shall
pay for such increased cost." 40 CFR 35.2140.
The City of Yakima is responsible for securing adequate collection, treatment,
and administrative programs to meet Federal, State, and local wastewater
obligations. In general, those obligations are public health, regulatory
compliance, financing, and community growth. Today there are no more Federal
Grants. However. as a prior recipient of earlier Federal and State grants. the
City remains bound to the terms of the Federal requirements cited above. The
City's financing choices are loans, revenue bonds. or cash. All choices are
entirely supported by wastewater customer rates.
The Proposed Rates Increases are driven by:
• Federal NPDES Permit/Clean Water Act: Failure or delay to
authorize the Plan and rate increase recommendations could lead to
violations of the City's NPDES permit which could mean fines and other
civil and criminal penalties against the City of Yakima and make the City
vulnerable to third party lawsuits. (See Appendix I for existing NPDES
permit.)
• Mandates/Contractual Obligations: Federal and State laws,
Regulatory Agencies, and Contractual Obligation of the City including
obligations of the 4 -Party Agreement and maintaining debt coverage
requirements on existing bonded debt. (See Appendix I for Regulations,
Rules and Citations.)
• Capacity: Without improvements, the capacity of the treatment facility
and some of our trunk pipes will soon be fully utilized.
2007 cos
Transmittal page 4
10/26/07
• Service: Our ability to provide adequate, professional service to the
community and to new customers of our area is diminishing annually.
• Declining Reserves: In spite of a drop in actual and budgeted
expenditures, all Wastewater funds are experiencing declining reserves
levels. The reserves are declining at over $700,000 per year. This
situation cannot be allowed to continue. If all new construction activity
was halted, and NONE of the Facilities Plan recommendations were
enacted the operating reserve would still fall to ZERO within four years.
CONCLUSION:
If the City does not take decisive action and obtain the resources necessary for
the future, the following consequences could arise:
• The capacity of the Treatment Facility and of several of our major
interceptors will soon be exhausted. A Moratorium on new services
(residential, commercial, and industrial) will likely be required within
ten years or less effectively stopping development;
• The City's ability to remain in compliance with all elements of our
Federal NPDES Permit would be in severe jeopardy;
• The City would be unable to meet existing contractual agreements
together with new obligations within our service area limiting
development to the area already served; and
• The City could be unable to meet adequate debt coverage/bond
covenant requirements. This could put the City's credit rating and
ability to borrow money at risk.
2007 cos
Transmittal page 5
10/26/07
RECOMMENDATIONS:
The following recommendations of rate adjustments are provided to adjust
current rate and fee schedules to generate a target revenue increase required
to meet the 2010 funding requirements of the Wastewater Division's existing
programs and the 2004-2010 phase of the Updated 2004 Wastewater Facility
Plan ($26.1 million over 6 years). The recommendations for all customer
classes are for a phased rate adjustment beginning Spring 2008. This option
would allow some reserve capacity to transfer into the second phase 2011-
2016 of the Facility Plan capital requirements.
Implementation of the recommendations in this "cost of service evaluation" will
increase the average City retail customer's bill, over three years, a total of
$3.95 per month (10.8%). During the same period (2008-2010), rates paid to
the Division from all customers will cumulatively increase $4,010,290. This
increase will predominately be used to meet our obligations to provide
wastewater service to existing City neighborhoods.
Summary of the net effect of the additional revenue
2008 2009
Additional Revenue: $453,096 1,448,779
Increased Capital Transfers: 000 950,000
Increased 473 Reserve: $453,096 324,926
2010
2,108,415
1,600,000
255,405
Cumulative
4,010,290
2,550,000
1,033,427
The proposed level rate adjustments
being:
of major user groups
User Group
Pretreatment Program
County Retail
Wholesale Municipal
City Retail Strong Waste
City Retail
2008 2009
5.5% 5.5%
5.5% 5.5%
Adjustment per 1976
10.0% 10.0%
3.5% 3.5%
2010 Cumulative
5.5%
5.5%
agreement
10.0%
3.5%
17.4%
17.4%
33.1%
10.8%
2007 cos
Transmittal page 6
10/26/07
• Pretreatment - Section
Current Rate:
Proposed Rate:
Phase One (13%)/ (5.5%)
Phase Two (13%)/ (5.5%)
Phase Three (13%)/ (5.5%)
Cumulative Increase %
6
Outside
$70.91
$80.13
$90.54
$102.32
45.3%
it
$53.18
$56.11 (includes 40% cost share)
$59.1 9 (includes 40% cost share)
$62.45 (includes 40% cost share)
17.4%
The Targe percentage increase is due to the requirement to add a permit writer to staff.
Proposed adjustments of Sampling and Testing Fees and SIU Permit Fees are listed in Section 6.
• City Strong Waste Retail
Current Rate:
Proposed Rate:
Phase One (10.0%)
Phase Two (10.0%)
Phase Three (10.0%)
Cumulative Increase %
Customers - Section
130D/Ib. TSS/Ib.
$0.332 $0.339
$0.365 $0.373
$0.402 $0.410
$0.442 $0.451
33.1%
33.1%
10
FOG/Ib.
none
$0.276
$0.276
$0.276
n/a
Large increase in rate for BOD and TSS due to considerably less loading than anticipated in previous COS. FOG
charge is initiated with this Study. Even with these adjustments, there remains a subsidy by City retail ratepayers of
approximately 10%. Note that businesses have control over reducing these charges by good management practices
to reduce loadings.
2007 COS
Transmittal page 7
10/26/07
Working on the hypothesis that the above outlined adjustmentsare substantially approved by
City Council, the following adjustments to City retail customers are recommended.
• City Retail Customers - Section 11
Ready to Serve Volume/UOC Increase@1 0 UOC $ Increase
Current Rate:
Proposed Rate:
Phase One (3.5%)
Phase Two (3.5%)
Phase Three (3.5%)
$13.34 $2.34 $36.74
$13.81
$14.29
$14.79
Cumulative Increase % 10.9%
$2.42
$2.51
$2.59
10.7%
$38.01
$39.39
$40.69
10.75%
$1.27
$1.38
$1.30
$3.95
REQUESTED ACTION:
Staff respectfully requests City Council review and analyze this study, which will
be submitted as a policy issue with the 2008 budget for action during the
budget process. A Public Hearing on this issue will be held on November 20,
with Council Action scheduled for early December. In the interim, staff will
schedule meetings with council committees and with various community groups
to discuss the Study's recommendations.
2007 COS
Transmittal page 8
10/26/07
ATTACHMENT A
For City Council Information
October 4, 2006
To: Honorable Mayor, Economic Development Council Committee,
and City Council
From: Dick Zais, Dave Zabell, Doug Mayo and Max Linden
Subject: Wastewater Utility Improvement Planning
This report is to update the City Council on wastewater capital investments
over the past three years and 2007 budget year, the performance of the
adopted infrastructure investment plan, and the current cash reserve position
in funds 472, 476, and 478.
During the previous half -decade the City has implemented the draft 2000
Wastewater Facility Plan and subsequent amendments that developed a
long-range plan to improve and upgrade the Wastewater Treatment Plant,
and provide for strategic expansion and renovation of the wastewater
collection system. The plan is a financial planning model which included a
thorough analysis of the utility rate structure, fiscal policies of the Utility,
capital needs assessment, and an analysis of the revenue requirements
required to implement the capital improvement plan. In addition the 2000
Draft Wastewater Facility Plan, subsequent amendments, and annual City
budget information and projections were utilized in this effort.
Most recently the adopted 2004 Wastewater Facility Plan (completed by
Black & Veatch Corporation) was finalized and provides a historical and
projected budget mandated by the Department of Ecology for continued
upgrade of the Wastewater Treatment Plant. The mandated Facility Plan
utilized a 20 -year planning horizon (2004-2024) in developing
recommended improvements to the Wastewater Treatment Facility. These
improvements total an estimated $41,000,000 in regulatory, capacity, health
and safety, and regular renewal -and replacement upgrades to the WTF, of
which approximately $17,800,000 are scheduled for the 0-6 year (2004-
2010) near-term capital improvement program.
As stated in the attached April 18, 2005 memo to Council, the overall cost of
this first phase of the 0 -6 -year planning horizon; consisting of improvements
to the Wastewater Treatment Facility was estimated at $13,796,000 with an
additional $4,000,000 necessary to fund planned investments through 2008.
The planning effort has proven to be accurate, in that overall projects costs
attachment A
page 1
estimates have been attained, and overall revenue projections have been met.
This plan however is a spending plan; correspondingly, a planned spending
of fund reserves has occurred, in concert with the completion or near
completion of several projects.
As successful as this effort has been for the City, the time has now arrived to
update the plan. As indicated above, City staff has been conducting ongoing
analysis and planning during this interim period. In addition to the long-
range planning provided for in the mandated Facility Plan, a more detailed
analysis of available funds and revenue requirements occurs bi-annually
during rate review and cost -of -service analysis.
As mentioned previously, the City has invested significant sewer operation
revenue/cash reserves from 2004 through 2007. Remaining sewer operation
revenue/cash reserves are needed to complete capital projects underway and
maintain a minimum reserve levels. Following are the major sewer projects
the City implemented or will during the 2004 through 2007 budget years:
Project name
Sewer Operation
Revenue/Cash
Reserves used to
date 04-06
Sewer Operation
Revenue/Cash
Reserves
proposed for
budget year
2007
Total Sewer
Operations
Revenue/Cash
Reserves 2004-2007
1. Wa Ave 40th to 48th
sewer Phase 1
$1,235,163 00
$1,235,163.00
2. Wa Ave 40th to 52nd
sewer Phase 1
$1,599,289.00
$1,599,289.00
3. 96th-Tieton Ext. Sewer
$642,174.00
$642,174.00
4. WaAve52ndto62nd
sewer Phase 2
$590,344.00
$590,344.00
5. Speedway sewer
$1,751,353.00
$1,751,353.00
6. River Road sewer
$663,000.00
$663,000.00
7. Historic Front Street
Sewer
$165,000.00
$165,000.00
8 VWVTF Improvements
Phase 1
$4,111,973.00
$4,111,973.00
9. Ultra Violet Disinfection
$249,000.00
$249,000.00
10. Grade Separation Project
$150,000.00
$150,000.00
TOTALS
$5,983,323.00
$5,173,973.00
$11,157,296.00
Planned cash reserves to be used during this period are $11,157,296 of
which $5,983,323 has been invested in 2004-2006 as described below:
• Fund 478 (Wastewater Facility Capital Improvements) — no cash
reserves have been spent to date with $4,111973 of reserves projected
attachment A
page 2
during FY 2007, leaving a minimal ending balance of $498,187.
• Fund 476 (Sewer Construction) - $5,983,323 of reserves were utilized
during the period 2004-2006 with an additional $1,121,000 planned
for 2007, leaving a projected minimal ending balance of $512,705.
• Fund 472 (Wastewater Facility Capital Improvements) - $150,000 of
reserves are projected to be used during FY 2007, leaving a year-end
minimal balance of $443,584.
• Fund 473 (Operations) — this fund historically provides cash transfers
to the capital funds. In recent years this fund has also funded
stormwater activities at a total cost of $643,120 with an additional
$342,971 estimated for 2007. The 2007 projected year-end minimal
cash balance is $1,165,343.
Grants are no longer available to Wastewater Treatment Facilities. Planned
Loans and Bonds to be implemented over the past three years and the 2007
budget year include the following:
Project name
PWTF loan
04-06
Revenue Bond
04-06
PWTF loan
proposed 2007
Revenue Bond
proposed 2007
Total
6. River
Road
sewer
$700,000.00
$1,607,000.00
$2,307,000.00
8. VVWTF
Improve-
ments
$5,725,000.00
$4,063,027.00
$9,788,027.00
9. UV
Disinfection
$351,000.00
$2,300,000.00
$2,651,000.00
TOTALS
$700,000.00
$6,076,000.00
$3,907,000.00
$4,063,027.00
$14,746,027.00
A total of $25,903,323 from sewer operations revenue/reserves, loans, and
bonds has been spent or is planned to from 2004 through 2007. Additional
funding will be needed to continue the required improvements to the
WWTP. Two major pieces of process equipment at the WWTP are in need
of repair and or replacement. Anticipated costs for the repairs and
replacement are approximately $500,000 each. At present these repairs are
planned for 2008 and 2009 however reserves must be kept in place in the
event repairs are required sooner.
The current financial position of the Utility in terms of fund reserves was
anticipated per our revenue and expenditure planning. It is now time to
update our financial plan. This can appropriately be approached on two
attachment A
page 3
different fronts each having multiple options and alternatives:
Short Term Funding Strategies: These would address
emergency repairs and small capital projects relating to system
expansion. Inter -fund loans or a line of credit are both viable
options. Needed funds can be acquired through these processes,
then re -paid as the financial position of the Utility improves
through retirement of debt, expansion, or revenue
enhancements. Local Improvement Districts (LIDs) are a sound
funding mechanism for collection system expansion. Raising
sewer rates can also be used to support short-term strategies,
plus funds now being spent on stormwater activities can be
reallocated at such time rates designed to support these
activities are in effect.
Long Term Funding Strategies: Alternatives to fund mandated
improvements to the WTF include a cost of service evaluation
including connection fees (to be completed in 2007), low
interest loans, and additional revenue bonds depending on
capacity available for debt service. For instance; one loan
repayment will be complete in 2008, this will unlock debt
service capacity for a revenue bond of approximately
$4,500,000, which could be obtained as early as 2007 with first
payments due in 2008. The current dept service is
approximately 19.2% of our current budget. The maximum of
the budget allowed is 25%. An additional repayment scheduled
for 2011 will provide financial capacity for additional debt at
that time. These loans and bonds will be used only for the
needed improvements to the Wastewater Treatment Plant.
The Wastewater budget is fully obligated and spending on any new or non-
emergency projects is on hold for at least 15 Months. In addition, the City's
level of participation in collection system expansion and participation in
non -emergency projects will need to be reevaluated as there are many
existing lines in need of replacement and /or repair. Growth needs to pay for
growth. However, the City's assistance in this area has been a powerful tool
for economic expansion. Both of these efforts will require significant
funding.
Our intent was to update the City Council with the current financial status of
the Utility as it relates to the City's past investment, current reserve
balances, and preliminary thinking on near-term future financing
attachment A
page 4
opportunities. It is our intent to discuss this issue with the City Council
during the 2007 Budget process and beyond as we initiate an update of the
financial planning model for the Utility.
attachment A
page 5
For City Council Information
April 18, 2005
To: Honorable Mayor, City Council and City Manager
From: Max Linden, Wastewater Utility Engineer
Subject: Wastewater Facility Improvements
This memo will provide an update on Wastewater Facility Improvements and
justification for additional funding. The Wastewater division wishes to request
permission to submit an application for a $4,000,000 loan from PWTF for council
approval at the May 3rd 2005 City Council meeting.
Implementation of the adopted 2004 Wastewater Facility Plan is dependent on
development of a realistic and sustainable Capital Facilities Plan which takes into
account various intemal sources of revenue such as rates, fees and connection
charges as well potential external sources such as grants and loans. The
implementation and financing program is based on analyses of the wastewater
collection and treatment systems, projected growth rates and recommended and
required improvements for sustaining growth and meeting regulatory requirements.
The Wastewater Facility Plan provides a general overview of past rates analyses,
financial policies of the City of Yakima's Wastewater Utility and an overview of
the revenue requirements associated with completion of the projects outlined
herein are provided. In addition, project implementation costs are evaluated and
potential revenue alternatives that may be available to the City are discussed.
A summary of recommended improvements to the Yakima Regional WWTP and
the collection system have been identified in section 12 of the 2004 Wastewater
Facility Plan. Improvements have been divided into near term (0-6 years), mid-
term (7-12 years) and long range (13-20 years) recommendations that are further
broken down into key treatment feature projects, other wastewater treatment
facilities projects and collection system improvements. Project prioritization were
determined based on relative need and regulatory requirements associated with
each.
Over the 20 -year planning horizon recommended improvements to the Wastewater
Treatment Facility include a variety of projects totaling an estimated $41 million in
regulatory, capacity upgrade, health and safety features and regular renewal and
replacement projects with approximately $31 million in improvements scheduled
Memo page 1
for the 0-6 year near-term capital improvement program. The 2004 Wastewater
Facility Plan identifies the improvements, estimates costs, relative schedules and
the primary reason for installation or upgrade. Indication of the reason for the
upgrade should be a primary determination in deciding the type of funding to be
utilized for each project. General speaking, upgrades that are mandated by
regulation are most suitable for loan and grant financing, while smaller projects
and regular renewal and replacements are most commonly financed from available
cash and rates. This does not, however, preclude the packaging of several related
improvements into funding applications that allow similar projects to be
accomplished simultaneously. The inclusion of a variety of projects into one
application also allows the more serious of the issues being addressed to help sell
less significant aspects of the overall project through the competitive processes.
Analysis of the treatment systems performed as part of the facility plan indicates
the need to provide redundancy to several operations within the treatment plant.
Redundancy is required to meet Washington State Department of Ecology criteria
for provision of backup facilities to major treatment processes to assure
compliance with the City's NPDES permit and associated rules and regulations.
The following areas, scheduled for the 0-6 near term planning horizon, have been
identified and prioritized in the planning process as the most critical facilities
requiring redundancy. These projects are included in the Series B bond proceeds
funding received in 2003.
• Centrifuge Dewatering in new solids handling building (Project 23) —
Currently only one of the two centrifuges is function for dewatering
biosolids and this requires extensive maintenance to continue operating. A
new centrifuge is required to maintain compliance when the older centrifuge
is out of service. The new centrifuge will be located in a new solids
handling building. The older centrifuge will be used for redundancy
requirements for dewatering and thickening.
• Solids Thickening (Projects 21 and 22) — The waste activated sludge
thickening process reduces the total volume sent to the digestion process,
and directly impacts regulatory compliance. Currently only one dissolved
air flotation thickener (DAFT) unit is in place to thicken secondary sludge.
The older centrifuge will also be used as a second thickening unit to meet
redundancy criteria.
• Standby Power Capacity Addition (Project 38) - The emergency power
system supplies a backup source of power to assure that minimum treatment
is provided during a power failure. The existing generator set was installed
in 1980 and at a minimum, requires a complete inspection/overhaul. An
Memo page 2
additional generator set is required to operate the minimum treatment
process. This unit will be housed in the new blower building.
• New Blowers in New Blower Building (Project 7) — Existing VFDs that
operate the four 400 horsepower blowers are far less efficient and generate
more harmonic distortion on the electrical power system than newer
technology. The blowers and VFDs are all at the end of their useful life, are
difficult to find replacement parts for and require replacement. Construction
of a new structure to accommodate new blowers is recommended.
In addition, to redundancy projects the following projects, also scheduled for the 0-
6 near term planning horizon, have been identified as critical projects for renewal,
safety and efficiency of operations.
• Replace SCADA System (Project 39) — Major SCADA system components
will be replaced, including PLCs, computer hardware and software, HMI
software, and historical data logging software.
• UV Disinfection (Project 40) — UV disinfection facilities will be installed to
replace chlorine disinfection, reducing safety and security concerns.
• New Grease Receiving Facility, Replacement of Digester Gas Piping,
Valves and Flow Meters — The digester gas collection piping is over 20
years old and needs to be upsized.
The projects above, identified as part of the near term (0-6 yrs.) priority
improvements in the 2004 Wastewater Facility Plan, are being packaged as one
project. This package includes having our engineer upgrade the plants SCADA
system (currently under way), two pre -procurement bid packages to pre -purchase
blowers and a centrifuge (ready to go out for bid) and a construction bid package
planned to be advertised for bid in October of 2005. The total cost of this will be
approximately $13,796,000. (See highlighted projects on Table 3-4 Capital
Improvement Projects)
In 2003, the City of Yakima implemented a new rate structure to increase revenues
to the wastewater utility. Additional funding assistance for future projects comes
from the approximate $18 million in revenue bonds that were issued by the City in
2003. These bonds were divided into two distinctive series with approximately
$7.46 million in proceeds from Series A bonds being used to pay for the settlement
of previous litigation relating to odor control within the sewer system.
Approximately $10 million in proceeds from sale of Series B Bonds is being used
to fund a variety of projects and capital improvements involving the City's
wastewater treatment plant.
Memo page 3
Projects dedicated to resolving issues related to regulatory requirements are often
financed by government administered grant and low interest loan financing
programs. In competitive financing programs such as Public Works Trust Fund,
Centennial Clean Water and State Revolving Fund programs, regulation mandated
projects tend to receive higher scores than renewal and replacement or growth
driven projects. Growth related system improvements are generally funded
through property assessments, connection charges and development fees. None of
the specific improvements mentioned above are growth related only. Long term
financing strategies will include continuing to apply for grant and low interest
funding, where appropriate, and maintaining current and equitable connection
charges and fees so that growth can finance required system expansions.
The 2004 Wastewater Facility Plan presents a historical and projected budget for
the City of Yakima Wastewater Utility. This simplified budget overview is
intended to provide order of magnitude costs and assist the City in its on-going
decision making, project prioritization and budgeting. More detailed consideration
of available funds and revenue requirements occurs bi-annually in the City's
established rate review and cost-of-service analysis and periodic review and
adjustment of connections charges. As discussed previously the 2003 bond issue
provides a significant source of revenue ($10,000,000) for immediate
improvements to the wastewater treatment plant. The overall cost of this first
phase of (0-6 yr) priority projects is estimated to be $13,796,000. Another
$4,000,000 is needed to fund this work through 2008.
The Wastewater Division can apply now for a $4,000,000 low interest loan
from the Public Works Trust Fund, PWTF, in May 2005, and make debt
payments without raising rates. The Table titled Wastewater System Debt
Service shows our existing debt service and coverage along with projected future
loans. The new loans would not add to our debt coverage, only to our debt service,
and in 2008, 2011, 2013, and 2015 existing loans and bonds will be paid for. With
the addition of the three project loans (shown on Table 3-3) our obligation to these
debts will only increase by approximately $200,000/yr. for three years, which can
be covered without raising rates, and then will decrease over the life of these loans.
After 2008 Long term fmancing strategies will include continuing to apply for
grant and low interest funding, where appropriate, and maintaining current and
equitable connection charges and fees so that growth can finance required system
expansions.
Memo page 4
ro.
,. }.' `'�
4l�E
T
;,.
_
Y' ?.,
�+3
b
4r3;iM
i.
,.
b
r�'4R.(
, I..
1
}•^�.,�t
'T 3•
a?' ✓
,
#37 �t%
A ^ir
j
��
t4�
,:3
i'0.a
ai.,�r
.e
;�r .''Yc:�
E -'' ¢�
!'
4� }a3�
-u.
*'>V<'ti
q �r
�°•Q
R,;
,'•-QN
F
i•�>.•.
_
.tp'xi
•+ 3
��gg
Al
,Fu::
Y, •, „'ttt
..
s..,.,a
7a
Y€i',
x:f
ds�f
,
; aD
1
Tj
#
"( j
�'r U
' 'i'•Y +�
; �,I�`i}}jQ�
F.
1
C'jl'"
>t'�
s�
�
�S
k
4
t
•
a.
�'`•3}aa
g
}gy��
''
f.
f•
Yk15t7
,;
a
i
X•�
Yi%3
x�
�lj�
}t
... 3
G}.
Sf�j.6�
€€••'. yam,S
t'Y}
3€hrt
1i�
'
e
+,
a,�
t#
#
',C�
�1
"§ L's
y
?t�'
;.•
P�
3$j'a'il*.
•?
tt
3
iF,
t .�
y'r
L
k ' h
;
r•y
t7�
.nN
.
3!
#it:
>t
.
•.i,}k.
�'. 1?
a
u'k
'Q
i}1
-};�
,J,
''$=
1 k r j..
'tj3'D
"+,
A't
7• s
�
}-1
,,! 53
#
`'�':�-.:
.
T t
i„€
£
D�
Tlr.Y,
tx}
,, 1iI..Y},�'
C
"s
1, ti
:'
£'.''
:€n-
� ,�!��..�,
t
t
.btj
r,•f;,
kirr
'l µ.TS
yi'
.;P 6FM.
kj,,
;7 #�
&
i€F Ql�
d
r
t`4Hir.4•”
Z
;f
{, tpti "+1 :•.ir
,•C
2r ti
, -?i"
T� t
i �$
{'�t:1�
�`,,
• `'lil
IaS[,4
F
t b
Vr.
wtl
'i. �1�
1
�t:
"J.
€
y
ti
•�
'
pp �•
b�L'i;
1�, .'Q
:6
fl Kfi�.
pe.
§
,-i7.
��:a
°a
'sj �`f
.4 .ii
..
7
.,
q3',7
twtu
}3:., ..P
1.•,k.�.,'_'`a
y!i:.
T,
r
pp
i.l
; {.:
."G�*�
r•
w
,,3�tS
[
t, •
iue
'S 1R"
)
4 rF}
T14"(£{�
.l
. tR
f
}
r
7, _•.',,;.
'`k�.
3
iD
.,::?i!
ft
�.ir{
1
l
'riR
',F�
F
m,5g
..IY
l"; �
;, i
i3.
�"i
3
E °L
'j`"1
'
$
nFy`�Y�,IP'Ys
3t
Y �Rt
73q,
,,
Y $ )(N1
(y
R•. _1S
'�4
:.1'�s,,
i.
�£..
Sx✓r
i'
j
�,
A'.�a,
6.
t
�:•'....�4't..{i.
�+
gip,{
I
, Q
'
m
n
7. `,'.4°
D•�tTi I
'T
i.
i
1 V'�
!
r.x.;{;Q,
i
:
'1'
�';�.
6,
}t•. ,i
1(
of
°F,yy
k f
is hI
Fk
•ij
#k
w tt
, •3
Y
`s
V: 1
Q{I
i
iL
7
9s
}t,
}tt
ir
U."1
.. iA
:{„
-'
kkQ
F'{.'.'t$'''i:
3i nr,V,
h'
i`'-!
�+'.R�
`.5 ,l
i3�i
y
•
ak
A f
' I
x.
£
af-•#i>'. ,4
'A�y{,��{.A'
i+9X1
yH
;t
.,
k
.,
3S.f
f }
Y DC?i'�
.s
.4,v
,r
}€ �.,g�u
{�
yT"t"?N
'T.
{1
FiT
.}
q If
g.-�
$ at.t�
. �i l;
e. M1}.
t -r ,y'.
ct2
>{'�,�
P, f°';d1.k
o«�.t
.
1•'Yn
r�Pi}•l
tr
♦
Yj(�•��'
}-'
5
44
"�
ttt
A
} iQ
.ick
to
'�ajry. ,>1.
.Ty
s C#X'
_ .
FC i�
�,.
f g
Sk
1y t
wf
`�.5
a•. .
13-�{
:}4:','
3 } r
z} '}P.
S.11'
r
yup
r
.
�.
9N..ii
.��
'.s:j
f'
s
i5
i ,
,E T`+
ab
[y�:
#
;x
�a.- j
•
a' °.i
i
�a
*
'K
&
!I
�Qtl`r.+.
}
�.$.
My' �
Y,+p,,,
,. (d•>
�`�}'''
2
,. i. L
'x
3".
Hf., }
k �.1Crd�
!'
',y�r
fra
}-....
,�y�
43itx`
,.'
��,9�9.N:..�atl•
�F. �i:a`
t5. ..,
1£
:_r'f,N
i'€'.
� a# • fv�7d�a'
pp
'Y .i
y
4(Y
-,{j�
'�I
E}
�y�jT{p�;���i�
C4 f.
�..
�i
a
.F;t
iy
dt
n
r�
�kv
i`,,.
.-,+7�
F1�'lyytY
i }
•
;A='3tTT••
}a.ra�Ny'�A
,e r
s 's° },£`P
r!r
J
{
.;'
¢J�1D'4
I{a3v
.i51�,
•
FFl!
iY s��`j�
i(.
tl
T�}}
7
!•
)! n•'��'3^
,,
t. Q. QF
.!}
iri y11i�
#n i
M
a ;L+ µ
kF
..l
`
q7�
G
P
i,.
:,.I
;yu�
N
�(j':�j((
F
r��
' }T
j vzQ�!�a
t • f A.
' �
yF.jjpp}". ir�.
}$
�Y!X}:
'S4F.
3•ItTa
r
?`
5Y cs r1�',%, d�,fµµfi?,
1
,t. : ��
y..,k�j:,,
l 1.
r.±ri.',£.r`'kC
'134
}}94�•
4 :5 y1,
,,.
1
1,5�...,
tx.
i. k�y
,
��
F
1 pa,l..
i••A3.
`i'
c
71
'•.l
}ate"
1N
'{
11
9v..
`�ffpt�E`Fx.�aj
£ '
,p,,
S •4}S
.,i4te,,Tti
4�'}
p
' +" 'd
0<
i�j$
� i' E.
&.z
r ,.,7t
Y{}w^�•
y+t�.'
r.. .
:
"1
1
{..
5 a 1
it
,
(spy(`
}! .5
,IrS•r„`."STt..Y."
aAly P1'-�
4
..t,
Y.
3F t,
i'
r. ,i'
ii
)U '''
1Nf D
av7,i# .ti;/ca�
�` it
7t
{�i..
F f
,�
{
5 .,•
i0.
"' `
3
w'�
e • `+a
.. •
{Q'qfe,lP, it}
r"" Rf.,,..i'''€
6
a i }
.<
1 �Y'Ti+�..
}�,,;
i*, .
i. •'i.�+:,i.
4.7::,
-
..meg£
.'f{
W
r,*
:§::y, i
'" 4
r:3
j�� r;�}s }
SAv �[
NT
d
f}_�?.•ktl
•
#Y}♦• �
h
�Ett'.
y
5
f�
�,
t4H .'
�
.:
f'.
.: .,{•
i
+�4 "4
E4
�9":.r
t”&.
�fitQ
r
1}`
X �i .'4.
,f,(
r`t,'� ¢��,
°it,
"v{�,�
r'li
k£Y
SH.
tl
,�
'1� f'4'f
:,r +,1•
t 1
}�..
^'' S^
�'
St"T
�4
•etF
iS+'['
'. +t�t'a,
- }.,u
�
1r �.'.-
y�s,.
j .9.
"re
�i
a+E-�F
ti p.n
F
,.k
9
�
}?{
'{
9t.Rp?�A•
kjj{€.�i
j4'
�.w.
�'Y
, y°
. �'i
�`t
.^� t,.}�.Y.
�.
��,t�a
r r
�' "wi
•� P
; • k
�'y .,
ida�dd'
€i
f55
.
I ",,}}�
.ppi�a
9j'75P';.
£
3a
Q S
ie•��
N
h� �
t #'
fi
Qt ���
..
q. 4
!
•' +..-a
Ft... {,I
'4
1
, I •.
ti ..
�: �€£
''..
c-
x yy$({a
�iy..r
i
t"
� } k{'k
:t
�{y0p,. �
'. /��a
r" ti
�
d?i "
rti� ti.Kq.{f
t��?{...`•1{.9
T.
�Sa�r....
Sok
�n
�t�
i.�^•§i;
a
.$;'
-. y }�.
i
,
_. �},�
•
•.'E
Qi
1 y'F.
1 -.�,
� ,
}�, .1
.A
'�f.).
wW+,
35.00%
30.00%
25.00%
cu
ca
ca
v
20.00%
c
c
e 15.00%
ti
0.
10.00%
5.00%
0.00%
Ave. Chemical Cost Increases from 2002
YR. 2002 YR. 2003 YR. 2004 YR. 2005 YR. 2006 YR. 2007
Applicable Statutes
Clean Water Act (PL 92-500; 33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.)
Safe Drinking Water Act (PL 93-523; 42 U.S.C. 300f -j-26)
Clean Water Act, as amended (PL 92-500; 33 U.S.C.
1251 et seq. )
Purpose
Also known as the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, it is the objective of the Clean
Water Act (CWA) "to restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological
integrity of the Nation's waters". Seven goals and policies are declared in order to meet
this objective. One goal was to reach zero discharge of pollutants by 1985. Others include
providing funding for the construction of publicly owned treatment works (POTWs),
creating a nonpoint source pollution program, and generally, and making the waters of
the U.S. "fishable and swimmable". Although not specifically stated in this declaration,
the CWA contains the nation's most noteworthy wetlands legislation.
Major Provisions by Section
201-209 (33 U.S.C. 1281-1289)- Grants for construction of treatment works
These sections originally provided federal grants for the construction of
wastewater treatment plants. The program has been phased out by the 1987
amendments in favor of a revolving loan fund.
301 (33 U.S.C. 1311)- Effluent limitations
The discharge of any pollutant into the nation's waters except for discharges in
compliance with the CWA is prohibited, according to this section. Limitations are
placed on existing sources which vary according to the nature of the pollutant
discharged and to where the outfall is directed.
302 (33 U.S.C. 1312)- Water quality related effluent limitations
Point sources which interfere with the attainment or maintenance of desired water
quality are subject to the imposition of more stringent effluent limitations.
303 (33 U.S.C. 1313)- Water quality standards and implementation plans
Water quality -based regulatory controls on dischargers known as Water Quality
Standards (WQS) are required by states to protect designated uses of water
bodies. Technological capability is not a consideration in setting WQS.
304 (33 U.S.C. 1314)- Information and guidelines
This section requires the EPA to develop water quality criteria and guidelines for
effluent limitations, pretreatment programs, and administration of the National
Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) program.
306 (33 U.S.C. 1316)- National standards of performance
A list of categories of effluent sources is presented which specifies that each of
the industries listed must conform to technology-based new source performance
standards. The standards are to demonstrate the best demonstrated control
technology.
307 (33 U.S.C. 1317)- Toxic and pretreatment effluent standards
This requires that industries discharging toxic pollutants meet effluent limits that
employ the best available technology economically achievable. Part (b) mandates
the establishment of pretreatment standards while part {c} looks at new sources of
pollutants into publicly owned treatment works (POTWs).
309 (33 U.S.C. 1319)- Enforcement
Enforcement by the states, as well as compliance orders, and administrative, civil,
and criminal penalties are authorized.
311 (33 U.S.C. 1321)- Oil and hazardous substance liability
The Congressional declaration of policy against discharges of oil or hazardous
substances in harmful quantities into waters and adjoining shorelines is presented.
A spill prevention, control, and countermeasure plan is to be developed by all
facilities that handle, transport, and store oil. Any spill or discharge of a harmful
quantity of oil must be reported to the National Response Center. Strict liability is
assigned to owners or operators of facilities from which oil discharges occur.
319 (33 U.S.C. 1329)- Nonpoint source management programs
This section requires that states identify waters that are not able to meet WQS
because of nonpoint sources. The activities responsible for the pollution are to be
identified and a management plan is to be created to help correct the nonpoint
source problem
401 (33 U.S.C. 1341)- Certification
Any applicant for a Federal license or permit to conduct any activity which may
result in any discharge into the navigable waters, shall provide the licensing or
permitting agency a certification from the State in which the discharge will
originate.
402 (33 U.S.C. 1342)- National pollutant discharge elimination system
One of the most critical parts of the CWA is the establishment of the National
Pollutant Discharge Elimination System which translates standards into
enforceable limitations. This program may be administered by the EPA or states
under EPA -delegated authority. After an opportunity for public hearing, a permit
may be issued for the point source discharge of any pollutant, or combination of
pollutants.
404 (33 U.S.C. 1344)- Permits for dredged or fill material
This is the major wetlands provision of the CWA, and largely, in environmental
law. The basic gist of this section is that a permit is required from the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers for the disposal of dredged or filled materials into navigable
waters , notably wetlands, with EPA concurrence, and notice and opportunity for
public hearings.
505 (33 U.S.C. 1365)- Citizen suits
Any citizen is given the right to file suit against any person in violation of an
effluent standard or against EPA for failure to perform nondiscretionary duties.
Pertinent Regulations
• 33 CFR Part 320- General Regulatory Policies, Army Corps of Engineers
The Corps issues permits under several different acts, the CWA being only one of
them_ The Corps must issue permits for discharges to insure that they comply with
the applicable limitations and WQS. Section 320.4 describes the general policies
that the Corps will follow in reviewing all Department of the Army permits. Such
permits are to consider public interest, effect on wetlands, fish and wildlife, water
quality, property ownership, energy conservation, navigation, environmental
benefits, and economics, among other things. The pertains particularly to dredge
and fill permits covered under 404 of the CWA.
• 33 CFR Part 323, Permits for Discharges of Dredged or Fill Material into
Waters of the United States, Army Corps of Engineers
Contains defmitions and special policies, practices and procedures to be followed
by the Corps in connection with review of permit applications for the discharge of
dredged or fill materials under 404 of CWA. Permits issued under 404 are
required for the discharge of dredged or fill materials not exempted by 323.4 of
this part or permitted by 33 CFR Part 330. Please refer to 323.4 for a detailed
listing of exemptions.
• 33 CFR Part 325- Processing of Department of the Army Permits, Army
Corps of Engineers
Contains general processing procedures for all Department of the Army permits.
Attention is given to dredge and fill activities in 325.1(d)(3) & (4). Federal
agencies that initiate or authorize proposed actions that include dredge or fill
discharge operations must ensure that the appropriate permits are obtained. In
states with approved programs, permit application is done through the appropriate
State agency.
• 40 CFR Part 110- Discharge of Oil, EPA
This section reiterates the mandate of 311(b)(3) of the CWA. It generally
prohibits the discharge of oil into navigable waters in such quantities as may be
harmful.
• 40 CFR Part 112 - Oil Pollution Prevention, EPA
This requires that owners or operators of non -transportation related onshore and
offshore facilities engaged in any type of oil and gas operation prepare a Spill
Prevention Control and Countermeasure Plan, and provide guidelines for
preparation of the plan. Such a plan may be required of an applicant for USGS
approval of any oil and gas activities.
• 40 CFR Part 122 - EPA Administered Permit Programs: The National
Discharge Elimination System, EPA
Contains definitions and basic permitting requirements for EPA -administered
NPDES programs under 318, 402, and 405 of the CWA. Permit applications and
special NPDES program requirements are discussed in Subpart B. This is
followed by permit conditions in subpart C. Subpart D covers the transfer,
modification, revocation and reissuance, and termination of permits. Federal
agencies that initiate or authorize proposed actions that include point source
operations must ensure that the appropriate permits are obtained. In states with
approved programs, permit application is done through the appropriate State
agency.
• 40 CFR Part 123 - State Program Requirements, EPA
Describes the general requirements and additional requirements for states and the
EPA to obtain and give approval, revision, and withdrawal of state NPDES
programs. State program information shall be made available to EPA upon
request. EPA also has the right to review proposed general permits for 90 days.
• 40 CFR Part 125 - Criteria and Standards for the National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System, EPA
This section prescribes criteria and standards for various requirements imposed as
conditions for NPDES permit approval. Some of the criteria expanded upon are
those presented for the imposition of technology-based treatment requirements in
permits as given under 301(b) and 402(a)(1), those for modifying secondary
treatment requirements under 301(h), those for Best Management Practices
authorized under 304(e), and those applying to ocean dumping, in Subparts A, G,
K, & M, respectively.
• 40 CFR Part 129 - Toxic Pollutant Effluent Standards, EPA
This section designates toxic pollutant effluent standards and applies to owners or
operators of specified facilities discharging into navigable waters. Section 129.4
listed the pollutants to be regulated. Each owner/operator is given 60 days to
notify the Regional Administrator of any listed pollutant that is discharged. Much
of the regulation gives specific information on each of the toxic pollutants.
• 40 CFR Part 130 - Water Quality Nanning and Management, EPA
Section 303 of the CWA gives the authority for promulgation of water quality
standards (WQS) by states. Here, policies are established for water quality
planning, management, and implementations of 303. The Water Quality
Management process from the CWA provides the authority for a "consistent
national approach for maintaining, improving and protecting water quality while
allowing States to implement the most effective individual programs". After WQS
are set by each state, implementation of the standards may be achieved by issuing
permits, building publicly -owned treatment works, or instituting Best
Management Practices (BMP) through a water quality management plan. Total
maximum daily loads (TMDL) and individual water quality -based effluent
limitations are discussed in 130.7. States are required to submit water quality
reports to the Regional Administrator in accordance with 305(b) of the CWA (
130.8). Final points of the regulation cover state submittals to EPA and program
management.
• 40 CFR Part 131 - Water Quality Standards, EPA
While Part 130 of this title works with water quality management, this section
deals with water quality standards (WQS). It is stated that a WQS defines the
water quality goals of a water body by designating the uses to be made of the
water and by setting criteria necessary to protect the uses. WQS should be set to
provide for the protection of fish, shellfish, wildlife, water recreation, and the use
and value of public water supplies, agricultural, industrial, and other purposes.
The procedures are presented for developing, reviewing, revising and approving
WQS by the states and EPA. In 131.12, states are ordered to develop statewide
antidegradation policies. WQS shall be reviews at least every three years by the
states.
• 40 CFR Part 230 - Section 404 (b)(1) Guidelines for Specification of Disposal
Sites for Dredged or Fill Material, EPA
These guidelines were written to restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and
biological integrity of the U.S. through the control of discharges of dredged or fill
material, with the guiding principle that degradation of sites may represent an
irreversible loss of valuable aquatic resources. In Subpart B, it is stated that "no
discharge of dredged or fill material shall be permitted if there is a practicable
alternative to the proposed discharge which would have less adverse impact on
the aquatic ecosystem". The permitting authority must determine the potential
effects of dredging or filling activities on the components of the aquatic
environment.
• 40 CFR Part 231 -Section 404(c) Procedures, EPA
Contains procedures for EPA in exercising its authority to veto the specification
by the Army Corps of Engineers or by a State of a disposal site for a 404 permit.
• 40 CFR Parts 401-471- Effluent Guidelines and Standards, EPA
Prescribes effluent limitations and pretreatment and performance standards,
categorized by industries, that must be complied with as conditions for NPDES
permit approval. Part 401 gives general provisions and Part 403 covers general
pretreatment regulations for existing and new pollution sources. The remaining
parts are industry -specific. Of particular interest to the USGS are:
40 CFR Part 434- Coal Mining Point Source Category
40 CFR Part 435- Offshore Segment of the Oil and Gas Extraction Point Source
Category
40 CFR Part 436- Mineral Mining and Processing Point Source Category
40 CFR Part 440- Ore Mining and Dressing Point Source Category
• 518 DM 1- Comprehensive Waste Management, Department of the Interior
This chapter defines waste to include solid and hazardous waste, hazardous
materials, and hazardous substances. Departmental policies, responsibilities, and
functions regarding waste management are presented, with an aim towards
prevention of hazardous waste generation. The use of sound waste management
practices is mandated.
Safe Drinking Water Act (PL 93-523; 42 U.S.C. 300f - j-
10)
Purpose
In 1974, the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) was enacted with the general intent to
protect the quality of drinking water the public receives from public water systems . To
accomplish this, the SDWA focuses on two approaches. The first is to assure the quality
of drinking water coming from the tap. The other approach is to prevent the
contamination of groundwater that may be a source for drinking water.
Major Provisions by Section
4 1412 (42 U.S.C. 300g-1)- National drinking water regulations
The EPA is required to promulgate national drinking water regulations, known as
Maximum Contaminant Level Goals (MCLGs) and Maximum Contaminant
Levels (MCLs) for public water systems. These standards specify minimum levels
of drinking water quality and are to be issued for any contaminant that is known
or anticipated to have any adverse effect on health.
4 1413 (42 U.S.C. 300g-�►2 - State primary enforcement responsibility; regulations;
notice of hearing; publication in Federal Register; applications
States are given the authorization to assume primary enforcement of the Act.
& 1415-1416 (42 U.S.C. 300g-4 & 5)- Variances - Exemptions
The conditions are offered in which states may issue variances and exemptions.
1417 (42 U.S.C. 300g-6)- Prohibition on use of lead pipes, solder, or flux.
Any use of lead in pipes, solder, or flux in public water systems where the water
is intended for human consumption is prohibited.
$ 1422 (42 U.S.C. 300h-1)- State primary enforcement responsibility
This section requires the establishment of state underground injection control
programs so as to protect current and potential underground sources of drinking
water from contamination.
$ 1424 (42 U.S.C. 300h-3)- Interim regulation of underground injections.
This declares that Federal agencies shall make no commitment of Federal
assistance to actions that will contaminate an aquifer designated as the sole or
principal drinking -water source for an area which, if contaminated, would create a
significant hazard to the public health.
$ 1428 (42 U.S.C. 300h-7)- State programs to establish wellhead protection area.
States are given the authority to develop wellhead protection programs that
address the kinds of activities that might be conducted in proximity to wells,
particularly seeking to limit activities that might pose threats to the well fields.
1431 (42 U.S.C. 300i)- Emergency powers.
If there is an imminent and substantial endangerment to public health through
drinking water, EPA is given emergency powers to act against contamination.
4 1445 (42 U.S.C. 300i-4)- Records and inspection.
The EPA is to promulgate regulations requiring drinking water monitoring. This
section also mandates that EPA establish record keeping requirements.
4 1448 (42 U.S.C. 300i-7)- Judicial review.
The D.C. Circuit is given the jurisdiction of judicial review of national primary
drinking water regulations. The U.C. Courts of Appeal are given jurisdiction for
any other EPA action when the petitioner resides or transacts business in that
particular region.
4 1449 (42 U.S.C. 300j-8)- Citizen's civil action.
This section gives citizens the right to file suit to enforce any mandatory
provisions of the SDWA.
Part F- Additional Requirements to Regulate the Safety of Drinking Water
1461-1465 (42 U.S.C. 300j-21 to 26)
These particular sections codify the Lead Contamination Act of 1988. This
requires that any lead -lined tanks of drinking water coolers be recalled.
Pertinent Regulations
• 40 CFR Part 141- National Primary Drinking Water Regulations, EPA.
One of the most significant provisions of the SDWA is the establishment of
National Primary Drinking Water Regulations. The regulations are given life here,
with the establishment of maximum contaminant levels (MCLs) for inorganic and
organic constituents, Subpart B and maximum contaminant level goals (MCLGs),
Subpart F. Much attention is given to the monitoring and analytical requirements
for the regulated water quality parameters, Subpart C. Filtration and disinfection
are given much the same kind of thorough treatment. Also included are sections
covering control of lead and copper, muse of non -centralized treatment devices
and treatment techniques.
• 40 CFR Part 142- National Primary Drinking Water Regulations
Implementation, EPA.
With only a few exceptions, this part applies to the public water system in each
state. States are given primary enforcement responsibility, given that the state has
an EPA -approved program. If a state wishes to revise its program, it may do so if
it follows the requirements given in 142.12. All states with enforcement
responsibility are required to submit to the EPA Administrator a report containing
various components dealing with national primary drinking water regulations.
Variances and exemptions to the primary regulations may be granted by either the
states of the Administrator. Another section (142.60) discusses best available
technologies for a list of contaminants as they pertain to national primary drinking
water regulations.
• 40 CFR Part 143- National Secondary Drinking Water Regulations, EPA.
While Part 141 of this title is concerned with primary drinking water regulations,
this part deals with national secondary drinking water regulations. Secondary
regulations control contaminants that primarily affect the aesthetic qualities of
drinking water. Levels are given for selected contaminants and it is explained that
states may establish higher or lower levels depending on special conditions with
that state, given that public health and welfare are not adversely affected. Section
143.4 gives monitoring requirements, stating that monitoring should occur no less
frequently than the schedule used for the National Interim Primary Drinking
Water Regulations.
• 40 CFR Part 144- Underground Injection Control Program, EPA.
This regulation stems from Part C of the SDWA which allows for the
establishment of an Underground Injection Control (UIC) program in each state.
General program requirements are given in Subpart B. These requirements
address prohibition of unauthorized injection, prohibition of movement of fluid
into underground sources of drinking water, prohibition of Class IV wells and
requirements for wells injecting hazardous waste. In 144.16 of this subpart,
direction is given for cases when injection does not occur into, through, or above
an underground source of drinking water. Subpart C takes a look at authorization
of underground injection by rule where each class of wells is given particular
authorization requirements. Authorization is also available by permit, and this is
the topic of Subpart D. Going hand-in-hand with Subpart D is Subpart E, which
discusses permit conditions. Finally, in Subpart F, financial responsibility for
hazardous waste injection wells is described.
• 40 CFR Part 146- Underground Injection Control Program: Criteria and
Standards, EPA.
By working closely with Part 144 of this title, this part sets forth the technical
criteria and standards for the Underground Injection Control Programs. Criteria
are given for exempted aquifers, which include aquifers used as an "underground
source of drinking water". Injection wells are then classified as Class I -V, based
on the material injected. The following subparts (B- G) then outline, in detail, the
criteria for each class of injection wells.
• 40 CFR Part 149- Sole Source Aquifers, EPA.
Pursuant to 1427 of the SDWA, this regulation was written to provide criteria for
identifying critical aquifer protection areas. Section 149.3 refers to a Critical
Aquifer Protection Area as one which was designated as a sole or principal source
aquifer prior to June 19, 1986 for which an area wide ground -water quality
protection plan was approved. The second definition entails major recharge areas
of a sole or principal source aquifer designated before June 19, 1988. Edwards
Underground Reservoir, of the San Antonio area, is given attention in Subpart 13.
• Environmental Statement Memorandum No. ESM94-5- Environmental
Impacts on Groundwater, Department of Interior.
Implements CEQ memorandum issued on November 19, 1976, concerning
1424(e) of the Safe Drinking Water Act. EISs will analyze impacts on the
quantity and quality of ground water with specific emphasis on drinking -water
sources. For proposed actions which may affect ground water, early consultation
is to be initiated with the appropriate District Hydrologist, Water Resources
Division (WRD). If it is possible that the proposed action may affect an aquifer
which has been designated or is being petitioned for designation for special
protection, early consultation should be initiated with the Regional EPA
Administrator.
• 516 DM 2 Appendix 2 (2.2), Department of Interior.
Environmental documents (EA, EIS, FONSI) must be prepared for actions which
may adversely affect such unique geographic characteristics as sole or principal
source drinking -water aquifers.
• 518 DM 1- Comprehensive Waste Management, Department of the Interior.
This chapter defines waste to include solid and hazardous waste, hazardous
materials, and hazardous substances. Departmental policies, responsibilities, and
functions regarding waste management are presented, with an aim towards
prevention of hazardous waste generation. The use of sound waste management
practices is mandated.
Definitions
Best Management Practices (BMP) -
schedules of activities, prohibitions of practices, maintenance procedures, and
other management practices to prevent or reduce the pollution of "waters of the
United States". (40 CFR Part 122.2)
Contaminant -
any physical, chemical, biological, or radiological substance or matter in
water.(SDWA, 1401(6))
Discharge of a pollutant -
any addition of any pollutant to navigable waters from any point source. (CWA,
502(12)(A))
Exemption -
a document for water systems having technical and fmancial difficulty meeting
national primary drinking water regulations effective for one year granted by EPA
"due to compelling factors".
Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL) -
the maximum permissible level of a contaminant in water which is delivered to
any user of a public water system. (SDWA, 1401(3))
Maximum Contaminant Level Goal (MCLG)-
the level at which no known or anticipated adverse effects on the health of
persons occur and which allows an adequate margin of safety.
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)-
the national program for issuing, modifying, revoking and reissuing, terminating,
monitoring and enforcing permits, and imposing and enforcing pretreatment
requirements, under sections 307, 402, 318, and 405 of CWA. (40 CFR Part
122.2)
Navigable waters -
waters of the United States, including the territorial seas. (CWA, 502(7))
Person -
an individual, corporation, partnership, association, state, municipality,
commission, or political subdivision of a State, or any interstate body. (CWA,
502(5))
Point source -
any discernible, confined and discrete conveyance, including but not limited to
any pipe, ditch, channel, tunnel, conduit, well, discrete fissure, container, rolling
stock, concentrated animal feeding operation, or vessel, or other floating craft,
from which pollutants are or may be discharged. This term does not include
agricultural stormwater discharges and return flows from irrigated agriculture.
(CWA, 502(14))
Pollutant -
dredged spoil, solid waste, incinerator residue, filter backwash, sewage, garbage,
sewage sludge, munitions, chemical wastes, biological materials, radioactive
materials (except those regulated under the Atomic Energy Act of 1954), heat,
wrecked or discarded equipment, rock, sand, cellar dirt and industrial, municipal,
and agricultural waste discharged into water. It does not mean: (a) sewage from
vessels; or (b) water, gas, or other material which is injected into a well to
facilitate production of oil or gas, or water derived in association with oil and gas
production and disposed of in a well, if the well used either to facilitate
production or for disposal purposes is approved by authority of the State in which
the well is located, and if the State determines that the injection or disposal will
not result in the degradation of ground or surface water sources. (CWA, 502(6))
Public water system-
a system for the provision to the public of piped water for human consumption, if
such system has at least fifteen service connections or regularly serves at least
twenty-five individuals. (SDWA, 1401(4))
Publicly owned treatment works (POTW)-
any device or system used in the treatment of municipal sewage or industrial
wastes of a liquid nature which is owned by a "State" or "municipality". This
defmition includes sewer, pipes, or other conveyances only if they convey
wastewater to a POTW providing treatment. (40 CFR Part 122.2)
Recharge zone -
the area through which water enters a sole or principal source aquifer.
Significant hazard to public health -
any level of contaminant which causes or may cause the aquifer to exceed any
maximum contaminant level set forth in any promulgated National Primary
Drinking Water Standard at any point where the water may be used for drinking
purposes or which may otherwise adversely affect the health of persons, or which
may require a public water system to install additional treatment to prevent such
adverse effect.
Sole or principal source aquifer -
an aquifer which supplies 50 percent or more of the drinking water for an area.
Streamflow source zone -
the upstream headwaters area which drains into an aquifer recharge zone.
Toxic pollutants -
those pollutants...which after discharge and upon exposure, ingestion, inhalation
or assimilation into any organism...,will, on the basis of the information available
to the Administrator, cause death, disease, behavioral abnormalities, cancer,
genetic mutations, physiological malfunctions or physical deformations, in such
organisms or their offspring. (CWA, 502(13))
Variance -
a document for water systems having technical and fmancial difficulty meeting
national primary drinking water regulations which postpones compliance when
the issuing of which "will not result in an unreasonable risk to health".
Waters of the United States -
a) all waters which are currently used, were used in the past, or may be
susceptible to use in interstate or foreign commerce, including all waters which
are subject to the ebb and flow of the tide; b) all interstate waters, including
interstate "wetlands"; c) all other waters such as interstate lakes, rivers, streams...,
mudflats, sandflats, "wetlands", sloughs, prarie potholes, wet meadows, playa
lakes, or natural ponds the use, degradation, or destruction of which would
affect...interstate or foreign commerce...(40 CFR Part 122.2)
Wetlands -
those areas that are inundated or saturated by surface or groundwater at a
frequency and duration sufficient to support...a prevalence of vegetation typically
adapted for life in saturated soil conditions. Wetlands generally include swamps,
marshes, bogs, and similar areas. (40 CFR Part 122.2)
Applicable Actions
Clean Water Act
NPDES permits are required for the discharge of pollutants from any point source
into waters of the U.S. [40 CFR 122.51(c)]
Section 404 permits are required for the discharge of dredged or fill material into
waters of the U.S. (33 CFR 323.3)
Safe Drinking Water Act
Any action which may result in degradation of groundwater quality and/or pose a
hazard to public health.
Summary of Implementation Procedures
Clean Water Act
The procedures for determination of potential water quality impact from USGS
activities and the need for various permits are extremely complicated and require
close coordination with the Environmental Affairs Office, USGS, with regional
offices of the EPA and the Army Corps of Engineers, and with state water
pollution control agencies.
Safe Drinking Water Act (Consult ESM 94-5 for details)
1. In all cases where a project may involve ground water, one or more aquifers, or a
recharge area, consultation with the appropriate District Hydrologist, WRD,
should be initiated early in the planning stages.
2. Where a project may have any possibility of direct or indirect contamination of a
sole or principal source aquifer, a recharge zone for such an aquifer, or a related
streamflow source zone that has been designated or for which a petition for
designation is being processed, early consultation should be initiated with the
Regional Administrator, EPA.
3. If a project -related ground water impact is possible, an environmental assessment
should be prepared. If an EIS is to be prepared, a copy of the Notice of Intent
should be sent to the appropriate EPA Regional Administrator and he/she should
review the draft EIS.
4. Final plans for projects having a potential for adverse impacts should incorporate
appropriate mitigation measures.
Applicable Statutes
Estuary Protection Act (PL 90-454; 16 U.S.C. 1221-1226)
Wild and Scenic Rivers Act of 1968 (PL 90-542; 16 U.S.C. 1271-1287)
National Marine Sanctuaries Act (PL 92-532; 16 U.S.C. 1431-1445a)
Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972, as amended (PL 92-583; 16 U.S.C. 1451
et seq.)
Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act of 1972 (PL 92-532; 33 U.S.C.
1401-1445)
Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act, as amended (PL 95-372; 43 U.S.C. 1331-
1356)
Clean Water Act (section 404) (PL 92-500; 33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) (under water
quality page)
Various Executive Orders
Estuary Protection Act (PL 90-454; 161 J.S.C. 1221-
1226)
Purpose
Congress intended the Estuary Protection Act to strike a balance between the national
need of conserving the beauty of the nation s estuaries and the need to develop these
estuaries to further growth and development. States are given much of the responsibility
of protecting, conserving, and restoring estuary areas.
Major Provisions by Section
$ 2 (16 U.S.C. 1223)- General study and inventory of estuaries and their natural
resources
The Secretary of the Interior is authorized, in cooperation with the States, to
conduct an inventory and study of the Nation's estuaries. The study shall consider
environmental and economic values and shall focus attention on whether any land
or water area within an estuary should be acquired or administered by the
Secretary or by a State or local subdivision.
4 3 (16 U.S.C. 1224)- Agreements with States and subdivisions; equitable sharing of
costs; development improvements; availability of appropriations; State hunting and
fishing laws applicable
The Secretary of the Interior may enter into an agreement with any State or local
government for permanent management, development, and administration of
estuary area that government owns.
4 4 (16 U.S.C. 1225)- Commercial and industrial development considerations;
reports to Congress; recommendations
All Federal agencies shall give consideration to estuaries in planning for the use
or development of water resources. This includes their importance for commercial
and industrial developments. All project plans and reports affecting such estuaries
shall contain a discussion by the Secretary of Interior on the effects of the project
and the Secretary's recommendations.
Wild and Scenic Rivers Act of 1968 (PL 90-542; 16
U.S.C. 1271-1287)
Purpose
The Wild and Scenic Rivers Act provides for the preservation of selected rivers due to
their remarkable scenic, recreational, geologic, fish and wildlife, historic, or cultural
values. The free-flowing state of rivers, and their adjacent lands, is intended to be
protected for the benefit and enjoyment of present and future generations. The Act
institutes a National Wild and Scenic River System, designates the components of that
System, and prescribes the methods by which additional components might be added to
the System in order to carry out this goal.
Major Provisions by Section
& 2 (16 U.S.C. 1273)- Composition; application; publication in Federal Register;
expense; administration of federally owned lands
Establishes the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System, with areas to be
classified as wild , scenic , or recreational .
§ 3 (16 U.S.C. 1274)- Component rivers and adjacent lands
Designates specific rivers and adjacent lands included in the National Wild and
Scenic Rivers System.
7 (16 U.S.C. 1278)- Restrictions on Water Resources Projects
Components of the National and Wild Scenic Rivers System are protected to
remain free-flowing, scenic, and/or natural. No Federal agency shall recommend
authorization of any water resources project or shall financially assist in such
project that would have a direct and adverse effect on the values for which the
river was designated in the National Wild and Scenic River System.
& 9 (16 U.S.C. 1280)- Federal mining and mineral leasing laws
Mining regualtions shall provide safeguards against pollution of System rivers or
potential System additions and unnecessary impairment of the System s scenery.
Pertinent Regulations
• 36 CFR Part 297- Wild and Scenic Rivers, Forest Service
Any Federally assisted water resources project on any part of a Wild and Scenic
River must be approved by the Secretary of Agriculture before any license,
permit, or other authorization may be issued. Federal agencies must provide a
notice of intent to issue licenses or permits no less than 60 days prior to a project
date to the Chief, Forest Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture , P.O. Box
2417, Washington, DC 20013. A license/permit shall be granted if the project will
not have an adverse effect on the values for which a Wild and Scenic River was
designated. The effects of a proposed project shall be in compliance with NEPA
mainly by giving special attention to the environmental effects on the resources
protected by the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act.
• 43 CFR Part 8351- Designated National Area, Bureau of Land Management
Reiterates that Wild and Scenic Rivers shall be managed to protect the natural,
cultural, or historical features that make the river oustanding. Lands and water
administered by the Bureau of Land Management may see closed or restricted
uses if an authorized officer issues a written order addressing any component of
the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act.
• Environmental Statement Memorandum No. ESM 94-6- Nationwide
Inventory of Potential Wild and Scenic Rivers, DOI
Adopts for Departmental use the CEQ's procedures for interagency consultation
in order to avoid or mitigate adverse effects on rivers in the Nationwide Rivers
Inventory (NRI) . Appendix I of the memorandum contains the Guide for
Identifying Potential Adverse Effects and Appendix II includes the Presidential
Memorandum, dated August 2, 1979.
• 516 DM 2 Appendix 2(2.2), DOI
Environmental documents (EA, EIS, FONSI) must be prepared for actions which
may adversely affect such unique geographic characteristics as wild and scenic
rivers.
• Presidential Memorandum for the Heads of Departments and Agencies,
August 2, 1979
Underscores the need to strengthen the System by directing Federal agencies to
set an example of sound management for State, local and private landowners by
taking an aggressive role in protecting Wild and Scenic Rivers which flow
through public lands this includes all rivers and segments listed in the (NRI) .
National Marine Sanctuaries Act (PL 92-532; 161 J.S.C.
1431-1445a)
Special Note
The National Marine Sanctauries Act is really part of the Marine Protection, Research
and Sanctuaries Act. It is often referred to as Title III of the MPRSA.
Purpose
Congress promulgated the National Marine Sanctuaries Act to designate marine areas of
special national significance as national marine sanctuaries and to provide for the
conservation and management of these areas. The Act was also written to support
research of the resources of designated marine sanctuaries.
Major Provisions by Section
(16 U.S.C. 1433)- Sanctuary designation standards
The Secretary of Commerce may designate national marine sanctuaries based on a
number of ecological and practical factors, given here.
(16 U.S.C. 1434)- Procedures for designation and implementation
This section explains how to move a proposed marine sanctuary site through the
appropriate notice requirements, EIS preparation, and other procedures, finally
culminating with publication in the Federal Register.
(16 U.S.C. 1440)- Research, monitoring, and education
In order to fulfill the marine sanctuaries conservation and management purposes
of the Act, the Secretary of Commerce will take action in order to promote
sanctuary research, monitoring, and education programs.
Pertinent Regulations
15 CFR Part 922- National Marine Sanctuary Program Regulation, National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Prescribes procedures to nominate and designate marine sanctuaries, establish
appropriate management systems within designated sanctuaries and enforce
compliance with these management systems. The policy and objective are to
identify and preserve distinctive areas for their conservation, recreational,
ecological, or esthetic values. The primary emphasis is on protection of biological
and natural resources.
Each marine sanctuary has specific regulations that detail the purpose for
designation, the boundaries, definitions, allowed and prohibited activities, and
procedures for permitting specific activities. Sanctuaries listed in other parts
include:
15 CFR Part 929- Key Largo Marine Sanctuary
15 CFR Part 937- Looe Key National Marine Sanctuary
Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972, as amended (PL
92-583; 16 U.B.C. 1451 et seq.)
Purpose
To preserve, protect, develop, and restore or enhance the coastal zone, the Coastal Zone
Management Act (CZMA) encourages states to implement coastal zone management
programs by both authorizing suspension of its allocated federal funding when a coastal
state fails to adhere to its management program and by mandating that federal activities
in any states coastal zone be consistent with the states plan. Another intention of the act is
to respond to changing circumstances of coastal environments. Nonpoint sources of
coastal water pollution are targeted by the amendments of 1990.
Major Provisions by Section
303 (16 U.S.C. 1452)- Congressional declaration of policy
Along with the basic policies of the Act, this section requires that state coastal
planning must balance economic development against environmental protection.
& 306 (16 U.S.C. 1455)- Administrative grants
States that receive approval by the Department of Commerce to implement a
coastal management program are eligible to receive grants from the Commerce
Secretary. Requirements for the approval of state management programs are also
given.
(16 U.S.C. 1455b)- Protecting coastal waters
Each state with an approved coastal management program must submit a Coastal
Nonpoint Pollution Control Program that includes management measures for
nonpoint source pollution to restore and protect coastal waters.
( 307 (16 U.S.C. 1456)- Coordination and cooperation
Federal agencies are required to comply with applicable consistency provisions
contained in the approved State program.
§ 312 (16 U.S.C. 1458)- Review of performance
A provision is given for federal funding to be withdrawn if a state fails to adhere
to its management program.
315 (16 U.S.C. 1461)- National Estuarine Research Reserve System
A National Estuarine Research Reserve System, complete with its own grant
mechanism, is established to acquire, develop, and operate estuarine sanctuaries
designated as national estuarine reserves.
Pertinent Regulations
• 15 CFR Part 921- National Estuarine Reserve Research System Regulations,
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Implements the Estuarine Sanctuaries Program to represent the various regions
and estuarine types in the U.S. through the National Estuarine Research Reserve
System. Part (d) of 921.1 states the limitations for habitat manipulation for
research purposes. Further sections provide definitions, the biogeographic
classification scheme which is based on regional variations in the Nation's coastal
zones, procedures for State application for acquisition, development, and
operation grants, and criteria for selection of sanctuaries.
• 15 CFR Part 923- Coastal Zone management Program Development and
Approval Regulations, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
This part provides the requirements for state coastal management program
approval, as well as grant application procedures for program development. States
must develop a management program which identifies and evaluates coastal
resources. Subpart B concerns specific water uses that are subject to the terms of
the management program. Special management area follow in Subpart C, while
boundaries are discussed in D. Later, in Subpart H, procedures for state program
review and approval are given.
• 15 CFR Part 930- Federal Consistency with Approved Coastal Management
Programs, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Describes, in detail, the Federal consistency provisions of the CZMA. Provides
the ground rules and specific procedures which must be followed by all State
program agencies implementing approved coastal management programs and all
Federal agencies affected by such programs in matters relating to consistency.
• 702 DM 1.1-1.8, Coastal Zone Management, DOI
Establishes Departmental policy, procedures and responsibilities for participating
in the development, review and implementation of, and consistency with State
coastal management programs under the CZMA.
Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act of.
1972 (PL 92-532; 331 J.S.C. 1401-1445)
Special Note
Title III of this act and subsequent reauthorization is commonly referred to as the
National Marine Sanctuaries Act. Title III is therefore covered under the section for the
National Marine Sanctuaries Act.
Purpose
Also known as the Ocean Dumping Act, the Marine Protection, Research and Sanctuaries
Act (MPRSA) was enacted to regulate the dumping of all types of materials into ocean
waters and to prevent or strictly limit the dumping into ocean waters of any material
which would adversely affect human health, welfare, or amenities, or the marine
environment , ecologicalsystems, or economic potentialities .
Major Provisions by Section
4 101 (331 J.S.C. 1411)- Prohibited acts
Because of this section, it is unlawful for any person to transport in or out of the
United States any material for the purpose of dumping it into ocean waters.
§ 102 (33 U.S.C. 1412)- Dumping permit program
This section allows permits to be issued by the EPA Administrator for dumping
material into ocean waters when the dumping will not unreasonably degrade or
endanger human health, welfare, the environment, or economic potentialities.
103 (33 U.S.C. 1413)- Dumping permit program for dredged material
Similar to § 102, this section authorizes the Secretary of the Army to issue
permits for the transportation of dredged material for the purpose of disposal in
the ocean where it is determined that the disposal will not unreasonably degrade
human health, the environment, or economic potentialities.
Pertinent Regulations
• 33 CFR Part 320- General Regulatory Policies, Army Corps of Engineers
The Corps issues permits under several different acts, the Marine Protection,
Research and Sanctuaries Act being only one of them. The Secretary of the Army,
through the Corps, may issue permits for transportation of dredged material when
no adverse impacts to heath or the environment are expected. Section 320.4
describes the general policies that the Corps will follow in reviewing all
Department of the Army permits. Such permits are to consider public interest,
effect on wetlands, fish and wildlife, water quality, property ownership, energy
conservation, navigation, environmental benefits, and economics, among other
things. The pertains particularly to permits covered under § 103 of the Act.
• 33 CFR Part 324- Permits for Ocean Dumping of Dredged Material, Army
Corps of Engineers
This part applies to activities of Federal agencies in relation to special policies
that the Corps must follow for the review of permits for the transport and
dumping of dredged materials into ocean waters. Focused attention should be
given to § 324.3(b). Here, it states, "Federal agencies are not required to obtain
and provide certification of compliance with effluent limitations and water quality
standards from state or interstate water pollution control agencies in connection
with activities involving the transport of dredged material for dumping into ocean
waters beyond the territorial sea."
• 33 CFR Part 325- Processing of Department of the Army Permits, Army
Corps of Engineers
Contains general processing procedures for all Department of the Army permits.
Attention is given to transportation of dredged materials in § 325.1(d)(4). Federal
agencies that initiate or authorize proposed actions that include transportation of
dredged materials must ensure that the appropriate permits are obtained. In states
with approved programs, permit application is done through the appropriate state
agency.
• 40 CFR Part 220- General, EPA
Part 220 of Title 40 is the introduction to subchapter H which outlines the
procedures and criteria for permit distribution by EPA pursuant to § 102 of the
Act. It also address § 103 procedures to be followed by the Army Corps of
Engineers. Other than when provided in those sections, it is unlawful to transport
-any material for the purpose of dumping into ocean waters . Section 220.3 gives
the categories of permits available under § 102 of the Act. These include general,
special, emergency, interim, research, and incineration permits. The final section
(220.4) presents the various authorities to issue permits, such as the EPA
Administrator and states with applicable jurisdiction.
• 40 CFR Part 221- Applications for Ocean Dumping Permits under Section §
102 of the Act, EPA
The specific application procedures under § 102 of the Act are given.
Applications must be filed with the EPA Administrator or a Regional
Administrator. Any person may apply for a permit under subchapter H of this
title.
• 40 CFR Part 223 - Contents of Permits; Revision, Revocation or Limitation
of Ocean Dumping Permits under Section 104(d) of the Act, EPA
Specifications are given for the exact contents of special, interim, emergency,
general and research permits as required under § 102 of the MPRSA. Revision
procedures for such permits are also presented.
• 40 CFR Part 227- Criteria for the Evaluation of Permit Applications for
Ocean Dumping of Materials, EPA
Along with 40 CFR Part 228, this regulation comprises the criteria established
pursuant to § 102 of the Act. The decision to issue or deny a permit and to impose
special conditions on,any permit will be based on an evaluation of the permit
application in accordance to the criteria set forth here. Subpart B provides the real
guts of this part by examining environmental impact. First, criteria for evaluating
environmental impact are given, followed by prohibited materials, constituents
prohibited as other than trace contaminants, limits established for specific wastes,
limitations in the disposal rates of toxic wastes, limitations on quantities of waste
materials, hazards to fishing, navigation, shorelines or beaches, containerized
wastes, insoluble wastes, and dredged materials.
• 40 CFR Part 228- Criteria for the Management of Disposal Sites for Ocean
Dumping, EPA
Working closely with Part 227, this part relates to decisions to issue or deny a
permit based on the requirements for effective disposal site management to
prevent unreasonable degradation of the marine environment. Procedures and
criteria are given for the selection of sites by the EPA Administrator. Most of
what remains in this regulation are listings of both interim and final designated
dumping sites (§ 28.14 & 228.15). These listings need to be referred to when any
project requires the transport of material for the purpose of ocean dumping.
Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act, as amended(PL 95-
372; 431 J.S.C. 1331-1356)
Purpose
The Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) Lands Act provides for the expeditious and orderly
development of the shelf while providing environmental safeguards. The Act takes
measures to include state and local governments in the policy and planning decisions
made by the Federal government relating to OCS actions. To insure minimal
endangerment to life or health, the Act presents precautions and techniques to be used
during shelf operations.
Major Provisions by Section
(43 U.S.C. 1334)- Administration of leasing
The rules and regulations are given concerning leasing of the Outer Continental
Shelf by the Secretary of the Interior.
(43 U.S.C. 1337)- Grants of leases by Secretary
Much information is given concerning oil and gas leases, including bidding
guidelines and terms and provisions for exploration, development, and production
of minerals.
(43 U.S.C. 1340)- Geological and geophysical explorations
Federal agencies are given the right to conduct geological and geophysical
explorations in the outer Continental Shelf as long as they do not conflict with any
lease under the Act. Further explanation is given of plan approval and state
concurrence. Drilling permits may be required by approved plans.
(43 U.S.C. 1344)- Outer Continental Shelf leasing program
This section presents a schedule of proposed oil and gas lease sales and other
information for the establishment of a outer Continental Shelf leasing program.
(43 U.S.C. 1346)- Environmental studies
The Secretary of the Interior is ordered to conduct studies of any areas included in
oil and gas lease sales to predict impacts on the marine biota from pollution or
large spills.
143 U.S.C. 1351)- Oil and gas development and production
Each lessee is required to submit a development and production plan to the
Secretary of the Interior prior to development pursuant to an oil and gas lease for
outer Continental Shelf areas.
Pertinent Regulations
• 30 CFR Part 250.34- Development and Production Plan, Minerals
Management Service
Describes, among other things, the requirements for compliance with §
307(c)(3)(B) of the CZMA which governs the consistency of Outer Continental
Shelf Lands Act plans with approved State coastal management programs.
• 30 CFR Part 251- Geological and Geophysical (G & G) Explorations of the
Outer Continental Shelf, Minerals Management Service
The purpose of this regulation is stated as to prescribe policies, procedures, and
requirements for conducting geological and geophysical activities associated with
exploration for oil, gas, or sulphur not authorized under a lease in the Outer
Continental Shelf.
• 30 CFR Part 252- Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) Oil and Gas Information
Program, Minerals Management Service
The procedures and requirements are presented for the submission of oil and gas
data and information resulting from exploration, development, and production
operations on the Outer Continental Shelf.
• 33 CFR Part 140- Outer Continental Shelf Activities- General,Coast Guard
Part 140 falls under Subchapter N of CFR Title 33. It is written to promote safety
of life and property on Outer Continental Shelf facilities, vessels, and other units
engaged in OCS activities, protect the marine environment, and implement the
Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act. The provisions apply to OCS facilities and
vessels and includes inspections by the Coast Guard.
Various Executive Orders, etc.
Executive Order (E.0.) 11988- Floodplain Management
Issued by the President to avoid adverse impacts associated with the occupancy
and modification of floodplains and to avoid direct or indirect support of
floodplain development.
Executive Order (E.O.) 11990- Protection of Wetlands
Issued by the President to avoid adverse impacts associated with the destruction
or modification of wetlands and to avoid direct or indirect support of new
construction in wetlands.
PL 101-233 16 U.S.C. 4408- Restoration, management, and protection of wetlands
and habitat for migratory birds on Federal lands.
The head of each Federal agency responsible for acquiring, managing, or
disposing of Federal lands and waters shall, to the extent consistent with the
mission of such agency and existing statutory authorities, cooperate with the
Director of the United States Fish and Wildlife Service to restore, protect, and
enhance the wetland ecosystems and other habitats for migratory birds, fish, and
wildlife within the lands and waters of each such agency.
516 DM 2 Appendix 2(2.2) & (2.9), Department of Interior
Environmental documents (EA, EIS, FONSI) must be prepared for actions which
may adversely affect the unique geographic characteristics of floodplains and
wetlands or which threaten to violate E.O.s 11988 and 11990.
Floodplain Management Guidelines, Water Resources Council (WRC)
Provides explanation of key terms and floodplain management concepts along
with a section -by -section analyses of E.O. 11988. Further procedures are given in
the form of a decision making process leading from the determination that a
proposed action is or is not located in the base floodplain, through the
implementation of agency actions.
Further Advice on EO 11988 Floodplain Management, Federal Emergency
Management Agency (FEMA) and the Interagency Task Force on Floodplain
Management
Emphasizes the requirement for agencies to select alternative sites for projects
outside of the floodplain and for preparation of mitigation measures for
unavoidable impacts.
520 DM 1- Floodplain Management and Wetlands Protection Procedures, DOI
Generally adopts the Water Resources Council (WRC) guidelines for floodplain
management. Requires bureaus to prepare written compliance procedures and
provides criteria for evaluation of bureau procedures. Summarizes the WRC
procedural steps.
Definitions
Coastal zone
the coastal waters strongly influenced by each other and in proximity to the
shorelines of the several coastal states, and includes islands, transitional and
intertidal areas, salt marshes, wetlands, and beaches. (CZMA, 304(1))
Designated river study areas
rivers, or river segments, which have been designated by Congress to be studied
for possible inclusion in the System. During the study period these areas are
granted the same protection as rivers in the System.
Estuarine reserve
a research area which may include any part or all of an estuary, adjoining
transitional areas, and adjacent uplands, constituting to the extent feasible a
natural unit, set aside to provide scientists and students the opportunity to
examine over a period of time the ecological relationships within the area.
Estuary
that part of a river or stream or other body of water having unimpaired connection
with the open sea, where the sea water is measurably diluted with fresh water
derived from land drainage (15 CFR Part 921.2)
Marine environment
those areas of coastal and ocean waters, the Great Lakes and their connecting
waters, and submerged lands over which the United States exercises jurisdiction,
including the exclusive economic zone, consistent with international law.
(NMSA, 1432(3))
Nationwide Rivers Inventory (NRI)
a candidate list, compiled with input from Federal land managing agencies, of
rivers and river segments designated as having potential to become part of the
System.
Ocean waters
those waters of the open seas lying seaward of the base line from which the
territorial sea is measured, as provided for in the Convention on the Territorial
Sea and the Contiguous Zone. (MPRSA, 3(b))
Outer Continental Shelf (OCS)
all submerged lands which lie seaward and outside the area of lands beneath
navigable waters...and of which the subsoil and seabed appertain to the United
States and are subject to its jurisdiction and control. (OCSLA, 1331(a))
Recreational river areas
those rivers or sections of rivers that are readily accessible by road or railroad,
that may have some development along their shorelines, and that may have
undergone some impoundment or diversion .in the past.
Scenic river areas
those rivers or sections of rivers that are free of impoundments, with shorelines or
watersheds still largely primitive and shorelines largely undeveloped, but
accessible in places by roads.
State program agency
the state agency designated in the approved state program as the sole contact with
Federal agencies on matters relating to consistency determination.
Water resources project
any dam, water conduit, resevoir, powerhouse, transmission line, or other project
works under the Federal Power Act as amended, or other construction of
developments which would affect the free-flowing characteristics of a Wild and
Scenic River or Study River. (36 CFR Part 297.3)
Wild and scenic river
a river and the adjacent area within the boundaries of a component of the Wild
and Scenic Rivers System pursuant to section 3(a) or 2(a)(ii) of the Act. (36 CFR
Part 297.3)
Wild river areas
those rivers or sections of rivers that are free of impoundments and generally
inaccessible except by trail, with watersheds or shorelines essentially primitive
and waters unpolluted. These represent vestiges of primitive America.
Applicable Actions
Estuarine areas
Non -compatible uses, including those uses which would cause significant short or
long-term ecological change or would otherwise detract from or restrict the use of
the sanctuary as a natural field laboratory, will be prohibited.
Wild and scenic rivers
Any action which could alter the river segment's ability to meet eligibility and
classification criteria for inclusion in the National Rivers System should be
considered an adverse impact. Adverse effects on inventoried rivers may occur
under conditions which include, but are not limited to:
1) destruction or alteration of all or part of the free flowing nature of the river
2) introduction of visual, audible, or other sensory intrusions which are out of
character with the river or alter its setting
3) deterioration of water quality
4) transfer or sale of property adjacent to an inventoried river without adequate
conditions or.restictions for protecting the river and its surrounding environment
Mining, which is generally prohibited in wild river areas. Surface coal mining in
wild, scenic, and recreational river areas is prohibited [SMCRA, Section
522(e)(1)].
Such features as small water diversions and drainage ditches, flow measurement
devices and other minor structures are permitted when compatible with the
classification of the river area and provided that the area remains natural in
appearance and the structures harmonize with the surrounding environment.
Examples of types of developments that would generally require consultation with
the NPS are given in Environmental Statement Memorandum No. ESM94-6.
Marine sanctuaries
See the respective regulation for any given sanctuary for specifically prohibited
activities. In general, any activity which disturbs or adversely affects the seabed
or the quality of the water column may be prohibited. This includes construction,
discharging of substances, fishing and trawling operations, collecting, removing,
or damaging any natural or man-made feature, specimen, or resource, injurious
vessel operations, and hydrocarbon operations.
Coastal zone management
(1) Federal activities directly affecting the coastal zone, including all development
projects.
(2) Federal licenses and permits.
(3) Federal activities described in detail in an OCS plan submitted by an applicant
to the Department of the Interior pursuant to the Outer Continental Shelf Lands
Act of 1953, as amended.
(4) Federal assistance to State and local Governments.
Summary of Implementation Procedures and Contacts
Estuarine areas
1. Determine if any estuarine sanctuary is in an area that may be affected by the
proposed action.
2. If so, establish consultation with the Sanctuary and Reserves Program Office,
NOAA, to determine the nature of effect:
Sanctuary and Reserves Program Office
Office of Coastal Zone Management
1305 East West Hwy. Building 4
Silver Spring, MD 20910
Tel: (301) 713-3145
3. Depending on the nature and extent of effect an environmental assessment oran
environmental impact statement may be required. _
Wild and scenic rivers
1. Determine whether there is a listed Wild and Scenic River, a designated study
area, or a river listed in the Nationwide Rivers Inventory (NRI) which has
potential to be impacted by the project. The Wild and Scenic River Act as
ammended contains lists for the first two and information on the NRI can be
obtained by contacting the:
Recreation Resources Assistance Division
National Park Service
Washington, DC 20013-7123
Tel: (202) 343-3780
2. Determination of possible effect. If the area affected by the proposal contains a
river or river segment which appears on the Inventory, then proceed to determine
if the effect might be adverse. If not, no further procedure is required.
3. Determination of adverse effect. If the proposal could have an adverse effect, then
an EA must be prepared. Sufficient time must be given to allow NPS to comment
and for the development of mitigation measures.
4. Determination of whether the proposed action could foreclose options to classify
any portion of the NRI segment.
5. Incorporate avoidance/mitigation measures into proposed action.
Consult with the Regional NPS office for further information or assistance with any of
the above steps.
A copy of any documentation prepared in carrying out the above steps should be sent to
the NPS regional office.
Marine Sanctuaries
1. Determine if any marine sanctuary is in an area that may be affected by the
proposed action.
2. If there is, establish consultation with the Sanctuary Programs Office, NOAA, to
determine the nature of effect:
Director, Sanctuary Programs Office
Office of Coastal Zone Management
3300 Whitehaven St., N.W.
Washington, DC 20235
Tel: (202) 634-4236
3. Depending on the nature and extent of effect an environmental assessment oran
environmental impact statement may be required.
Coastal zone management
Specific procedures for Federal agency compliance with state requirements for
consistency determination are provided for in 15 CFR Part 930 and in the various
approved state coastal management program documents. USGS personnel responsible for
or conducting project activities in any coastal state should contact the state agency
designated as the sole contact in an approved management program or the NOAA Office
of Ocean and Coastal Resources, Coastal Programs Division.
Chief, Coastal Programs Division
1305 East-West Highway
Silver Spring, MD 20910
Tel: 301-713-3102
Fax: 301-713-4367
Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (PL 93-
205; 16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.).
Purpose
The Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973, was written to provide a means for the
protection of all endangered and threatened species of life. It is comprehensive in that it
also provides for the protection of the critical habitats on which these species depend on
for survival. The act then takes the appropriate steps to achieve these goals. The U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service (FWS), and the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), are
responsible for administering the Act, with FWS covering all non -marine species and
NMFS covering all marine species.
Major Provisions by Section
$ 4 (16 U.S.C. 1533), Determination of Endangered Species and Threatened Species
Provisions are given concerning the listing of endangered or threatened species by
the Secretary of the Interior or the Secretary of Commerce. These listings are to
be based on the "best scientific and commercial data available". Section 4(b)(3)
provides that citizens may petition to modify the lists. Part (f) discusses that the
Secretary shall develop and implement recovery plans for the conservation and
survival of listed species unless it is found that such a plan will not promote the
conservation of the species.
$ 7 (16 U.S.C. 1536), Interagency Cooperation
Any action falling under the auspices of the ESA requires all Federal agencies to
consult with the appropriate wildlife management agencies [U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service (FWS) and National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS)). It is
stated that all federal agencies shall insure that their actions "are not likely to
jeopardize the continued existence of any endangered species or threatened
species or result in the destruction or adverse modification" of the critical habitat.
If actions are found to contradict the aforementioned, an Endangered Species
Committee of six federal officials and a representative from each affected state is
available to review applications for an ESA exemption.
4 9 (16 U.S.C. 1538), Prohibited Acts
This section makes it unlawful to import, export, possess, sell, deliver, transport,
or ship any endangered species. It is also unlawful to take any endangered
species. These provisions apply to any listed species, including plants and
threatened species. The prohibitions pertain to any "person", including any
corporation or government entity.
4 11 (16 U.S.C. 1540), Penalties and Enforcement
Both civil and criminal penalties are possible from violations of the ESA. The
federal government is given authorization for enforcement. Citizen suits can be
brought against any person alleged to be in violation of the act, including the
Secretary for failure to perform any non -discretionary duty.
Pertinent Regulations
• 19 CFR Part 12 § 26, Special Classes of Merchandise: Wild Animals, Birds,
and Insects, U.S. Customs Service
This section bans the importation of any species living or dead, including any
parts, products, or eggs thereof, appearing on the Endangered Species List.
Without a permit authorizing the import by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,
customs release of the specimen shall be refused. Specimens entering without a
permit shall be immediately exported or destroyed.
• 50 CFR Part 13, General Permit Procedures, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Most of this regulation applies to general wildlife permit procedures. Of particular
interest is §12(a)(3) & (b). Here, sections of 50 CFR Part 17 are given for which
special exemptive permits may be administered. Examples of reasons for such
permits include those actions promising propagation, and similarity of appearance
and economic hardship provisions. Permits must be filed with the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service. Permit administration and conditions are dealt with in subparts
C and D, respectively.
• 50 CFR Part 17, Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants, U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service
Subpart A gives an introduction and general provisions. The regulations in this
section are to apply to endangered and threatened wildlife and plants. Subpart B
identifies all species of wildlife which have been determined to be endangered or
threatened. Subparts C (endangered wildlife), D (threatened wildlife), F
(endangered plants), and G (threatened plants) state the prohibitions which apply
to each listed species. This includes the import or export of such species. No
person is allowed to take a listed species. It is also unlawful to deliver, receive,
carry, transport, or ship any listed species in interstate or foreign commerce. No
listed species shall be sold. Captive -bred endangered wildlife are also covered.
Section 17.22 gives permit provisions for scientific purposes, enhancements of
propagation or survival, or for incidental taking. Special permits may also be
given in certain cases of economic hardship. Some non -listed species may be
protected under the ESA because of similarity of appearance to a listed species
(Subpart E). Critical habitats are addressed in Subpart I. Finally, Subpart J
provides special provisions for manatee areas.
• 50 CFR Part 220, General Permit Procedures, National Marine Fisheries
Service
This section concerns the permits that must be obtained when engaging in an
activity covered under 50 CFR Parts 217-222 or the ESA. Parts 217 through 222
address marine fish and wildlife only. If any project involves these animals, then a
valid permit must be acquired through the National Marine Fisheries Service. For
precise coverage, please consult parts 217 through 222.
• 50 CFR Part 402, Interagency Cooperation - Endangered Species Act of
1973, as amended, Joint Regulations on Endangered Species
This part establishes interagency cooperation procedures under §§ 7(a) -(d) of the
ESA. Federal agencies are granted authority and given requirements to follow
regarding endangered or threatened species of fish, wildlife, or plants and habitats
of such species that have been listed as critical in § 7(a). Federal agencies are here
encouraged to carry out conservation programs for listed species. In § 7(a)(2),
agencies are directed to insure that any action it authorizes, funds, or carries out
must not jeopardize the continued existence of any listed species or result in the
destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat. Federal agencies must also
confer with the Secretary of the Interior when any action is likely to adversely
affect proposed critical habitat or a proposed threatened/endangered species
directly.
• 50 CFR Part 424, Listing Endangered and Threatened Species and
Designating Critical Habitat, Joint Regulations on Endangered Species
This part presents the rules for revising the Lists of Endangered and Threatened
Wildlife and Plants, and also gives the rules for designating critical habitats. Any
such revision must be performed by the Secretary of the Interior. Critical habitats
shall be specified at the time a species is proposed for listing, to the maximum
extent possible (§12). In §14, guidelines are given for submitting a petition to
revise the list. Instructions are given as to the publication of this information, with
the final result being a Final Rule in the Federal Register. The Lists of
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants shall be reviewed every five
years to determine if a subject should be delisted or reclassified.
• 516 DM 2, Appendix 2 (2.8), U.S. Department of Interior
Environmental documents (i.e. EIS, EAS, FONSI) must be prepared for actions
which may adversely affect a species listed, or proposed to be listed, on the "List
of Endangered or Threatened Species" or so effect a designated critical habitat for
these species.
Definitions
Endangered Species
Any species which is in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant
portion of its range other than a species of the Class Insecta determined by the
Secretary to constitute a pest whose protection...would present an overwhelming
and overriding risk to man. (ESA, § 3)
Threatened Species
Any species which is likely to become an endangered species within the
foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range. (ESA, § 3)
Critical Habitat
For a threatened or endangered species: the specific areas within the geographical
area occupied by the species...on which are found those physical or biological
features (I) essential to the conservation of the species and (II) which may require
special management considerations or protection; and specific areas outside the
geographical area occupied by the species upon determination by the Secretary
that such areas are essential for the conservation of the species. (ESA, § 3)
Take
To harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect, or to
attempt to engage in any such conduct. (ESA, § 3)
Applicable Actions
Such actions include: Mineral extraction operations, blasting, trenching, drilling, and
other actions that create noise or disturb existing land or water conditions.
Summary of Implementation Procedures (Consult 50
CFR Part 402 for details) and Contacts
1. Determine if any FWS or NMFS listed endangered or threatened species, or those
proposed to be listed, may be present in the area to be affected by the proposed
action. If there are no such species present, or if they are present but will not be
affected, no further steps need be taken. Federal and state coordination should be
initiated as appropriate to satisfy jurisdictional -responsibilities. Copies of the
FWS lists, updates, and any available maps can be obtained from:
Office of Endangered Species
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Main Interior Building
Washington, D.C. 20240
NMFS information requests can be directed to the:
Office of Protected Resources
1315 East West Hwy.
Silver Spring, MD 20910
Tel: (301) 713-2332
If listed or proposed species may be present, a biological assessment should be
conducted to verify the presence any such species and to determine whether the
proposed action may affect them. If the proposed action may affect such species,
then an Environmental Assessment must also be prepared. The two assessments
should be integrated to reduce duplication of effort and paperwork. Formal
consultation (initiated by written request to the Regional Director of FWS or
NMFS) is necessary only if such species may be affected. No irreversible or
irretrievable commitment of resources which could foreclose reasonable options
can occur during consultation.
2. As a result of formal consultation, the FWS or NMFS will issue a biological
opinion. Biological opinions which reach a conclusion that an action is likely to
jeopardize the continued existence of listed species or destroy or adversely
modify critical habitat must include a discussion of any "reasonable or prudent
alternatives" which FWS or NMFS believes would avoid the jeopardy,
destruction, or adverse modification.
3. Upon consideration of the biological opinion, the agency may implement the
proposed action pursuant to the consultation alternatives issued by the FWS or
NMFS, or the agency may withdraw the proposed actions.
Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (PL 85-624; 16
U.S.C. 661-667d)
Purpose
Using the phrase vital contribution to describe the impact of wildlife resources on the
nation, the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (FWCA) provides for wildlife
conservation by entrusting the Secretary of the Interior with certain duties. One of these
is to provide assistance to, and cooperation with, Federal, state, and public or private
agencies and organizations to provide that wildlife conservation receive equal
consideration and be coordinated with other features of water -resource development
programs. The Act was also written to lend ways to conduct surveys and investigations of
wildlife in the public domain.
Major Provisions by Section
$ 2 (16 U.S.C. 662) -Impounding, diverting, or controlling of waters
Federal agencies that propose or authorize modification of any body of water shall
first consult with the Fish and Wildlife Service and with the appropriate state
agency to conserve wildlife resources by preventing resource loss and damage.
Recommendations of wildlife agencies on the wildlife aspects of proposed actions
shall be given full consideration by the decision-making agency, which should
also include means for wildlife conservation as found justifiable to obtain
maximum overall project benefits to the public.
3 (16 U.S.C. 663)- Impoundment or diversion of waters
The section makes a rather general statement that whenever Federal departments
or agencies modify a body of water for any purpose, adequate provisions must be
made for the conservation, maintenance and management of wildlife resources
and habitat.
5 (16 U.S.C. 665)- Investigations as to effect of sewage, industrial wastes; reports
The Secretary of the Interior is authorized to conduct investigations on the effects
of domestic sewage, mine, petroleum, industrial wastes, erosion silt, and other
substances on wildlife. Reports may then be given to Congress which contain
recommendations for alleviating undesirable pollution effects.
Pertinent Regulations
• 50 CFR Part 27- Prohibited Acts, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Provisions are given concerning takings of animal and plant life in national
wildlife refuges. Rules are put forth in the remaining subparts concerning
violations including those with vehicles, against plants and animals, and private
structures.
• 516 DM 2 Appendix 2(2.9), Department of Interior
Environmental documents (EA, EIS, FONSI) must be prepared for actions which
require compliance with the FWCA.
Definitions
Conservation
the planned management of wildlife resources to prevent waste concurrent with
their wise use. This term combines the meaning of the'loss prevention, mitigation,
and enhancement components of project planning, development, and
implementation.
Wildlife and wildlife resources
birds, fishes, mammals, and all other classes of wild animals and all types of
aquatic and land vegetation upon which wildlife is dependent. (FWCA,§ 8)
Applicable Actions
Mineral exploration or extraction permits or leases on the outer continental shelf.
Projects conducted in beds of intermittent streams.
Water -related aspects of Federal mining or mineral leases, or of mining plans adopted
under the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act.
Water resources and water quality planning programs.
Summary of Implementation Procedures
Equal consideration of wildlife resource values in project planning, approval, and
implementation is the essence of the FWCA compliance process. Compliance with the
equal consideration mandate requires:
1. Consultation between action agencies and wildlife agencies or measures
necessary to conserve wildlife in project planning, construction, and operation.
2. Reporting by wildlife agencies on the effects of the project and its alternatives
upon wildlife resources and on measures recommended to conserve wildlife
resources in connection with the project and its alternatives.
3. Full consideration by the action agencies of measures recommended to conserve
wildlife resources, both with regard to the proposed project and its alternatives.
4. Implementation of justifiable conservation measures.
If the proposed action may affect wildlife or wildlife resources, thus initiating the FWCA
compliance process, then an environmental assessment must also be prepared.
U.S. Environmental Laws
This page contains brief summaries of major environmental legislation,
with links to the full text versions contained in the U.S. Code, provided
through Cornell University Law School. Use the "Contents" to quickly
access a summary or brose through the summaries. For the complete texts
of these laws, click on the highlighted title in the summary. Links
accessing a complete text at Cornell University will open in a new
window.
Contents:
• Clean Air Act
• The Clean Water Act (CWA)
• The Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation. and
Liability Act (CERCLA or Superfund
• Endangered Species Act
• The Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA)
• The National Environmental Protection Act (NEPA)
• The Pollution Prevention Act
• The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA)
• The Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA)
• The Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA)
The. f plan Air Art (C Al
42 U.S.C. s/s 7401 et seq. (1970)
The Clean Air Act, amended in 1977 and 1990, was established "to protect
and enhance the quality of the nation's air resources so as to promote public
health and welfare and the productive capacity of its population." CAA
authorizes the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to establish
National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) to protect public health
and the environment. The CAA establishes emission standards for
stationary sources, volatile organic compound emissions, hazardous air
pollutants, and vehicles and other mobile sources. The CAA also requires
the states to develop implementation plans applicable to particular
industrial sources. The 1977 amendments set new timetables and goals for
achieving the NAAQS. The 1990 amendments dealt primarily with matters
which had not been fully addressed previously, such as acid rain, ozone
depletion, and tail -pipe emissions.
return to contents
The Clean Water Act (CWA)
42 U.S.C. s/s 9601 et seq. (1977)
The Clean Water Act amended the Federal Water Pollution Control Act of
1972, and is the primary legislative vehicle for federal water pollution
control programs. The CWA was established to "restore and maintain the
chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the nation's waters." The
CWA gives EPA the authority to set effluent standards on an industry -by -
industry basis and to set water quality standards regarding contaminants in
surface waters, yet allows EPA to delegate many aspects of the law to state
governments. The CWA sets goals to eliminate discharges of pollutants
into navigable water, protect fish and wildlife, and prohibit the discharge of
toxic pollutants in quantities that could adversely affect the environment.
The CWA also provides for the construction of publicly -owned wastewater
treatment facilities; establishes waste treatment management plans within
states; establishes the technology necessary to eliminate the discharge of
pollutants; and promotes programs to help control nonpoint sources of
pollution. The CWA was reauthorized in 1987.
return to contents
The Comprehensive Environmental Response. Compensation. and
T.iahility Art (CFTRCT A nr CnnPrfnnrll
42 U.S.C. s/s 9601 et seq. (1980)
CERCLA provides EPA with the authority to respond to releases of
hazardous wastes (as defined by the Clean Water Act, Clean Air Act, Toxic
Substances Control Act, Solid Waste Disposal Act, and the EPA
Administrator) from "inactive" hazardous waste sites which endanger
public health and the environment. It also establishes a federal "Superfund"
to finance response actions, establishes regulations controlling inactive
hazardous waste sites, and establishes liability to recover cleanup costs.
Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act (SARA)
42 U.S.C. 9601 et seq. (1986)
Emergency Planning and Community Right -to -Know Act (EPCRA)
42 U.S.C. 11011 et seq. (1986)
SARA revises and extends CERCLA to continue Superfund activities. Title
III of SARA, EPCRA, provides for "emergency planning and preparedness,
community right -to -know reporting, and toxic chemical release reporting."
Under this law, facility owners and operators are required to provide
certain information relating to regulated substances within their facilities to
the appropriate state and local authorities so that they may be better
prepared for environmental emergencies. This law also establishes
procedures which must be followed by facility owners or operators if a
hazardous substance is released, and calls for the establishment of a
multilayer emergency planning and response network.
return to contents
The Endangered Species Act
7 U.S.C. 136; 16 U.S.C. 460 et seq. (1973)
The Endangered Species Act seeks to conserve endangered and threatened
plants, animals, and their habitats. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service of
the Department of the Interior is directed under this Act to promulgate a list
of endangered and threatened species and to designate critical habitat for
them. The Act requires federal agencies to carry out programs for the
conservation of listed species and must take actions to ensure that projects
they authorize, fund, or implement will not endanger these species. Under
the law, federal agencies must undertake a biological assessment before
undertaking a project to determine the impact of a project on a listed
species or its habitat. The outcome of these assessments determines
whether a nrniert chnnicl he halted The Art alcn ectahlichec an Fnclanuerecl
Species Committee to grant exemptions from the Act.
return to contents
The Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA)
7 U.S.C. s/s 135 et seq. (1972)
FIFRA regulates the use and safety of pesticides within the U.S. The Act
requires that pesticides be registered by users with the EPA so that risks
may be evaluated; classifies and certifies pesticides by specific use;
restricts the use of environmentally -harmful pesticides; and provides
enforcement mechanisms. FIFRA also mandates that users take exams and
be certified as pesticide applicators.
return to contents
The National Environmental Protection Act (NEPA)
42 U.S.C. 4341 et seq. (1969)
NEPA, one of the first modern environmental laws, establishes a broad
national framework for efforts to protect the environment. This Act
requires that federal agencies assess the environmental impact of
implementing their major programs and actions early in the planning
process. This Act establishes the use of Environmental Assessments (EAs)
and Environmental Impact Statements (EISes) by federal agencies.
return to contents
The Pollution Prevention Act
42 U.S.C. 13101 and 13102, s.s 6602 et seq. (1990)
This Act encourages reductions in pollution through changes in production,
operation, and raw materials use by industry and the government. The Act
emphasizes source reduction, in which practices are adapted which will
result in less waste during the production process, reducing or eliminating
the need for "end -of -pipe" solutions.
return to contents
Thp RPcnoirrP ('nncervatinn and RPrnvPry Art (Rf RAl
42 U.S.C. s/s 321 et seq. (1976)
RCRA addresses solid waste issues, and provides EPA with the authority
to regulate the disposal of hazardous waste; encourages the development of
solid waste management plans and nonhazardous waste regulatory
programs by the states; prohibits open dumping of wastes; regulates
underground storage tanks; and provides for a national research,
development, and demonstration program for improved solid waste
management and resource conservation techniques. RCRA provides for
"cradle -to -grave" control, from generation, transportation, treatment,
storage, and disposal, of hazardous waste, by EPA. RCRA also provides a
framework for dealing with non -hazardous wastes. RCRA was amended in
1984 to include the Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments, or HSWA.
These amendments required the phase-out of land disposal of hazardous
waste; increased enforcement authority for EPA; more stringent hazardous
waste management standards; and provisions to deal with underground
storage tanks. RCRA was further amended in 1986 to address
environmental problems caused by underground storage tanks containing
petroleum and other hazardous substances.
return to contents
The Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA)
42 U.S.C. s/s 300f et seq. (1974)
SDWA seeks to protect sources of the nation's drinking water and to
protect public health to the maximum extent possible, using proper water
treatment techniques. SDWA establishes national primary drinking water
standards based upon maximum contaminant levels, and establishes state
management programs to enforce the standards. SDWA also establishes
procedures for the development, implementation, and assessment of
demonstration programs designed to project critical aquifer protection
areas located within areas designated as sole or principal source aquifers.
return to contents
The Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA)
15 U.S.C. s/s 2601 et seq. (1976)
TSCA establishes the EPA's toxic substances program. Under this law, if
EPA finds that a chemical substance may present an unreasonable risk to
health nr the envirnnment and there is inciifrient data to nreAirt the
effects of the substance, manufacturers may be required to conduct tests to
evaluate the characteristics of the substance. These characteristics can
include persistence, acute toxicity, or carcinogenic effects. The Act
establishes a system for the prioritized listing of chemical substances to be
tested. Under TSCA, manufacturers must notify EPA of their intentions to
mass-produce a new chemical substance. EPA may require testing of the
substance, and can prohibit the manufacture, sale, use, or disposal of the
chemical if it finds the chemical presents an unreasonable risk to health or
the environment. EPA can also limit the amount of chemical which can be
manufactured and used. TSCA also regulates polychlorinated biphenyls, or
PCBs. In 1986, TSCA was amended to incorporate the Asbestos Hazard
Emergency Response Act to address matters relating to asbestos products
in public schools and other buildings.
return to contents
S1
US Environmental Law
1880
1890
1900
1910
1920
1930
1940 1950
Year
1960
1990 2000
1970 1980
U.S. Federal Environmental
Laws
AMFA, ARPAA, AIA, ASBCAA, ESAA-AECA, FIFRAA, --� NAWCA
FEAPRA, IRA, NWPAA, COORAINMSPAA, FCRPA, MMPAA
110
100
90 CAAA, CWA, SMCRA, SDWAA
80 ( BLBA. FWPCA, MPRSA, CZMA, NCA, FEPCA, PWSA, MMPA
70 -; NEPA, EQIA, CAA, EPA, EEA, OSHA, FAWRAA, NPAA
APA, SWDA,CERCLA, CZMIA, COWLDA, FWLSCA, MPRSAA
BLRA, ERDDAA, EAWA, NOPPA, PTSA, UMTRC, ESAA, QCA, NCPA
60 �.
50 I
40 . I
30
20 I YA
10 J.
0
h
TA, FWCA, BPA
NBRA IA WA
AA
RHA
WSRA, EA, RCFHSA FCMHSA.
NLRA, FI FRA
WPA AEPA AEA
EDP, OPA, RECA, CAAA,
GCRA, HMTUSA, NEEA
y
HMTA
WQA
SDWAR,
SARA
RCRAA,
WIDI
MPRSAAA
NWPA
ARPA
TSCA, FLPMA, RCRA,
NEMA, CZMAA
FRRRPA,
AQP, SDWA, OPA
FQIA
ESA, TAPA
F'AWRA FWCAA FHSA. NFMU
WLDA
t r �
1872 1880 1890 1900 1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000
RE: George Mason. Kitsap County, WA. Presentation at PNPCA. Boise, ID',(Nov. 4. 1996)
WASTEWATER COST of SERVICE
LIST OF ACRONYMS
Date
1872
YA
Yellow Stone Act
1893
IQA
Interstate Quarantine Act
1899
RHA
Rivers and Harbors Act
1906
AA
Antiquities Act
1908
NBRA
National Bison Range Act
1910
IA
Insecticide Act
1911
WA
Weeks Act
1916
NPS
National Park Service Created
1929
MBCA
Migratory Bird Conservation Act
1934
TA
Taylor Act- Grazing
1934
FWCA
Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act
1934
BPA
Birds Protection Act
1935
NLRA
National Labor Relations Act
1935
WPA
Wildlife Preservation Act
1937
FAWRA
Federal Aid and Wildlife Restoration Act
1940
AEPA
American Eagle Protection Act
1947
FIFRA
Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act
1954
AEA
Atomic Energy Act
1956
FWA
Fish and Wildlife Act
1957
PAA
Price -Anderson Act (PAA)
1958
FWCAA
Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act Amendment
1960
FHSA
Federal Hazardous Substances Act
1960
NFMUA
National Forest Multiple Use Act
1964
WLDA
Wildemess Act
1965
WRPA
Water Resource Planning Act
1965
AFCA
Anadromous Fish Conservation Act
1966
NHPA
National Historic Preservation Act
1967
AQA
Air Quality Act
1967
FOIA
Freedom Of Information Act
1968
WSRA
Wild and Scenic Rivers Act
1968
EA
Estuarine Act
1968
RCFHSA
Radiation Control for Health and Safety Act
1969
FCMHSA
Federal Coal Mine Health and Safety Act
1970
NEPA
National Environmental Policy Act
1970
EQIA
Environmental Quality Improvement Act
1970
CAA
Clean Air Act
1970
EPA
Environmental Protection Agency
1970
EEA
Environmental Education Act
1970
OSHA
Occupational Safety and Health Act
1970
FAWRAA
Federal Aid to Wildfile Restoration Act Amendments
1972
BLBA
Black Lung Benefits Act
1972
FWPCA
Federal Water Pollution Control Act
1972
MPRSA
Marine Protection, Research and Sanctuaries Act
1972
CZMA
Coastal Zone Management Act
1972
NCA
Noise Control Act
1972
FEPCA
Federal Environmental Pesticide Control Act
1972
PWSA
Ports and Waterways Safety Act
1972
MMPA
Marine Mammal Protection Act
1973
ESA
Endangered Species Act
1 of 3
WASTEWATER COST of SERVICE
LIST OF ACRONYMS
1973
TAPA
Trans -Alaska Pipeline Authorization Act
1974
FRRRPA
Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Planning Act
1974
SDWA
Safe Drinking Water Act
1974
DPA
Deepwater Port Act
1975
HMTA
Hazard Materials Transportation Act
1976
TSCA
Toxic Substance Control Act
1976
FLPMA
Federal Land Policy Management Act
1976
RCRA
Resource Conservation Recovery Act
1976
NFMA
National Forest Management Act
1976
CZMAA
Coastal Zone Management Act Amendments
1977
CAAA
Clean Air Act Amendments
1977
CWA
Clean Water Act
1977
SMCRA
Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act
1977
SDWAA
Soil and Water Resources Conservation Act
1978
BLRA
Black Lung Reform Act
1978
ERDDAA
Environmental Research Development Demonstration Authorization Act
1978
EAWA
Endangered American Wildemess Act
1978
NOPPA
National Ocean Pollution Planning Act
1978
PTSA
Port and Taker Safety Act
1978
UMTRCA
Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act
1978
ESAA
Endangered Species Act Amendments
1978
QCA
Quiet Communities Act
1978
NCPA
National Climate Program Act
1979
ARPA
Archaeological Resources Protection Act
1980
APA
Acide Precipitation Act
1980
SWDA
Solid Waste Disposal Act
1980
CERCLA
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act
1980
CZMIA
Coastal Zone Management Improvement Act
1980
COWLDA
Colorado Wildemess Act
1980
CWLCA
Fish and Wild Life Conservation Act
1980
MPRSAA
Marine Protection Research and Sanctuaries Act Amendments
1982
NWPA
Nuclear Waste Policy Act
1983
MPRSAA
Marine Protection Research and Sanctuaries Act Amendments
1984
RCRAA
Resources Conservation and Recovery Act Amendments
1984
WLDI
Wilderness Act Implementation in Various States
1986
SDWAA
Safe Drinking Water Act Amendments
1987
SARA
Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act
1988
WQA
Water Quality Act
1988
AMFA
Altemative Motor Fuels Act
1988
ARPAA
Archaeological Resources Protection Act, Amendments
1988
AIA
Asbestos Information Act
1988
ASBCAAA
Atlantic Striped Bass Conservation Act Authorization and Amendment
1988
ESAA-AECA
Endangered Species Act Amendments- African Elephant Conservation Act
1988
FIFRAA
Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act - Amendments
1988
FEAPRA
Federal Ecosystems and Atmospheric Pollution Research Act
1988
IRA
Indoor Radon Abatement, Amendment
1988
NWPAA
Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982, Amendments
1988
CODRA/
NMSPAA
Comprehensive Ocean Dumping Research Amendments and Authorization:
National Marine Sanctuaries Program, Amendments and Authorization
1988
FCRPA
Federal Cave Resources Protection Act
2 of 3
WASTEWATER COST of SERVICE
LIST OF ACRONYMS
1989
MMPAA
Marine Mammals Protection Act Amendments
1990
NAWCA
North American Wetlands Conservation Act
1990
EDP
Earth Day Proclamation (20th Anniversary)
1990
OPA
Oil Pollution Act of 1990
1990
RECA
Radiation Exposure Compensation Act
1990
CAAA
Clean Air Act Amendments
1990
GCRA
Global Change Research Act of 1990
1990
GLFWRA
Great Lakes Fish and Wildlife Restoration Act
1990
HMTUSA
Hazardous Materials Transportation and Uniform Safety Act
NEEA
National Environmental Education Act
3 of 3
SECTION 1
INTRODUCTION AND EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Introduction:
As a condition for having received State and Federal grants from the
Environmental Protection Agency and the State Department of Ecology in
the past, the City is obligated to complete a Biennial Cost -of -Service
Study. The Study is mandated to ensure that utility rates provide
adequate funding for: (a) operating and maintaining the Wastewater
Treatment Plant and the Wastewater System; (b) bond debt service
payments; (c) satisfaction of bond and loan covenants relating to debt
services coverage ratios, reserves, etc.; (d) capital reserves to match new
grants (non are now available); and (e) utility comprehensive planning.
Chapter 7.60.020 E. of the Yakima Municipal Code states: "The City shall
review not less often than every two years the wastewater contribution
of users and user classes, the total cost of operation and maintenance of
the treatment works and the user charge system. The charges for users
or classes of users shall be revised as required."
History:
The mandated 2000 Wastewater Facilities Plan analyzed the financial and
capital, needs, requirements, and mandates of the Wastewater Operating
and Capital Funds and recommended actions to meet these conditions.
The 2001 Cost of Service and Rate Study was a comprehensive review of
the Division's financial situation and outlined a path to meet the needs
presented by the Plan for the period 2000-2006. The 2001 Study
recommended a 35.9% general rate increase to finance staffing and
capital programs outlined in the Plan. Both the Plan and the Study's
35.9% recommended increase were adopted in March of 2002. In June
and November of 2003, rates were increased 5% for increased litigation
expenses. The November 2003 increase also included 3% for Capital
Projects. In June of 2005, general rates were increased 2.5% to offset a
cost -share of the Wastewater Connection Charges to some new
customers.
Current Situation:
In June 2003, the City received a new National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) permit. In part, it required several
2007 COS
Section 1 Page 1
October 24, 2007
engineering studies. As a Facilities Plan is required to be updated every
five years, the engineering firm of Black and Veatch was contracted to
produce the mandated 2004 Wastewater Facility Plan. Council adopted
this Plan in October of 2004. This 2004 Plan identified over $17.5 million
of capital improvements to the Treatment Facility and $8.6 million in
collection system projects ($26.1 total) required within the 2004-2010
time period to maintain our ability to serve the community. Of this.
$20.2 million (77%) are mandated by Federal and State regulations and
contractual obligations. The Facilities Plan also identified the need for an
additional $39.5 million of improvements and expansion during the years
2011-2016, and $20.2 million during the years 2017 through 2024. In
2003, a revenue bond of $10.0 million was sold to commence the Capital
Program outlined in the Plan. The first part of phase 1 of the outlined
capital project at the Treatment Facility is nearly complete. The initial
project included project element representing 53% of the phase 1
estimated expenses. Unfortunately, due to the extreme inflation inflicted
upon construction in the past few years, we have spent or have under
contract nearly 100% of the $17.5 million budget. Clearly the retail
customers of the Wastewater Division are facing a very expensive future
to meet the needs of the environment and community. There will be
serious challenges to the City's ability to meet NPDES requirements and
accommodate growth if these monetary challenges are not adequately
met.
This Plan recognizes the modest requirements of additional staff to
implement mandated programs and perform mandated tasks.
The City of Yakima's Pretreatment Program received full delegation with
the issuance of our 2003 NPDES permit. Delegation mandated the City's
responsibility and authority under the Clean Water Act to issue discharge
permits to commercial and industrial dischargers within the City's service
area. We have monitored our progress toward meeting our mandated
obligations under this program and hesitantly added staff. We now
recognize the need to add a permit writer and to reinstate our chemist
position (cost to be shared with SU 232 Treatment). A modest
investment in laboratory equipment is also required. These increases are
included in the 2008 budget.
The 2001 COS recommended the need for an increase of 6 full-time staff
positions (with equipment) for the collection maintenance arm of our
Division to achieve our maintenance goal to "anticipate problem areas and
initiate action before any problems occur; to reduce potential claims for
2007 COS
Section 1 Page 2
October 24, 2007
damages resulting from system failures". Through attrition, and
organization. the efficiency and effectiveness of this service unit has
enabled twice the amount of work to be done by the same size crew.
Therefore, the additional staff have not been hired. However, offsetting
our efficiencies, for the past 18 months, one of our crews has been on
loan to the City's Stormwater Utility. The demands of our responsibilities
require the return of our crew. Additionally, to further increase the
effectiveness of our program, we strongly recommend the addition of a
Field Utility Engineer (budgeted), This position would split duties
between wastewater and surface/storm water and be instrumental in
assessing existing and future infrastructure needs of our collections
systems. These increases are included in the 2008 budget.
This 2007 Cost of Service and Rate Study details a comprehensive review
of the cost to serve all user classes. The user groups include;
Pretreatment, Outside City (County) retail, Outside City strong waste and
septage disposal, Municipal Wholesale (City of Union Gap and Terrace
Heights Sewer District), City strong waste, and City retail. Food
Processing Wastewater (Industrial Waste) is no longer a separate
customer class. Wastewater from this category is now brought into the
Treatment Facility for treatment and former customers are now City
strong waste customers.
This study used historical data on operating revenues and other income,
operating expenses, debt service, plant flows, billable flows, billable
accounts, and existing and projected capital expenditures of the
wastewater system to reach its conclusions and recommendations.
Purposes of the Study:
The purposes of this study of cost of service and rates are to:
• Determine and report revenue and funding requirements for the
wastewater system operations for a 6 -year planning period (fiscal
years 2007-2012).
• Provide a cost of service analysis which: (1) determines unit costs of
providing service; and (2) allocates costs of providing service among
classes of customers of the wastewater system.
2007 COS
Section 1 Page 3
October 24, 2007
• Develop and propose any necessary changes in the wastewater service
charges and other (capital) charges for the customers of the
wastewater system.
Adoption of these recommendations will enable the wastewater system
to continue its operations and make capital improvements on a financially
sound foundation.
Study Content:
For this study, staff has conducted the following tasks:
• Reviewed existing financial policies of the City as they pertain to
wastewater costs of service and charges presently in effect.
• Reviewed Federal Government (Environmental Protection Agency) and
State (Department of Ecology) rules and regulations and City
documents governing costs of service and rate related issues.
• Reviewed the most current applicable publications and manuals issued
by the American Water Works Association (AWWA), Water Pollution
Control Federation (WPCF), American Society of Civil Engineers
(ASCE), and American Public Works Association (APWA) pertaining to
financing and rate charges for wastewater systems.
• Performed a financial projection and developed a financial plan for a 3
year planning period (fiscal years 2008-2010), which documents the
revenue and cost items affecting the calculation of rates for the
wastewater system operations.
• Projected operating revenues (at present rates) and other income,
operating expenses, debt service, and capital expenses to determine
revenue and funding requirements.
• Compiled and reviewed historical account of billable flow records for all
user groups
• Reviewed current methods utilized by City staff in establishing rates
and preparing billings to all user groups.
2007 COS
Section 1 Page 4
October 24, 2007
• Developed staffing level and costs for a mandated, delegated
Pretreatment permit and monitoring program.
• Performed cost of service analysis which determines the costs of
providing service to: 1) Pretreatment businesses; 2) non -owner
(County) retail, strong waste and septage customers; 3) wholesale
municipal users of the system (the City of Union Gap, and the Terrace
Heights Wastewater District); 4) City strong waste customers.
• Developed proposed wastewater service charges and other charges
for: 1) Pretreatment Program businesses; 2) Non -owner (County)
retail, strong waste, and Septage customers; and 3) Owner (City)
retail and strong waste customers.
Findings of the 2007 Study:
• As a recipient of Federal grant assistance. the City is required to:
"Generate sufficient revenue to pay the total operation and
maintenance costs necessary to the proper operation and maintenance
(including replacement) of the treatment works." 40 CFR 35.929-
2(b) (2).
• "The user charge system must be designed to produce adequate
revenues required for operation and maintenance (including
replacement). It shall provide that each user which discharges
pollutants that cause an increase in the cost of managing, the effluent
or sludge from the treatment works shall pay for such increased cost."
40 CFR 35.2140.
• "The grantee shall adopt its sewer use ordinance and implement its
user charge system developed under 35.2130 and 35.2140 before
the treatment works is placed in operation. Further, the grantee shall
implement the user charge system and sewer use ordinance for the
useful life of the treatment works." 40 CFR 35.2208.
• This study agrees with the discussion of Contractual Agreements set
forth in Appendix 4 of the 1991 County report which states:
"The 1976 Agreement is the controlling document. The sewer
rates shall be based on a cash basis with actual cost of operation
2007 COS
Section 1 Page 5
October 24, 2007
to be used to set rates for Union Gap and Terrace Heights
Wastewater District. The County has previously agreed to
accept the Utility Method of Accounting as an alternative (to the
1976 Agreement) to setting outside City retail rates, provided
American Water Works Association (AWWA) and Water Pollution
Control Federation (WPCF) recommended procedures are used.
The wholesale rates are based on measured flow or contracted
capacity.
A. Nationally accepted guidelines are those prepared by the
AWWA and WPCF.
B. The City agrees that the high strength waste customer or
industry should pay their full cost of service and no subsidy should
be provided by wholesale or outside City customers.
• Rates for non -owner retail (outside -of -City) customers should continue
to be established utilizing a "Utility Rate Basis" which shall consist of:
(A) treatment plant operations and maintenance, depreciation and
return on investment (ROI) charge based upon the percentage of
actual flow received; (B) applicable collection system operation and
maintenance costs; (C) collection system depreciation and ROI charge
based upon those pipes actually being utilized by this group; and (D) a
strong waste surcharge if applicable.
For the purpose of determining the surcharge, this report uses 300
mg/I as the threshold level for biochemical oxygen demand (BOD -5
day) and total suspended solids (TSS). This is the threshold level
identified for use in wholesale billings in Section 3 of the 1976
Agreement.
• Rates for septage (non -owner) customers should also be established
utilizing a "Utility Rate Basis" which shall consist of operation and
maintenance, depreciation, and ROI charges based upon the BOD, TSS,
and Hydraulic volume impact to the Treatment Facility.
• Rates for wholesale municipal customers; (City of Union Gap, and
Terrace Heights Sewer District) should be established utilizing a "Cash
Method" which consists of: (A) an operations and maintenance charge
which consists of a percentage (based upon meter readings of flow
2007 COS
Section 1 Page 6
October 24, 2007
and test results of BOD and TSS) of the Treatment Plant loading; (B)
any applicable collection system operation and maintenance costs; (C)
a debt service charge based upon the percent of Treatment plant
capacity allocated to each entity;
• The City of Union Gap shares the expense of the Rudkin Road Lift
Station with the City of Yakima. These costs are allocated in the
manner described in component A and C above.
• City retail (owner) customers: Rates are established utilizing a "Cash
Method". These rates are established to fulfill the remaining
necessary revenue demands of the system.
• Table 4 -2 -(Proposed) shows that during the period 2004 (actual)
through 2007 (Y -E budget), Operation expenses have increased
17.31%, and Capital expenses (including transfers) have increased
14.15%. This yields a Wastewater Division expenditure increase of
15.9%. Review of Table 5-1 shows that during the same time period,
billable flows have actually decreased 1.1%. Therefore, rates
established in the 2001 COS and implemented in subsequent years are
no longer sufficient to maintain the system expenses.
• Through review of past flow data, staff projects that billable flows will
increase at a rate of about 1.5% and billable account will increase at a
rate of 1.25% for the next few years (see Section 5). By reviewing
budgetary trends (see Section 4), staff projects Operating expenses
to increase at a rate of 3% for this same time period. Therefore,
wastewater revenues from existing rates will increasingly be obligated
to 0&M expenses causing Capital Programs to be severely reduced.
• The existing Pretreatment Program was to assess 75% of its expenses
to its customers resulting in a 25% cost share to City Retail
customers. Do to the need to expand staffing levels, this report
recommends The Cost Share be increased to near 40% to buffer the
impact of the rate increase.
• Existing rates for "Strong Waste" (BOD and TSS in concentrations over
300 ppm) are less than the existing cost to treat. City Retail
Customers are currently providing an over 40% cost -share to the City
Strong Waste customers.
2007 COS
Section 1 Page 7
October 24, 2007
• As rates for the City Retail Customers are established on a "Cash
Basis", any required revenue not generated from other users groups
must be included in this category.
• Per chapter 7.60.020 E of the Yakima City Code, this report should be
updated not less often than every two years and charges should be
revised as required.
Factors Affecting the Necessary Rate Increases:
The following factors must be considered while contemplating a rate
increase.
• Operations and Maintenance: The Division has experienced sharp
increases in costs of non -labor expenses. Chemical costs have risen
32% over the past few years. Fuel and utilities have also dramatically
increased. Additional staff required by the mandated Pretreatment
program and to promote compliance with operations, maintenance,
and programmatic needs as mandated by State and Federal
regulations. Additional staff recommended by this report include: (1)
Pretreatment permit writer, (1) Field Utility Engineer, and (1)
Chemist.
• Interest Income: Decreased due to drop in interest rates and reserve
levels.
• Long Term Debt: Slight increase within the proposal. New revenue
bond will be scheduled after existing 1978 bond is retired.
• 2.0 Debt Service Coverage to preserve Council policy: Again, slight
increase per the proposal. New revenue bond will be scheduled after
existing 1978 bond is retired. Existing Council Policy states that City
Utility Tax NOT be applied against any revenue received for debt
coverage.
• Capital Improvements: In addition to financing of existing debt for past
capital projects, the 2000 Wastewater Facilities Plan identifies over
$20.8 million in capital projects required during the next 5 years. Of
2007 COS
Section 1 Page 8
October 24, 2007
this amount, over $16 million are mandated by Federal or State
regulation or contractual obligations. Financing of these projects will
require a combination of transfers from the operating fund and new
borrowed money. Currently, our cash reserves are being utilized to
finance a limited number of Capital projects. Without a rate increase,
we will soon be unable to finance any construction activity. It is
important to maintain a solid level of cash reserves. This allows the
City to be able to take advantage of low interest financing
opportunities from State and Federal agencies for mandated activities.
Necessity of Rate Increase:
Staff appreciates the difficulty and apprehension any governing body has
when confronting the unpopular task of raising fees to its constituency.
Staff pursued the possible ramifications and repercussions of not
increasing rates. We reviewed a scenario under which the division
severely limited all construction activity and decreased its capital
transfers (including connection charge revenue) to only the debt
coverage.
As indicated on TABLE 1-4, for 2008, the system's expenses are
budgeted to be:
1) Operation and Maintenance Expense % of Total
a) Labor + benefits $4,747,720 (28.6%)
b) Other * $4,015,599 (24.2%)
2) Capital Transfers $2,431,850 (14.7%)
3) Capital Debt Service $3,477,845 (21.0%)
4) Utility Tax $1,918.150 (11.6%)
TOTAL $16,591,164
* Chemicals, utilities, fuel, etc.
Anticipated revenue for 2008, at existing rates, is $16,078,291.
Therefore. without a rate increase. for the year 2008. the system would
be operating at a Toss of $512,873. For 2009, and 2010 the loss
can only be prevented by the reduction/elimination of Capital Transfers.
Pursuant to Council policy, the Wastewater Division attempts to maintain
an operating reserve that would provide sufficient resources to maintain
2007 COS
Section 1 Page 9
October 24, 2007
operations for a period of three months without income. At the budget
level presented. this preferred reserve should be approximately $2.9
million. A reserve of $1.9 million is predicted by year-end 2007. Even
with severally curtailing all Capital projects. without a rate increase. this
reserve will continue to decline. Furthermore. our debt coverage ratios
• will be out of compliance with existing bond covenants.
Rate Policy Options:
Review of the existing rate structure reveals that current City policy still
provides for a subsidy to two user groups:
(1) Businesses, which the City is required by EPA and DOE to monitor
through a Pretreatment Program;
(2) City Strong Waste customers.
All subsidies to any user group increase the rates charged to the City
retail customers.
These user groups are subsidized in the following manner:
(1) Pretreatment Program; As detailed in Section 6, the current rate
policy provides a 25% cost share to these customers. This report
proposes this level be increased to 40% to buffer sharp rate increases.
(2) City Retail Strong Waste Customers: The 2001 COS phased in rates
to the full cost -to -treat which should have eliminated the cost share
burden on the retail ratepayer. In fact, the actual pounds of Strong
Waste treated have been less than anticipated; therefore, the unit cost
has risen considerably. Even with the steep increase proposed, there will
remain a small cost share burden on the City retail rate customer. These
rates are discussed in Sections 11.
• The decision made on how much, if any, subsidy to provide these
groups affects not only that group but directly affects the CITY Retail
Customers rates as they pay for all subsidies. City retail rates are
affected by 1% for. each $130,000 of revenue not received from other
user groups.
2007 COS
Section 1 Page 10
October 24, 2007
Recommendations:
Staff progressed through a detailed analysis of Cost of Service and Rate
Review for each user group of the Wastewater system. This report
proposes rate adjustments for each group to that level established by the
Cost of Service Study.
Table 1-3 _compares the additional revenue from and percent increase to
each user group under the proposed rate adjustments. -
• Staff requests adoption of the 2007 Cost of Service and
Rate Study.
• Staff requests direction to prepare legislation necessary
to adjust the Wastewater Rates to those proposed and
detailed elsewhere in this report.
The proposed level rate adjustments of major user groups
being:
• Pretreatment - Section 6
Current Rate:
Proposed Rate:
Phase One (13%)/ (5.5%)
share)
Phase Two (13%)/ (5.5%)
Phase Three (13%)/ (5.5%)
Non -City
$70.91
$80.13
$90.54
$102.32
Cumulative Increase % 45.3%
The Targe percentage increase is due to the requirement to
Proposed adjustments of Sampling and Testing Fees and
Section 6.
2007 COS
Section 1 Page 11
October 24, 2007
City
$53.18
$56.11 (includes 40% cost
$59.19
$62.45
17.4%
add a permit writer to staff.
SIU Permit Fees are listed in
Large increase in rate for BOD and TSS due to considerably less loading than anticipated in
previous COS. FOG charge is initiated with this Study. Even with these adjustments,
there remains a subsidy by City retail ratepayers of approximately 10%. Note that
businesses have control over reducing these charges by good management practices to
reduce loadings.
• City Retail Customers - Section 11
Working on the hypothesis that the above outlined adjustments are
substantially approved by City Council, the following adjustments to
City retail customers are recommended.
Ready to Serve
Current Rate:
Proposed Rate:
Phase One (3.5%)
Phase Two (3.5%)
Phase Three (3.5%)
Volume/UOC Increase@1 0 UOC $ Increase
$13.34 $2.34 $36.74
$13.81 $2.42
$1.4.29 $2.51
$14.79 $2.59
Cumulative Increase % 10.9%
2007 COS
Section 1 Page 13
October 26, 2007
10.7%
$38.01
$39.39
$40.69
10.75%
$1.27
$1.38
$1.30
$3.95
e Non -Owner Domestic Retail (County) - Section
Ready to Serve Volume/UOC
$18.82 $3.36
Current Rate:
Proposed Rate:
Phase One (5.5%)
Phase Two (5.5%)
Phase Three (5.5%)
$19.86 $3.54
$20.95 $3.73
$22.10 $3.94
Cumulative Increase % 17.4%
o Non -Owner Retail
Existing:
Proposed Rate:
Decrease %:
Existing:
Proposed Rate:
Increase %:
Strong Waste and
50D/Ib. [decrease)
$0.537
$0.470
-12.48%
17.3%
7
Cost @ 10 UOC
$52.42
$55.26
$58.25
$61.50
Septage - Section 8
TSS/lb. (decrease)
$0.522
$0.467
-10.54%
$/Gallon Septage
$0.337
$0.381
13.06%
o Municipal Wholesale Customers - Section 9
No Council action required in this section. Rates are governed by
the 4 -Party Agreement and subsequent written clarifications.
• City Strong Waste Retail
Current Rate:
Proposed Rate:
Phase One (10.0%)
Phase Two (10.0%)
Phase Three (10.0%)
Cumulative Increase %
2007 COS
Section 1 Page 12
October 24, 2007
Customers
)30D/Ib.
$0.332
$0.365
$0.402
$0.442
33.1%
- Section 10
TSS/Ib. FOG/Ib.
$0.339 none
$0.373 $0.276
$0.410 $0.276
$0.451 $0.276
33.1% n/a
TABLE 1-1 (Compare)
FUND 473
Wastewater Operations and Maintenance
Compare Existing vs. Proposed
Revenue and Expense
Description
2007
2008
2009
2010
REVENUE (TOTAL)
Existing Rates
15,442,360
16,078,291
16,126,856
16,353,962
Proposed Rates
15,442,360
16,531,387
17,575,635
18,462,377
Additional Revenue
0
453,096
1,448,779
2,108,415
Cumulative Revenue
1,901,875
4,010,290
EXPENSES (TOTAL)
Existing Rates
15,992,796
16, 591,164
15,895,393
16,163,715
Proposed Rates
15,992,796
16,591,164
17,019,246
18,016,725
Additional Expense
0
0
1,123,853
1,853,010
Cumulative Expense
1,123,853
2,976,863
Addition to Fund 473 Reserves
453,096
324,926
255,405
Cumulative Reserves (473).
778,022
1,033,427
10/21/07
TABLE 1-2 (PROPOSED)
FUND 473
Wastewater Operations and Maintenance
Description
see
2007
2008
2009
2010
Table
budget
proposed
proposed
proposed
Cash Balance Forward
2,409,080
1,930,916
1,929,067
2,543,328
REVENUE
Pretreatment Fees
617,000
637,766
681,728
719,223
County Retail and Strong Waste
7-1/8-1
60,000
36,444
38,956
41,098
1.055
Del Monte Contribution
75,200
75,200
75,200
75,200
Fat, Oil, Grease (FOG)
0
41,400
41,918
42,441
City of Union Gap
9-1
542,507
630,291
626,143
650,766
Terrace Height Sewer Dist.
9-1
315,548
427,308
426,389
440,817
City Strong Waste
11-1
750,000
866,773
975,623
1,086,064
Connection Charges
925,000
950,000
978,500
1,007,855
1.03
Stormwater reimbursement
250,000
250,000
City of Yakima Retail
12-1
12,120,000
12,686,913
13,431,178
14,098,913
Other Misc.
37,105
179,292
50,000
50,000
Total Revenue
15,442,360
16,531,387
17,575,635
18,462,377
Interest on Reserves @ 3%
72,272
57,927
57,872
76,300
Total Available Funds
17,923,712
18,520,231
19,562,574
21,082,005
EXPENSES
2008
2009
2010
0&M (Labor + benefits)
4-2A
4,409,982
4,747,720
4,831,246
4,958,037
28.6%
28.4%
27.5%
0&M (non -labor; chemicals, fuel, utilities)
3,684,319
4,015,599
3,900,988
4,061,969
24.2%
22.9%
22.5%
Capital ( transfers)
2,731,850
2,431,850
2,525,850
3,141,300
14.7%
14.8%
17.4%
Capital (Debt Service)
3,296,370
3,477,845
3,652,086
3,639,934
21.0%
21.5%
20.2%
City Utility Tax
1,870,275
1,918,150
2,109,076
2,215,485
11.6%
12.4%
12.3%
Total Expense
15,992,796
16,591,164
17,019,246
18,016,725
Fund Balance -End of Year
1,930,916
1,929,067
2,543,328
3,065,279
annual gain (deficit)
(550,436)
(59,777)
556,389
445,652
10/21/07
TABLE 1-3 (COMPARE)
FUND 473
Wastewater Revenue Adjustment
for Affected Customer Classes
Description
2007
2008
2009
2010
cumulative
REVENUE
Pretreatment Fees
Existing
617,000
612,500
610,000
610,000
Proposed
617,000
637,766
681,728
719,223
Increase $
0
25,266
71,728
109,223
206,217
Cumulative Increase %
4.1%
11.8%
17.9%
County Retail and Strong Waste
Existing
60,000
35,000
35,000
35,000
Proposed
60,000
36,444
38,956
41,098
Increase $
0
1,444
3,956
6,098
11,498
Cumulative Increase %
4.1%
11.3%
17.4%
Fat, Oil, Grease (FOG)
Existing
0
0
0
0
Proposed
0
41,400
41,918
42,441
Increase $
0
41,400
41,918
42,441
125,759
Cumulative Increase %
City Strong Waste
Existing
750,000
806,300
815,976
825,767
Proposed
750,000
866,773
975,623
1,086,064
Increase $
0
60,473
159,647
260,297
480,417
Cumulative Increase %
7.5%
19.6%
31.5%
City of Yakima Retail
Existing
12,120,000
12,362,400
12;538,148
12,716,412
Proposed
12,120,000
12,686,913
13431,178
14,098,913.
Increase $
0
324,513
893,030
1,382,501
2,600,044
Cumulative Increase %
2.6%
7.1%
10.9%
Total Revenue
Existing
13,547,000
13,816,200
13,999,124
14,187,179
from Affected Customer Classes
Proposed
13,547,000
14,269,296
15,169403
15,987,739
Increase $
0
453,096
1,170,279
1,800,560
3,423,935
Cumulative Increase %
0
3.3%
8.4%
12.7%
10/2'
TABLE 1-4 (Existing Rates)
FUND 473
Wastewater Operations and Maintenance
Description
see
2007
2008
2009
2010
Table
Cash Balance Forward
2,409,080
1,930,916
1,475,971
1,751,713
REVENUE
Pretreatment Fees
617,000
612,500
610,000
610,000
1.000
County Retail and Strong Waste
7-1/8-1
60,000
35,000
35,000
35,000
Del Monte Contribution
75,200
75,200
75,200
75,200
Fat, Oil, Grease (FOG)
0
0
0
0
City of Union Gap
9-1
542,507
630,291
626,143
650,766
Terrace Height Sewer Dist.
9-1
315,548
427,308
426,389
440,817
City Strong Waste
11-1
750,000
806,300
815,976
825,767
1.012
Connection Charges
925,000
950,000
950,000
950,000
1.000
Reimburse from Stormwater
0
0
0
City of Yakima Retail
12-1
12,101,000
12,362,400
12,538,148
12,716,412
Other Misc.
37,105
179,292
50,000
50,000
Total Revenue
15,442,360
16,078,291
16,126,856
16,353,962
Interest on Reserves @ 3%
72,272
57,927
44,279
52,551
Total Available Funds
17,923,712
18,067,135
17,647,106
18,158,226
EXPENSES
2008
2009
2010
O&M (Labor + benefits)
4-2A
4,409,982
4,747,720
4,831,246
4,958,037
28.6%
30.4%
30.7%
O&M (non -labor; chemicals, fuel, utilities)
3,684,319
4,015,599
3,900,988
4,061,969
24.2%
24.5%
25.1%
Capital (transfers)
2,731,850
2,431,850
1,575,850
1,541,300
14.7%
9.9%
9.5%
Capital (Debt Service)
3,296,370
3,477,845
3,652,086
3,639,934
21.0%
23.0%
22.5%
City Utility Tax
1,870,275
1,918,150
1,935,223
1,962,475
11.6%
12.2%
12.1%
Total Expense
15,992,796
16,591,164
15,895,393
16,163,715
Fund Balance -End of Year
1,930,916
1,475,971
1,751,713
1,994,511
annual surplus/ (deficit)
(550,436)
(512,873)
231,463
190,247
10/20/07
SECTION 2
BACKGROUND INFORMATION FOR THE
WASTEWATER COST OF SERVICE AND RATE STUDY
1ntroduction:
This section reviews and discusses background information pertinent to
the City of Yakima's Wastewater System Cost of Service and Rate Study.
Included in this background information are: (1) a description of the
wastewater system of the City of Yakima (City) and the service provided
by the City through its treatment and collection facilities; (2) provisions
of the Agreement for Wastewater Treatment and Disposal
Service (herein called the 4 -Party Agreement), signed by the City, the
City of Union Gap (Union Gap), the Terrace Heights Sewer District
(Terrace Heights), and the County of Yakima (County); (3) review of
City wastewater rate proposals; and (4) review of financial policies and
issues surrounding the development of wastewater rates and charges for
City wholesale users and retail customers.
Description of the City's Wastewater System:
The City provides wastewater system services to owner retail customers
(called herein City retail), non -owner (County) retail customers, septic
dumpers (called herein Septage), Union Gap, and Terrace Heights. Within
a short time, treatment service will be extended to the City of Moxee
(Moxee) through the Terrace Heights Sewer District allocation.
Reference is made throughout this report to City retail and County retail
customers. In fact, the County provides no Wastewater services within
the area pertinent to this report. The customers to whom the report
refers are customers of the City's wastewater system who live outside of
the City limits (in the county).
The Retail System both inside and outside of the City serves
approximately 21,700 retail accounts, additionally, Union Gap serves
1,400 retail customers, and 1,550 retail customers are served by Terrace
Heights (including Moxee). Septage Disposal is provided at the City's
treatment facility. Fruit processing waste discharged by industrial
customers of the City, which used to be applied to a sprayfield is now
treated through the treatment facility.
2007 COS
Section 2 Page 1
July 11, 2007
During the 1970's, a 1976 Facility Plan was prepared for the region to
enable it to meet requirements of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act.
During the period 1976 through 1983, implementations of the
improvements recommended in this plan were accomplished. This
resulted in upgrades and expansion of the Regional Wastewater
Treatment plant and construction of interceptors to transport
wastewater to the treatment plant from Union Gap, Terrace Heights and
the unincorporated areas (County) surrounding the City.
The 1975-1989 improvements to the wastewater system, totaling over
$33,000,000, were financed by a grant (75% of eligible costs) from the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), a grant (15% of eligible
costs) from the State of Washington's Department of Ecology (Ecology)
from funds authorized by Referendum 26, and by local funds (10%).
(Combined, the grants covered Tess than 80% of total project costs).
The current system of rates was first established in 1978, through a
comprehensive Wastewater Rate Study conducted by R. W. Beck and
Associates, Seattle, Washington. In 1981, the firm of Brown and
Caldwell, Seattle, Washington performed a wastewater rate update study.
In late 1985, the State of Washington's Department of Ecology (Ecology)
issued a compliance order for correction of treatment plant facilities that
were experiencing hydraulic, organic and solids loadings that exceeded
1976 Facility Plan design assumptions.
HDR Engineering, Inc. was subsequently employed to update the City's
1976 Facility Plan and a study was completed in June 1989. The
resulting 1989 Facility Plan provided a list of capital construction projects
and estimated increases in wastewater service costs expected as a result
of implementing the programs contained in the Plan.
Implementations of the necessary improvements to the Wastewater
System identified in this 1989 Facility Plan, totaling over $25,000,000,
were initiated in 1991. The improvements to the treatment facility were
financed in part (42%) by a grant from the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA), low interest loans (15%) from the State of Washington
Public Works Trust Fund (PWTF), and (43%) by local funds. Many of the
identified improvements within the collection system were also
addressed. These improvements were financed in part by low interest
loans from the Public Works Trust Fund.
2007 COS
Section 2 Page 2
July 11, 2007
The 2001 Wastewater Facilities Plan looked to the capital and operations
and maintenance requirement of the wastewater system to serve the
area for the 20 -year period 2001-2021. As mandated by federal and
state regulations, this document was updated by the 2004
Wastewater Facility Plan. Council adopted the 2004 Plan October
19th, 2004. This document identifies extensive investment needs over
the next 6-20 years for Mandates, Renewal/Reliability, and Growth. The
needs identified for the first 6 years (2004-2010) for the treatment
facility are ($17,506,000 - 90.5% mandated) as well as the collection
system ($8,625,000 - 50.3% mandated). Over 77% or $20.18 million of
the first 6 years program is mandated by regulations or contractual
obligations to customers. if these mandated expenditures are not made,
the wastewater system faces the potential of NPDES Permit violations
and related civil and criminal penalties, as well as a Building Moratorium
within 6 years,
Compliance with federal and/or state mandatory regulations requires
adequate funding sources regardless of ability to pay. Although the
federal and/or state regulatory agencies sometimes provide partial
funding for mandated improvements in the form of grants and/or loans,
those resources have been drastically diminished over the last decade.
As a consequence, the City of Yakima and the Yakima Regional
Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP) will be required to use wholesale,
retail, and connection charge revenues to pay a substantial portion (as
much as 98% or more) of the total cost either as cash or through debt
payments. As set forth by this report, the impact to wholesale and retail
rates will be significant,
The City operates a Regional Wastewater Treatment Plant that can
currently process up to 21.5 million gallons per day (mgd) of wastewater.
The City's wastewater facilities, in addition to the treatment plant,
include a collection system consisting of nine minor lift stations and one
major lift station.
The collection system consists of approximately 29,395 linear feet of 30"
to 48" transmission pipeline, 92,331 linear feet of 20" to 27"
transmission pipeline, 121,625 linear feet of 15" to 18" transmission
pipeline, and 1,481,319 linear feet of local collection system lines (6" to
12"). This equates to over 326.6 miles of wastewater lines, and a
$210,000,000 present worth investment in the wastewater collection
system.
2007 COS
Section 2 Page 3
October 21, 2007
Terrace Height is connected to the City's wastewater system via their lift
station and connecting pipeline which discharges at the treatment plant.
In the near future, wastewater from the Moxee will be included with the
flow received from Terrace Heights.
Wastewater flow received from the Union Gap is discharged into an
interceptor flowing to the Rudkin Road lift station. After passing through
the lift station, Union Gap's wastewater flows to the collector box leading
to the treatment plant.
Agreement for Wastewater Treatment and Disposal Facilities:
In 1976, the City entered into an Agreement for Treatment and Disposal
Services with the County, Union Gap and Terrace Heights. At the time
the four parties entered into the Agreement, it was recognized that
planning for the future disposal of wastes was needed to meet water
pollution control requirements and eliminate health hazards.
In the Agreement, the City agreed to accept wastewater, within certain
quality limitations, delivered to it by the County, Union Gap and Terrace
Heights for processing through the City's Regional Wastewater Treatment
Plant.
At the time the original Agreement was adopted, as now, the County did
not own or operate its own collection system or treatment facilities. The
County was given the right to provide service in unincorporated local
service areas, and to enter into appropriate agreements with the City only
in the event that neither the City, Terrace Heights, nor Union Gap can
provide acceptable service to customers the County proposes to serve.
The City of Union Gap and Terrace Heights were responsible for operating
and maintaining wastewater interceptor and pumping facilities necessary
to deliver wastewater to the City's system.
Through the Agreement, the City was given responsibility for establishing
retail rates and charges for the non -owner customers (County), and
wholesale user rates for Union Gap and Terrace Heights. It was specified
that rates should reflect the cost of service for the City to intercept,
treat, and dispose of the wastewater from these agency's systems.
Eligible costs include system administration, operation, maintenance,
taxes, repair and replacement, and debt service for existing and new
collection, treatment and disposal facilities including requirements of
resolutions surrounding the issuance of revenue bonds.
2007 COS
Section 2 Page 4
July 11, 2007
Per the Agreement, all wastewater of the County, Union Gap, and Terrace
Heights was to be metered at the expense of the system requesting
service.
In 1997 a Settlement Agreement was negotiated between those of the
4 -Parties who had customers. This Agreement clarified wholesale rate,
system ownership, and capital cost issues between those parties (Yakima
City, Union Gap, and Terrace Heights).
The 4 -Party Agreement also: 1) provides the City with the right to sample
wastewater discharges of its customers for the purpose of special charges or
identifying unhealthful or incompatible discharges; 2) requires a Special
Agreement to be signed with customers discharging wastes of unusual
quantity or strengths; and, 3) provides EPA the authority to require
correction of the excessive infiltration/inflow occurring within the collection
systems.
In 1979, the City Council reviewed the Yakima Urban Area Wastewater
Facilities and Planning programs. The Council directed City staff to prepare a
Resource Allocation Plan within the following guidelines:
• The City of Yakima would continue to maintain sole and complete
ownership of the treatment plant resources.
• The City's sole responsibility was to make available to various
jurisdictions a fixedamount of treatment plant and interceptor
capacities as designated by the Yakima Area Wastewater
Agreement and Yakima Wastewater Facilities Planning Study.
• The County would not be allocated any capacity until such time as it
had constructed and had operational a wastewater system.
• The City would assure that sufficient treatment plant and
interceptor capacities would be available to wholesale users per the
before mentioned Allocation Plan.
• Future capital costs for treatment plant improvements should be
distributed to areas that exceed the allocations established for them
by the Allocation Plan.
• Unincorporated areas served by the City's collection system will
proportionately decrease the allocation for the remaining areas.
2007 COS
Section 2 Page 5
July 11, 2007
• Interceptor capacities within individual service areas (other than
wholesale user service areas) should be based upon the capacities
that have already been committed.
The Resource Allocation Plan was not intended to modify the terms of the
1976 Agreement, but was intended to use past agreements and policies to
define future courses of action.
In summary, the steps in implementing the Resource Allocation Plan involved:
• Developing a comprehensive wastewater system plan which
establishes the existing collection system's ability, by drainage
basins, to accommodate sewage flows.
• Establishing percentage allocations of treatment plant capacity to
the wholesale user jurisdictions for their respective service areas.
• Developing a method for the County to receive a service area
allocation if/when the County were to provide service to customers
in its service area.
• Administering the allocation program through wastewater system
capital improvement programming and future land use decisions.
With respect to executing the steps in the program, allocations of capacity
for wholesale users were to be based on flows (average daily flow in mgd)
and design populations associated with each agency, combined with
allocations of capacity, that insured that each agency had a sufficient level of
service.
The original allocations of capacity, based on only the hydraulic capacity of
the treatment plant, were established in 1979 as follows:
Percent
City (and County of Yakima) 90.4
Town of Union Gap 5.4
Terrace Heights Wastewater District 4�Q
100.0
These capacity allocations were amended in 1987 to reflect the purchase of
82% of the South Broadway interceptor by Union Gap, which increased their
capacity in the City's Treatment Facility. The allocations of capacity were
changed to:
2007 COS
Section 2 Page 6
July 11, 2007
Percent
City (and County of Yakima) 87.9
Town of Union Gap 8.1
Terrace Heights Wastewater District 4,Q
100.0
Review of the Federal Regulations Affecting Wastewater Rates:
Background and General Provisions. The City has been a recipient of
Federal grant funds that were used to upgrade and expand existing
wastewater facilities. The grant funded construction projects were
completed in 1983 and 1993. Having used Federal grant funds to pay for
portions of its facilities, the City is subject to rules and regulations of the
Federal grant program for the life of the facilities constructed with such
funds.
The City currently has an approved system of wastewater service
charges. This system of charges resulted from an original rate study: (1)
Wastewater Rate Study, September 1978, conducted by R. W. Beck and
Associates, Seattle, Washington, and the following updates of the original
rate study; (2) Yakima Rate Study - Revised Wastewater Rates and Rate
Update, October 1981, conducted by Brown and Caldwell, Seattle,
Washington; (3) 1989 Financing Plan, prepared by City staff; (4) City of
Yakima Wastewater Utility Wastewater Cost of Service and Rate Study,
March 1990, prepared by HDR Engineering, Inc. and Public Utility Rate
Consultants (PURC); (5) 1994 Cost of Service and Rate Study, August
1994, prepared by City staff; (6) 1996 Cost of Service and Rate Study,
November 1996, prepared by City staff; (7) 1999 Wastewater Rate
Adjustment; and the latest full study was, (8) 2001 Wastewater Rate
Adjustment both prepared by City staff. Since that time, rates have been
adjusted to reflect needs of litigation and a minor capital program. For
additional details, refer to Table 2-1.
In order to receive approval of its wastewater service charge system, and
be eligible for grant funds for construction, the City was required to:
• Obtain approval of a plan of study for its existing facilities.
• Obtain award of a grant for the construction of facilities and
obtain issuance of a notice to proceed with construction.
2007 COS
Section 2 Page 7
July 11, 2007
The source of these requirements for establishment of a wastewater
service charge system is contained in Regulations of the Environmental
Protection Agency.
Provisions of the regulations (from 40 CFR Part 35.2140) directing the
City to establish a wastewater service charge system require that:
• Each user or user class pay its proportionate share of operation
and maintenance (including replacement) costs of treatment
works based on the user's proportionate contribution to the
total wastewater loading from all users.
• Each user charge system must provide that each user be
notified, at least annually, in conjunction with a regular bill, of
the rate and that portion of the user charge which are
attributable to wastewater treatment services.
• The user charge system shall provide that the costs of operation
and maintenance for all flow not directly attributable to users
(i.e., infiltration/inflow) be distributed among all users based
upon either of the following:
1) In the same manner that it distributes the costs for their
actual use, or
2) Under a system which uses one or a combination of the
following factors on a reasonable basis:
a) Flow volume of the users.
b) Land area of the users.
c) Number of hookups or discharges of the users.
• Financial management system: "Each user charge system must
include an adequate financial management system that will
accurately account for revenues generated by the system and
expenditures for operation and maintenance (including
replacement) of the treatment system, based on an adequate
budget identifying the basis for determining the annual
operation and maintenance costs and the costs of personnel,
material, energy, and administration." [40 CFR 35.2140(d)]
In addition, Federal guidelines encourage the establishment of: 1) capital
reserve funds to pay for future expansion, upgrades or rehabilitation of
the wastewater system; and 2) adequate operating reserves, called
working capital herein, with which the wastewater system can meet its bill
payment and emergency cash obligations.
2007 cos
Section 2 Page 8
July 11, 2007
Previously conducted wastewater service charge studies for the City were
also conducted considering the debt service payment and debt service
coverage obligations of the City.
Performance of the Wastewater Rate Study:
The preceding subsection sets general guidelines for performing a
wastewater cost of service and rate study that will meet EPA regulations.
The guidelines issued by EPA provide more specific directions for
allocating costs of service and structuring rates, and define many of the
rules for performing a rate study that meets EPA standards. The
covenants of the revenue bond issues used to construct the City's
wastewater system facilities must also be observed in developing the
financial plan and revenue requirement portions of this study.
It is an objective of this cost of service and rate study to observe the
guidelines of the Federal grant program for a wastewater service charge
system. Among those guidelines are the following:
• Determination of annual revenue requirements. Annual revenue
requirements are developed through performance of a financial
projection of a 3 -year planning period (fiscal years 2008-2010).
• Determination of annual debt service and coverage
requirements, including desired deposits to capital and operating
reserve funds.
• Determination of costs of providing service for customer
classes, as are defined by EPA regulations.
• Appropriate development and application of capital fees to the
payment of capital costs.
• Development and design of appropriate wastewater service
charges and other charges.
To satisfy the above, the following grant program guidelines included in
the regulations are observed in the performance of this study:
2007 COS
Section 2 Page 9
July 11, 2007
• Wastewater service charges should provide for operating
expenses of the wastewater system.
• Operating expenses are defined as day-to-day operating
costs of the wastewater system, such as treatment,
pumping, transmission, collection, monitoring and
administrative costs, and system replacement costs.
• System replacement costs include such expenses as costs of
pumps, motors, telemetry and electrical controls, air
scrubbing equipment, chlorination and dechlorination
equipment, vehicles, radios, etc. Replacement costs may be
determined by application of annual depreciation expense
(straight line basis), or by determination of annual
replacement costs projected for the next 3 -year planning
period. System replacement costs are those normal repair
and replacement costs that keep existing facilities running
during normal life expectancies. System replacement costs
do not include major rehabilitation costs, structural
rehabilitation, or expansions and upgrades to the system.
• Major rehabilitation costs, structural rehabilitation, and
expansions and upgrades to the wastewater system are
regarded as capital expenditures, in contrast to operating
expenses, and are funded in part through connection and
other capital fees and contributions.
• Capital (and connection) fees may not be used to pay for
wastewater system operating expenses, including system
replacement costs. (In this manner, capital fees can be set
at appropriate levels.)
• Capital (and connection) fees may be used to pay for annual
debt service costs on financing obtained to construct
facilities, or to .establish capital reserve funds to provide for
future facilities requirements.
If capital fees do not appropriately recover capital costs, the burden of
recovering debt service and total capital costs, as well as operating
expenses, falls on wastewater service charges.
In the development of a financial plan, it is the intent of this study to
establish the reasonable and appropriate level of wastewater service
2007 COS
Section 2 Page 10
July 11, 2007
charges and capital fees through which the City can continue its
wastewater system operations on a financially sound basis and construct
the required facilities that are needed to serve present and future
customers.
In addition to the preceding, the following additional guidelines are
observed relating to cost of service allocations:
• Customer classes of service (wholesale and retail) will be
identified in accordance with EPA regulations. These may
include, for retail customers, subdividing residential, commercial
and industrial customers into sub -classes of service, and
separately costing large customers (over 25,000 gpd, or
contributing more than 5% of total flow).
• Cost allocations will be performed by first classifying costs of
treatment services to cost parameters (flow, BOD, TSS, etc.)
and second, by dividing the classified costs by annual loadings
to obtain unit costs.
• Costs of special treatment facilities constructed to process
specific types of waste will be allocated to customers who
discharge such wastes.
• Costs of engineering, contingencies, and other miscellaneous
capital costs may be prorated among the treatment cost
parameters.
• Administrative and other customer related costs will be
identified and may be allocated to customers on the basis of
numbers of accounts, or some other equitable basis.
• Wastewater service charges must recover operating expense
and replacement costs in proportion to total wastewater
loadings on the wastewater system.
• Industries, which reserve additional capacity in the wastewater
system, must pay for the additional capital costs and operating
expense associated with that reserved capacity.
2007 COS
Section 2 Page 11
July 11, 2007
Financial Policies and Issues - Outside City Rates:
Recent Proposals on Wastewater Rates, It is intended that the
wastewater cost of service and rate study performed herein be a
technical review of the operating and capital costs associated with
running the City's wastewater system facilities as pertains to the
determination of annual revenue and funding requirements, and
allocations of costs of service to system customers for the purpose of
determining equitable wastewater service charges and other fees.
The City performed a user study for its wastewater operations in 1987
and 1988, aimed at determining the level of increases in wastewater
service charges required to support proposed financing and other cost
increases associated with the expansion of its treatment and collection
system facilities.
The City's engineering consultant, HDR Engineering, Inc., also prepared a
Financial Planning analysis section as part of its Comprehensive Plan For
Wastewater System study, completed in October 1988. This work was
performed to describe the financial situation and costs faced by the City's
wastewater system at that time and in future years with the expansions
projects and to discuss possible sources of income, which included
charges for services, grant funding for the City's proposed capital
projects, and the issuance of financing to provide for the local share of
project costs.
The financial projection and plan performed in this study combines and
updates proposals contained in the City's 1990 user rate study.
In 1990, Yakima County took exception to the proposed increase in the
surcharge rate applied to out -of -City (County) retail customers. The
actual increase that was implemented for out -of -City retail customers was
substantially less than the amount recommended in the 1990 Cost of
Service and Rate Study.
History of Outside City Policy and Surcharge - County of Yakima
Customers. The City has an extensive history pertaining to the extension
of City utility services outside its corporate boundaries. Early City policy
(1965-1968) encouraged annexation to the City. It was recognized that
some areas could not be annexed and fringe development often occurred
without proper planning controls. In 1968, the City passed Resolution No.
D-1250 that stated that property owners requesting utility services
2007 COS
Section 2 Page 12
July 11, 2007
outside the City limits conform to City General Plan and development
codes.
In 1974, the City, County, Union Gap and Terrace Heights signed the
Agreement for Wastewater Treatment and Disposal Service that granted
the City responsibility for providing wastewater service to an area many
times larger than had been previously served. In 1976, an Urban Area
Agreement was adopted, which defined the obligations of the City and
established the direction for the City to embark on an sequential
annexation plan which recognized the provision of utility services to
outside City (County) residents.
The outside City surcharge had been in effect since before 1976 when
the Urban Area Agreement was adopted. The City viewed the outside
utility surcharge as an interim step in the provision of public services to
outside City customers in that City customers are owners of the
wastewater system and County customers are non -owners. The
surcharge rate was initially set by using a figure of 50%, which appears to
have been similar, to what other Washington State wastewater utilities
were charging. With the use of this surcharge, rates were set which
represented, but never exceeded, the actual cost of serving this
customer class.
Existing City Policy on County of Yakima Retail Customers: With the
adoption of the 1990 City report and as affirmed in the 1991 County
report, the utility basis of accounting was reaffirmed to be used to
determine the costs of providing service to County (non -owner) retail
customers. The American Water Works Association (AWWA)
recommendation for determining costs of providing services to outside
City (non -owner) customers is that the utility basis of accounting be
used to determine these costs. When the costs of service are defined
using the utility basis of accounting for non -owner customers, the
remaining customers of the utility system must pay for the remaining
cash requirements of the operation. (Ref. Water Rates, American Water
Works Association, Manual of Water Supply Practice, (AWWA M1) fourth
edition 1991)
Excerpts from the AWWA manual M-1 reflecting this policy are:
• "The utility approach to determining revenue requirements is...
an appropriate method for determining the costs of service
2007 COS
Section 2 Page 13
July 11, 2007
applicable to customers served outside of the corporate limits
by a government-owned utility."
• "The use of the utility approach can reduce controversy since it
generally results in more stable rates, which are not so
immediately affected by the level of system capital expenditures
as are rates developed under the cash -needs approach".
• "A publicly owned utility may be considered to be the property
of the citizens within the City. Customers within the City are
owner customers, who must bear the risks and responsibilities of
utility ownership. Outside City customers are non -owner
customers and, as such, bear a different responsibility for costs
than do owner customers."
• "The costs to be born by outside -City (non -owner) customers
are similar to those attributable to the customers (non -owners)
of an investor-owned utility. Such costs include operation and
maintenance expense, depreciation expense, and an appropriate
return on the value of property devoted to serving the outside -
City customers."
Cash Vs. Utility Basis of Accounting The cash basis of accounting
determines the revenue requirement of a utility on the basis of cash
receipts and cash outlays as they fall due. The four primary elements of
cash basis accounting are:
• Operating Expense: Operating expenses are the costs of
operating the wastewater system on a day-to-day basis, and
include costs of operating and maintaining the wastewater
treatment plant and collection and disposal facilities of the
wastewater_ system, administrative costs, and system
replacement costs.
• Debt Service: Debt service consists of payments of principal
and interest on short and long term financing incurred by the
wastewater system for major equipment purchases or
construction of facilities, obligations to debt -service reserves,
and coverage on bonded debt.
• Capital Outlays: Capital outlays consist of system upgrades or
improvements to the wastewater system, or the purchases of
2007 cos
Section 2 Page 14
July 11, 2007
equipment paid in cash generated from revenues or connection
fees.
• Taxes. Taxes paid to governing agencies, such as property
taxes, gross receipts taxes, franchise or other types of taxes.
Taxes may be characterized under operating expenses.
Public utilities, such as the City's wastewater system, are public agencies,
owned by their customer -users. Almost all customer owned public
utilities set their revenue requirements using the cash basis of
accounting. (See Table 2-1).
The utility basis of accounting determines the revenue requirement
(and rate level) using different cost elements than the cash basis. Debt
service and capital outlays are replaced by depreciation expense and a
rate of return allowance. Depreciation expense, as it enters into
determining the utility's rate level, is a substitution for the principal
payments made by a utility under the cash basis. The rate of return
allowance (return on investment) is a reimbursement to the utility and its
owners to pay for the interest costs on its debt, provide an allowance for
equity payments which the utility uses to purchase capital equipment or
facilities needed, and provide an allowance for a return on investment to
be made to its owners for risking capital.
The three elements of the utility basis of accounting are:
• Operating Expense: Operating expenses are the costs of
operating the wastewater system on a day-to-day basis, and
include costs of operating and maintaining the wastewater
treatment plant and collection and disposal facilities of the
wastewater system, administrative costs, and system
replacement costs.
• Depreciation Expense. "Depreciation is the loss in value of
facilities, not restored by current maintenance, that occurs due
to wear and tear, decay, inadequacy, and obsolescence. The
annual depreciation expense component of revenue
requirements provides for the recovery of the utility's capital
investment over the anticipated useful life of the depreciable
assets. It is, therefore, proper that this expense be borne by
the customers benefiting from use of these assets. ... The
funds resulting from the inclusion of depreciation expense in the
2007 COS
Section 2 Page 15
July 11, 2007
annual revenue requirement are the property of the utility and
are available for use as a source of capital for replacement,
improvement, or expansion of its system or for repayment of
debt." AWWA Manual M1 Water Rates.
• Rate of Return Allowance (Return on Investment): "The return
component is intended to pay the annual interest cost of debt
capital and provide a fair rate of return for the total equity
capital employed to finance physical facilities used to provide
utility service.
The utility approach of determining revenue requirements
requires the establishment of a rate base, defined to be the
value of the assets on which the utility is entitled to earn a
return, and the fixing of a fair rate of return on the rate base.
The rate base is primarily composed of the value of the utility's
plant and property useful in serving the public. In addition, it is
proper to include an allowance in the rate base for material and
supplies, working capital, and construction work in progress. On
the other hand, contributions in aid of construction and
customer advances for construction are generally deducted from
utility plant in service for rate -base determination." AWWA
Manual M1 Water Rates.
The rate base is the historical cost of investment in plant
facilities less accumulated depreciation, contributions in aid of
construction and grant funds).
The setting of a rate of return for a utility involves consideration
of the cost of outstanding debt, the market rates for dividend
payments, and the amount of cash -paid capital required by the
utility to meet its equity or equity growth requirements.
Use of the utility basis of accounting to set rate levels recognizes the
proprietary interest that owners have in the utility; in this case, city retail
customers' ownership of the wastewater system. These owners have
contributed capital to construct the facilities that benefit both
themselves and other users.
2007 COS
Section 2 Page 16
July 11, 2007
TABLE 2-1
CITY OF YAKIMA - WASTEWATER UTILITY
CASH VS. UTILITY BASIS OF ACCOUNTING
Cash Basis
Operating Expenses*
Debt Service -Principal
Debt Service -Interest
* Includes taxes
Utility Basis
Operating Expenses*
Depreciation Expense
Rate of Return Allowance -
(Interest on Debt, Return on Equity
Capital)
The Utility Basis, of Accounting in Use: When the utility basis of
accounting is used, such as when the City uses the utility basis to set
rates for County retail customers of the wastewater system, the City's
intent is to collect for costs of operations and maintenance, depreciation,
and a return on investment. The latter charges County customers for
interest costs on debt, cash -paid capital outlays, and a payment to
compensate system owners for contributed capital.
The City's practice is to set revenue requirements using the cash basis.
The City then deducts revenue anticipated from retail customers in the
County and septage customers, computed using the utility basis, and the
revenue anticipated from wholesale municipal customers (Union Gap and
Terrace Heights) and wholesale industrial customers from total revenue
requirements. After these deductions, the remaining cash requirements
of the system must be paid by City retail customers.
Elimination of a "Surcharge" Factor; The City no longer uses a surcharge
factor. Prior to implementation of the recommendations of the 1994
COS, a "surcharge" factor was established and applied toward City retail
wastewater rates to establish rates for County customers. Therefore, if
the City rates went up $1.00 the County rates went up $1.00 (times)
the "surcharge" factor.
2007 COS
Section 2 Page 17
July 11, 2007
Under a proper Utility Basis method there is no such direct link between
the City and County rates. The County rates are established using the
"utility basis". The City rates are established using a "cash basis". At
any given point in time there will be a ratio (what has been called a
surcharge factor) between the two. This ratio is not fixed. Rates
established by a utility basis are governed by depreciation schedules that
tend to be more stable then those established on a cash basis that can
be subject to sudden cash requirement of the system. Depending on the
amount of cash financing used and the term of debt repayment, this
ratio could be less than 1.0.
Each time a rate study analysis is done, rates for retail customers living in
the County must be calculated based on the ongoing depreciation
schedule and are not subject to the short-term cash requirement of the
system.
In the event the City were to set rates for the customers living in the
County using the cash basis, City customers would be deprived of
compensation for capital used in the construction of facilities for others
and compensation for assuming the risk in investing in facilities from
which revenues are not guaranteed.
Commencing in 1994, there was no longer any surcharge factor. Rates
for all classes of customers are determined on a cost to serve basis,
Legal Responses to the County's Response to the Surcharge
Proposal:
The City engaged the law offices of Preston, Gates & Ellis, Seattle,
Washington to review statutory and case law in the State of Washington
relative to levying rates and charges on non-resident utility customers.
The findings of these reviews are summarized as follows:
• It is well established that a public utility may segregate non-
resident customers into a separate rate classification and charge
them higher rates.
• Rates need not precisely reflect cost of service. However, rates
for non-resident customers must be reasonable and
reasonableness must be judged on cost of service as well as
other factors, such as location inside or outside the City.
2007 COS
Section 2 Page 18
July 11, 2007
• Inability to isolate the costs precisely, as may occur by using
both the cash and the utility bases of accounting, does not
invalidate an allocation (of revenue requirements).
• The City is permitted to charge a return on investment to non-
resident customers for the facilities used and useful in providing
service to such customers. An investor/owner utility rate of
return amount, or percentage, provides a useful reference.
• The City is under no obligation to establish a specific reserve
fund, nor is the City constrained to use the funds collected for
depreciation for the sole benefit of non -owner customers.
2007 COS
Section 2 Page 19
July 11, 2007
TABLE 2-1
History of Wastewater Rates
Date
Ordinance
Ready to
Rdy to Serve
Volume
Volume
Av month bill
Bill
Non -Owner
Strong,
Waste
Septage
Comments
Effective
Serve
% Change
% Change
10
% Change
Rate
BOD
TSS
U.O.C.
5/1/57
B-2027
$1.00
.25 over 700
$1.75
33.33% of water bill. First separate sewer billing.
9/30/73
1556
$2.00
75% of water
$4.31
146.29%
150%
11/9/78
2220
$2.00
$0.41
$6.10
41.53%
150%
0.0704
0.0303
0&M, WW Facility Planning, debt serve for WW proj.
Extend minimum charge to all parcels w/I service area.
11/25/80
2471
nc
nc
0.012
1/1/82
2567
$3.24
62.00%
$0.51
24.39%
$8.34
36.72%
150%
0.04
0.01
Debt service for construction bond issue.
2605
B&C Rate Study (Strong Waste Program Authorized)
1/1/83
2567
$3.69
$0.64
150%
0.08
0.02
0.019
Increases except Septage superceded by ordinance 2657
2605
1/1/83
2657
$4.17
28.70%
$0.73
43.14%
$11.47
37.53%
0.08
0.02
Litigation settlement. Financing City share debt service
for WW Facility Project.
1/30/84
Utility Tax Rates
7/15/85
2880
$4.26
2.16%
$0.75
2.74%
$11.76
2.53%
State Tax Increase
1/25/87
3067
Utility Tax Rates
1/1/89
3156
$4.94
15.96%
$0.87
16.00%
$13.64
15.99%
150%
0.08
0.02
0.031
0&M Increases, operational cash reserve
Anticipate debt service for upcoming project.
1/1/90
3156
$5.73
15.99%
$1.01
16.09%
$15.83
16.06%
150%
Per 1990 COS, debt payment for project.
2/1/91
3320
0.11
0.06
0.044
6/30/91
3365
Changed Utility tax Rates
1/1/92
3351
$6.22
8.55%
$1.10
8.91%
$17.22
8.78%
Per 1990 COS, debt payment for project.
8/26/92
3351
176%
Surcharge increase not effective until 8/26/92
1/22/92
3426
$6.24
0.32%
$1.10
0.00%
$17.24
0.12%
NPDES Permit Fee increase.
10/18/92
3488
Changed Utility tax Rates
3/1/93
93-1
0.0873
Septage Rate Increase
1/2/94
93-110
$6.24
0.00%
$1.115
1.36%
$17.39
0.87%
State Excise Tax increase
Page
TABLE 2-1
History of Wastewater Rates
Date
Ordinance
Ready to
Rdy to Serve
Volume
Volume
Av month bill
Bill
Non -Owner
Stron.
Waste
Septage
Comments
Effective
Serve
% Change
% Change
10
% Change
Rate
BOD
TSS
U.O.C.
1/16/94
93-113
Changed Utility tax Rates
1/23/95
94-79
, $6.77
8.49%
$1.21
8.52%
$18.87
8.51%
Utility Basis
0.162
0.100
0.164
1994 COS Phase One °
1/23/96
94-79
$7.33
8.27%
$1.31
8.26%
$20:43
8.27%
Utility Basis
0.214
0.140
0.195
1994 COS Phase Two l
3/24/97
97-13 --
$7.55-
3.00%
$1.35
3.05%
$21.05
3.03%
Utility Basis
0.214
0.140
0.230
1996 COS Phase One
1/1/98
97-13
$7.78
3.05%
$1.39
2.96%
$21.68
2.99%
Utility Basis
0.214
0.140
0.265
1996 COS Phase Two
12/31/99
99-47
$8.17
5.01 %
$1.46
5.04%.
$22.77
5.03%
Utility Basis
0.225
0.147
0.278
5% for litigation expenses
12/24/00
00-55
$8.17
0.00%
$1.46
0.00%
$22.77
0.00%
Utility Basis
0.225
0.147
0.278
re-enact previously set rates
5/20/01
01-17
$8.33
1.96%
$1.49
2.05%
$23.23
2.02%
Utility Basis
0.230
0.150
0.284
2% increase for Trickling Filter modifications
4/8/02
02-10
$11.48
37.82%
$2.01
34.90%
$31.58
35.94%
Utility Basis
0.244
0.178
0.316
2001 COS and Rate Study
6/22/03
03-30
$12.05
4.97%
$2.11
4.98%
$33.15
4.97%
Utility Basis
0.272
0.223
0.324
5% for litigation expenses'
11/9/03
03-63
$13.01
7.97%
$2.28
8.06%
$35.81
8.02%
Utility Basis
0.294
0.241
0.337
5% for litigation expenses, plus 3% for Capital
1/1/04
03-63
0.312
0.286
SW step increses
1/18/04
03-75
Pretreatment issues
1/1/05
03-63
0.332
0.339
SW step increses
6/19/05
05-23
$13.34
2.54%
$2.34 _
2.63%
$36.74
2.60%
Utility Basis
0.332
0.339
2.5% to Offset lower connection charges
4
Page 2 of 2
SECTION 3
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS
Wastewater Funds:
The wastewater utility's finances are divided into four Funds; Fund 472
(Wastewater Facilities Capital Reserve Fund), Fund 473 (Wastewater
Operating Fund), Fund 476 (Wastewater Collection System Project Fund),
and Fund 478 (Wastewater Facilities Project Fund).
Fund 472 Wastewater Facilities Capital Reserve Fund
During 2008-2010, this fund will continue to support ongoing major
repair and maintenance projects and minor capital projects at the
wastewater treatment plant. These projects include rebuilds and
industrial coating of plant basins and equipment due to the severe service
requirements of the facility. We have scheduled a major rehabilitation of
the existing Dystor Digester Covers to be financed from this fund for
2008.
The City, Union Gap, and Terrace Heights make annual capital
contributions in proportion to their allocated treatment capacity (Yakima
87.9%, Union Gap 8.1 %, Terrace Heights 4.0%). The total annual
contribution totals $150,000. Other revenue includes interest on any
reserve balance.
Anticipated project expenditures are shown in Table 3-5. Revenues and
total fund budget are shown in Table 3-1.
Fund 473 Wastewater Operating Fund
This fund is not a capital fund and is addressed in section 4 of this report.
2007 COS
Section 3 Page 1
October 21, 2007
Fund 476 Wastewater Collection System Project Fund
The proposed capital expenditures from the Collection System
Improvements Fund (476), during the period 2006 through 2010, are
most dependant upon the proposed rate adjustment. This fund finances
rehabilitation of existing lines, extension of interceptors, and installation
of neighborhood collection systems. Many miles of the City's sewer pipe
are now well over their anticipated life expectancy.
Rehabilitation/replacement of this aging infrastructure will be an
increasing cost in the years ahead. Although strides have been made,.
there remain several hundred houses in the City that do not yet have
access to a public sewer. Major investment is required to provide
adequate service to enhance in -fill development and protect the health
and welfare of the urban residential core.
Table 3 -3 -(Proposed) lists the projects currently under consideration.
The projects listed under Collection Piping - Neighborhood Wastewater
improvement include the installation of collection systems in low income
City neighborhoods that have a history of septic failures. These areas
include the Fruitvale, East Mead, and North 4th Street areas. A program
has been developed through the City's Department of Community and
Economic Development to financially assist the residents in these
neighborhoods with sewer connections. This budget also includes some
collection piping to fulfill City contractual obligations.
The projects listed under New Trunks/Interceptors include a City pipe
along the Speedway to the Race Street Lift Station, an interconnection
from the new jail to the new pipe along 1-82, and the next phase of the
interceptor across the Congdon property.
The projects listed under Remediate Existing System will
repair/rehabilitate existing pipes and/or relieve bottlenecks within the
existing system. This construction will be required as deteriorated pipes
are discovered. The City has budgeted full cost for these projects, as
replacement costs are typically included in monthly service charges.
The projects listed under New Trunks/Interceptors will expand the area
we are able to serve. Current City practice does not initiate any
extensions of Trunks/Interceptors. The timing and initial financing of
extensions should be driven by the development community, groups of
homeowners, or major road construction. The City will participate with
sizing and location of these extensions and may provide financial
assistance by participating in the incremental "oversize" of the Trunks
2007 COS
Section 3 Page 2
October 21, 2007
and/or through the creation of "reimbursable agreements". The actual
percentage of City involvement will vary from project to project. For this
report, an average of 25% of the project cost of the New
Trunks/Interceptors is considered to be future City expense, These City
expenses would be recovered through a full cost Wastewater Connection
Charge program.
With implementation of the revised Wastewater Connection Charge
(WCC), limited revenue is available for system expansion (see TABLE 3-2
P). For this report, staff estimates that 50% of all WCC revenue will go
toward collection system construction.
To assist funding these projects and retaining a positive reserve balance
in this fund through the planning period, the City has budgeted an annual
cash transfer into Fund 476 from Fund 473. This transfer consists of a
major portion of the money collected for debt service coverage during
the previous year (See TABLE 4-9). These transfers are ultimately and
practically dependent on actual cash balance position with respect to
revenues received versus revenues anticipated in this or future studies.'
TABLES 3 -3 -(Existing) shows that an attempt to maintain a positive fund
balance with the significantly reduced Capital Transfers available if no rate
increase is realized. As demonstrated, money available for investment in
the City's future quickly disappears. The future of any collection system
investment is totally dependant on this proposed rate increase.
Neither Union Gap nor Terrace Heights contribute to this fund.
The transfers, revenues, expenditures, and reserves for Fund 476 as
shown on Table 3 -2 -(Proposed) and 3 -2 -(Existing) are:
PROPOSED Rate Increase:
Year
2008
2009
2010
Oper trans
921,000
1,000,000
1,600,000
EXISTING Rates:
Year
2008
2009
2010
2007 COS
Section 3 Page 3
October 21, 2007
Oper trans
921,111
50,000
Zero
Revenue
1,441,350
1,447,466
2,054,491
Revenue
1,500,460
495,383
456,512
Expense
2,115,000
1,554,163
2,054,334
Expense
2,1 15,000
520,000
600,000
Reserve
709,322
602,625
602,782
Reserve
667,660
643,043
499,555
Fund 478 Yakima Wastewater Facilities Project Fund
In 2004, City staff and Black and Veatch Engineering, Inc. prepared the
2004 Wastewater Facility Plan. This document looks to the capital and
operations and maintenance requirements (including staffing) of the
wastewater system to serve the area for the next 20 years. Submittal of
a Council adopted Plan to Ecology is mandated under WAC 173-240.
Approval by Ecology is required to allow the City to be eligible to
compete for any Federal or State funding options. The guidelines for the
Plan are also found in WAC 173-240.
Indicated in this document are extensive investment needs over the next
6 - 20 years for Mandates, Renewal/Reliability, and Growth. Specific
facility needs are listed on Tables 1-12, 1-13, and 1-14 of the Plan and
are also listed on Table 3-5 of this report. The needs during the next 6
years alone (2004-2010) for the treatment facility ($18,500,000 of
which 90% is mandated). Without the proposed rate adjustment, only a
limited number of these construction projects will be possible. Without
the mandated projects, the plant might fail to meet Clean Water Act
regulations that could expose the City and elected officials to civil and
criminal penalties. As an alternative a moratorium on new connections
may soon be required in the City's service area.
Compliance with federal and/or state mandatory regulations requires
adequate funding sources regardless of ability to pay. Although the
federal and/or state regulatory agencies sometimes provide partial
funding for mandated improvements in the form of grants and/or loans,
those resources have been drastically diminished over the last decade.
As a consequence, the City of Yakima and the Yakima Regional WWTP will
be required to use wholesale and retail revenues to pay a substantial
portion (as much as 98% or more) of the total cost either as cash or
through debt payments. The impact to wholesale and retail rates will be
significant.
To assist funding these expenditures and assist in retaining an adequate
balance of funds during the planning period, it is anticipated that a $5.5
million loan or revenue bond will be obtained in 2008 and another $6.0
million in 2011. The timing of the new bonds corresponds with the
payoff of existing Wastewater bonds such that the annual debt payment
obligation to the budget remains fairly even. Therefore, the issuance of
these bonds, by themselves, does not drive this proposed rate
adjustment. Also, this proposal plans for an annual transfer of one half of
2007 COS
Section 3 Page 4
October 21, 2007
the Connection Charge revenue and a cash transfer from the Operating
Fund (473). The total transfer is set at $879,000 annually. This transfer
consists of a portion of the money collected for debt service coverage
during the previous year (see TABLE 4-9). These transfers are ultimately
and practically dependent on actual cash balance position with respect to
revenues received versus revenues anticipated in this or future studies.
With implementation of the revised Wastewater Connection Charge
(WCC), additional revenue will be available for construction related to
plant expansion. For this report, staff estimates that 50% of all WCC
revenue collected will go toward Treatment Facility construction.
In 2007, we were fortunate to receive a PWTF loan to assist in the
conversion of the treatment facility's chlorination system to an Ultra
Violet Light (UV) disinfection system. This $2.7 million project is being
funded through Fund 478.
Neither Union Gap nor Terrace Heights contribute directly to this fund.
They currently are contributing their allocated portion of our Debt Service
payments to Fund 473 from which the debt payments are made. They
also currently contribute their allocated portion of Debt Service Coverage.
These payments are credited toward their allocation of local cash
expenses related to projects financed by this fund.
The transfers, revenues, expenditures, and reserves for Fund 478 as
shown on Table 3-4 are:
Year Op trans Revenue Expense Reserve
2008 479,000 7,972,467 7,187,473 2,796,324
2009 467,000 1,144,816 3,016,1 13 925,027
2010 454,640 1,051,251 356,508 1,619,770
During the time frame covered by this COS (2008-2010), the budget for
the 478 Fund is anticipated to remain the same with or without a rate
increase. Significant reductions would be required in the years ahead if
rate increases are not implemented.
2007 COS
Section 3 Page 5
October 21, 2007
TABLE 3-1
FUND 472
Wastewater Treatment Facility Reserve
Description 2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
Cash Balance Forward 549,118
659,584
752,088
824,088
256,088
343,893
REVENUE
City of Yakima (Trans. from 473 Fund) 131',850
131,850
131,850
131,850
131,850
131,850
(Debt Service Coverage/rates)
City of Union Gap 13,163
12,150
12,150
12,150
12,150
12,150
Terrace Height Sewer Dist. 5,500
6,000
6,000
6,000
6,000
6,000
Interest Income @5% 5,844
2,000
2,000
2,000
12,804
17,195
Total Revenue 156,356
152,000
152,000
152,000
162,804
167,195
Total Available Funds 705,474
811,584
904,088
976,088
418,893
511,087
EXPENSES
Treatment Plant Improvements
see TABLE 3-4 45,890
59,496
80,000
720,000
75,000
75,000
Fund Balance -End of Year 659,584
752,088
824,088
256,088
343,893
436,087
Fund 472 may be used for Targe maintenance expenditures or minor capital outlays for the treatment facility.
10/' n7
TABLE 3-2 Ex
FUND 476 (Existing Rates)
Interceptors/Collection System Improvements
Description
� �
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
Actual
Balance Forward
1,358.332
2.280'262
2.434.850
1.282,200
667'660
643,043
REVENUE
Interest on Investments
0
6,901
5.000
64,110
33,383
32.152
��
��
Transfers from Fund 473
2,750'000
1.050,000
300.000
921'00(T
50.000
'O
Contribution (Housing proj 1918)
73,313
�
Transfers from Connection Charges *
760, 384
620,459
O
400,000
412'000
414.368
Cubcrafters (proj 2113)
25.000
42,168
CuNgun(pro 21G9)
37,311
PVVTF Existing Loans (River Rd 2128)
461/08
0
1J30.250
115,350
0
0
total Revenue
=
4,070,096
1.756'838
2.035,250
1,500'460
495,383
456.512
Total Available Funds
5.428,428
4`037'101
4.470`200
2,782.660
1,163,043
1.039,555
EXPENSE
Collection System Construction
See Table 3-5
3,148.166
1,602,151
3.188'000
2,115,000
520'000
600.000
Fund Balance -End of Year
2.280.262
2.434'950
1,282'200
667'660
643/043
499'555
Fund 476 may be used for system wide Comprehensive Planning and Collection system construction and impro ements including Interceptors.
Assumes 50% of Connection Charge credited to476 Fund, 50% to 478 Fund.
| 1
|
10/21/07
TABLE 3-3 (Existing)
Collection System Improvements
City
Description
Fund
Estimated
Estimated
Estimated
x 2007
2008
2009
2010
2011+
Protect #
Total Project
Total
City cost
101.5%
101 7%
101.2%
101.5%
101.6%
2004 Cost
2006 Cost
through 2010
101.5%
103.2%
104.5%
106.096
107.7%
Collection Piping ( < 12") and Comprehensive Planning
Y -E Budget
Pre -Budget
0000
Collection System Improvements
476
$1,000,000
$1,000,000
$210,000
$60,000
550,000
550,000
550,000
5250,000
0000
Misc. Construction Projects
476
5550,000
550,000
5300,000
5100,000
$100,000
5500,000
1818
RailRoad Grade Separation
476
$0
$0
$150,000
5150,000
1819
Connection Charge Litigation
476
511,498
511,498
55,000
55,000
1961
UG S1st St Sewer Main Repairs
476
$22,687
$22,687
(49,525.00)
(49,525.00)
1977
West Nob Hill (52nd -62nd)
476
$399
5399
200,000.00
5200,000
2111
West Valley School Sewer Easement
476
$6,266
$6,266
1,500.00
1,500.00
2136
Historic Front Street Sewer Impr
476
$165,000
$165,000
15,000.00
15,000.00
2159
Culligan Fruitvale Sewer Replacement
476
580,000
580,000
(3,448.00)
(3,448.00)
2234
Neighborhood Wastewater Improvements
476
$600,000
$150,000
$200,000
$1,000,000
Subtotal Collection
476
51,285,850
51,285,850
51,078,527
$223_,527
$1,155,000
$300,000
$350,000
$1,750,000
New Trunks/Interceptors (10096 City)
2087
Speedway Interceptor
476
$1,751,352
$1,751,352
$170,000
$120,000
$50,000
2128
River Rd Sewer lmpr
476
$2,970,000
$2,970,000
$2,671,901
$2,521,901
$150,000
2188
40th AV & Fruitvale Sewer Sleeve
476
$90,000
590,000
$169,000
5169,000
2190
Pacific & 8th Sewer Main
476
$100,000
$100,000
562,350
$62,350
Speedway Interceptor Phase two
476
$1,751,352
$2,346,812
$0
$2,528,165
Lasalle (for Jail)
476
$200,000
$0
$215,455
2228
Congdon
476
$2,400,000
$750,000
$750,000
$2,585,464
Suntides/Naches River Interceptor (1)
476
$5,318,475
$6,594,909
$0
$7,104,542
Subtotal City Financed Trunks
476
$11,981,179
$16,453,073
$3,823,251
$2,873,251
$950,000
$0
$0
$12,433,627
Remediate Existing System
1911
Sewer System Evaluation
476
$450,000
$450,000
$30,450
5450
510,000
520,000
GIS Mapping System .
$50,000
$50,000
1.11
Repair/Rehabilitate Existing System
476
$783,000
$970,920
$350,000
$150,000
$200,000
$1,000,000
Subtotal Upsize Existing
$1,233,000
$1,420,920
$380,450
$450
$10,000
$220,000
$250,000
$1,000,000
11.5.10
New Trunks/Interceptors (2596 City)
Cowiche Canyon
476
$3,049,500
$3,781,380
$0
$4,073,592
Peck's Canyon
476
$600,000
$0
$646,366
Wide Hollow Basin (prey incl Congdon)
476
$4,810,700
$2,700,000
$0
$2,908,647
Coolidge Basin (prey incl Wash 64-72)
476
$1,492,400
$600,000
$0
5646,366
Wiley Interceptor
476
$5,248,500
$6,508,140
$0
$7,011,067
Airport West (prey incl Wash 52-62)
476
$4,820,500
$2,000,000
$0
$2,154,553
Airport South (repositioned)
476
$602,000
$2,000,000
$0
52,154,553
West Valley High
476
$1,500,000
$0
51,615,915
Summitview Ext
476
$1,200,000
$0
$1,292,732
Yakima Resources
476
$500,000
$0
$538,638
Subtotal New Trunks/Interceptors**
476
$20,023,600
$21,389,520
$0
$0
50
$0
$0
$23,042,431
CITY CASH Share @ 25%
2596
$5,005,900
$5,347,380
$0
# $0
$0
$0
$0
$5,760,608
TOTAL Facilities Plan Construction
$34,523,629
$40,549,363
$5,282,228
$3,097,228
$2,115,000
$520,000
$600,000
$38,226,058
TOTAL CITY CASH New Construction
476
$19,505,929
$24,507,223
$5,282,228
$3,097,228
$2,115,000
$520,000
$600,000
$20,944,234
** Current City policy for New Trunks/Interceptors is that financing and construction will be handled by the private developer.
The City may participate with the incremental cost to "oversize" the sewer pipes, reimbursement agreements, or possible waivers may add to the City's overall financial commitment.
For this report, the City's cash allocation is assumed to be approximately 25% of total project cost. I I 1 1
The actual timing of construction of extensions will be driven by the development community or group of home owners. The City will participate with desi n of sizing and location.
I 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 .1 I
Page 1
TABLE 3-2 (Proposed)
FUND 476
Interceptors/Cotlection System Improvements
Omxcrption
�x
'�.�.
��.
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
Actual
Balance Forward
1.358.332
2.280'262
2.434,950
1.382,972
709.322
602.625
REVENUE
Interest on Investments
0
6,901
15.000
5/000
35/486
30,131
Transfers from 'Fund 473
2,750,000
1.050.000
300/000
921.000
1/000.000
1'600,000
Contribution (Housing proj 1918)
73,313
Transfers from Connection Charges *
760.384
628,458
O
400.000
412.000
424.360
Cubcrafters (proj 2113)
25,000
42,168
Culligan (pro 2159)
37,311
PWTF Existing Loans (River Rd 2128)
461.400
0
1.730.250
115.350
O
0
total Revenue
4'070.096
1.756,838
2,845.250
1.441.350
1,447.466
2,054,491
Total Available Funds
.
5/28/28
4/037.101
4/80200
2,824,322
2.156,788
2,657,116
EXPENSE
Collection System Construction
See Table 3-S
3.148.166
1.602,151
3,037.228
2.115,000
1,554,163
2.054.334
Fund Balance -End of Year
2.280262
2'434,950
1,382'972
709.322
602.623
602782
Fund 476 may be used for system wide Comprehensive Planning and Collection system constr ction and improvements includingIntercepters.
* Assumes 58% of Connection Charge credited to 476 Fund, 50% to 478 Fund.
10/21/07
TABLE 3-3 (Proposed)
Collection System Improvements
City
Description
Fund
Estimated
Estimated
Estimated
x 2007
2008
2009
2010
2011+
Protect #
Total Project
Total
City cost
101.5%
101.7%
101.2%
101.5%
101.6%
2004 Cost
2006 Cost
through 2010
101.5%
103.2%
104.5%
106.0%
107.7%
Collection Piping ( < 12") and Comprehensive Planning
Y -E Budget
Pre -Budget
0000
Collection System Improvements
476
$1,000,000
$1,000,000
$210,000
$60,000
$50,000
$50,000
$50,000
$250,000
0000
Misc. Construction Projects
476
$750,000
550,000
$300,000
5200,000
5200,000
81,000,000
1818
RailRoad Grade Separation
476
$0
$0
$150,000
$150,000
1819
Connection Charge Litigation
476
511,498
511,498
55,000
$5,000
1961
UG Si st St Sewer Main Repairs
476
$22,687
$22,687
(49,525.00)
(49,525.00)
1977
West Nob Hill (52nd -62nd)
476
$399
$399
200,000.00
$200,000
2111
West Valley School Sewer Easement
476_
$666
$6,266
1,500.00
1,500.00
2136
_
Historic Front Street Sewer Impr
476
$165,000
$165,000
15,000.00
15,000.00
2159
Culligan Fruitvale Sewer Replacement
476
580,000
$80,000
(3,448.00)
(3,448.00)
2234
Neighborhood Wastewater Improvements
476
5600,000
5400,000
$400,000
$2,000,000
Subtotal Collection
476
$1,285,850
$1,285,850
51,278,527
$223,527
$1,155,000
5650,000
5650,000
$3,250,000
New Trunks/Interceptors (100% City)
2087
Speedway Interceptor
476
$1,751,352
$1,751352
5170,000
$120,000
$50,000
2128
River Rd Sewer lmpr
476
$2,970,000
52,970,000
$2,671,901
$2,521,901
$150,000
2188
40th AV & Fruitvale Sewer Sleeve
476
$90,000
890,000
$169,000
$169,000
2190
Pacific & 8th Sewer Main
476
$100,000
$100,000
$62,350
$62,350
Speedway Interceptor Phase two
476
$1,751,352
$2,346,812
$497,670
5497,670
$2,022,532
Lasalle (for Jail)
476
5250,000
$265,078
$265,078
2228
Congdon
476
$2,400,000
5750,000
$750,000
$2,585,464
Suntides/Naches River Interceptor (1)
476
55,318,475
$6,594,909
50
$7,104,542
Subtotal City Financed Trunks
476
511,981,179
$16,503,073
$4,585,999
$2,873,251
$950,000
50
5762,748
$11,712,538
Remediate Existing System
1911
Sewer System Evaluation
476
$450,000
$450,000
$30,450
$450
$10,000
$20,000
GIS Mapping System
550,000
$50,000
1.11
Repair/Rehabilitate Existing System
476
$783,000
$970,920
$600,000
5300,000
$300,000
$1,500,000
Subtotal Upsize Existing
$1,233,000
$1,420,920
$630,450
$450
$10,000
$370,000
$350,000
$1,500,000
11.5.10
New Trunks/Interceptors (25% City)
Cowiche Canyon
476
$3,049,500
$3,781,380
$987,547
$987,547
$3,055,194
Peck's Canyon
476
$600,000
$636,187
$636,187
Wide Hollow Basin (prey incl Congdon)
476
$4,810,700
$2,700,000
$0
$2,908,647
Coolidge Basin (prev incl Wash 64-72)
476
$1,492,400
5600,000
$626,785
$626,785
Wiley Interceptor
476
$5,248,500
$6,508,140
50
$7,011,067
Airport West (prey incl Wash 52-62)
476
$4,820,500
$2,000,000
$522,321
$522,321
$1,615,915
Airport South (repositioned)
476
$602,000
$2,000,000
50
$2,154,553
West Valley High
476
51,500,000
50
$1,615,915
Surnmitview Ext
476
$1,200,000
$0
$1,292,732
Yakima Resources
476
5500,000
$530,156
$530,156
Subtotal New Trunks/Interceptors**
476
$20,023,600
$21,389,520
$3,302,996
$0
50
$2,136,653
$1,166,343
$19,654,024
CITY CASH Share @ 25%
25%
$5,005,900
$5,347,380
$825,749
# 50
$0
$534,163
$291,586
$4,913,506
TOTAL Facilities Plan Construction
534,523,629
$40,599,363
$9,797,973
53,097,228
$2,115,000
$3,156,653
$2,929,091
$36,116,562
TOTAL CITY CASH New Construction
476
$19,505,929
$24,557,223
$7,320,725
$3,097,228
52,115,000
51,554,163
$2,054,334
$21,376,044
** Current City policy for New Trunks/Interceptors is that financing and construction will be handled by the private developer.
The City may participate with the incremental cost to "oversize" the sewer pipes, reimbursement agreements, or possible waivers may add to the City's overall financial commitment.
For this report, the City's cash allocation is assumed to be approximately 25% of total project cost. I 1 I _I
The actual timing of construction of extensions will be driven by the development community or group of home owners. The City will participate with desi n of sizing and location.
I 1 1 I 11 1 1 h I
Page 1 of
TABLE 3-4
FUND 478
Wastewater Treatment Facility
Description 2005
ActualBalance Forward 9/241,016
2006
6/934/577
2007
4/154,127
2008
2.011/330
2009
2,786,324
2010
925/027
- — .
-
REVENUE
Interest from Investments 289537
357/481
110/000
55'000
139/816
46,251_
,
Interest from Contracts 43 29
5.000
-5/000
5,000
5,000
Transfers From Fund 473
�� 0 1/800'000
1,600/000
479.000
467,000
454,640
Debt TH
10.483 13.125
40.000
40/000
40.000
40,000
Debt Coverage UG
30,498 • 30,593
40.0OD_
81/000
81,000
81 000
Debt Coverage UG/RR
1,425 1,420
3,032
3,204
•
Transfers from Connection Charges (473)•••••
••... 0 300,000
700,000
400/000
412,000
424,350
CCRC
•354 151
1,000
1/000
Misc Revenue (Bond remainder)
''.'
143'263
PWTF/SRF Loans (UV Disinfection 2182)
��
1.035,000
1.265/000
Bond
��
5,500,000
Total Revenue
�� 332/341 2/502/798
3,534/032
7/972.467
1,144/816
1/051,251
Total Available Funds
� 8/573.357 9/437/376
7,688,159
9.883/797
3,941,140
1,976/278
EXPENSES
•�
Treatment Facility
See TABLE 3-4
2638,780 5'283/249
5/576,829
7,187,473
3/016.113
356/508
�� —
--
Fund Balance -End of Year
6,934�i774,154,127
2,011,330
2.786,324
925,027
1618.77O
'- -
Fund 478 may be used for planning for and major capital projects on the Treatment
Facility.
10/1/07
TABLE 3-5
Wastewater Treatment Facility
Capital Improvement Projects
City
Project
0000:
2222
ELEMENT
_ FUND 472
Minor Capital Improvements
: Dystor Repair
i Fund
: 472
472
: Estimated
Total
2006
$900000
$670,000
Estimated : x
City Cost i
through 2010:
{
,- $280,000 i
? $670.000:
2007 2008
101.5% 101.7%
101.5% 103.2%
i $80,000 $50,000
670,000
2009
101.2%
104.5%
$75,000
2010 2011+
101.5% 101.6%
106 0% 107.7%
$75,000-_,.. $150,000
Total (includes TH & UG)
: 472: $1,570,000 $950,000
$80,000: $720,000
$75,000
$75,000: $150,000
0000
2072
2101
2206
FUND 478
In Addition to Facilities Plan
]Professional Services
THUG Litigation Case Payment
SR 24 Levy Setback
Bioxide pilot proiect
i 478
: 478
'• 478
: 478
$77,624
$94,834
$25,000
$0
$77,624
$510
$33,000
$75,00035,000
$0
$510
$3,000
•
$25,000, $26,1 16
$10,000 $10,000
$0 $20,000
$26,508
$10,000
$20,000
._$2.6„.932
2055
Subtotal
Facility Improvements
Phase One Part One (2006-2011)
: SCADA improvements
Blower Bldq/Blower/E-power
Solids Handling Building/Centrifuge procurement
Power Distribution
Odor control at new SHB
Digester Gas Piing
pp
0$5 PHASE ONE Total
Phase One Part Two (2008-20111_
Professional services (Engineering)
UV disinfection •
SCADA improvements
DAFT Repair
Centrate Storage Tanks
Grease Receiving Station
Trickling Filter Door/Walkway Covers
Replacement of secondary scum pumps
RAS Pump Improvements
Odor Control Improvements/weather protection
Upgrade secondary.clarifierlaunders
Secondary clarifier spray nozzle installation
Phase Two (2012-2018)
Retrofit Primarysplit box
Refurbish Secondary Clarifier Bull -Gears
Replace Secondary Clarifier Skimmer Mech./scum box
New secondary Clarifier
Retrofit Grit Storage hopper
Primary digester Bldg Lighting Replacement
Refurbish Daft Air compressor/Pipelines
New Primary Digester
Raise Intermediate Degritter Center Wall
New centrifuge to replace existing unit
Replacement of Waste Gas Flare
Laboratory/Instrumentation
'
:
:
.;
:
:
; 478 j
478:
, 478
{. 478
;478
478 I
: 478
..
:__.___478_ :_
: 478 I.
: 478
: 478
' 478
478
478
478:
478:
478:
478 !-
• 478
•
478:
478'.
478
. 478 a
: 478:
: 478:
478:
478 :
478:
... 478_,;.
478 I
478:
$197,458
.$2.500000
$2,600,000$3,200,900....
$1,000,000
$700,000
$2900,000
$460,000
$85,000
$80,000 _
$246,000
$1,504,000
$195,000
$1 5,000 •
$428,000
$130,000
$362,000
._$3,370,000
$1 18,000 :
$49,000:
$65,000:
$5,384,000:
$250,000
$1,196,000
$68,000:
$85,000:
t $186,134
$6,640,792
'
$450,000
$1,500,00
$750,000
$3,029,462 '
$480,535
`.. $0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
l $0
$0
-_$0._
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0 :
$38,510
_..
$5,488,319:
$1 50000
:...._
:
_.,,
!
$35,000 $56,116
:
$1,152,473
$1 50,000
$3,050,000
$1,500,000
$750,000 ,
$700,000 $2,329,462
$480,535
$56,_508:
! $300,000:
$26,932
•
•
$3,000,000
._
r $91,569
$86,182
$265,010
$1,620,224
$210,069
$16,1 59
$461,074
$140,046
$389,974
$3,630,422
$127,119
$52,787
$70,023
$5,800,058
$269,319
$1,288,423
$73,255
$91 569
2182
2221
2223
2224
:
:
:
:
Subtotal
: 478: $23,790,000: $16,050,789: $5,638,319: $7,152,473 _.$2,.959,997 :, $300,000
$17,683,281
TOTAL 478 (includes TH & UG)
{ ;_.$23,987,458-,1. $16,236,923 i $5,676,829 $7,187,473 $3,016,113: $356,508 }$17,710,213
page 1 "1
SECTION 4
OPERATION, CAPITAL TRANSFER,
AND DEBT SERVICE EXPENSES
Operation Expense:
Fund 473 contains the Wastewater Division's operating, capital transfer,
and debt service expenses.
Operation expenses are the day-to-day costs of operating and
maintaining (O&M) the wastewater system. The City categorizes its O&M
expenses by service units (SU) which reflect functions performed by the
wastewater division on the City's wastewater and surface water sewer
systems. The Wastewater Department's O&M activities fall into one of
the following service units:
SU 211
SU 213
SU 215
SU 232
SU 233
Collection System
Surface (Storm) Water System
Rudkin Road Pumping Station
Domestic Treatment Facility
Pre -Treatment Monitoring Program
Applicable related expenses for the wastewater system, such as vehicle
and fleet maintenance charges, are included in the preceding functional
categories. Each service unit is charged with an interfund transfer
amount for City Services, this covers wastewater system related
expenses incurred by other City Departments such as payroll, legal, and
finance. SU 211, and SU 233 are charged with an interfund transfer
amount for Customer Services, which pays for the cost incurred by the
City Customer Services Department, which collects account consumption
information and processes the retail customer billings.
In projecting operating expenses during the planning period, it is
necessary to recognize that expenses of the wastewater system will
escalate in response to 1) additional Federal and State mandates which
we are required to accommodate; 2) growth in the service area; 3)
increasing billed flow rates; and 4) inflation.
Each of the service units of the wastewater utility contain operating
expenses for personnel salaries and benefits, office and operating
supplies, fuel consumed, small tools, chemicals, professional services,
2007 COS
Section 4 Page 1
October 21, 2007
communications, transportation and training, advertising, rents and
leases, public utility services (primarily .electricity), repairs and
maintenance, miscellaneous expenses, state taxes, residual equity
transfers (RETs) (purchase additional rolling stock), machinery and
equipment repairs, interfund rentals/leases (sinking fund for equipment
replacement), insurance, City services (pays for support from other city
departments), and customer services (pays for billing of retail accounts).
Prior to projected operating and maintenance expenses for the City's
wastewater system, past O&M expenses were reviewed to identify
whether expense categories were increasing, decreasing or remaining at
about the same level. This information was tempered with what we
foresee for upcoming mandates related to Surface Water, Domestic
Treatment, and Pretreatment. Provision for expenses for professional
services, advertising, and prior pensions have been made relative to past
expenditures for these categories, and they are not escalated by a fixed
percentage per year.
Existing Debt Service • .ligations and Coverage Requirements:
Portions of the City's existing capital facilities for the wastewater system
were constructed using revenue bonds. In exchange for the use of funds,
to construct treatment plant and other system facilities, the City makes
annual debt service (principal and interest) payments on its revenue bond
issues. When the City issued revenue bonds, it covenanted to provide
net . revenues (gross revenues minus operating expenses) of the
wastewater system for the payment of principal and interest on all parity
bonds due in each year equal to 1.40 times the amount of debt service
due in the same year. The City's bond covenants require that the
operating expenses and debt service must be paid before transfers of
money to any other funds of the System can be made and before City
utility taxes are transferred to the City general fund.
Bond ratings are a major factor in determining interest rates on bond
issues, and reductions in debt service coverage for sustained periods of
time can jeopardize favorable bond ratings, which the City has enjoyed in
the past. The debt service coverage ratio, computed via the covenant
provision expressed in the preceding paragraph, is used by rating agency
analysis and investors as one of the primary indications of the financial
strength and security of the utility.
2007 COS
Section 4 Page 2
October 21, 2007
Adequate debt service coverage is also important to the sewer utility as a
source of cash flow. Funds remaining after payment of operating
expenses and debt service obligations provide needed cash for repairs
and replacements to the sewerage system, or for normal capital outlays,
or early retirement of debt.
On the advice of its financial advisor, and in the interest of obtaining the
lowest possible interest costs on its financing, the City has an objective
to obtain minimum debt service coverage of 2.0 This debt service
coverage of 2.0 is applied to the revenue bond payments and is shown on
the enclosed tables. To maintain this 2.0 coverage, rates must be set to
generate net system revenues (in excess of the City's annual 0&M
expenses) in an amount equal to twice the amount of debt service due in
the same year. The following year, the excess revenue generated
through maintenance of this coverage ratio is transferred to the Capital
Funds. As shown on TABLE 4-8, for this Study, under the . Proposed
transfer plan, the scheduled transfers from the 473 Fund to the Capital
Funds are set greater than the monetary infusion from debt, coverage
requirements. However, under the existing rate structure, by 2008, we
are unable to maintain that level of transfer,
The City has also been fortunate in obtaining low interest loans from
other sources. We presently are making debt service payments on
eleven loans from the Washington State Public Works Trust Fund (PWTF)
for projects at both the Treatment Facility and within the collection
system.
Capital expenditures also include cash transfers to the capital funds (472,
476, 478 as shown on TABLE 4-8) and Residual Equity Transfers (RETs).
RETs include payments to other city departments for wastewater's
portion of a capital expenditure and purchases of additional or
replacement rolling stock.
Total System Expenses:
Operating, capital, and debt service expenses and coverage are allocated
to the appropriate service unit. Historical and projected expenses are
discussed below and shown on the following tables.
SU 211 Collection: In consideration of the objective of a mandatory
preventative maintenance program for the collection system: to
anticipate problem areas and initiate action before any problems occur; to
2007 COS
Section 4 Page 3
October 21, 2007
reduce potential claims for damages resulting from system failures; and in
avoidance of future liability costs, Section 10 of the 2000 Wastewater
Facilities Plan recommended an increase of 6 full-time staff positions and
equipment. Although we acquired the new equipment, we found that
through attrition and renewed organization; our crews' productivity has
increased significantly without additional staff. Detracting from our added
efficiency, assisting the Street Department's pavement rehabilitation and
alley restoration program has impacted at least a half-time crew. Also,
we currently have one full crew and their equipment on 'loan' to the
Surface (Storm) Water Utility. We anticipate the return of this crew in
2008, when the Surface Water Utility will obtain its own funding, staff,
and equipment.
Our service area is rapidly expanding. Each year, several miles of
infrastructure are added for which we are responsible. Due to budget
restraints, this Study does not recommend any additional collection
maintenance crews during the next three years. However, in order to
maintain our existing level -of -service, we see the addition of a two -person
crew with equipment in 2011. This report does recommend the addition
of a field Utility Engineer position in 2008 (budgeted). This position
would be charged with assessing the location and condition of existing
infrastructure, scheduling and managing repair/rehabilitation projects, and
sizing and layout for all new systems both private and public. This report
recommends the expense and duties of this position be shared with the
recentky formed Surface (Storm) Water utility.
As shown on Table 4-3, budgeted operating expenses of $2,492,380 for
2007 for the collection system are projected to increase by 3.57%-
13.14% per year during the planning period. With the addition of the
additional staff, expenses are projected to increase to $3,026,154 by
2010. Collection system expenses represent about 30.8% of total 2007
operating expenses of the sewerage system. This increases to 33.6% by
2010.
Capital and debt service expenses include the collection system's share of
the outstanding '78/96 revenue bonds, transfers to capital budgets
(476), and PWTF debt service payments for collection system
construction projects, and residual equity payments on new vehicles and
collection system's portion of street construction projects.
SU 213 Storm Drainage: The wastewater utility is currently delegated
the responsibility of operating and maintaining the City's storm sewer
system. Storm Drainage does not yet have any dedicated, unique funding
2007 COS
Section 4 Page 4
October 21, 2007
source. Costs associated with this activity are included in rates assessed
to City retail wastewater customers. Beginning mid -year 2006, an
existing fully equipped wastewater crew was `loaned' to maintenance of
surface water infrastructure. As shown on Table 4-4, budgeted operating
expenses for the storm sewers for 2007 is $407,758. This Study
anticipates the newly formed Surface (Storm) Water utility will have an
independent funding source(s) in 2008, thus diminishing its burden on
Wastewater rates. However, a $300,000 investment in equipment by
this Wastewater service unit for use by Stormwater is scheduled for
2008. The storm water service unit does not presently have any debt
service obligation.
SU 215 Rudkin Road: The City separately budgets for the Rudkin Road
Pumping Station. This is the system's only major lift station. It serves
the Union Gap and City and County retail users in the southern portion of
the service area. As shown on Table 4-5, budgeted operating expenses
of $99,334 for 2007 for the Rudkin Road pumping station are projected
to increase by less than 4.0% per year in the planning period and are
projected to increase to $108,861 in 2010. We do not anticipate any
notable increase in service level of this area during the planning period.
These expenses represent about 1.2% of total current operating
expenses of the wastewater system
Capital and debt service expenses include Rudkin Road's share of the
outstanding '78/96 revenue bonds. This bond retires in 2008.
SU 232 Treatment Facility: As shown on Table 4-6, budgeted operating
expenses for treatment plant operations of the City for 2007 are
$4,427,179 and are projected to increase by slightly over 3.0% per year
during the planning period and are projected to increase to $4,986,266 in
2010. This increase anticipates the addition of 0.5 FTE Chemist (position
to be shared with SU 233 Pre-treatment). Treatment plant operating
expenses represent about 54.7% of total 2007 operating expenses of
the wastewater system. This increases to 55.3% by 2010.
Capital and debt service expenses include the treatment facility's share of
the outstanding '78/96, and '91 revenue bonds, transfers to capital
budgets (472, 478), PWTF debt service payments for treatment facility
construction projects, and the buildup of reserves in Fund 473. It is
anticipated that an additional $5.5 million will be borrowed to finance
treatment facility construction during the 3 -year period. Debt service
2007 cos
Section 4 Page 5
October 21, 2007
payments for this bond will come from this service unit and fund. The
timing of this new bond will be after the `78/96 bond is retired in early
2008. Thus, the new bond will have minimal impact on the division's
annual debt obligation and wastewater rates.
SU 233 Pretreatment Monitoring Fees: This Service Unit was created in
1995 to fund the Federally Mandated Pretreatment Program. With our
NPDES Permit of June 2003, the City was mandated to maintain a
"Delegated Pretreatment Program". This required additional staff,
equipment and other resources. As shown on Table 4-7, budgeted
expenses are $667,650 for 2007. As we become more familiar with the
obligations and responsibilities of this mandate, we realize the need for
additional staff. This study reflects the need for 1.0 FTE permit writer and
0.5 FTE chemist in 2008 (budgeted). The budget projection for 2010 is
$898,725. See Section 6 for additional detail on this mandated activity.
As indicated on TABLE 4-1, we propose the same 0&M budget with or
without the rate increase. Due to reorganization of priorities triggered by
mandates and technology, and the independent financing of the
Stormwater Utility, the net staffing level decrease 1.226 FTE.
Operational expenses due to utilities, and chemicals are set at the
minimum level required to meet the Federal, State, and local mandates
that guide our operation. Additional revenue from a rate increase will be
used to continue our investment in the collection system of our
community. This investment brings wastewater service to unsewered
neighborhoods, rehabilitates old, failing city infrastructure, and provides
cost sharing with private parties to extend sewers to new economic
opportunities. Any revenue in excess of Capital transfers will build
reserves in the operating Fund (473)
Summary:
Total operating and maintenance expenses of the wastewater system.
excluding the utility tax, are projected to be $8,094,301 for 2007 and
are projected to increase by approximately 3.0% per year to $9,020,006
by 2010 (Table 4-2-9Proposed).
With the rate increase, total capital transfers and debt service
payments are projected to be $6,028,220 for 2007 and increase to
$6,781,234 by 2010 (Table 4-2P). This includes a 2.0 debt service
coverage on the outstanding revenue bonds.
2007 COS
Section 4 Page 6
October 21, 2007
When combined, Operation, Maintenance, and Capital expenditures are
projected to be $14122,521 for 2007 and increase to $15,801,240 by
2010. This represents an annual increase of approximately 3%.
Without the rate increase, total capital transfers and debt service
payments are projected to be $6,028,220 for 2007 and decrease to
$5,181,234 by 2010 (Table 4 -2 -(Existing) This would not maintain a 2.0
debt service coverage on the outstanding revenue bonds.
When combined, Operation, Maintenance, and Capital expenditures would
be projected to be $14,122,521 for 2007 and increase slightly to
$14,201,240 by 2010. This represents an annual increase of less than
02%.
2007 COS
Section 4 Page 7
October 21, 2007
TABLE 4-1 (Compare)
FUND 473
Wastewater Operations and Maintenance
Capital program
Description
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
Operating Expenses
Existing
7,758,730
8,094,301
8,763,319
8,732,234
9,020,006
Proposed
7,758,730
8,094,301
8,763,319
8,732,234
9,020,006
Additional Revenue
0
0
0
0
0
Debt Service Obligations
Existing
3,017,296
3,296,370
3,477,845
3,652,086
3,639,934
Proposed
3,017,296
3,296,370
3,477,845
3,652,086
3,639,934
Additional Debt Service
0
0
0
0
0
Capital Transfers
Existing
3,902,309
2,731,850
2,431,850
1,575,850
1,541,300
Proposed
3,902,309
2,731,850
2,431,850
2,525,850
3,141,300
Additional Transfer
0
0
0
950,000
1,600,000
Cumulative Transfers
950,000
2,550,000
10/1' /07
Table 4-2 (Exisitng)
FUND 473
WASTEWATER OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE EXPENSES
includes Staff, Repairs, Debt Service and Capital Transfers
Account
Description
Final
Final
Final
Estimate
Estimate
Estimate
Estimate
No.
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
Budget
Test Year
OPERATIONS EXPENSES
211
Collection
2,256,602
2,458,053
2,445,256
2,492,380
2,819,956
2,920,541
3,026,154
30.79%
33.55%
213
Storm Drainage
176,890
349,830
271,477
407,758
300,000
0.
0
5.04%
0.00%
215
Rudkin Road
89,917
98,136
95,618
99,334
101,025
104,843
108,861
1.23%
1.21%
232
Treatment Facility
3,823,141
4,036,700
4,314,329
4,427,179
4,720,797
4,830,463
4,986,266
54.70%
55.28%
233
Pretreatment
553,651
538,372
632,050
667,650
821,541
876,387
898,725
8.25%
9.96%
subtotal Operations
6,900,201
7,481,091
7,758,730
8,094,301
8,763,319
8,732,234
9,020,006
percent increase
8.42%
3.71%
4.33%
8.27%
-0.35%
3.30%
accumlative increase
8.42%
12.44%
17.31%
27.00%
26.55%
30.72%
percent of total budget
56.65%
53.31%
52.86%
57.31%
59.72%
62.55%
63.52%
CAPITAL EXPENSES
211
Collection
2,452,299
3,796,452
2,024,631
945,042
2,165,201
1,303,714
1,267,001
213
Storm Drainage
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
215
Rudkin Road
5,688
5,484
5,491
5,554
0
0
0
232
Treatment Facility
2,822,779
2,750,232
4,889,483
5,077,624
3,744,494
3,924,222
3,914,233
233
Pretreatment
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
subtotal Capital
5,280,766
6,552,168
6,919,605_
6,028,220
5,909,695
5,227,936
5,181,234
percent increase
24.08%
5.61%
-12.88%
-1.97%
-11.54%
-0.89%
accumlative increase
24.08%
31.03%
14.15%
11.91%
-1.00%
-1.88%
percent of total budget
43.35%
46.69%
47.14%
42.69%
40.28%
37.45%
36.48%
TOTAL WW EXPENSE (*)
12,180,967
14,033,259
14,678,335
14,122,521
14,673,014
13,960,170
14,201,240
percent increase
15.21%
4.60%
-3.79%
3.90%
-4.86%
1.73%
15.21%
20.50%
15.94%
20.46%
14.61%
16.59%
(*) does not include utility Tax
10/18/07
Table 4-2 (Proposed)
FUND 473
WASTEWATER OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE EXPENSES
includes Staff, Repairs, Debt Service and Capital Transfers
Account
Description
Final
Final
Final
Estimate
Estimate
Estimate
Estimate
No.
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
Budget
Test Year
OPERATIONS EXPENSES
211
Collection
2,256,602
2,458,053
2,445,256
2,492,380
2,819,956
2,920,541
3,026,154
30.79%
33.55%
213
Storm Drainage
176,890
349,830
271,477
407,758
300,000
0
0
5.04%
0.00%
215
Rudkin Road
89,917
98,136
95,618
99,334
101,025
104,843
108,861
1.23%
1.21%
232
Treatment Facility
3,823,141
4,036,700
4,314,329
4,427,179
4,720,797
4,830,463
4,986,266
54.70%
55.28%
233
Pretreatment
553,651
538,372
632,050
667,650
821,541
876,387
898,725
8.25%
9.96%
subtotal Operations
6,900,201
7,481,091
7,758,730
8,094,301
8,763,319
8,732,234
9,020,006
percent increase
8.42%
3.71%
4.33%
8.27%
-0.35%
3.30%
accumulative increase
8.42%
12.44%
17.31%
27.00%
26.55%
30.72%
percent of total budget
56.65%
53.31%
52.86%
57.31%
59.72%
58.57%
57.08%
CAPITAL EXPENSES
(Debt Service olus Capital Transfers)
211
Collection
2,452,299 3,796,452
2,024,631
945,042
2,165,201
2,253,714
2,867,001
213
Storm Drainage
0 0
0
0
0
0
0
215
Rudkin Road
5,688 5,484
5,491
5,554
0
0
0
232
Treatment Facility
2,822,779 2,750,232
4,889,483
5,077;624
3,744,494
3,924,222
3,914,233
233
Pretreatment
0 0
0
0
0
0
0
subtotal Capital
5,280,766 6,552,168
6,919,605
6,028,220
5,909,695
6,177,936
6,781,234
percent increase
24.08%
5.61 %
-12.88%
-1.97%
4.54%
9.77%
accumulative increase
24.08%
31.03%
14.15%
11.91%
16.99%
28.41 %
percent of total budget
43.35% 46.69%
47.14%
42.69%
40.28%
41.43%
42.92%
TOTAL WW EXPENSE (*)
12,180,967 14,033,259
14,678,335
14,122,521
14,673,014
14,910,170
15,801,240
percent increase
15.21%
4.60%
-3.79%
3.90%
1.62%
5.98%
accumulative increase
15.21%
20.50%
15.94%
20.46%
22.41%
29.72%
(*) does not include Utility Tax
10/2.
Table 4-3 (Existing)
COLLECTIONS (Service Unit 21 1) Expenses
EXISTING RATES
10/18/07
% benefits
0.29789
0.31297
0.30345
0.31512
0.33720
0.33884
0.34049
Account
Description
Actual
Actual
Actual
Estimate
Estimate
Estimate
Estimate
Multiplier
No.
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
08-10
Y -E Budget
Test Year
COLLECTIONS SERVICE UNIT 211
OPERATION EXPENSES
100
Salaries and Wages
851,626
917,366
920,626
938,731
1,096,469
1,123,881
1,151,978
1.025
200
Personnel Benefits
253,691
287,108
279,363
295,811
369,725
380,817
392,241
1.030
300
Supplies
81,595
98,059
86,366
104,000
115,150
118,605
122,163
1.030
400
Other services
44,259
41,608
60,953
55,495
58,358
60,109
61,912
1.030
500
Intergovernmental serivces
135,518
179,696
110,460
115,000
115,000
118,450
122,004
1.030
600
Capital Outlays
3,159
0
0
15,000
15,000
15,450
15,914
1.030
900
Interfund Opt Rental
194,738
195,964
152,732
141,521
169,107
174,180
179,406
1.030
960
Insurance/Bonds
234,472
251,698
314,477
287,650
306,698
337,368
371,105
1.100
991
City Services
138,062
149,203
160,577
168,027
176,428
181,721
187,172
1.030
994
Customer Services
319,483
337,351
359,702
371,145
398,021
409,962
422,260
1.030
subtotal Existing Operations
2,256,602
2,458,053
2,445,256
2,492,380
2,819,956.
2,920,541
3,026,154
percent change
8.93%
-0.52%
1.93%
13.14%
3.57%
3.62%
CAPITAL EXPENSES
488
'78/96 -Bond Redem (P&I)
64,564
63,977
64,056
64,800
0
Future Bonded Debt
Sub -total Bonded Debt
64,564
63,977
64,056
64,800
0
0
0
70P/83P
Other Debt service
220,436
222,091
218,913
430,242
344,201
338,714
336,551
Future other Debt
Sub -total all Debt
285,000
286,068
282,969
495,042
344,201
338,714
336,551
1821 Apple Tree Bond
91,662
150,000
150,000
150,000
150,000
Utility Services System
250,000
250,000
250,000
55A
Transfer to 476 Fund
1,600,000
2,750,000
1,050,000
300,000
921,000
50,000
0
5CT
Connection Charge Transfers (476)
567,299
760,384
600,000
0
500,000
515,000
530,450
1.030
Total Capital
2,452,299
3,796,452
2,024,631
945,042
2,165,201
1,303,714
1,267,001
Total SU 211
4,708,901
6,254,505
4,469,887
3,437,422
4,985,157
4,224,255
4,293,155
percent change
32.82%
-28.53%
-23.10%
45.03%
-15.26%
1.63%
10/18/07
Table 4-3P (Proposed)
COLLECTIONS (Service Unit 21 1) Expenses
10/ 7
% benefits
0.29789
0.31297
0.30345
0.31512
0.33720
0.33884
0.34049
Account
Description
Actual
Actual
Actual
Estimate
Estimate
Estimate
Estimate
Multiplier
No.
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
08-10
Y -E Budget
Test Year
COLLECTIONS SERVICE UNIT 211
_
OPERATION EXPENSES
100
Salaries and Wages
851,626
917,366
920,626
938,731
1,096,469
1,123,881
1,151,978.
1.025
200
Personnel Benefits
253,691
287,108
279,363
295,811
369,725
380,817
392,241
1.030
300
Supplies
81,595
98,059
86,366
104,000
115,150
118,605
122,163
1.030
400
Other services
44,259
41,608
60,953
55,495
58,358
60,109
61,912
1.030
500
Intergovernmental serivces
135,518
179,696
110,460
115,000
115,000
118,450
122,004
1.030
600
Capital Outlays
3,159
0
0
15,000
15,000
15,450
15,914
1.030
900
Interfund Opt Rental
194,738
195,964
152,732
141,521
169,107
174,180
179,406
1.030
960
Insurance/Bonds
234,472
251,698
314,477
287,650
306,698
337,368
371,105
1.100
991
City Services
138,062
149,203
160,577
168,027
176,428
181,721
187,172
1.030
994
Customer Services
319,483
337,351
359,702
371,145
398,021
409,962
422,260
1.030
subtotal Existing Operations
2,256,602
2,458,053
2,445,256
2,492,380
2,819,956
2,920,541
3,026,154
percent change
8.93%
-0.52%
1.93%
13.14%
3.57%
3.62%
CAPITAL EXPENSES
488
'78/96 -Bond Redem (P&I)
64,564
63,977
64,056
64,800
0
Future Bonded Debt
Sub -total Bonded Debt
64,564
63,977
64,056
64,800
0
0
0
70P/83P
Other Debt service
220,436
222,091
218,913
430,242
344,201
338,714
336,551
Future other Debt
Sub -total all Debt
285,000
286,068
282,969
495,042
344,201
338,714
336,551
1821 Apple Tree Bond
91,662
150,000
150,000
150,000
150,000
Utility Services System
250,000
250,000
250,000
55A
Transfer to 476 Fund
1,600,000
2,750,000
1,050,000
300,000
921,000
1,000,000
1,600,000
5CT
Connection Charge Transfers (476)
567,299
760,384
600,000
0
500,000
515,000
530,450
1.030
Total Capital
2,452,299
3,796,452
2,024,631
945,042
2,165,201
2,253,714
2,867,001
Total SU 211
4,708,901
6,254,505
4,469,887
3,437,422
4,985,157
5,174,255
5,893,155
percent change
32.82%
-28.53%
-23.10%
45.03%
3.79%
13.89%
10/ 7
Table 4-4
STORM DRAINAGE (Service Unit 213) Expenses
Account
Description
Actual
Actual
Actual
Estimate
Estimate
Estimate
Estimate
Multiplier
No.
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
08-10
Budget
Test
STORM WATER SERVICE UNIT 213
Year
OPERATION EXPENSES *
100
Salaries and Wages
77,467
147,474
123,507
139,010
0
0
0
1.025
200
Personnel Benefits
22,399 _
37,168
32,843
40,007
0
0
0
1.030
300
Supplies
1,896
3,331
4,636
6,225
0
0
0
1.030
400
Other Services
1,774
7,585
13,445
29,723
0
0
0
1.030
500
Intergovernmental Services
0
0
0
57,100.
300,000
0
0
1.030
600
Capital Outlays
0
76,219
18,064
36,492
0
0
0
1.030
900
Interfund Rentals/Leases
30,880
30,146
23,010
44,000
0
0
0
1.030
960
Insurance/Bonds
23,647
27,561
34,075
32,288
0
0
0
1.100
991
City Services
18,827
20,346
21,897
22,913
0
0
0
1.030
Subtotal existing program
176,890
349,830
271,477
407,758
300,000
0
0
percent change
97.77%
-22.40%
50.20%
In 2008, Program establishes own funding source
9/25/07
Table 4-5
RUDKIN ROAD (Service Unit 21 5) Expenses
Account
Description
Actual
Actual
Actual
Estimate
Estimate
Estimate
Estimate
Multiplier
No.
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
08-10
Budget
Test
Year
RUDKIN ROAD SERVICE UNIT 215
OPERATIONS EXPENSES
100
Salaries and Wages
18,712
19,695
16,725
17,038
17,776
18,220
18,676
1.025
200
Personnel Benefits
5,535
5,783
4,612
4,964
5,371
5,532
5,698
1.030
300
Supplies
1,731
7,327
1,542
3,193
4,320
4,450
4,583
1.030
400
Other Services
14,717
15,382
16,834
16,771
17,844
18,379
18,931
1.030
500
Intergovernmental Services
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1.030
600
Capital Outlays
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1.030
900
Interfund Rentals/Leases
30,116
29,139
32,824
32,644
29,563
30,450
31,363
1.030
960
Insurance/Bonds
8,438
9,281
10,673
11,740
12,518
13,770
15,147
1.100
991
City Services
10,668
11,529
12,408
12,984
13,633
14,042
14,463
1.030
Total Operations
89,917
98,136
95,618
99,334
101,025
104,843
108,861
percent change
9.14%
-2.57%
3.89%
1.70%
3.78%
3.83%
CAPITAL EXPENSES
559
'78/96 Bond Redemption
5,688
5,484
5,491
5,554
0
Total Capital
5,688
5,484
5,491
5,554
0
0
0
Total SU 215
95,605
103,620
101,109
104,888
101,025
104,843
108,861
percent change
8.38%
-2.42%
3.74%
-3.68%
3.78%
3.83%
9/2
Table 4-6
TREATMENT FACILITY (Service Unit 232) Expenses
Account
Description
Actual
Actual
Actual
Estimate
Estimate
Estimate
Estimate
Multiplier
No.
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
08-10
Budget
Test
TREATMENT FACILITY SERVICE UNIT 232
Year
OPERATIONS EXPENSES
100
Salaries and Wages
1,619,952
1,735,464
1,820,293
1,826,805
1,940,933
1,948,456
1,997,168
1.025
200
Personnel Benefits
453,485
477,571
509,449
588,338
615,210
633,666
652,676
1.030
223
Prior Pension
3,108
3,108
3,108
3,108
3,108
3,108
3,108
1.000
300
Supplies
274,085
300,577
376,190
345,000
365,259
376,217
387,503
1.030
400
Other Services
577,839
570,509
640,666
661,287
737,279
759,397
782,179
1.030
500
Intergovernmental Services
161,466
152,976
187,635
170,000
175,000
180,250
185,658
1.030
600
Capital Outlays
0
7,561
0
10,000
10,000
10,300
10,609
1.030
900
interfund Rentals/Leases
93,773
93,527
56,289
56,205
65,155
67,110
69,123
1.030
960
Insurance/Bonds
217,089
238,980
229,479
252,427
269,144
296,058
325,664
1.100
991
City Services
422,343
456,427
491,220
514,009
539,709
555,900
572,577
1.030
Sub -total Operations
3,823,141
4,036,700
4,314,329
4,427,179
4,720,797
4,830,463
4,986,266
percent change
5.59%
6.88%
2.62%
6.63%
2.32%
3.23%
CAPITAL EXPENSES
488
Existing Bonded Debt
2,162,782
2,152,402
2,153,498
2,148,565
1,848,682
1,851,680
1,845,603
Future Bonded Debt
225,000
460,927
460,927
Sub -total Bonded Debt
2,162,782
2,152,402
2,153,498
2,148,565
2,073,682
2,312,607
2,306,530
83P
Existing Other Debt
426,946
424,999
421,104
417,209
538,962
479,765
475,853
83P
Future Other Debt
Sub -total all debt
2,589,728
2,577,401
2,574,602
2,565,774
2,612,644
2,792,372
2,782,383
55D
Transfer to 472 Fund
131,850
131,850
131,850
131,850
131,850
131,850
131,850
STH/5UG
Transfer to 478 Fund
101,201
40,981
83,031
80,000
121,000
121,000
121,000
55A
Transfer to 478 Fund
1,800,000
1,600,000
479,000
467,000
454,640
5CT
Connection Char•e Transfers 478
0
0
300,000
700,000
400,000
412,000
424,360
1.030
Total Capital
2,822,779
2,750,232
4,889,483
5,077,624
3,744,494
3,924,222
3,914,233
TOTAL SU 232
6,645,920
6,786,932
9,203,812
9,504,803
8,465,291
8,754,685
8,900,499
percent change
2.12%
35.61%
3.27%
-10.94%
3.42%
1.67%
9/30/07
Table 4-7
Pretreatment Program (Service Unit 233) Expenses
Account
Description
Actual
Actual
Actual
Estimate
Estimate
Estimate
Estimate
Multiplier
No.
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
08-10
Budget
Test
Year
100
Salaries
332,491
325,765
389,153
419,574
525,769
538,913
552,386
1.025
200
Personnel Benefits
101,521
103,952
118,500
139,704
176,467
181,761
187,214
1.030
300
Supplies
6,592
7,809
10,453
12,400
12,600
12,978
13,367
1.030
400
Other Services
30,287
32,456
35,257
25,999
26,593
50,000
50,000
1.030
500
Intergovernmental Services
16,604
0
0
0
0
0
0
1.030
600
Capital Outlays
8,348
0
0
6,102
5,000
15,150
15,605
1.030
900
Interfund Rentals
3,688
4,424
3,698
3,631
11,256
11,594
11,941
1.030
960
Insurance/Bonds
6,587
12,840
20,070
2,936
3,130
3,443
3,787
1.100
991
City Services
37,653
40,692
43,794
45,825
48,116
49,559
51,046
1.030
994
Customer Services
9,881
10,434
11,125
11,479
12,610
12,988
13,378
1.030
TOTAL SU 233
553,651
538,372
632,050
667,650
821,541
876,387
898,725
% Change
-2.76%
17.40%
5.63%
23.05%
6.68%
2.55%
9/2r
TABLE 4-8
Transfers from Operating Fund (473)
to Capital Funds (472, 476, 478)
10/21/07
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2.0 Debt Coverage on Bonded Debt
TOTAL
$2,223,045
$2,218,919
$2,073,682
$2,312,607
$2,306,530
TRANSFERS (PROPOSED) FROM 473 OPERATING FUND
473 to 472
$131,850
$131,850
$131,850
$131,850
$131,850
473 to 476
$1,050,000
$300,000
$921,000
$1,000,000
$1,600,000
WCC to 476
$620,459
$0
$400,000
$412,000
$424,360
473 to 478
$1,800,000
$1,600,000
$479,000
$467,000
$454,640
WCC to 478
$300,000
$700,000
$400,000
$412,000
$424,360
Total Operating Transfers
$3,902,309
$2,731,850
$2,331,850
$2,422,850
$3,035,210
Transfers in excess bf Debt Coverage (from rates + Connection Charges)
$1,679,264
$512,931
$258,168
$110,243
$728,680
TRANSFERS (EXISTING) FROM 473 OPERATING FUND
473 to 472
$131,850
$131,850
$131,850
$131,850
$131,850
473 to 476
$1,050,000
$300,000
$921,000
$50,000
$0
WCC to 476
$620,459
$0
$400,000
$412,000
$424,360
473 to 478
$1,800,000
$1,600,000
$479,000
$467,000
$454,640
WCC to 478
$300,000
$700,000
$400,000
$412,000
$424,360
Total Operating Transfers
$3,902,309
$2,731,850
$2,331,850
$1,472,850
$1,435,210
Transfers in excess of Debt Coverage (from rates + Connection Charges)
$1,679,264
$512,931
$258,168
($839,757)
($871,320)
Increased Transfers
$0
$0
$0
$950,000
$1,600,000
10/21/07
Table 4-9
Existing + Proposed
Wastewater System Debt Servcie
9/24P' -
Pa,'of3
.•.-,
Year•:.:• Total
. . ,
Total
.-.-.
.'•'. Total
First
Total
Total
.....
Total :•:.: Total
.
First • • •
,....
'•:::: Wastewater
Wastewater
TOTAL ::::: Wastewater
Priority
Collection
Rudkin Road
Treat. Fac. ::: Treat. Fac.
....
Priority •••:.
:*:.. Debt
Debt
:::: Debt
Debt
SU211
SU215
...
SU232•'.:. SU232
....
Debt ....:i:
•::::. Service
Coverage
EXISTING
Obligation ::::: Service
2.0
Debt Sery
Debt Sery
.....
Debt Sery •:•:. Debt Sery
• 2.0
Check
.
•'.. EXISTING
.
•:-:• EXISTING
...
EXISTING
EXISTING
EXISTING
EXISTING :•:.: NEW
.....
NEW
Column
:.•.:. + NEW
+ NEW
...
•:•:•
•:•••• includes
...
.....
*•:.:
•
;.:.: new reserve
Y -E 2006
Prin. •::::: 39,174,373
29,921,175
69,095,548 ::::: 25,374,373
18,421,175
4,298,007
10,275
21,066,091 •:::: 13,800,000
...
11,500,000 .::::
•:•:.:
,....
.....
...
•:•:.
.::::
2,978,589
2007 :::i:, 2,978,589
2,218,919
5,197,508 ::::: 2,978,589
2,218,919
407,260
5,554
2,565,774*i: 0
0
2,998,519
2008 :: 2,998,519
2,073,683
5,072,202 ::::: 2,728,519
1,848,683
340,876
0
2,387,644::::: 270,000
225,000:::::
3,223,271
2009 '.;::: 3,223,271
2,312,607
5,535,878 :: 2,670,159
1,851,680
338,714
0
2,331,445 ::::. 553,112
460,927,:
3,211,117
2010 .::::: 3,211,117
2,306,530
5,517,647 ::: 2,658,005
1,845,603
336,551
2,321,454::::: 553,112
460,927::
3,210,544
2011 '::::, 3,210,544
2,312,033
5,522,578 ::;: 2,657,432
1,851,106
334,389
2,323,O43:: 553,112
460,927
3,301,496
2012 ,:•.i: 3,301,496
2,323,011
5,624,507 ::::i 2,130,830
1,347,456
315,351
1,815,479::::: 1,170,666
.
975,555::::
3,187,680
2013 .*:. 3,187,680
2,323,949
5,511,628 *i: 2,063,106
5,285,823 ::.* 1,885,593
1,348,394
1,346,194
251,460
249,711
...
1,811,647::::: 1,124,573
975,555
2,964,074
2014 ::.::. 2,964,074
2,321,749
1,635,883 ;:i::• 1,078,481
975,555::
2,921,306
2015 .:::' 2,921,306
2,324,305
5,245,611 ::: 1,842,826
1,348,750
207,412
1,635,414::::: 1,078,481
975,555 ::i.;
2,714,639
2016 ..'.-. 2,714,639
2,320,805
5,035,444 :...:: 1,636,158
1,345,250
169,008
1,467,150 :::.: 1,078,481
975,555 :...
2,609,620
2017 ::::. 2,609,620
2,320,305
4,929,925 ::::: 1,634,065
1,344,750
167,990
1,466,075::::: 975,555
975,555:::::
2,610,276
2018 ' 2,610,276
2,322,555
4,932,831 :.;:i: 1,634,721
4,930,737 ::: 1,632,877
1,347,000
1,346,750
166,971
165,952
, ..
1,467,750 ::::; 975,555
975,555 :
2,608,432
2019 :: 2,608,432
2,322,305
1,466,925::::: 975,555
975,555::
2,609,088
2020:::::, 2,609,088
2,324,555
4,933,643 :*:. 1,633,533
1,349,000
164,933
1,468,600 :: 975,555
975,555::
2,606,994
2021 .i:i:i 2,606,994
2,324,055
4,931,049 : 1,631,439
1,348,500
163,914
1,467,525:: 975,555
975,555:
2,602,150
2022 .::.::: 2,602,150
2,320,805
4,922,955 *?. 1,626,595
1,345,250
162,895
1,463,700 :*:. 975,555
975,555*i:
2,560,337
2023 :::.:: 2,560,337
2,324,805
4,885,142 :: 1,584,782
1,349,250
117,657
1,467,125 :*: 975,555
975,555::
1,209,935
2024 .]*: 1,209,935
975,555
2,185,490 •:::: 234,380
0
117,080
117,300::::: 975,555
975,555
1,208,784
2025 :i: 1,208,784
975,555
2,184,339 ::i:: 233,229
116,504
116,725 :i* 975,555
975,555
1,207,632
2026 '::i:' 1,207,632
975,555
2,183,187 •:i:i 232,077
115,927
116,150::::: 975,555
975,555:
1,091,130
2027 :::.::.: 1,091,130
975,555
2,066,685 :"..* 115,575
0
115,575 :i:i 975,555
975,555
761,393
2028:::::: 761,393
761,393
1,522,786 :: 0
0
0 :*: 761,393
7€1,393::
514,628
2029 •::::: 514,628
514,628
1,029,256 ::'..: 0
0
0::::: 514,628
514,628::
514,628
2030 .•.*. 514,628
514,628
1,029,256 i:::: 0
0
o:: 514,628
514,628:
514,628
2031 ':::;: 514,628
514,628
1,029,256 ::::: 0
0
0:: 514,628
514,628'::::
0
2032 ,::::: 0
0
0:if.) 0
0
...
0 0
o::
...
:
:•:.:
55,940,890
TOTAL ::•:' 55,940,890
45,304,474
101,245,363:::.; 35,444,490
25,782,536
4,410,552
5,554
31,028,383::::: 20,496,400
...
19,521,938:::::
.::
..
:::::
,•...
..
• •
...
..
.....
.....
.:.:.
....
9/24P' -
Pa,'of3
Table 4-9
Existing + Proposed
Wastewater System Debt Servcie
Year :.:.: 1991/98
1991/98 : 1978/96
1978/96
1978/96
1978/96
1978/96 :.:.. 1988 1991 1992 1995 1993
..
Revenue
Treat. Fac. ::::- 100%
Collect.
Rudkin Rd.
Treat. Fac.
•:.:
I.W. :•:.: PWTF PWTF . PWTF .::: PWTF PWTF
•:::.
SU232 :::::
SU211
SU215
SU232
...
SU234 ::::: SU232 .....: SU211 SU211 ::::, SU211 ::::: SU232
::•.:. Bond
91.75% ::::: Sewer
1 7.50%
1.50%
76.60%
4.40% ::::: Treat. Fac.::::: Collections ::.:: Collections :::: Collections :: Treat. Fac. :..
.:.,
::.:.
..
...
... .. ,.%
trans to 232 in 2002 ::::' Proj. 1300 ::::: Proj. 1455 :::;: Proj. 1497:::::: Proj. 1526 ::::: Proj. 1566
•:::.
..
...
•••••
..
81.00%
.. ...
0% :•:.:Pipe Humphrey •:•:• PPL Canal ::::: #1 ::::: I-82/Race •:•••• B.S. Pad
•••••
..., ..,....
..... :•••••• ,..:
:•:::: •••• •:.:. :•:.:
" '
Prin. .: 2,410,000
2,211,175 :::: 685,000
119,875
10,275
554,850
0111 158 :::•*: •••••• 84 375 ::::: 370 386 ::•:: 232,290 ::::: 1,193,538 ::::
..% 1 .....
•• .
•:•:. .....
• • ' ... ...., ... . :::::
...
2007 :.:.: 545,235
500,253 i'..:: 370,285
64,800
5,554
299,931
...
0 :.:.: 56,691 .:•:. 16,875::::: 65,435 :•••• 25,641 ::::: 182,441 ••,::,:
.....
2008 ::547,195
...,
502,051 ::::: 0
0
0
0
••••
0 ::::: 55,857 ::::: 16,875 ::::: 64,818 ::::: 25,641 ::::: 180,736::::
2009 i:::. 549,195
503,886 ::,:::
... , .. ,
....,
.. ..::: 16,875 ::::: 64,200 ..,:::: 25,641 ::::. 179,031 :•:.
2010 ::::. 543,825
498,959 ::
... ..
•:•:: :•:.: 16,875 ::::: 63,583 ::::: 25,641 ::::: 177,326:
2011 ::::: 547,575
502,400:::::
... ... .•••
•:•:; i:::: 16,875 ::::: 62,966,:::•' 25,641 ::•••• 175,621 ::•••••
2012 :•:•:
• • •
..
... ••••• .. .
..... ... :•:.: 62,348 ''.:::' 25,641 ::•:. 173,916
... ....
2013 :::::
:::::
..... ..
..... •••
..... .:•:- :::::: 25,641 ::::: 171,355 ::::
2014 •::'.
.....
... .. ,,: ..
.. •••••
...... ... :•:.: :::: 25,641 .•.•
2015 :::::
..
::•:..
..... ::•:. ::::: 25,641 ::: .•.•
..... ..... .•.•
..
..
2016::::.:
.
•••
..• .,... .•• ..,. .
•:•:: :•:.: ::•:. .. ••• • .•.•
••••. .•.•
2017 :::
•••••
••• .:•:. ... •• •:•:. • •
•.• ..... ...••
• •
..., ...
2018 ;;:
' • •
•••••
•:•:. .•••
... ... .... .....
.... •••••
• ' •:.:
2019 i::::•••
• •
••
...
.••
" ••' .•.•. ...•
•.
... •••• ' ..... •:.:
: •
...:
2020 :::::
.....
• ••• ..:
•:.:. ••••• ''.' .•.• •-
..... ...
• " •'•
..
2021 :•:.:
..
" '
..
..... ..%* ..... ••••• ••••
•:•:: •••• ::.:. ..... '.'
.::.
2022 ::
:::::
'..... ..
... ••• .. •••••
... ••••• ...
2023 i,:
•••••
,.......
..•.•••.. ... ••••• •:•:. ,.....
2024 :::::
,::::
•..:...:: ..... ....
. .:.
:. •....
•• ..... .....
..
2025 :::-:
.
...
•••••
• •
• • •
..... :•:.: .•••• •••• ..
•:•:: • • .:•••• •••••
... •:.:
:..
2026 :::
...
•••••
.... ..... ..%
... ... ...
2027 ;::::
..
• •
•• :•••
•' ,.. .•
.....
.. ••...
2028 :::::
:::•
•:.:: ••.
... .. .....
•:. .....
..,
2029 :::
• •
: ::
.... ..
• •••• *•••
• ... • '
..
2030 :•:.'
, ..
•••••
..
..
..... ,....
,.., .....
*.: ., ...%
2031 :::::
.. •
••••.
••.
• • •
.:•:.
... .•••• .....
2032 :::::
. ..
.••••. •
• •
• • . .. . ...
.,. •• ,
.. •••
..... ... •:.:
,.%
..
..
• .
• ' •
..... ...
..... .....
..... • • .•.•. ....
; .
TOTAL ::::: 2,733,025
2,507,550.:::: 370,285
64,800
5,554
299,931
0 112,548 ::::: 84,375:x. 383,350 ; 230,765 :::.; 1,240,426
• • •
..... ...•. ..
:•:.' ...•. ..
....
:•:.:
•:•:. ..
..... •••• '••••
....% -
9/24/07
Page 2 of 3
Table 4-9
Existing + Proposed
Wastewater System Debt Servcie
Year ::::: 1993 1995 1995 2001 2003 2003 2005 2006 2007 2011
PWTF PWTF PWTF PWTF ::: Series "A" RB ::::: Series "B" RB i... PWTF PWTF . RB RB
SU211 SU232 ; SU211 SU211 ::::: SU 232 ::::: SU 232 ::::: SU211 •: SU 232 SU 232 SU 232
Collections ::::: Treat. Fac. •:•:: Collections ::::: Collections :: Treatment ::::. Treatment ::::: Collections :: :: Treatment ::::: Treatment Treatment
:: Proj. 1616 ::::: Proj. 1638 ::::: Proj. 1710 ::::: Proj. 1918 ::::: Litigation ::::: Proj. 2055 ::::: Proj. 2128 :: :: Proj. 2182 ::::: XXX -1 XXX -2
••::: Pipes #2 ::::: IMCO ::::: King St. ::::: 24th & i:::: 7,462,135 ::::: 10,610,521 ::::: River Rd. ::.:: Ultra Violet ::::: REQUIRED ..... REQUIRED
' • • •:•:. .;•:: Jerome ::::: ::::: 15,525,000 ::::: ::::: Disinfection ::::: IMPROVEMENTS ::::: IMPROVEMENTS
...
Prin. ••••• 327,192 :::: 1,470,370 ::::: 105,166 ':::: 751,723 ::::: 4,914,479 ::::: 10,610,521 ::::: 2,307,000 ::::: 2,300,000 ::::: 5,500,000 ::::: 6,000,000
::::: ::::: ,.... ::::: • • '
• • •::.
.•... :::::
... ... •••••
.....
2007 ::•:. 44,171 ::::: 178,077 ::::: 12,737 ••::: 51,294 ::::: 846,431 ::::: 501,950 :ff.: 126,308 ::::: 0 ::::: 0
....
,
2008 ::::: 43,762 ::::: 176,443 ::::: 12,620 ::::: 50,852 ::::: 844,681 ::::: 501,950 ::::: 126,308 ::::: 125 225000
,925 :::::
2009 ::::: 43,353 :".::: 174,809 ::::: 12,503 ::::: 50,410 ::::: 845,844 ::::: 501,950 ::::: 125,732 ::::: 125,925 ::::: 460,927
2010 ::::: 42,944 ::::.; 173,175 ::::: 12,386 :;:i: 49,967 ::::: 844,694 ::::: 501,950 ::::: 125,155 ::::: 125,350 ::::: 460,927
2011 :•:•; 42,535 ::::: 171,541 ::::: 12,269 ::::: 49,525 ;:::: 846,756 ::::: 501,950 ::::: 1.24,578 ::::: 124,775 ::::: 460,927
2012 ::::: 42,126 ::::: 169,907 ::::: 12,152 ::::: 49,083 ::::: 845,506 ::::: 501,950 :::*.i 124,001 ::::: 124,200 ::::: 460,927 :::::
,927 ::::: 514,628
2013 ::::: 41,717 ::::: 168,273 ::::: 12,036 ::::: 48,641 ::::: 846,444 ::::: 501,950 ::::: 123,425 ::::: 123 460
,625 ::::: 514,628
2014 ::::: 41,104 i:::: 166,639 ::::: 11,919 :.:* 48,199 :::i: 264,244 :i:i: 1,081,950 :i:i: 122,848 *..:: 123,050 i:i:i 514,628
2015 :::.:: ::::: 164,189 ::::: 11,743 ::::: 47,757 ::::: •".• 1,348,750 ::::: 122,271 ::::: 122,475 ::::: 44660%922; :::::::: 514,628
2016 ;:;:: ::::: ::::: ::::: 47,314::::: :•:.: 1,345,250 ::::: 121,694 ::::: 121,900 ::::: 460,927 ::::: 514,628
514,628
2017 ::::: :.::.::. ::::: ...
,:•:- 46,872 :::::
::::: 46,430 ::::: 1,344,750 ::::: 121,118 ::::: 121,325 ::::: 460,927 :::::
2018 ::::: .:.: ::::: ::::: 1,347,000 ::::: 120,541 ::::: 120,750 ::::: 460,927 ::::: 514,628
..: •.., 514,628
2019 ::::: ::::: ::::: 45,988 ::::: 1,346,750 ::::: 119,964 ::::: 120,175 :::::
:•::: 460,927 :::::
2020i:::: •:•:.
... ::::: ::::: 45,546 ;:::: ;:::: 1,349,000 ::::: 119,387 ::::: 119,600 ::::: 460,927 ::::: 514,628
2021 i'..:: ,.. ::::: ::::: 45,103 ::::: :•:.: 1,348,500 ::::: 118,811 ::::: 119,025460927 514,628
2022 ::::: ::::: ::::: ::::: 44,661 ::::: ::::: 1,345,250 ::::: 118,234 ::::: 118,450 ::::: ,:::::
460,927 ;:::: 514,628
2023 ::::: . • •
• • •:::: ::::: ::::: ::::: 1,349,250 ::::: 117,657 ::::: 117,875 ::;:i 514,628
.. 446600992277 ::::::::
2024 ::::: • ..
. . .
: : ::::: ::::: ::::: 0 ::::. 117,080 ::::: 117,300 ..;i:: 514,628
2025 :::::
: : :
• •
...
•:.". ::::: ::::: .....
••.
• • • 116,504 ::::: 116,725 ::::: 460,927 ::::: 514,628
'..::: 115,927 :.:::::::::: 111165517505 :::::::::: 514,628
2026 ::::.: ::::: :;::: .i:
::::: 460,927 :::::
514,628
2027 ::::: ::::: ::::: ::::: ::::. • • '
•:.:. 460,927 :::::
..:
2028 ::::: ::: ::::: ::::: ::::: ::::: ::: :•:.: 514,628
2029 ::::: ::::: ,•:.: ::. : 246,765 :::::
514,628
•• :.:.: ••.
..: •:•:. •:.:. :::::
2030 ::::: •:•:.
...
• • ::::: :::::
•:::-
..... ::::: 514,628
2031 ::::: :::::
:•:.:
::::: ::::: •:•:. ::::: ::-. 514,628
:::::
.. ::::: ::::: ::::• ::: .*:
2032 ::::: : : :
:: 0
::::: :...:•: • •
• • •
• • ::::: :•:.: :::::
f. .
TOTAL ::::: 341,712 ::::: 1,543,053 ::::. 110,365 ::::: 767,642 i:::: 6,184,600 ::::: 16,720,100 .:::. 2,427,543 ::••• 2,420,175 ::•:. 9,229,378 "::::: 10,292,560
22,904,700 .,
•:•:. .• • ...
..... :::::
:•:.:
•:•:. ..:.: :•:.: ' • '
, ..
• •
.•.•.
9/24/ P'-- of 3
SECTION 5
PLANT FLOWS, POLLUTANT LOADING,
and CUSTOMER ACCOUNTS
Billable Flows:
Staff analyzed records of flow, strong waste loading and number and size
of meters (accounts), during the period 2001 through 2006. Table 5-8
indicates what 2006 data was estimated by the 2001 COS. Table 5-8
also indicates what annual rate of change would have yielded the actual
results. Also shown are the estimated annual percent changes utilized by
this COS.
Recent annexations have had a significant impact on the allocation of
Yakima City and Yakima County retail accounts. In 2001, over 2,300 or
11% of the retail accounts were outside City (County) customers.
Today, only 43 (0.17%) are outside. As annexations continue to lead or
follow close behind development, we do not expect this percentage to
change notably during the near term. Using data from 2001 through
2006 billings, we estimate an annual increase in City and County retail
accounts of 1.25%.
Staff also analyzed flow data from the municipal wholesale customers
(Terrace Heights and Union Gap). Staff predicts Union Gap's flow to
increase at an annual rate of 2.5% for the near future. Staff predicts
Terrace Height's flow to increase at an annual rate of 1.5% for the near
future. However, due to the addition of flow from Moxee scheduled for
early 2008, the total flow from Terrace Heights could increase by up to
50% during the period covered by this report.
These flow projections are shown on TABLE 5-1.
TABLE 5-2 demonstrates the percent of each basic customer's allocated
capacity used in 2006. Staff projected this information for 2008 by
using the information from TABLE 5-1.
The permitted hydraulic capacity of the Treatment Facility is shown on
TABLE 5-2 as 21.5 million gallons per day. The limiting factor of the
current plant configuration, which determines hydraulic capacity while
meeting permit requirements, is the plant's ability to nitrify and meet
ammonia removal requirements. See Section 4, 478 Fund and the 2004
Wastewater Facility Plan.
2007 COS
Section 5 Page 1
10/21/07
Total Plant Flow:
The Yakima Irrigation Division is well into their major rehabilitation project.
Due to their efforts, combined with our manhole rehabilitation and other
Infiltration/Inflow (1/1) activities, we are witnessing benefits through a
decrease of influent flow.
TABLE 5-8 shows that the total plant flow decreased at an annual rate of
-1.5% from 2001 to 2006. Billable flows were up 2.0% during the same
periods. Staff projects the combination of increased billable flow and the
continued effort with the Irrigation rehabilitation and Wastewater's 1/1
program to result in total plant flow as indicated on TABLE 5-1. Billable
flows are increasing at approximately 1.5% and the total plant flow is
increasing at approximately 1.25% through 2010.
TABLE 5-3 and CHARTS 5-3A, 5-3B, 5-3C, and 5-3D indicate: total
treatment facility influent flow, total Rudkin road lift station flow, total
BOD, and total TSS respectively for each month during the period 2002
through September 2007.
Pollutant Loading:
Although wastewater staff tests for and are concerned with over 150
different possible pollutants, the large majority of our current treatment
expense is concerned with only four: Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD),
Total Suspended Solids (TSS), Fats, Oils, and Grease (FOG), and Ammonia.
The increase in Strong Waste loading at the Treatment Facility has
moderated during the past several years. Pre-treatment staff has spent a
tremendous amount of time communicating with the source of these
pollutants. During the period 2001 through 2006, BOD increased only at
a modest 0.70% annually, far below the 5.6% annual increase predicted in
the 2001 COS. TSS also increased more modestly than predicted.
TABLE 5-4 shows historical and projected Total Annual loadings for BOD
and TSS through the planning period. Including the Del Monte loadings,
staff has predicted an approximate 1.15% annual increase for BOD. A
1.23% annual increase is predicted for TSS through the planning period.
2007 COS
Section 5 Page 2
10/21/07
Customer Accounts:
TABLE 5-5 and 5-6 lists the historical and projected number of
wastewater accounts for both City and County retail customers. The
recent Annexations have had a significant impact on the distribution of
accounts. The number of accounts predicted for each billing category is
displayed on TABLE 5-5. The number of accounts per each size of water
meter is displayed on TABLE 5-6.
TABLE 5-7 indicates the Number of Meter Equivalents.
As stated in the AWWA M-1 Manual: "Customer -related costs for meters
and services may be properly distributed among user classes by
recognizing factors that are generally responsible for those costs being
incurred.... Distribution of customer costs by equivalent meter and service
ratios recognizes that meter and service costs vary depending on
considerations such as size of service pipe, materials used and other local
characteristics for various sized services. For the purposes of this
example, typical customer meter -and -service equivalent ratios based on
investment are as follows:
Size AWWA Factor
3/4" 1.00
1" 1.27
1.5" 1.64
2" 2.64
3" 10.00
4" 12.73
6" 19.10
8" 26.36
10" 52.72"
These equivalent factors are utilized when calculating the "Ready -to -
Serve" element of the bimonthly service charges.
2007 COS
Section 5 Page 3
10/21/07
Table 5-1
Historical and Projected Billed and Total Flows
Treatment Plant and Rudkin Road
User Group
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
Multiplier
actual
actual
actual
estimate
estimate
estimate
estimate
City Retail
UOC
3,963,700
3,698,957
3,771,697
3,848,272
3,909,797
3,968,443
4,027,970
(Billed Flow)
MG
2,964.85
2,766.82
2,821.23
2,878.51
2,924.53
2,968.40
3,012.92
% change
-6.68%
1.97%
2.03%
1.60%
1.50%
1.50%
1.50%
(1)
(1)
County Retail
UOC
58,777
68,538
30,288
10,591
6,854
6,922
6,992
(Billed Flow)
MG
43.97
51.27
22.66
7.92
5.13
5.18
5.23
% change
16.61%
-55.81%
-65.03%
-35.29%
1 00%
1.00%
1.00%
96 retail flow
1 46%
1.82%
0.80%
0.27%
0.1796
0.1746
0.17%
Total City & County
UOC
4,022,477
3,767,495
3,801,985
3,858,863
3,916,650
3,975,366
4,034,962
MG
3,008.81
2,818.09
2,843.88
2,886.43
2,929.65
2,973.57
3,018.15
% change
-6.3496
0.9296
1.5096
1.50%
1.50%
1.50%
(2)
Terrace Heights
UOC
217,767
250,388
224,826
228,199
331,622
336,596
341,645
(includes Moxee)
MG
162.89
187.29
168.17
170.69
248.05
251.77
255.55
%change
14.98%
-10.2196
1.5046
45.3296
1.50%
1.50%
1.50%
Union Gap
UOC
318,623
325,789
328,142
336,345
344,754
353,373
362,207
MG
238.33
243.69
245.45
251.59
257.88
264.32
270.93
% change
2.25%
0.7296
2.5096
2.50%
2.50%
2.50%
2.50%
Total Billed
UOC
4,558,867
4,343,671
4,354,953
4,423,407
4,593,026
4,665,334
4,738,814
MG
3,410.03
3,249.07
3,257.50
3,308.71
3,435.58
3,489.67
3,544.63
% change
-4.72%
0.26%
1.5796
3.83%
1.5796
1.5846
Total Flow
UOC
5,383,663
4,864,479
5,260,281
5,326,034
5,392,610
5,460,017
5,528,268
Received at Plant
MG
4,026.98
3,638.63
3,934.69
3,983.87
4,033.67
4,084.09
4,135.14
% change
-9.64%
8.1496
1.25%
1.25%
1.2596
1.25%
1.25%
Non -billed
UOC
824,796
520,807
905,328
902,627
799,584
794,683
789,454
(1/1) Flow
MG
616.95
389.56
677.19
675.17
598.09
594.42
590.51
% of Total
15.32%
10.71%
17.2196
16.95%
14.83%
14.5546
14.28%
Total Rudkin Road
UOC
1,054,866
1,007,219
1,048,075
1,058,556
1,069,141
1,079,833
1,090,631
MG
789.04
753.40
783.96
791.80
799.72
807.71
815.79
% change
-4.52%
4.06%
1.0096
1.00%
1.00%
1.0046
1.00%
% UG
30.2146
32.35%
31.31%
31.7796
32.2596
32.72%
33.2146
% Yakima
69.7996
67.6596
68.69%
68.23%
67 75%
67.2896
66.79%
(1) Change in flow reflects annexation of significant number of then existing County Retail Customers recent annexations.
(2) Includes 100,000 gpd from Moxee I T
4/1E
TABLE 5-2
Utilization of Treatment Facility Capacity
Service
%
Ave. Day
2006
% of
Remaining
2008 Estimate
% of
Remaining
Area
Allocated
Max. Month
Ave. Day
Capacity
Capacity
Ave. Day
Capacity
Capacity
Capacity
Allocated
Max. Month
Currently
Max. Month
Currently
Capacity
Used
Used
HYDRAULIC
million gallons per day
Yakima, City
87.90%
18.899
12.276
64.96%
6.623
12.557
66.44%
6.34
Union Gap
8.10%
1.742
0.775
44.49%
0.967
0.814
46.75%
0.93
Terrace Heights*
4.00%
0.860
0.519
60.39%
0.341
0.610
70.94%
0.25
*includes Moxee for 08
TOTAL
100.00%
21.500
13.570
63.12%
7.930
13.981.
65.03%
7.52
BOD
pounds per day
Yakima, City
87.90%
46,939
21,448
45.69%
25,490
23,878
50.87%
23,061
Union Gap
8.10%
4,325
1,422
32.88%
2,903
1,494
34.54%
2,831
Terrace Heights*
4.00%
2,136
917
67.25%
700
1,159
54.28%
977
*includes Moxee for 08
TOTAL
100.00%
53,400
23,787
44.54%
29,613
26,531
49.68%
26,869
TSS
pounds per day
Yakima, City
87.90%
33,929
20,441
60.25%
13,488
21,853
64.41%
12,077
Union Gap
8.1096
3,127
1,436
45.94%
1,690
1,509
48.27%
1,617
Terrace Heights*
4.00%
1,544
902
58.44%
642
1,132
73.29%
412
*includes Moxee for 08
TOTAL
100.00%
38,600
22,780
59.02%
15,820
24,493
63.45%
14,107
1/24/07
TABLE 5-3
Plant Loading
Hydraulic, BOD, SS, Rudkin Rd.
Month
Hydraulic
Hydsullc
Hydras&
Hydrau5c
Hydrauilc
z BOD
BOD
B00
80D
BOD
z SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
z Ruddn Rd.
Rudkin Rd.
Ruddn Rd.
Rudkin Rd
Ruddn Rd.
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
December
270.08
270.88
265,37
260.63
288.70
705,655
728,089
699,763
723,127
644,653
513,058
527,314
617,638
606,725
525,645
56.27
54.52
61.84
56.42
62.57
January
275.26
289.74
259.62
264.32
289.19
742,618
657,746
701,573
726,457
659,264
480,234
485,106
610,095
663,797
570,986
56.02
51.06
56,76
56.15
58.24
February
242.45
252.59
231.57
229.00
271.29
677,024
661,632
638,557
662,834
639,693
423,039
489,636
584,616
535.476
549,850
48.53
45.87
47.89
48.86
45.92
March
260.33
286.40
261,60
250.69
275.94
693,356
802,215
706,547
725,897
699,013
487.996
535,016
636,708
667,068
583,392
47.80
46.85
50,65
49.92
46.89
6046
321.34
349.61
310.03
300.47
321.48
733,599
850,883
754,924
626,911
683,858
508,649
627,142
673,027
530,729
578,458
48.51
44.84
51.07
47.92
44.60
-May
337,52
364,56
348.36
345.57
328.34
717,848
839,143
703,403
678,702
668,490
554,590
633,850
661,365
579,055
562,428
53.16
49.79
61.01
55.48
51.83
June
369.70
364.16
313.85
376.52
334.37
670,025
712,596
642,792
677,284
743,767
520,455
606,020
569,985
618,334
578 165
56.54
53,74
61.46
64.28
62.69
July
429.87
395.88
347.31
420.62
365.92
704,344
745,064
630,450
737,382
755,793
504,923
659,485
601,478
706,170
630404
66.89
81.03
53.94
71,83
72.33
August
419.10
433.67
375.78
418.08
395.87
671,156
804,565
696,071
671,735
770,559
501,671
762,689
703,395
609,095
636,081
74.65
91,47
83.99
82.93
79,53
September
416.47
409.56
382.44
402.94
384.19
668,089
733,129
618,594
643,776
748,587
511,061
733,930
687,119
601,545
639,876
82.92
95.80
86.37
87.21
85.24
October
361.89
365.09
295.40
353.91
799,099
858.577
626,995
708,738
563,811
822,029
571,576
589,505
81.82
93.63
82.76
88.26
November
267.63
270,33
252.04
283.87
699,940
750,217
627,234
703,711
481,365
688,240
563,967
545,594
60.16
73.12
61.08
66.55
December
270.88
265.37
260.63
288.70
728089
699,763
723,127
644,653
527,314
617,638
606 725
525,645
54.52
61.84
56.42
62.57
Total
3,972.44
4,026.98
3,638.63
3,934.69
2,966.59
8,513,187
9,115,530
8,069,987
8,208,080
8,369,024
8,085,108
7,660,781
7,430,056
7,172,013
5,329,642
731.52
789.04
753.40
783.98
547.27
%duncre compared topre.Year
1.37%
-9.64%
8,1496
7.08%
-11,4796
1.7116
-22.41%
26.31%
-2.75%
-3.73%
-25,89%
7.86%
-4.52%
4.06%
-30.1996
Thru September
3,072.04
3,126.19
2,830.56
3,008.21
2,966.59
6,286,059
6,808,973
6,092,911
6,150,978
6,369.024
4,492,618
5,532,874
5,707,788
5,511,269
5,329,642
535.02
560.45
553.14
568.58
547.27
%change
15596
1,7696
.9,4696
6.2896
-1.38%
-1.30%
8.29%
-10.49%
0.9596
3,54% .
-15.7196
23.15%
3.1696
-3.44%
-3.30%
-2.24%
4.75%
-1.30%
2.43%
-3.41%
December
8.71
8,74
8.56
8.41
9.31
22,763
23,487
22,573
23,327
20,795
16,550
17,010
19,924
19,572
16,956
1.82
1.76
1.99
1.82
2.02
31
January
8.88
8.70
8.37
8.53
9.39
23,955
21,218
22,631
23,434
21,267
15,491
15,649
19,880
21,413
18,419
1.81
1.65
1.83
1.88
1.88
31
February
8.68
9.02
8.27
8.18
9.69
24179
23,630
22806
23,673
22,846
15,109
17487
20,879
19,124
19,638
1.73
1.64
1.71
1.75
1.64
28
March
8.40
9.24
8.44
8.09
8.90
22,366
25 878
22,792
23 416
22,549
15,742
17,259
20,539
21,518
18,819
1.54
1.51
1.63
1.61
1.51
31
April
10.71 '
11.65
10.33
10.02
10.72
24,453
28,363
25,164
20,897
22,795
16,955
20,905
22,434
17,691
19,282
1.62
1.49
1.70
1.60
1.49
30
May
10.89
11.78
11.24
11.15
10.59
23,156
27,069
22,690
21,894
21,564
17,890
20,447
21,334
18,679
18,143
1.71
1.61
1.97
1.79
1.67
31
June
- 12.32
12.14
10.46
12.55
11.15
22,601
23,753
21,426
22,576
24,792
17,349
20,201
19,000
20,611
19,272
1.88
1.79
2.05
2.14
2.09
30
July
13,67
12.77
11.20
13.57
11.80
22 721
24,034
20,337
23,787
24,380
16,288
21,274
19,403
22,780
20,338
2.16
2.61
1.74
2.32
2.33
31
August
13.52
13.99
12.12
13.49
12.77
21,650
25,954
22,454
21,669
24,857
16,183
24,603
22,890
19,648
20,519
2.41
2.95
2.71
2,68
2.57
31
September
13.68
13.65
12.75
13.43
12.81
22,270
24,438
20620
21,459
24,953
17,035
24,464
22,237
20,052
21,329
2.78
3.19
2.88
2.91
2.84
30
October
11,67
11.78
9,53
11.42
0.00
25,777
27,696
20,216
22,863
0
18,167
26,517
18,438
19,016
0
2.64
3.02
2.67
2.85
0.00
31
November
8.92
9.01
8.40
9.46
0.00
23331
25,007
20,908
21,457
0
16,046
22,941
18,799
18,166
0
2.01
2.44
2.04
2.22
0.00
30
December
8.74
856
8,41
9.31
0.00
23,487
22,573
23,327
20,795
0
17,010
19,924
19,572
16,958
0
1.76
1.99
1.82
2.02
0.00
31
December
313
322
316
333
268
228
233
279
279
0
January
323
292
324
330
273
209
216
282
301
0
February
335
314
331
347
283
209
232
303
280
0
March
319
336
324
347
304
225
224
292
319
0
8048
274
292
292
250
255
190
215
260
212
0
May
255
276
242
235
244
197
208-
226
201
0
Jura
220
235
246
216
267
169
200
218
197
0
AM
196
226
218
210
248
141
200
208
201
0
August
192
222
222
193
233
.144
211
224
175
0
September
192
215
194
192
234
147
215
209
179
0
October
265
262
254
240
01)1V/0I
187
270
232
200
NO1V/01
November
314
333
298
297
rIO1V/0I
216
305
268
230
CgV/0I
December
322
316
333
266
61)1V/01
233
279
279
218
801V/01
10/23/07
•
2
C7
2
450.00
400.00
350.00
300.00
250.00
200.00
•
Table 5-3A
Monthy Influent Flow
Jc1 � r J��c c J
_ec` �PQcc'
eec
6
e�P0 o
Month
•
--.— 2007
—t- 2003
2004
—x— 2005
2006
100.00
90.00
80.00
2
( 70.00
60.00
50.00
40.00
•
Table 5-3B
Rudkin Road Flow
���Ja� �`Ja� �a��r PQM\ baa �J°'��•c) o\9x) °�� cc'
Month
•
—+-2007
—a-2003
2004
2005
2006
•
• • •
900,000
850,000
800,000
L
rr
O
E
a 750,000
N
C
3
O
a
700,000
650,000
600,000
Table 5-3C
BOD Comparison
���c mac, � ����r PJ�JS� �ecoec OGN8° ,oe� ec cdzig
Month
- 2007
— n-- 2003
2004
- — 2005
— - 2006
Pounds Per Month
850,000
800,000
750,000
700,000
650,000
600,000
550,000
500,000
450,000
400,000
•
Table 5-3D
TSS Comparison
Oe'G�CC )a?J <<e,
Month
•
c\ Q'C
PJB `���o.29
OG�O,00 ��r�C ��ros
r\° , Of0
--*-2007
—N-2003
2004
— 4t 2005
— - 2006
•
.,-\''' ------\
Oe'G�CC )a?J <<e,
Month
•
c\ Q'C
PJB `���o.29
OG�O,00 ��r�C ��ros
r\° , Of0
--*-2007
—N-2003
2004
— 4t 2005
— - 2006
•
Table 5-4
TOTAL ANNUAL
Historical and Projected Biochemical (BOD),
Total Suspended Solids (TSS), and FOG Plant Loading
Pollutant
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
(lbs)
(lbs)
(lbs)
(lbs)
(lbs)
(lbs)
(lbs)
Estimate
Estimate
Estimate
Estimate
BOD
Dom/Ind
9,115,530
8,069,967
8,208,080
8,200,000
8,302,500
8,406,281
8,511,360
% change
-11.47%
1.71%
-0.10%
1.25%
1.25%
1.25%
Del Monte
658,547
701,917
918,639
800,000
800,000
800,000
800,000
TOTAL
9,774,077
8,771,884
9,126,719
9,000,000
9,102,500
9,206,281
9,311,360
-10.25%
4.05%
-1.39%
1.14%
1.14%
1.14%
TSS
Dom/Ind
7,660,781
7,450,056
7,172,013
7,200,000
7,290,000
7,381,125
7,473,389
% change
-2.75%
-3.73%
0.39%
1.25%
1.25%
1.25%
Del Monte
86,547
95,973
255,870
150,000
150,000
150,000
150,000
TOTAL
7,747,328
7,546,029
7,427,883
7,350,000
7,440,000
7,531,125
7,623,389
-2.60%
-1.57%
-1.05%
1.22%
1.22%
1.23%
FOG
Dom/Ind
2,358,865
1,976,029
2,147,873
2,174,721
2,201,905
2,229,429
2,257,297
% change
-16.23%
8.70%
1.25%
1.25%
1.25%
1.25%
9/27/07
Table 5-5
Retail Sanitary System
# Customer Accounts by User Group
Billing Category
and Description
Retail Owner (City)
2005
: Actual
2006 2007
Actual ' Est.
2008
Est
2009
Est
2010
Est
S11 Residential Sewer
19,565
2.0,422. 21,201
21 466
I
,. 21,734
22,006
S12 Commercial Sewer
1,818
1,900
1,927
1,9511 1 975
J
2 000
/ .._
S13 Industrial Sewer
15
15
12
12
12
12
S14 Governmental Sewer
89
...
89
93
.94
95 I 96
S15 Interdepartmental Sewer
30
29 33
33
33
33
S31 Residential Unmetered Sewer 104
107 88
89
90
91
S32 Commercial Unmetered Sew 6! 4
4
4
4
4
S33 Industry Unmetered Sewer 1
1
1
1
1
1
S35 Static Charge Residential 0
0
0
0
0
0
S75 Interdepartmental Sewer 0
0
0
0
0
0
subtotal inside City. 21,627i 22,566
23,358! 23,650
23,944! 24,243
Percent Change
4.34%
3.51%
1.25%
1.25%
1.25%
Retail Non -owner (County) (2)
(2)
(3)
(3)
S21 Residential Sewer 552
194
78
36
36.L 36
S22 Business Outside Sewer 6
4
2
1
1
1
S24 Governmental Sewer 2
1
1
1
1
1
Static Sewer Residential 5
5
2
2
2
2
•S41
S42 Commercial Unmetered Sew€ 0! 0
0i 0
0
0
subtotal outside City. (2) 1 5_65..
2031 , 83
- 40 40
40
Percent Change
-64.09%
-59.24%
1.25%
1.25%
1.25%
Total Users (J)
22,192
22,7691 23,441
23,690 23,984
24,283
....
increase
577
672
249 i 294
299
Percent Change
2.60%
2.95%
1.06%
1.24%
1.25%
... ....L
Percent of Total
Inside
97.45%
99.11%
99.65%
99.83%
99.83%
99.84%
Outside
2.55%
0.89%
0.35%
, 0.17%
0.17%
0.16%
(1) Excludes Terrace Heights and Union Gap service areas. ____
(2) Reflects major annexations of existing retail Non -Owner customers in 2005 and 2006..
(3) Reflects annexation in 2007.
10/2- '07
TABLE 5-6
Retail Wastewater Customers
# Accounts by Meter Size
-.
Meter
Size
City
� ActualActual
. 2005
Accounts
2006
Accounts
Projected
2007
Accounts
Projected
2008 .
Accounts
Projected
2009
Accounts
Projected
2010
Accounts _
3/4"
']"
1.5"
2"
3"
i 19,910
983
261
232
85
20782
1025
273
243
85
21^539
1_,069
_ al_
244
88
21„.808
l082
_ 285
247
89
22,081
1,086
283
250
90
22,357
1.110
293
253
91
_ 4"
8"
8"
lO"1
12
36/
� 8_
.... 2
0
38
5
2
1
0
37
S
3
1
0
37
5
3
1
0
37
5
3
• 1
0
37
S
3
1
0
subtotal
% increase
21,516
22,454
4.36%
23,267
3.62%
23557
1.25%
23,852
1.25%
24,150
1.29%
County
_ _�/��
1"
1.5" |
-
360
1`
0
--
_
175
1
0
-
_ -
39
1
0
�
---- _
39
_ 1
0
39
1
0
-
39
1
0
_ 2"2
_ 3n
--��'
G"__
_ 8"
l0"
12"
___ 2
_ 0
'Q-
U_
1
0
0
_ 0 _ 0
0 0
0 0
U_ 0
0 0
0 O
0 U
..... S)
__0�_
O
O
O
_ O
! 0
_.O
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
subtotal
% increase
Total
increase
364
21J880
176 4O
-51.66% -77.27%
22,G30 23,307
750 677
40
1.2596
23,597
290
40
1.25%
23,892
295
40
1.25%
241,190
298
% increase
County %
county%
_ of Total
(1) Excludes
L_
— -
1.66% '
-
--
Terrace Heights
3.43% 2.99%
-
'
0.78% 07%__
' -
- -
and Union Gapservice areas
1.24%
-
0.17% _
1.25%
---
-
0.17%
1.25%
-
0.17%
(2) RofleotomajoronnexotionucfexistinQretaUNon-Owmercustommsin2O0S.28O6.mnd2U07.
10/22/07
Table 5-7
Retail Wastewater Customers
Meter Equivalents
Meter
AWWA
Actual
Actual
Projected
Projected
Projected
Projected
Size
Factor
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
Equivalent
Equivalent
Equivalent
Equivalent
Equivalent
Equivalent
City
3/4"
1.00
19,910
20,782
21,539
21,808
22,081
22,357
1"
1.27
1,248
1,301
1,358
1,375
1,392
1,409
1.5"
1.64
429
446
460
466
472
478
2"
2.64
612
640
647
655
663
671
3"
10.00
846
850
876
887
898
909
4"
12.73
454
488
478
484
490
496
6"
19.10
109
92
98
99
100
101
8"
26.36
52
70
76
77
78
79
10"
40.00
53
53
47
48
49
50
12"
0.00
0
0
0
0
0
0
subtotal
23,713
24,722
25,579
25,899
26,223
26,550
% increase
4.26%
3.47%
1.25%
1.25%
1.25%
County
3/4"
1.00
360
175
39
39
40
40
1"
1.27
1
1
1
1
1
1
1.5"
1.64
0
0
0
0
0
0
2"
2.64
5
0
0
0
0
0
3"
10.00
0
0
0
0
0
0
4"
12.73
0
0
0
0
0
0
6"
19.10
0
0
0
0
0
0
8"
26.36
26
0
0
0
0
0
10"
40.00
0
0
0
0
0
0
12"
0
0
0
0
0
0
subtotal
393
176
40
40
41
41
% increase
-55.14%
1.25%
1.25%
1.25%
1.25%
Total
24,106
24,898
25,619
25,939
26,264
26,591
increase
792
721
320
324
327
% increase
3.29%
2.89%
1.25%
1.25% .
1.25%
County %
of Total
1.63%
0.71%
0.16%
0.16%
0.16%
0.16%
(1) Excludes Terrace Heights and Union Gap service areas.
10/2?
Table 5-8
Comparision of annual increase used by 2001 COS v.
Actual Annual Increase
10/22/07
estimated
actual
xx
estimated
2006 est.
2006
Difference
annual increase
annual increase
annual increase
per 2001 COS
Actual
actual v. Est.
per 2001 COS
01-06
this report
Billed Flow
(UOC)
City Retail
3,529,752
3,771,697
6.9%
0.25%
2.00%
1.50%
County Retail
30,994
30,288
-2.3%
2.50%
2.00%
1.00%
Total Retail
3,560,746
3,801,985
6.8%
0.27%
2.00%
1 50%
Terrace Heights
245,244
224,826
-8.3%
3.00%
1.50%
1.50%
Union Gap
313,820
328,142
4.6%
2.00%
. 2.80%
2.50%
Total Billed Flow
4,119,810
4,354,953
5.7%
0.55%
2.00%
1.58%
Total Influent Flow
6,108,367
5,260,281
-13.9%
1.00%
-1.50%
1.25%
Non -Billed Flow
1,988,558
905,328
-54.5%
Rudkin Road LS
1,209,696
1,048,075
-13.4%
3.00%
0.60%
1.00%
80D (lbs) (inc Del Monte)
13,117,838
9,126,719
-30.4%
6.00%
0.70%
1.15%
TSS (lbs) (inc Del Monte)
7,471,381
7,427,883
-0.6%
2.00%
1.30%
1.23%
(UOC) Unit of Consumption = 100 cubic feet = 748
gallons
(BOD) Biochemical Oxygen Demand
(TSS) Total Suspended Solids
Meter Equivalents
City
24,039
24,722
2.8%
0.50%
2.90%
1.25%
County
292
176
-39 7%
4.00%
-4.50%
1.25%
total
24,331
24,898
2.3%
1.16%
2.83%
1.25%
10/22/07
SECTION 6
PRETREATMENT PROGRAM
History:
The City's wastewater pretreatment program began in earnest in 1988.
"The purpose of a local pretreatment program is to protect the
environment from adverse impacts that can occur when hazardous or
toxic wastes are discharged into a sewer system. Generally, this
protection is achieved though regulation of nondomestic (industrial) users
that discharge toxic wastes or unusually strong wastes...These users are
required under the program to treat the hazardous or toxic wastes at
their highest concentration point, before they are introduced into the
sewer system and treatment plant. Such pretreatment fulfills the
objectives of the federal and state pretreatment program by preventing:
1) the introduction of nondomestic wastes that interfere with POTW
operations; 2) the pass-through of pollutants without being removed
because the POTW is not designed to remove them; 3) the contamination
of municipal sludge by the removal of certain pollutants by the POTW;
and 4) the exposure of treatment plant workers (and by extension sewer
collection maintenance workers) to chemical hazards" (Cited from the
March 27, 1989 memorandum from Preston Thorgrimson, pages 5 and
6). Municipalities, such as Yakima, are strictly liable under the Clean
Water Act. See. e.g.. Mumford Cove Ass'n v. Town of Groton, 640 F.
Supp. 392 (D. Conn. 1986). "Thus, NPDES (National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System) permit or pretreatment violations are not excusable
because the regulatory requirements are technical or insignificant, or are
difficult or impossible to meet"" (same Preston Thorgrimson citation as
above, page 9).
With the City's June 2003 NPDES permit, the City became mandated to
maintain a fully delegated Pretreatment Program. Federal and State
mandates outlined a series of tasks the City is required to complete to
maintain NPDES discharge permit compliance. These included: 1)
completion of an Industrial Waste Survey identifying known and suspected
Significant Industrial Users (Sills); 2) adoption of an updated Sewer Use
Ordinance including permitting authority; 3) adoption of Special
Agreements with the City of Union Gap and the Terrace Heights Sewer
District insuring complete and adequate implementation of the National
Pretreatment Program; 4) calculations of technically based local discharge
2007 COS
Section 6 Page 1
October 22, 2007
limits; 5) a listing of staff and resources available to implement the
Pretreatment Program; and 6) a letter from the City attorney stating the
City has the legal authority to implement a pretreatment program.
Service Unit:
In the 1994 Cost of Service Study (COS), a unique Service Unit (SU 233)
was initiated which identified all expenses associated with the City's
Pretreatment Program, a fee schedule was adopted for services provided,
and rates were established to be charged to the appropriate customers.
Additional mandates from the Department of Ecology require that the fee
schedule and rates for this Service Unit be updated to reflect increase
expenses.
Rate Policy Options:
The fee schedule adopted with the 1996 COS intended to shift 75% of
the cost of the program to the Pretreatment customers. The 2001 COS
continued that philosophy. The City's pretreatment program also deals
with strong waste (BOD, TSS) and fats, oils, and grease (FOG) from our
industrial/commercial customers. These responsibilities could be
considered outside the strict interpretation of federally mandated
program. Therefore. this report continues the Cost -Share philosophy of
the mandated pretreatment program. A portion (approximately 36%) of
the cost of this program is allocated to the Strong Waste and FOG
charges (see section 10). Thereby, assigning these costs back to those
businesses that impact the program.
Cost Recovery:
Recovery of the costs associated with the Pretreatment Program is
mandated under 40 CFR 403.8 (f) 3. "The POTW shall have sufficient
resources and qualified personnel to carry out the authorities and
procedures in paragraphs (f) (1) and (2) of this section (Pretreatment
Program Responsibilities)".
The businesses within the program fall into one of two categories:
Significant Industrial Users (SIU's) or Minor Industrial Users (Mill's). A
business becomes an SIU if it meets any of the following thresholds;
1. Having .a business type listed under 40 CFR 405-471 as
"categorical".
2007 COS
Section 6 Page 2
October 22, 2007
2. Discharges more than 25,000 gallons per day of process
wastewater.
3. Contributes more than 5% of the dry weather loading of the
Treatment Facility.
4. Is designated because of its potential to significantly impact the
Treatment Facility.
All other businesses within the program are MIU's.
The EPA "Guidance Manual for POTW Pretreatment Program
Development" discusses three possible methods of cost recovery that
the City could utilize:
1) Service Charges: Businesses are charged based on the service
performed (inspection, sampling, etc.) plus an accounting adjustment at
the end of each year to cover additional expenditures. This method is
very labor intensive because of the amount of record keeping required
and the complex calculations involved in determining charges. This
method is currently being used when billing SIU's because of the limited
number of businesses involved and the wide divergence of tests.
2) industry Surcharge: Businesses are charged a flat rate surcharge to
finance the Pretreatment Program. Specific Standard Industrial Codes
(SIC) that are monitored by the Pretreatment Program due to the
generalized characteristics or strength of their waste are charged through
a utility billing system. This method has the advantage of using the
current billing system. Staff uses this method on MIU's because of the
larger number of businesses involved.
3) Pollutant Strength Charge: Businesses are charged according to
the amount of pollutants discharged. This gives incentive for businesses
to reduce the amount of pollutant being discharged. However, it is
geared toward conventional pollutants and does not address toxic
pollutants. This method is currently in use to recover costs for the
treatment of Strong Waste (circa 1982) and FOG. This method is
proposed to pay the "cost -share".
4) Discharge Permit Fees. Delegation gave the City authority and
responsibility under the Clean Water Act to issue discharge permits to
commercial and industrial dischargers within the City's service area. This
2007 COS
Section 6 Page 3
October 22, 2007
COS continues our policy to set and collect permit fees from the affected
businesses to offset the costs of the fully delegated program. This
report recommends our permit fees be set at 90% of those established
by Ecology.
Staffing Impacts:
Wastewater staff is constantly appraising the EPA/Ecology mandated
responsibilities of the delegated program as they impact staff workload.
At this time, staff recommends the addition of 1.0 FTE Pretreatment
Permit Writer and 0.5 FTE Chemist (to be shared with other wastewater
service units). These positions are included in the 2008 budget. The
City has the delegated responsibility to permit, inspect, and monitor
twenty-five SIUs. The City has issued only eight permits since 2003.
Ecology continues to emphasize the requirement that the City issue
permits to the remaining SIUs. In order to complete the remaining
permits in the next 1-2 years, it will be necessary to hire additional staff
to write the permits and be responsible for the compliance requirements
of these permits. These requirements would include tracking mandated
0&M and Spill/Slugload review/updates, discharge monitoring report
submittals and permit renewal applications. A permit writer and two field
personnel were included in the 2001 Cost of Service report. A permit
writer was also included in the 2000 Wastewater Facilities Plan. To this
date, however, the permit writer position has not been filled.
With the continued growth of the pretreatment program, tracking of
inspections, monitoring data and compliance dates are becoming
increasingly difficult. Additional computers and pretreatment software
package would allow easier access to industry information and compliance
monitoring. The approximate cost of the pretreatment and FOG software
is $10,000, installation and training is $1,500 and yearly upgrades and
technical support is $1,500 (see Table 4-7).
Additional office space will be required. Currently five pretreatment
personnel are sharing a 200 square feet office space. This space is not
adequate. The growing pretreatment program would require additional
office space, as well as storage for files, monitoring equipment and
vehicles. Space will be avaiable within existing building shells following
the completion of current construction. This space will need to be
converted to offices and storage.
2007 COS
Section 6 Page 4
October 22, 2007
Pretreatment Expense Analysis and Recovery Options:
Table 6-2 outlines the annual budget projected through the planning
period. This includes additional lab staff and expenses. For addional
detail see Table 4-7.
Proposed Charges for Affected Businesses:
Table 6-2 also presents the proposed Pretreatment fee and charge
schedule for the affected business community. Businesses in Union Gap
and Terrace Heights are not included in this list. Those two entities are
responsible for their own Pretreatment activity within their own service
areas. However, Union Gap and Terrace Heights will be billed for the
sampling and testing the City does on their effluent per the hourly rates
and fee schedule on tables 6-3, 6-4, and 6-5.
Fees for Significant Industrial Users (SIU) and Minor Industrial Users (MIU)
are analyzed separately. The fee of $7,499/year shown on Table 6-2 is
an estimate of the average total cost, including tax, necessary to monitor
the average business in the SIU class for 2008. That cost includes
permit, sampling and laboratory fees found on Table 6-3. The intent of
this fee schedule is that the SIU's are billed directly, through invoice, by
the City for actual service rendered. These fees would be subject to
increase during the period through 2010. Per existing ordinance, the
permit fee shall reflect changes in Ecologies permit fee schedule.
Monthly rates for MIU's outside the City would be subject to a phased
increased to $102.32 per month by 2010 reflecting the presence of the
business in the pretreatment program. It is possible that not all MIU's will
be tested in any year. However, testing, which includes a 3 -day sampling
regimen, will be performed on as many of each SIC code which can be
scheduled in a year. The remaining charge per business covers the costs
of administering the program that includes archiving, potential billing
system changes, statistical analysis, and other applied program costs.
MIU's within the City would be billed at 60% of the outside rate and be
subject to a phased increased of 5.5% per year till 2010. This fee
reflects a 64-36% cost share with the strong waste/FOG businesses and
City retail customers.
2007 COS
Section 6 Page 5
October 22, 2007
Pretreatment Fee and Charge Schedule:
Table 6-3 identifies the presently proposed charges for basic sampling
and testing, complex laboratory testing, and other flat rate charges for
related services for 2008. The Pretreatment Fee and Charge Schedule,
Table 6-3, derives its costs from Tables 6-4 and 6-5. These costs are
based upon projected 2008 expenses and are subject to annual
inflationary increases. The basic one and multi -day sampling schedule
includes sampler set-up and collection costs, administrative cost, and
laboratory costs for Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD), Total Suspended
Solids (TSS), and pH, to generate a basic cost. "Laboratory Fees" also
include more complex testing that may be required by the program in
addition to the basic tests. Some of the complex and more costly
laboratory testing is done by "outside" laboratories because of equipment
requirements.
The above fee schedule covers only the expense of testing and
monitoring. These fees do not cover any costs associated with
treatment of pollutants discharged from any customer. Treatment of
constituents allowed in the waste stream may be billed in addition to the
testing fees. Strong waste surcharges for discharges, of BOD and TSS in
concentration exceeding 300 ppm and a FOG surcharge for discharges of
FOG in concentration exceeding the local limit (100 ppm) would be in
addition to these proposed Pretreatment Fees.
The "Other Fees" include "Discharge Authorization". This item is required
mainly for disposal of groundwater generated by removal of underground
storage tanks. This fee is valid for the first 50,000 gallons of water so
disposed, administration, and oversight of the remediation project for
wastewater purposes. "Other Fees" also include services performed by
Pretreatment or other wastewater division- employees at the request of
and for the benefit of customers. Services include; Compliance
inspections, hydro vacuuming, dye testing, smoke testing, Tying for
location, these services are billed per crew hour at the rates indicated in
Table 6-3. These services are provided both on a charged and non -
charged basis depending on the nature of the job request.
In 1998, wastewater adopted a policy of requiring a TV inspection of all
new construction prior to final acceptance as a part of the City's
collection system. Developers/contractors had their choice of who
performs this activity. If they chose to hire City services, the price is per
2007 COS
Section 6 Page 6
October 22, 2007
foot as indicated on Table 6-3. If they choose to hire a private company
to perform the Tying, our staff is still required to inspect the video and
perform time-consuming related identification tasks. Therefore, a price
per foot (reduced) is established for those using private TV inspection.
Fats. Oils. and Grease (FOG) Program
There are currently almost 500 businesses licensed by the Health District
to serve food in the City of Yakima. These businesses include
restaurants, grocery stores, mini -marts and institutions such as schools,
nursing homes, and correctional facilities. We have found that many do
not have grease traps. The City and the Uniform Plumbing Code currently
require grease traps on all new food establishments. The City can require
establishments that don't have grease traps to install them. The City can
also require a new grease trap if the current one is undersized or not
working properly. We also have found that many businesses with grease
interceptors do not adequately maintain them.
In 2006, the Pretreatment Program added a staff member whose primary
duty is to educate and enforce a FOG reduction program within our
service area. The FOG program starts with education. The Wastewater
Division has and continues to distribute a number of multi-lingual
educational materials including:
• Brochures that outline the problems and costs associated with
improper grease management
• Waste reduction plans for food establishments
• Maintenance schedules for grease traps
• Signs for the kitchen area that read "Dump No Grease"
• A list of vendors that recycle grease
• A list of vendors that pump grease traps
All of this information is being provided to the food establishments. We
have met with the Restaurant Association and other organizations to
discuss FOG management.
Now that the education program is well established, we have begun
inspections/testing of the establishments. Because of the Targe number
of establishments, we are planning on quarterly inspections. Once the
program is underway, for a year or so, inspection frequency will be
2007 COS
Section 6 Page 7
October 22, 2007
adjusted. Some establishments may requirement inspections on a
monthly basis, while others can be reduced to yearly.
The number of grease related sewer back-ups has decreased significantly
since Pretreatment began emphasizing Best Management Practices to the
food service establishments (FSE). This increased emphasis began around
2003 and 2004. Data from emergency grease related sewer back-ups
indicate a marked decrease in the number of grease related incidents. In
2004, there were 54 grease related sewer back-ups. As of October 10th of
2007, there were four (4) sewer back-ups caused by grease. Another
indicator of the success of the FOG program is the reduction in the number
of FOG violations issued to food service establishments. In 2004, 25% of
wastewater samples from FSEs exceeded the City's local limit. In 2007, only
12% of the samples were in non-compliance.
To ensure that dischargers that violate the City's Wastewater Use and
Pretreatment Ordinance are brought back into compliance in a consistent
and timely manner, the Pretreatment Program implements an
Enforcement Response Plan (ERP). The ERP is a guidance document that
provides a menu of graduated enforcement options to assist City
personnel in deciding on appropriate enforcement actions taken towards
industries. Year to date for 2007, the Pretreatment Program has issued
seventeen (17) FOG warning letters to industries for minor FOG violation
infractions. A total of four (4) Administrative Orders (AO) were issued as
of October 2007. Three (3) AOs with Penalties were issued for FOG
violations in 2007. The fourth AO was issued for failure to respond to a
previous AO in a timely manner.
Because is a significant portion of grease that is residential in nature, the
FOG program would also have an educational program for residential
customers.
The Wastewater Division now recomends the initiation of the third leg of
the FOG program, economic incentives should be added to education and
enforcement. We propose a FOG fee to shift the cost burden of this
element of the Pretreatment program, an allocation of the system
maintenence, and treatment costs to the appropriate businesses (see
Section 10).
2007 COS
Section 6 Page 8
October 22, 2007
Conclusion:
Staff seeks Council direction to enact this fee and charge plan to lessen
the impact on City retail ratepayers for the Pretreatment Program. This
section represents the implementation framework for allocating mandated
pretreatment program costs to businesses State and Federal
environmental regulations require the City to monitor.
This proposal reflects the cost to conduct the MIU program as shown on
Table 6-2. Businesses within the City would be charged only 60% of the
full cost rate. The balance is included within the proposed City strong
waste and FOG retail rates.
This proposal would initiate a Fat, Oils, and Grease (FOG) fee for all FOG
discharged at a concentration exceeding the local limit set by the City's
Sewer Use Ordinance (currently 100 mg/I.)
This Proposal would set the testing fee schedule as shown on Table 6-3.
These rates would be charged for requested testing and testing done for
entities outside the City. However, businesses within the City's collection
system would be charged only 75% of the rates shown for in-house
services. The balance is included within the proposed City retail rate.
This proposal would establish the Permit fees charged to SIUs at 90% of
the fee established by Ecology for that type of business.
Recommendation:
Staff recommends that approval be given to hire additional staff as
outlined in this section; 1.0 FTE permit writer and 0.5 FTE chemist
(budgeted). Due to a reorganization of our mandated priorities, these
additional staff will not result in a net increase in Division employees.
Staff recommends that formal direction be given to draft the enabling
legislation for the charge and fee schedule shown on Tables 6-2 and 6-3
of this report.
2007 COS
Section 6 Page 9
October 22, 2007
Table 6-1
Required Monitoring
Page 1 of 2
The following is a summary of the
in the influent, effluent, and biosolids
Ecology Enforcement Order # DE-93WQ-C492,
"Metals" category must be tested for
twice a year. Items marked with
influent, effluent, or biosolids at
Testing for all parameters is mandatory
is not detected or suspected.
chemicals
quarterly.
an "X"
the
at the
have
treatment
even
that the City is required to test
Wastewater Treatment Plant
dated 10-13-93. Items in
All other items must be tested
been detected at least once in
plant during the last six years.
if a chemical or group of chemicals
for _
per _
the _
for _
the -
-
-
Metals
Pesticides cont.
Ag -SILVER
X
ENDOSULFAN SULFATE
AI -ALUMINUM
X
4,4 -DDT
X
As -ARSENIC
X
METHOXYCHLOR
Ba -BARIUM
X
CHLORDANE
X
Be -BERYLLIUM
X
TOXAPHENE
Ca -CALCIUM
X
AROCHLOR-1016
Cd -CADMIUM
X
AROCHLOR-1221
Cr -CHROMIUM
X
AROCHLOR-1232
Cu -COPPER
X
AROCHLOR-1242
Fe -IRON
X
AROCHLOR-1248
Hg -MERCURY
X
AROCHLOR-1254
X
Mg -MAGNESIUM
X
AROCHLOR-1260
Mn-MANGENESE
X
Mo -MOLYBDENUM
X
Volatile Organics
Na -SODIUM
X
CHLOROMETHANE
X
Ni -NICKEL
X
VINYLCHLORIDE
Pb -LEAD
X
BROMOMETHANE
X
Sb -ANTIMONY
X
CHLOROETHANE
Se -SELENIUM
X
TRICHLROFLUOROMETHANE
X
TI -THALIUM
ACROLEIN
Zn -ZINC
X
1,1-DICHLOROETHYLENE
ASBESTOS
METHYLENE CHLORIDE
X
CYANIDE
X
ACRYLONITRILE
X
TRANS-1,2-DICHLOROETHYLENE
Pesticides
1,1-DICHLOROETHAN E
ALPHA -BHC
CHLOROFORM
X
BETA -BHC
1,1,1 -TRICHLOROETHANE
X
DELTA -BHC
CARBON TETRACHLORIDE
GAMMA -BHC
BENZENE
HEPTACHLOR
1,2-DICHLOROETHANE
ALDRIN
1,1,2 -TRICHLOROETHYLENE
X
HEPTACHLOR EPDXIDE
1,2-DICHLOROPROPANE
ENDOSULFAN I
X
BROMODICHLOROMETHANE
DIELDRIN
2-CHLOROETHYLVINYLETHER
4,4 -DDE
X
TRANS-1,3-DICHLOROPROPENE
ENDRIN
X
TOLUENE
X
ENDOSULFAN II
CIS-1,3-DICHLOROPROPENE
4,4 -DDD
X
1,1,2 -TRICHLOROETHANE
X
ENDRIN ALDEHYDE
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE
X
7/13/07
Table 6-1
Required Monitoring
Page 2 of 2
Volatile Organics
Semi -Volatile Organics
CHLORODIBROMOMETHANE
4-CHLOROPHENYL PHENYL ETHER
CHLOROBENZENE
4,6-DINITRO-O-CRESOL
ETHYL BENZENE
X
N-NITROSODIPHENYLAMINE
X
BROMOFORM
1,2-DIPHENYLHYDRAZINE
1,1,2,2 -TETRACHLOROETHANE
4-BROMOPHENYL PHENYL ETHER
HEXACHLOROBENZENE
Volatile Organics
PENTACHLOROPHENOL
Hazardous Substance List
PHENANTHRENE
X
ACETONE
X
ANTHRACENE
X
CARBON DISULFIDE
X
DI-N-BUTYLPHTHALATE
X
VINYL ACETATE
FLUORANTHENE
X
2-BUTANONE (MEK)
X
BENZIDINE
4-METHYL-2-PENTANONE (MIBK)
X
PYRENE
X
2-HEXANONE
BENZYL BUTYL PHTHALATE
X
TOTAL XYLENE
X
BENZO(a) ANTHRACENE
X
STYRENE
CHRYSENE
X
3, 3'-DICH LOROBENZI DI N E
Semi -Volatile Organics
BIS (2-ETHYLHEXYL) PHTHALATE
X
N -N ITROSODIMETHYLAMINE
DI-N-OCTYL PHTHALATE
PHENOL
X
BENZO(b)FLUORANTHENE
X
BIS (2-CHLOROETHYL)"ETHER
BENZO(k)FLUORANTHENE
X
2 -CHLOROPHENOL
BENZO(a)PYRENE
X
1,3 -DICHLOROBENZENE
INDENO(1,2,3-CD)PYRENE
1,4 -DICHLOROBENZENE
X
DIBENZO(A,H)ANTHRCENE
1,2 -DICHLOROBENZENE
BENZO(G,H,I)PERYLENE
BIS (2-CHLOROISOPROYL) ETHER
N-NITROSODI-N-PROPYLAMINE
Semi -Volatile Organics
HEXACHLOROETHANE
Hazardous Substance List
NITROBENZENE
ANILINE
ISOPHORONE
BENZYL ALCOHOL
X
2-NITROPHENOL
2-METHYLPHENOL
X
2,4 -DIMETHYLPHENOL
4-METHYLPHENOL
X
BIS (2-CHLOROETHOXY) METHANE
BENZOIC ACID
X
2,4-DICHLOROPHENOL
4-CHLOROANILINE
X
1,2,4-TRICHLOROBENZENE
2 -METHYLNAPHTHALENE
X
NAPHTHALENE
X
2,4,5 -TRICHLOROPHENOL
HEXACHLOROBUTADIENE
2-NITROANILINE
4-CHLORO-3-METHYLPHENOL
3-NITROANILINE
HEXACHLOROCYCLOPENTADIENE
DIBENZOFURAN
X
2,4,6 -TRICHLOROPHENOL
4-NITROANILINE
2-CHLORONAPHTHALENE
CARBAZOLE
ACENAPHTHYLENE
X
COPROSTANOL
X
DIMETHYL PHTHALATE
X
2,6-DINITROTOLUENE
ACENAPHTHENE
2,4-DINITROPHENOL
4-NITROPHENOL
2,4-DINITROTOLUENE
FLUORENE
X
DIETHYL PHTHALATE
X
7/13/07
Table 6-2
Pretreatment Program (Service Unit 233) Expenses
PROPOSED RATES
Description
Actual
Actual
Estimate
Estimate
Estimate
Estimate
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
EXPENSE
Budget
Test
Year
Budgeted Program
see table 4-7
538,372
632,050
667,650
821,541
876,387
898,725
% Change
17.40%
5.63%
23.05%
6.68%
2.55%
REVENUE
Budget allocation to Wholesale customers of basic program
$62,865
64,751
66,693
68,694
SUBTOTAL Retail Customers
$604,785
$756,790
$809,694
$830,031
Less (est) Annual Charge Sills
75%
in City
$33,503
$34,508
$35,543
$36,610
Less (est) Annual permit fees
@90%
of DOE
$165,000
$152,955
$157,544
$162,270
Total Annual Charge SIU's
$198,503
$187,463
$193,087
$198,880
Estimated # SIU's
25
25
25
25
Average Annual cost per SIU
$7,940
$7,499
$7,723
$7,955
Propose Rate w/ Cost Share
in City
$7,940
$7,499
$7,723
$7,955
Less (est) Del Monte Testing
@75%
in City
$16,030
16,511
17,006
17,516
Less (est) Seneca Testing
@75%
in City
$9,320
9,600
9,888
10,184
Total Annual Charge MIUs
$380,932
$543,216
$589,713
$603,450
Estimated # MIUs
480
480
481
481
Full Cost per MIU
$794
$1,131
$1,226
$1,253
Full Cost Monthly Bill
@100%
outside City
$70.91
$94.21
$102.18
$104.45
Propose Rate
$80.13
$90.54
$102.32
13.096
13.096
13.0%
Full Cost Monthly Bill
@60%
in City
$53.18
$56.53
$61.31
$62.67
Propose Rate w/ Cost Share
@60%
in City
$53.18
$56.11
$59.19
$62.45
5.5%
5.5%
5.5%
Permit Fees
$155,637
$179,987
$165,000
$152,955
$157,544
$162,270
Program Fees and Charges
$417,622
$430,969
$425,000
$448,872
$470,767
$493,792
Total Revenue
$573,258
$610,956
$590,000
$601,827
$628,311
$656,061
Wastewater Revenue
$502,858
$535,926
$517,544
$527,919
$551,150
$575,493
Utility tax
$70,400
$75,030
$72,456
$73,909
$77,161
$80,569
City Cost Share
$35,514
$96,124
$150,106
$293,622
$325,237
$323,232
% Cost Share
796
15%
22%
36%
37%
36%
9/28
Table 6-3
Individual Testing Fees
Task
Pretreatment
Sampling
Laboratory (3)
Total Cost
Crew hrs.
Sampling(3)
1 Day /includes setup
1.5
$209.82
1113.70
$323.52
each additional day per setup
0.5
$84.58
$113.70
$198.28
(1) Includes sampler set up and pickup.
(2) Includes statistical analysis and billing program changes to Customer Service.
(3) Includes BOD, TSS and pH. Other tests additional, schedule found below.
Laboratory Fees
Test
Lab Hours
Area
Cost
Conv. $45.48, These tests are what
BOD -Biochemical Oxygen Demand
0.50
Conv. $45.48 is included in
TSS -Total Suspended Solids
0.50
Conv. - $22.74. "Laboratory" above.
pH
0.25
Conv.
168.22
BOD soluble
0.75
COD
0.50
Conv.
$45.48
COD soluble
0.75
Conv.
$68.22
TDS- Total Dissolved Solids
0.50
Conv.
$45.48
Alkalinity (Carbonate)
0.25
Conv.
$22.74
Ammonia (Ion Selective Probe)
0.25
Conv.
$22.74
Chlorine Residual (Colorimetric)
0.25
Conv.
$22.74
Dissolved Oxygen (Azide)
0.25
Conv.
$22.74
Dissolved Oxygen (Membrane)
0.25
Conv.
122.74
Fecal Coliform
0.75
Conv.
$68.22
FOG -Fats, Oils & Grease
1.00
Conv.
$90.96
MPN
5.00
Conv.
1454.80
Nitrate
0.50
Conv.
$45.48
Nitrite
0.50
Conv.
$45.48
Organic/Volatile Acids
0.25
Conv.
122.74
Total Volatile Solids
0.50
Conv.
145.48
BNA (Semivolatiles) (1)
outside
AA/GC
market cost
BTEX
2.00
AA/GC "
$277.58
Metals (AA)
2.50
AA/GC
$346.98
Metals (Graphite Furnace)
3.50
AA/GC
1485.77
Pesticides/ PCB's
5.50
AA/GC
$763.35
TPH (1)
outside
AA/GC
market cost
Volatile Organics
2.00
AA/GC
$277.58
(1) Testing done by outside lab.
Flat Rate Fees
Cost
Discharge Authorization
Lump Sum see text
$475.00
Compliance Inspection
per hour
$125.24
Dye testing
per hour
$125.24
Smoke testing
per hour
$125.24
TVing location
per hour
$180.00
Vactor work
per hour
$180.00
TVing new construction (we do)
per linear foot
$1.90
TVing new construction (they do)
per linear foot
$1.25
NOTE: All fees shown include City Utility Tax. currently 14%.
Glossary
BTEX- Benzene, Toluene, Ethylbenzene, and Xylene- Highly volatile hydrocarbons.
BNA -Base Neutral Acids-Semivolatile Organic compounds.
TPH-Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons -Includes oils, gasoline, diesel, and other fuels.
9/28/07
TABLE 6-4
Analysis of Laboratory Expenses
2008
CONVENTIONAL TESTING
AA/GC TESTING
Total
Available
Available
LABOR
Annual Cost
Time
Time
Manager
$118,185.14
2%
$2,363.70
0
0.5%
$590.93
0
Assist. Manager
$103,677.13
15%
$15,551.57
0
3%
$3,110.31
0
Lab Co -Ord.
$93,894.90
70%
$65,726.43
0
30%
$28,168.47
0
Lab Tech
$64,688.64
100%
$64,688.64
1,660
0%
$0.00
0
Lab Tech
$63,140.46
100%
$63,140.46
1,660
0%
$0.00
0
Lab Tech
$60,280.88
80%
$48,224.70
1,328
20%
$12,056.18
332
Lab Tech (0.5)
$60,280.88
50%
$30,140.44
830
0%
$0.00
0
Chemist
$80,000.00
0%
$0.00
0
100%
$80,000.00
1,660
Subtotal Labor
$289,835.95
5,478
$123,925.89
1,992
OTHER EXPENSES
Utilities
$9,450.00
$1,890.00
Equip. Maint.
$4,725.00
$25,231.50
Equip. Deprec.
$15,120.00
$36,855.00
Chemicals
$7,560.00
$5,670.00
Capital Debt
$65,000.00
$22,180.00
Materials
$1,890.00
$2,835.00
Consumables
$3,780.00
$1,890.00
Subtotal Other
$107,525.00
$96,551.50
Subtotal Expense
$397,360.95
$220,477.39
City services/admin.
10%
$39,736.09
$22,047.74
Subtotal
$437,097.04
$242,525.12
City Utility tax
14%
$61,193.59
$33,953.52
TOTAL 2008 EXPENSE
$498,290.63
$276,478.64
Hourly cost for Conventional Testing
$90.96
Hourly Cost for AA/GC Testing
$138.79
9/2.,7
Table 6-5
Analysis of Pretreatment Field Crew Expenses
2008
PRETREATMENT PROGRAM
FIELD CREW
Total
Available
LABOR
Annual Cost
Time (hrs.)
Assit. Div. Manager
$103,677.13
2%
$2,073.54
0
PreTreat-manager
$90,979.15
30%
$27,293.75
0
Chief
$71,412.00
- 90%
$64,270.80
- 1,494
Chief
$71,412.00
100%
$71,412.00
1,660
Tech
$64,496.64
100%
$64,496.64
1,660
Tech
$64,496.64
100%
$64,496.64
1,660
Subtotal Labor
$294,043.37
6,474
Labor
$90.84
per hour
Vehicles
$9.04
per hour
Per hour Pretreatment Field Crew
$99.87
per hour
PLUS
+
Sampler
/samp e
$15.00
per sample
Equip/tools
/sample
$2.00
per sample
Per Sample Pretreatment Equipment
$17.00
per sample
PLUS
+
City services/admin.
10%
on subtotal
City Utility Tax
14%
on subtotal
Per hour Pretreatment ( 2 person) Field Crew
$125.24
Per sample Equipment
$21.96
9/28/07
Table 6-6
Analysis of FOG Annual and Field Person Expenses
2008
FOG PROGRAM
FIELD CREW
Total
Available
LABOR
Annual Cost
Time (hrs.)
Assit. Div. Manager
$103,677.13
1%
$1,036.77
0
PreTreat-manager
$90,979.15
40%
$36,391.66
0
Chief
$71,412.00
10%
$7,141.20
166
Tech
$64,496.64
100%
$64,496.64
1,660
Subtotal Labor
$109,066.27
1,826
Labor
$59.73
Vehicles
$9.04
Per hour Pretreatment Field Crew
$68.77
per hour
per hour
PLUS
+
per hour
Sampler
/samp e
$0.00
Equip/tools
/sample
$2.00
Per Sample Pretreatment Equipment
$2.00
per sample
per sample
PLUS
+
per sample
City services/admin.
10%
City Utility Tax
14%
on subtotal
on subtotal
Per hour Pretreatment Field Person
$86.24
Per sample Equipment
$2.58
9/2P "'7
SECTION 7
NON -OWNER (COUNTY) DOMESTIC RETAIL CUSTOMERS
introduction:
This section contains the cost of service analysis performed for the
non -owner (county) domestic retail customers located outside
City boundaries. Section 8 contains the cost of service analysis
performed for the non -owner retail strong waste and all septage
customers.
Reference is made throughout this report to City retail and County
retail customers. In fact, the County has no customers connected to
this system. The customers to whom the report is referring are retail
customers of the City's wastewater system who live outside of the
City limits (in the county). Due to the recent annexations,
approximately 95% of those who were County retail customers in
2001, are now City retail customers. This section recognizes this
shift and allocates accordingly.
As explained in Section 2 of this report, the rates for non -owner retail
customers are calculated utilizing a UTILITY RATE BASIS. From Section
2, recall that the three elements of the utility basis of accounting are:
• Operating Expense: Operating expenses are the costs of
operating the sewerage system on a day-to-day basis, and include
costs of operating and maintaining the wastewater treatment plant
and collection and disposal facilities of the sewerage system,
administrative costs, and system replacement costs.
• Depreciation Expense: "Depreciation is the Toss in value of
facilities, not restored by current maintenance, that occurs due to
wear and tear, decay, inadequacy, and obsolescence. The annual
depreciation expense component of revenue requirements provides for
the recovery of the utility's capital investment over the anticipated
useful life of the depreciable assets." AWWA Manual M1 Water Rates,
2007 COS
Section 7 Page 1
October 24, 2007
• Rate of Return Allowance (Return on Investment): "The return
component is intended to pay the annual interest cost of debt capital
and provide a fair rate of return for the total equity capital employed
to finance physical facilities used to provide utility service." A WWA
Manual M1 Water Rates.
Purposes of the Cost of Service Study - Retail Non -owner
Customers:
The purposes of this cost of service analysis for non -owner customers
of the Retail System are to:
• Allocate operating, depreciation, and return on investment costs
of providing service to non -owner customers.
• Determine whether or not non -owner retail customers receiving
service from the City's sewerage system are paying fair and
appropriate shares of costs of providing service.
• Use the results of the retail cost of service analysis to establish
equitable rates and charges for non -owner customers.
Cost of Service Procedure:
The cost of service procedure that will result in the appropriate
allocations requires that we formulate the following information about
expenses to the system. Staff calculated these values for each year
during the study period. However, 2008 was utilized as the TEST
YEAR, therefore, most of the tables show data only for 2008.
1) Operation Expenses
A. Treatment expenses and applicable allocation.
B. Collection expenses and applicable allocation.
2) Depreciation expense
A. Treatment Facility expenses and applicable allocation.
B. Collection System expenses and applicable allocation.
2007 COS
Section 7 Page 2
October 24, 2007
3) Return on Investment (ROI)
A. Treatment Facility Rate Base and applicable ROR.
B. Collection System Rate Base and applicable ROR.
Organization of Cost of Service Tables - Non -owner Retail
Customers:
This section analyzes appropriate rates for "normal" domestic flow, as
defined by the 1976 Agreement, for non -owner (county) retail
customers who are connected to our collection system. Section 8
shall then calculate appropriate charges for Biochemical Oxygen
Demand (BOD) and Total Suspended Solids (TSS) that shall be utilized
while calculating rates for non -owner strong waste and all septage
customers.
On all of the tables in this section, "City" shall designate all sewer
customers except the non -owner retail customers who shall be
designated "County".
OPERATING EXPENSE
1) Treatment Facility Operating Expense (SU 232):
As explained in Section 2, the 1976 Agreement stipulates, "Monthly
sewage disposal charges shall be determined from the flow
measured...". Therefore, it is not contractually appropriate to
allocate BOD or TSS charges on "normal" domestic flow. These
components only become significant when their concentration exceeds
300 ppm. At that concentration, they are considered strong waste.
Consequently, Operation expenses for "normal" concentrations are
allocated on the percentage of flow received.
Approximately 95% of the county retail sewer customers receive their
domestic water from the Nob Hill Water Association (Nob Hill). The
Association reads these meters bi-monthly. Each individual
customer's usage is reported by Nob Hill to the City's Customer
Services Department where it is hand entered into the City's computer
system for sewer billings. All sewer accounts that receive Nob Hill
water are automatically set up by City staff .for a summer irrigation
discount; (i.e. The winter flow rate (November through February) of
2007 COS
Section 7 Page 3
October 24, 2007
each individual account is used throughout the entire year for
calculating bimonthly sewer billing). Customers who receive their
domestic water from a source other than Nob Hill water and have an
alternate source of irrigation water must request a summer irrigation
discount.
While examining the percentage of flow received from the county
customers, we must also allocate the Infiltration/Inflow (1/1) that is
received and treated at the Facility. Since all of the flow from
Terrace Heights and the majority from Union Gap are metered just
prior to entering the City's system, for this report, all the non -billed
(111) flow is allocated against retail County and City customers based
upon the percentage of their billed flow.
For the Test Year 2001 0.17% of the Operating Costs o f
Treatment Facility SU 232 are allocated to County retail. This
same calculation was performed for the other years of the planning
period.
For 2008, the calculation yields:
Operation Expenses = 0.17% of $4,720,797 = $8,025.
2) Collection System Operating Expense (SU 211):
As with previous reports, we have examined three methods of
allocating this cost. Those methods are: 1) Percent Retail Flow, 2)
Length of Pipe, or3) Number of Accounts.
For this report, as before, staff chose to use the results of method
1, 0.17%. These results were then carried to Table 7-6 Operating
Expenses SU 211 County to calculate the expense for each year of the
planning period.
For 2002, .the calculation yields:
Collection Expenses = 0.17% of $ 2,819,956 = .$ 4,794.
3) Storm Sewer System Operating Expense (SU 213):
For this report, operating and capital expenses of the storm sewer
2007 COS
Section 7 Page 4
October 24, 2007
system (SU 213) that City crews presently maintain were allocated
entirely to inside City customers.
4) Rudkin Road Lift Station Operating Expense (SU 215):
Union Gap, inside city, and outside City customers utilize the Rudkin
Road pumping station (SU 215); however, it is believed that Tess than
1% of the total flow through this station is from outside City retail
customers. Therefore, at this time, staff chose to exclude these
expenses from this user group.
DEPRECIATION EXPENSE
Introduction:
Under a Utility Basis of accounting, customers pay depreciation
expense associated with capital assets that are used to provide
service. In concept, these funds pay to replace the system at such
time as that is required (at the end of the depreciation period). This
provides continuous service to these customers. The depreciation
expense is applied to the entire original cost of the system without any
deductions for grants or customer participation. Under a Utility
Basis, the owner (City) is compensated for the initial construction local
share of expenses of the treatment facility and interceptors through
Capital Cost Recovery Fees (CCRC) and for initial construction local
share of expenses of sewer collection system through Sewer Hookup
Fees.
1) Treatment Facility:
Staff performed an extensive review and update of the depreciation
records of the Treatment Facility. The expense of the recently
completed construction project and the construction in progress was
also included.
The Facility annual depreciation costs are shown on Table 7-7. These
expenses are allocated based upon the percent of total treatment
facility flow that has been established as 0.17% for the Test Year
2008. This value will vary in the future to reflect plant improvements
and expansions and as the percent of plant flow from this user group
varies. The annual Plant depreciation allocated to County during
2008 is $4,668.,
2007 COS
Section 7 Page 5
October 24, 2007
2) Collection System:
For the 1994 and the 1996 report, staff researched over 1,000
individual collection system projects which have been installed since
1892. Projects were reviewed for project cost and physical location.
Staff was, able to obtain a much more accurate accounting of the
value of collection system dedicated to county customers. This total
inventory value will increase as additional assets utilized by this user
group are incorporated into the City's inventory, however the expense
per account may decrease as additional customers utilize the same
assets. For this report, staff has projected that 92% of the value of
inventory prior to annexation shall come into the City. The remaining
County customers were allocated the remaining 8% of the depreciation.
Staff also projected the annual depreciation to remain flat through the
planning period.
As shown on Table 7-8, the annual depreciation expense of County
collection system and dedicated capacity in the transmission lines
for the year 2008 is $8,700.
RETURN ON INVESTMENT
The WPCF Manual says the following about Rate Base and Rate of
Return:
" The rate base is often defined as the total original cost dollar value
of facilities used and useful in providing utility service. It usually
includes the depreciated plant value less contributed capital including
federal and state grants, plus cash working capital and, in certain
jurisdictions, construction work in progress...."
" The rate of return is established at a level that will permit
recognition of business and financial risk. The rate of return is the
rate that the utility is allowed an opportunity to earn, over and above
operating expenses, depreciation expense, and taxes. The return
component is intended to pay the annual interest cost of debt capital
and provide a fair rate of return for the total equity capital employed.
That money will then finance physical facilities used to provide
wastewater services Return on plant value is seldom used under
public ownership as a profit, but is used as a source of funds for
reinvestment in additions, replacements, and improvements."
2007 cos
Section 7 Page 6
October 24, 2007
The rate of return, expressed as a percentage, is applied to a utility's
rate base to determine the amount of "return on investment" to be
included in the utility's total revenue requirement.
Determination of Rate Base: Tables 7-9 Rate Base Treatment Facility
and 7-10 Rate Base Collection Facility show the original cost of the
Yakima Domestic Wastewater Treatment and Collection facilities, Tess
Federal and State grant funds, less accumulated depreciation, less
contributed capital, plus construction work in progress, plus working
capital.
Determination of Rate of Return: Staff referred to AWWA Manual M35
Revenue Requirements. There it states "Courts and commissions have
determined that for a utility to compete successfully in the capital
markets, it should be allowed a return based on its "cost of capital."
The cost of capital represents the weighted cost of the various
classes of capital used by the utility."
For this report the
Rate of Return = 5.0%.
Determination of Return Qn Investment: Applying a 5.0% rate of
return to the non -owner's allocation of these rate bases results in the
following return on investment due from non -owner (County) retail
customers.
For the Test Year 2008, as shown on Table 7-9
Treatment Facility Return on Investment equals $435.
For the Test Year 2008, as shown on Table 7-10
For this report, staff has projected that 92% of the value of inventory
prior to annexation shall come into the City. The remaining County
customers were allocated the remaining 8%
Collection System Return on Investment equals $5,8 2 4.
2007 COS
Section 7 Page 7
October 24, 2007
Summary of Expenses:
On Table 7-4 is listed the total revenue requirement
(County) retail customers for 2008.
1) Operation Expenses
A. Treatment expenses
B. Collection expenses
2) Depreciation expense
A. Treatment Facility expenses
B. Collection System expenses
3) Return on Investment
A. Treatment Facility
B. Collection System
Subtotal
4) Utility Tax (presently 14% of gross)
TOTAL 2008 REVENUE REQUIREMENT
for non -owner
$ 8,025
$ 4,794
$ 4,668
$ 8,700
$ 435
$ 5,824
$32,446
$ 4,542
$36,988
Similar calculations were performed for each year of the planning
period using projected flow and expense. The summary of these
calculations is shown on Table 7-4.
RATE STUDY:
In the 1996 COS, it was recommended and adopted by Council that the
City revise its sewer service and other charges to outside customers
to include:
• Adoption of a Ready -to -Serve (R -t -S) and Volume Charge f o r
outside City customers which recovers the sewer service charge
revenue requirement defined for outside customers for operations and
maintenance, depreciation, and return on investment.
• Discontinuance of the surcharge factor concept.
Commencing with the adoption of the 1994 COS, wastewater service
charges for outside customers are based on costs of providing
service The use of the surcharge factor was deemed not an
appropriate method to identify cost differences between inside and
2007 COS
Section 7 Page 8
October 24, 2007
outside City customers and was not appropriate under the utility basis
method used to establish rates. A separate, independent schedule of
sewer service charges consisting of Ready -to -Serve and Volume
charges was implemented for outside City customers.
As in the 1994 and 1996 COS, the proposed charges are based on the
following elements for each year of the planning period:
1) Annual Revenue Requirements
2) Number of Meter Equivalent Accounts
3) Total Billed Flow
1) Annual Revenue Requirements for County retail customers are
shown on TABLE 7-4.
2) Number of Equivalent Accounts is shown on TABLE 5-7.
3) Total billed flow is shown on TABLE 5-1.
Establishment of New Rates:
Adjustment of Existing Rates: Table 7-3 EXISTING RATES
demonstrates the anticipated revenue for each year of the planning
period if rates remain at their current level.
Shown on the top of Table 7-2 is a comparison of revenue values
determined on 7-3 with revenue requirements from Table 7-4. The
percentage shortfall of revenue produced by existing rates for each
year of the planning period is demonstrated.
The .anticipate revenue shortfalls are:
2008 -15.36%
2009 -15.01%
2010 -15.72%
Following is a Proposal that adjusts existing rates to obtain required
revenue.
2007 COS
Section 7 Page 9
October 24, 2007
Proposed Option: (Three Even Steps) Three successive annual
increases of 5.5% (cumulative 17.3%) applied to both the Ready -to -
Serve charge and the Volume Charge (See 7-1).
Table 7-1 calculates the revenue anticipated from this Option for each
year of the planning period.
Table 7-2 compares revenue values determined on 7-1 with allocated
expenses from Table 7-4.
Conclusions:
For non -owner retail customers:
1) On Table 7-2, it is shown that for the years 2008 through
2010, revenue from existing rates would be approximately
$5,000 (15.5%) less than their allocation of expenses.
2) The rate adjustment Proposal shown will generate
approximately the revenue required through 2010.
3) The Depreciation and Return on Investment elements of
collection system expenses are related to capital investment to
the system that benefits this user group. During the past two
years, several such major projects were financed by the City.
These projects include the Washington Avenue Interceptor and
the River Road work. The added depreciation and ROI expense
from these projects accounts for the majority of the rate
adjustment.
4) The relationship between rates for this user group and City
retail is directly related to the cost of collection infrastructure
per account. At such time that the existing pipelines for this
user group are servicing additional accounts, the cost per
account will decrease.
2007 COS
Section 7 Page 10
October 24, 2007
Recommendation;
It is the recommendation of this report that the Proposed Option be
adopted and that rates are adjusted to the level required to provide
adequate system revenue:
• implementation of the Required Rate Increase in Three Phases
(See Table 7-1)
Existing Rate: Ready -to -Serve = $ 18.82 per meter equivalent
Volume = $ 3.36 per UOC
• Phase 1 2008 (April). Increases rates 5.5%
Phase One: Ready -to -Serve = $1 9.86/equiv.
Volume = $3.54/000
• Phase 2 2009 (January). Increases rates 5.5%
Phase Two: Ready -to -Serve = $20.95/equiv.
Volume = $3.73/000
• Phase 3 2010 (January). Increases rates 5.5%
Phase Three: Ready -to -Serve = $22.10/equiv.
Volume = $3.94/UOC
The above rate increases will only bring rates current with the 2010
revenue requirements. Projections indicate that continuing annual
increases of 2-3% will be required.
2007 COS
Section 7 Page 11
October 24, 2007
Table 7-1
PROPOSED RATES
Non -owner (County) Projected Annual Revenue
10/23/07
#
Revenue
Revenue
TOTAL
x
Average
Equivalent
Total Billed
(Ready-
(Volume)
Revenue
Month
Accounts
Flow (UOC)
to -Serve)
10 OUC
(see Table
(see Table
5-7)
5-1)
EXISTING RATE
Ready -to -Serve Charge
$18.82
per Meter Equivalent
$52.42
Volume Charge
$3.36
per Unit of Consumption (748 gallons)
2007
40
10,591
$9,034
$35,586
$44,619
actual %
PHASE ONE @
5.50%
increase
Ready -to -Serve Charge
$19.86
5.53%
$55.26
Volume Charge
$3.54
5.36%
2008
40
6,854
$9,533
$24,263
$33,796
% increase
0.00%
-35.28%
5.53%
-31.82%
-24.26%
actual %
Combined %
PHASE TWO @
5.50%
increase
increase
Ready -to -Serve Charge
$20.95
5.49%
11.3296
$58.25
Volume Charge
$3.73
5.37%
11.0196
2009
41
6,922
$10,307
$25,819
$36,126
% increase
2.50%
0.99%
8.13%
6.41%
6.9096
actual %
PHASE THREE @
5.50%
increase
Ready -to -Serve Charge
$22.10
5.49%
17.43%
$61.50
Volume Charge
$3.94
5.63%
17.26%
2010
41
6,992
$10,873
$27,548
$38,422
% increase
0.00%
1.01%
5.49%
6.70%
6.35%
10/23/07
Table 7-2
Non -owner (County) Wastewater Retail Customer
Projected Revenue/Requirement
10/23/07
Projected
Projected
Revenue
%
Revenue
Requirement
Shortfall
Shortfall
CURRENT RATES
Table 7-3
Table 7-4
Year
Projected Revenue
Requirement
2007
$44,619
$43,672
$947
2.12%
2008
$32,063
$36,988
($4,925)
-15.36%
2009
$32,517
$37,397
($4,880)
-15.01%
2010
$32,753
$37,903
($5,150)
-15.72%
2008-2010
$97,333
$112,288
($14,955)
PROPOSED RATES
3 Phased Annually @ 5.5%
Table 7-1
Table 12-4
Projected Revenue
Requirement
2007
$44,619
$43,672.
$947
2.12%
2008
$33,796
$36,988
($3,192)
-9.44%
2009
$36,126
$37,397
($1,271)
-3.52%
2010
. $38,422
$37,903
$519
1.35%
2008-2010
$108,344
$112,288
($3,944)
10/23/07
Table 7-3
EXISTING RATES
Non -owner Projected Annual Revenue
Existing Rates
10/23/07
#
Revenue
Revenue
TOTAL
Equivalent
Total Billed
(Ready-
(Volume)
Revenue
Accounts
Flow (UOC)
to -Serve)
(see Table
(see Table
5-7)
5-1)
EXISTING RATES
Ready -to -Serve Charge
$18.82
per Meter Equivalent
Volume Charge
$3.36
per Unit of Consumption (748 gallons)
2007
40
10,591
$9,034
$35,586
$44,619
**Assumes 90% Annexation
2008
40
6,854
$9,034
$23,029
$32,063
% increase
1.25%
-35.28%
0.00%
-35.28%
-28.14%
2009
41
6,922
$9,259
$23,258
$32,517
% increase
1.25%
0.99%
2.50%
0.99%
1.42%
2010
41
6,992
$9,259
$23,493
$32,753
% increase
1.25%
1.01%
0.00%
1.01%
0.72%
10/23/07
Table 7-4
Non -owner (County) Retail Customers Annual Revenue Requirement
Source
Reference
2007
2008
2009
2010
Table
Billable Flow UOC
5-1
10,591
6,854
6,922
6,992
Flow % Increase
5-1
2.50%
-35.28%
0.99%
1.01%
% Total plant flow
5-1
0.27%
0.17%
0.17%
0.17%
Customer Accounts
5-6
40
40
40
40
Equivalent Accounts
5-7
40
40
41
41
Operation Expense
Treatment (SU 232)
7-5
$11,953
$8,025
$8,212
$8,477
Collection (SU 211)
7-6
$6,729
$4,794
$4,965
$5,144
subtotal
$18,682
$12,819
$13,177
$13,621
Depreciation Expense
Treatment
7-7
$4,668
$4,668
$4,668
$4,668
Collection
7-8
$8,700
$8,700
$8,700
$8,700
subtotal
$13,368
$13,368
$13,368
$13,368
Return on Investment
Treatment
7-9
$435
$435
$435
$435
Collection
7-10
$5,824
$5,824
$5,824
$5,824
subtotal
$6,259
$6,259
$6,259
$6,259
Subtotal
$38,309
$32,446
$32,804
$33,248
Utility Tax @ 14% of Gross
$5,363
$4,542
$4,593
$4,655
Total Expense Allocation
$43,672
$36,988
$37,397
$37,903
% increase
-15.30%
1.10%
1.35%
10/24/07
Table 7-5
TREATMENT FACILITY (SU 232) Operating Expenses
Non -Owner Allocation
Account
Description
Final
Final
Final
Estimate
Estimate
Budget
Estimate
No.
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
Budget
Test
TREATMENT FACILITY SERVICE UNIT 232
Year
OPERATIONS EXPENSES
(see Table 4-6)
3,823,141
4,036,700
4,314,329
4,427,179
4,720,797
4,830,463
4,986,266
subtotal Operations
3,823,141
4,036,700
4,314,329
4,427,179
4,720,797
4,830,463
4,986,266
2007
0.27%
$11,953
2008
0.17%
$8,025
Non -owner (County) Retail Allocation
2009
0.17%
$8,212
2010
0.17%
$8,477
Flow percentages from Table 5-1 (% Total Plant Flow )
10/" 17
Table 7-6
COLLECTIONS (Service Unit 21 1) Expenses
Non -owner (County) Allocation
Account
Description
Final
Final
Final
Budget
Estimate
Estimate
Estimate
No.
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
Estimate
Test
_
COLLECTIONS SERVICE UNIT 211
Year
OPERATION EXPENSES
(see Table 4-3)
2,256,602
2,458,053
2,445,256
2,492,380
2,819,956
2,920,541
3,026,154
subtotal Operations
2,256,602
2,458,053
2,445,256
2,492,380
2,819,956
2,920,541
3,026,154
2007
0.27%
$6,729
2008
0.17%
$4,794
Non -owner (County) Retail Allocation
2009
0.17%
$4,965
2010
0.17%
$5,144
Collection Percentage from Table 5-1 (% Retail Flow)
10/23/07
Table 7-7
DEPRECIATION
Allocation of TREATMENT FACILITY for Utility Basis Method
Page 1 of 1
Acct. !
No. !
17383
17383
Description
Sanitary Sewer Treatment Facility
Structur & Improv
Structur & Improv (Pease)
Date
1370
1989
Est.
Life
40
40
Historical !
Cost Existing
Plant
$2,617
*422,642
Annual
Depreciation
2008
o65
$10.566
17383
17383
17383
l7383`
17383
Storage Building
Building!Romode|
Structur & Improv (Pease)
Lagoon Cleanout
Struct & Improv (Mullen)
1991
, 1992
1989
1989
1981
20
20
20
10
40
�
$7,410$37l
$63„549
$877,753
$512.319
$8.345.181
$3.177
$43,888
*O
$226.612
17383
17383
17383
l7383
17383
17383
173833tnu8
Stmct&Improv (CopenhaQen)
Struct & Improv (PKS)
Struct & Improv (PKS)
Truck Scale wml093Pnoj.1612
Biosolids Storage wo 1062 prpj. 1556
Struct & Improv (Humphrey)
o� Improv (Humphray)
1385
1389
1989
1995
1995
1995
1995
40
40
20
20
20
40
20
$249,477
$6,773„968
$1'849.G85
$148,800
$614„055
$2.004/444
$6.549
$177.8l7
$129 478
$7„440
$30.703
$291^260
$100.222
17383,
'.
17383~EnuipmantPrepurchase
17383
17383
17383
173831QasyA8iosoids
17383!VVVVTP
Struct &|mpnov(Humphrey)
pnoj156G
Struct & Improv (IMCO) pnjlh30
Struct&Improv (|MCO)pro' l838
Struut&Improv (IMCO)Qrpj 1638
Proj 1752
Facility Rehab PnoilDO4
1995�
1937
1999
1999
1999
1999
1999
15
20
15
20
40
10
10
*Ei78D679
$260 631
$2J81„878
*2„447„607
$2,141.773
$12 685
$188.309
• $169 717
$l3/}32
$188.362
*124,409
$54'523
$1.268
$18.831
subtotal Treatment Facility,
18273Sewage Disposal Equip
18273,.�Hot wtrkm/Elect wmu1142pnoj#1713
18273!HVAC equip vwmul142pnV#17l3
1991
1996
1996
40
20
15
$40,860,193
$81,487
$342.5O3
$60,410
$1.538.190
*1537
$17^125
$4,027
18273:Air Compnm�or 1 l998 10
$4,963
$496
subtotal Treatment Facility
Trickling Filter Mechanism
Fac|hvRanUpdate pn�l9S0
:
2081'
2004
20
5
$469,364
$1,408 110
$603,701$120J40
*23^188
� $70,406
�
subtotal General Plant ; [---
%�U1l^�l1
$l�l.l46
'
I 2086 - 2008 Plant Improvements
Phase 1 Improvements (2055)
Phase 1 Improvements (2055)
Phase 1 Improvements (2055)
Phase 1 Improvements (2055)
2008
2008
2008
;2008
40
25
20
15
'
$1.520,387
$707A91
g9,917„407
$1.687.154
$38,010
$28,300
$495,870
$112.477
Phase 1 Improvements (2055) 2008! 10
City cfYakima (2O55) • 2008! 10
UV disinfection (2182) ! 2008! 15
UV disinfection (2182) i 2008' 20
UV disinfection (2182) ! 20081 40
$662.752
$474842
$16,015
$1^806„547
$1.076.550
$66,275
$47,484
$1.068
$90,327
$53.828
� euLtoto| Plant Improvements
| `
$17'859.145
$933,639
'
TOTAL
. Outside Customer
Treatment
!
$61.210„513
Facility Depreciation!
$2J48160
�0.170%
$4.668
10/23/07
Table 7-8
DEPRECIATION
Allocation of COLLECTION SYSTEM for Utility Basis Method
Page 1 of 1
Acct.
Date
Service
Historical
Annual
Percent Allocation
Rate Base Allocation
No.
Description
Acquired
Life
Cost Existing
Depreciation
City (1)
County
City (1)
County
Sanitary Sewer Maintenance
17384
Structure (Don Young Property)
1993
40
$630,569
S15,764
10096
0.17%
$15,737
$27
17384
Structure (Don Young Property)
1993
10
$90,705
$9,071
10096
0.17%
$9,055
$15
17384
Structure (Don Young Property)
1993
20
$289,638
$14,482
100%
0.17%
$14,457
$25
subtotal Structures
$1,010,912
$39,317
$39,250
$67
Sanitary Sewer Trunks/Interceptors
17714
-001 Interceptors (West Valley) *2
1978
40
$3,661,042
$91,526
95%
5%
$86,950
$4,576
17714
-001 Trunks (83rd Ave)
1981
40
836,159
$904
98%
2%
S886
$18
17714
North First Str Proj 1795
1999
40
$910,213
$22,755
5096
596
$11,378
$11,378
17714
Airport/Armory Proj 1822
1999
40
$79,436
$1,986
90%
10%
$1,787
$199
17714
7thStrinterceptor
1999
40
$1,830,709
$45,768
9596
596
$43,479
$2,288
$6,517,558
$162,939
89%
11%
$144,480
$18,459
17714
Trunks (Airport South)
AhtanumTrunk
1998
2001
40
40
$929,583
$1,325,000
$23,240
$33,125
9096
9096
10%
10%
$20,916
$29,813
$2,324
$3,313
17714
96th Ave
2001
40
$642,174
$16,054
8096
20%
$12,843
$3,211
Washington Ave (20")
2004
40
$1,235,163
$30,879
7596
2596
$23,159
$7,720
Washington Ave (15")
2004
40
$1,599,289
$39,982
4096
60%
$15,993
$23,989
Washington Ave (52-72)
2006
40
$569,250
$14,231
70%
30%
$9,962
$4,269
River Rd
2007
40
$2,970,000
$74,250
50%
5096
$37,125
$37,125
40th & Fruitvale
2007
40
$145,000
$3,625
5096
5096
$1,813
$1,813
Speedway
2006
40
$1,722,318
$43,058
85%
15%
$36,599
$6,459
subtotal Transmission/Collection
$11,137,777
$278,444
$188,222
$90,222
Total Outside Collection System
$18,666,246
$480,700
77%
2396
$371,952
$108,748
Outside % flow
0.1796
City
$371,952
County
$108,748
Charge @ 896
8,700
10/23/07
Table 7-9
RATE BASE / RETURN ON INVESTMENT
Allocation of TREATMENT FACILITY RATE BASE for Utility Basis Method
10/234.
Historical
Accumulated
Percent
Less
Local
Credited
Rate
Description
Cost Existing
Depreciation
Depredated
Federal/State
Cash
Depredation
Base
Percent Allocation
Rate Base Allocation
Plant
2008
(PD)
(rants
(LC)
(CD)
(RB)
City
County
City
County
(HC)
(AD)
PD . AD/HC
(Gr)
LC . HC -Gr
CD . PD`LC
R8 - LC -CD
(1)
(1)
Sanitary Sewer Treatment Fadllty
Land and Lend Rights
111,923
SO
0.0016
90
511,923
SO
911,923
99.83%
0.1796
911,902
920
Structure & Improve (1945-1975/ 50yr)
9245,714
9217,382
88.4796
90
9245,714
9217,382
528.333
99.83%
0.1796
528,284
548
Structure & Improve (Mullen -1982)
915,000,915
910,470,668
69.80%
914,526,425
5474,490
5331,195
5143,295
99.83%
0.1796
1143,051
$244
Structure & Improve (Coppenhagen-86)
9738,044
9498,057
67.48%
$0
1738,044
9498,057
6239,988
99.8396
0.1796
5239,580
9408
Structure & Improve (10ewlt-1985)
910 528,834
95,743,322
54.5596
$9,397,472
51,131,362
5617 141
5514,221
99.8396
0.1796
5513,347
5874
Electrician's Office
58,348
$6,261
75.00%
$0
58,348
' 56.261
12,087
99.8396
0.1796
$2,083
$4
Storage Bulldng
97,410
93,563
48.0996
30
97,410
53,563
93,847
99.83%
0.1796
$3,840
57
Building Remodel
963,549
528,597
45.00%
50
$63,549
928,597
534,952
99.8396
0.1796
534,893
559
Lagoon Cleanout
5512,319
5512,319
100.00%
;0
$512,319
5512,319
(S0)-
99.83%
0.17%
(50)
(50)
Structure& Improve (Pease -1989)
12,537,728
91,643,806
64.7796
SO
52,537,728
91,643806
5893,921
99.8396
0.17%
1892,402
11,520
Structure & Improve (Humphrey -1993)
913,159,845
$3,367,197
25.59%
95,615077
17544,768
91,930,473
55,614,295
99.8396
0.1796
55,604,751
19,544
Lagoon Cleanout wo 1093 Rol. 1612
1928,109
5512,226
55.1996
90
9928,109
5512,226
1415,884
99.8396
0.1796
9415,177
9707
&maids Storage wo 1062 pro). 1556
9683,872
9226,107
33.0696
90
5683,872
1226,107
$457,765
99.8396
0.17%
9456,987
9778
Blmolkh Landscaping w01096 pro11636
994,756
856,854
69.0096
80
594,755
956,954
937,903_
99.83%
0.1796
537,838
164
Trickling Filter Rehab wo1113 prof1673
975,721
545,433
60.00%
80
$75,721
945,433
930,289
99.8396
0.17%
830,237
551
Structure & Improve (19500.1999)
97,371,258
9367,294
4.9896
90
97,371,258
9367,294
57,003,964
99.8396
0.1796
16,992,057
511,907
Equipment Repurchase Prof 1566
8260,631
$13,032
5.0096
90
4260,631
113,032
9247,599
99.8396
0.1796
9247 179
1421
Class A Bimalde prof 1752
912,685
51,269
10.00%
90
912,685
51,269
911,416
99.83%
0.17%
511,397
519
WWTP Facility Rehab prcl 1804
1188.309
118,831
10.00%
80
$188,309
918,831
9169,478
99.8316
0.17%
9169,190
5288
552,429,970
523,732,216
$29,538,974
$22,890,996
97,029,837
515,861,159
115,834,195
$26,964
Equipment
Structure & Improve (1945-1975/ 25yr)
51,021,896
91,021,896
100.0096
90
51,021,896
51,021 896
(901
99.83%
0.1796
(90)
(90)
Industrial Coating/Secondary Digester
$97,567
151,452
52.7396
90
$97,567
551,452
846,115
99.8396
0.1796
946,037
978
Equipment
86,527
96,527
100.0096
90
96,527
16,527
'50
99.8396
0.1796
30
50
Blower Rehab woft1120pro111696
985,019
151,011
60.00%
80
985,019
951,011
934,007
99.83%
0.1796
933,950
$58
Bird Centrfge Rehab wo#1126 0,181666
$59,001
535,401
60.0016
90
959,001
135,401
123,601
99.8396
0.1796
923,560
940
Mechlal Improv wo 1142 pro) 1713
$538,878
9173,745
32.2496
SO
1538,878
9173,745
5355,133
99.8399
' 0.17%
9364,512
$621
Service Air Comp 0,011716
94,147
11,659
40.0096
10
84,147
51,659
92,488
99.8396
0.1796
92,484
$4
SCADA Improc Pro) 1637
5330,326
9198,195
60.00%
30
8330,326
1196,195
$132,130
99.83%
0.1796
$131,906
9225
AR Compressor
84.963
9993
20.0096
90
94163
8993
93,971
99.8394
0,1795
93,964
97
subtotal Treatment Facility
92 148,324
81,540.879
90
12,148,324
$1,549979
1607,445_
9606,413
91,033
Genenl Plant
Office Furniture and Equipment
544,575
538,758
86.9599
80
944,575
936,758
95,817
99.8396
0.17%
$5,807
910
Toots, Shop & Garage Equipment
828,232
$28,232
100.0096
SO
$28,232
528,232
$0
99.83%
0.1796
$0
$0
Laboratory Equipment
$66,801
860 136
90.02%
10
966,801
$60,136
96,665
99.83%
0.17%
56,654
111
Power Operated Equipment
97,639
97,639
100.0096
90
57,639
$7,639
SO
99.8396
0.1796
90
90
Communlatlao Equipment
137,232
133,302
89.4596
$0
537,232
533,302
53,929
99.8396
0.17%
53,923
97
MMcellaneous Equipment
963,066
950,371
79.8796
80
963,066
550.371
812,695
99.83%
0.17%
112,674
' 522
subtotal General Plant
9247,545
1218,439
80
8247,545
9218 439
529,107
929,057
549
1999-2002 Plent Improvements
THclding Filter Mechanism (2001)
51,408,110
5422,433
30.0016
50
91,408,110
$422,433
1985,677
99.8396
0.17%
5984,001
91,676
Facility Plan Update pro11960
9603,701
1392,221
60.0096
90
5603,701
5362,221
9241,480
99.8396
0.1796
$241,070
9411
subtotal Plant Improvements
12,011,811
9784 654
92,011,811
$784,654
91,227,157
$1,225,071
92,086
2006 - 2008 Plant Improvements '
est.
Phase 1 Improvements (2055)
2007
91,520,387
138,010
' 2.50%
90
51,520,387
538,010
91,482,377
99.83%
0.1796
$1,479,857
92,520
Phase 1 Improvements (2055)
2007
8707,491
9283
0.0496
90
9757,491
$283
5707,208
99.8396
0.17%
1706,006
11,202
Phase 1 Improvements (2055)
2007
99,917,407
9495,870
5.00%
90
99,917,407
9495,870
99,421,537
99.8396
0.17%
59,405,520
516,017
Phase 1 Improvements (2055)
2007
51,687,154
5112,477
6.67%
90
51,687,154
9112,477
91,574,677
99.83%
0.1796
91,572,000
52,677
Phase 1 Improvements (2055)
2007
1662,752
566,275
10.00%
SO
9662,752
566,275
5596,477
99.83%
0.1796
5595,463
91,014
Gty of Yakima (2055)
2007
9474,842
947,484
10.0096
30
9474,842
347,484
5427,358
99.83%
0.1796
$426,631
5727
UV disinfection (2182)
2008
516,015
54,804
30.00%
$0
916,015
14,604
911,210
99.8396
0.17%
911,191
519
UV disinfection (2182)
2008
91,806,547
5541,964
30.0091
50
91,806,547
5541,964
51,264,583
99.8396
0.17%
91,262,433
92,150
W disinfection (2182)
2008
;1,076,550
8322,965
30.0096
SO
51,076,550
8322.965
9753,585
99.8396
0,17%
1752,304
$1,281
subtotal Rent Improvements
917,869,145
51,630,133
117,869,145
51,630,133
516,239012
116,211,406
927,606
Working Capital
45 days of O&M expenses
54,720,797
X 45 / 365
$582,016
99.8396
0.1796
5581,027
5989
Total Treatment Facility
561,570,370
926,276,187
129,538,974
927,310,599
59,573,808
918,318,807
918,287,665
531,142
(1) For this table, City represents all users except County retail customers.
City
518,287,665
County
931,142
(2) Allocation based upon percentage of flow from user group
Connection Charges (treatment)
922,451
County (2008)
0.17%
County Rate Base Trea ant Facility
98,691
1
Return on Investment O
5.0096
$435
L 1
10/234.
Table 7-10
Rate Base / Return on Investment
Allocation of COLLECTION SYSTEM for Utility Basis Method
Page 1 of 1
10/23/07
Date
Service
Historical
Percent
Less
Local
credited
Rate
Percent Allocation
Rate Base Allocation
Description
Acquired
Life
Cost Existing
Depreciation
contributions
cash
depreciation
base
City (1)
County
City (1)
County
Sanitary Sewer Maintenance
2008
Structure (Don Young Property)
1993
40
$630,569
3896
$630,569
$236,463
$394,105
100%
0.1796
$393,435
$670
Structure (Don Young Property)
1993
10
$90,705
100%
$90,705
$90,705
$0
100%
0.17%
$0
$0
Structure (Don Young Property) -
1993
20
- $289,638
75%
-
- $289,638
$217,229
$72,410
10096
0.17%
$72,286
$123
subtotal Structures
$1,010,912
$0
$1,010,912
$544,397
$466,515
100%
0.1736
$465,722
$793
Sanitary Sewer Trunks/Interceptors
-001 Interceptors (West Valley) *2
1978
40
$3,661,042
75%
$3,239,992
$421,050
$315,787
$105,262
95%
5%
$99,999
$5,263
-001 Trunks (83rd Ave)
1981
40
$36,159
68%
$36,159
$24,407
$11,752
9896
2%
$11,517
$235
North First Str Proj 1795
1999
40
$910,213
2396
$910,213
$204,798
$705,415
95%
5%
$670,144
$35,271 _
Airport/Armory Proj 1822
1999
40
$79,436
23%
$79,436
$0
$0
$0
9096
10%
$0
$0
7th Str Interceptor
1999
40
$1,830,709
23%
$1,830,709
$411,909
91,418799
95%
596
$1,347,859
$70,940
$6,517,558
$3,319,428
$3,198,130
$956,902
$2,241,228
9596
596
$2,129,519
$111,709
Trunks (Airport South)
1998
40
$929,583
25%
$929,583
$232,396
$697,187
90%
1096
$627,469
$69,719
AhtanumTrunk
2001
40
$1,325,000
18%
$1,325,000
$231,875
$1,093,125
90%
1096
$983,813
$109,313
96th Ave
2001
40
$642,174
18%
$642,174
$112,380
$529,794
80%
20%
$423,835
$105,959
Washington Ave (20")
2004
40
$1,235,163
10%
$1,235,163
$123,516
$1,111,647
75%
25%
$833,735
$277,912
Washington Ave (15")
2004
40
$1,599,289
10%
$1,599,289
$159,929
$1,439,360
40%
6046
$575,744
$863,616
Washington Ave (52-72)
2006
40
$569,250
596
$569,250
$28,463
$540,788
7046
30%
$378,551
$162,236
River Rd
2007
40
$2,970,000
3%
$2,970,000
$74,250
$2,895,750
50%
50%
$1,447,875
$1,447,875
40th & Fruitvale
2007
40
$145,000
396
$145,000
$3,625
$141,375
50%
50%
$70,688
$70,688
Speedway
2006
40
$1,722,318
5%
$1,722,318
$86,116
$1,636,202
85%
15%
$1,390,772
$245,430
subtotal Transmission/Collection
$11,137,777
$0
$11,137,777
$1,052,550
$10,085,227
6796
33%
$6,732,480
$3,352,747
Total Collection System
$18,666,247
$3,319,428
$15,346,819
$2,553,848
$12,792,970
73%
27%
$9,327,722
$3,465,249
City
$9,327,722
County
$3,465,249
Less County Contributions to Date
Outside %flow
0.17%
LID Participation
$1,459,893
CCRC
$274,905
Connection Charges
$274,440
sub -total
$1,456,011
Return on Investment @ 5.0%
$72,801
[harge at 8%
95,824
10/23/07
SECTION 8
NON -OWNER RETAIL STRONG WASTE AND SEPTIC CUSTOMERS
Introduction:
In Section 7, rates for non -owner (County) retail customers who
discharge "normal" domestic flow as defined in the "1976 Agreement"
were developed. In this section, rates using a UTILITY RATE BASIS for
County customers discharging Strong Waste and for septic customers
wherever they reside will be developed.
The "1976 Agreement" establishes a base level of 300 parts per million
(ppm) for concentrations of Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD) and Total
Suspended Solids (TSS). Discharges that contain concentrations of these
pollutants in excess of 300 ppm are considered Strong Waste discharges
and are subject to a surcharge. Although retail rates are not bound by
this threshold, and National studies indicate that "normal" domestic
sewage has concentrations of only 240 to 200 ppm of BOD and TSS
respectively, these concentration levels (300/300) are currently being
used to determine non -owner (County) Strong Waste retail customers.
As presented in Section 2, Public Law 92-500, Section 204 (b) (1) (A)
states that the costs of operation and maintenance of a sewerage
system must be recovered from sewer service charges that are
proportional to costs of providing service. Also, 40 CFR Chapter 35.835-
5 states that no grant may be awarded unless that applicant has an
equitable system of cost recovery. "Such system shall provide for an
equitable assessment of costs whereby such assessments upon
dischargers of industrial wastes correspond to the cost of the waste
treatment, taking into account the volume and strength of the industrial,
domestic, and commercial wastes, and all other waste discharges
treated...." The cost of service study is a part of the development of a
wastewater service charge system that bases charges for service, and
capital cost allocation, on the flow and strength characteristics of
customers. Strength characteristics should include customer's BOD and
TSS levels, although additional strengths may also be included.
2007 COS
Section.8 Page 1
October'24, 2007
Purpose of Cost of Service Study:
The rate setting methods used in this section are the same as used in
Section 7. Again, the purposes of this cost of service study for non -
owner customers of the' Retail System are to:
• Allocate operating, depreciation, and return on investment costs
of providing service to non -owner customers.
• Determine whether or not non -owner retail customers receiving
service from the City's sewerage system are paying fair and
appropriate shares of costs of providing service.
• Use the results of the retail cost of service study to establish
rates and charges for non -owner customers.
Cost of Service Procedure:
The cost of service procedure, which will result in the appropriate
allocations, requires that we formulate the following information about
expenses to the system. For all rate calculations, staff used projected
information for all years of the planning period; however, the included
Tables show detailed information for only the Test Year of 2008.
1) Operation Expenses
A. Treatment expenses and applicable allocation.
B. Collection expenses and applicable allocation.
2) Depreciation expense
A. Treatment Facility expenses and applicable allocation.
B. Collection System expenses and applicable allocation.
3) Return on Investment (ROI)
A. Treatment Facility rate base and applicable Rate -of -Return.
B. Collection System rate base and applicable Rate -of -Return.
• The first step is to organize cost data in terms of functions
performed on the wastewater system. This step is called
functionalization. For this process staff employed the same categories
historically used by the maintenance department to identify separate
2007 COS
Section 8 Page 2
October 24, 2007
processes (areas) within the treatment facility. All capital and equipment
expenses were assigned to one of these areas. The initial capital
investment and current annual depreciation for each area are listed on
Table 8-4.
▪ The second step in the cost of service study involves the
classification of operating expenses and capital investment in sewer utility
plant in service to cost components (called parameters in EPA rules). The
cost components identified for the cost of service analyses are 1) flow,
2) biochemical oxygen demand (BOD), 3) total suspended solids (TSS),
Fats -oils -grease (FOG). The loading parameters (percentage) used are
those recommended by an EPA bulletin. This operation had previously
been performed, .result are utilized on Able 8-3.
o No collection expenses (SU 21 1) are presently allocated against
strong waste or septage charges.
• The assignment of depreciation expense for the wastewater
treatment plant to the cost components, as shown on Table 8-4, indicate
that much of the investment in the treatment plant has been made to
correct for BOD and TSS strengths found in the system influent. The
percentage classifications of costs to the various components were
determined to be as follows:
Classification of Treatment Facility Depreciation Expense
Flow 20.0%
BOD 43.0%
TSS 35.0%
FOG 2.0%
TOTAL 100.00%
Organization of Cost of Service Tables - Non -owner Strong
Waste Customers:
On all of the tables in this section, "City" refers all sewer customers
except the non -owner retail customers, who are designated "County".
1) Treatment Facility Operating Expense (SU 232) projected for each
year of the planning period was taken from Table 4-6.
2007 COS
Section 8 Page 3
October 24, 2007
2) Table 8-4 shows the Treatment Facility Depreciation Expense (SU
232) projected for the test year 2008. This is not anticipated to vary
significantly throughout the planning period.
3) Table 8-5 shows the Treatment Facility Return on Investment (SU
232): The Rate Base will decrease by the amount of additional
depreciation credited, and will increase by the amount of new capital
investment in the facility, during each year of the planning period. For
this report, staff anticipated this value to remain constant throughout the
planning period.
4) Utility Tax (SU 232): Per City Municipal Code, Utility Tax is charged
at the rate of 14% on gross revenue.
The summation of these expenses is the total costs for treatment of
these pollutants under a utility rate basis.
As indicated on Table 8-3 , for 2008 total expense equals:
Hydraulic = $ 1,978,246
BOD = $ 4,253,230
TSS = $ 3,461,931
5) Hydraulic and Pollutant Loadings: As presented in on Table 5-1 and
5-4, staff projected the total Hydraulic, BOD and TSS loading for 2008.
Hydraulic = 5,392,610 UOC
BOD = 9,102,500 lbs.
TSS = 7,440,000 Ibs.
Utilizing 2008 data yields a unit cost on a Utility Basis for treatment of
Hydraulic = $ 0.368 per UOC
BOD = $ 0.470 per pound.
TSS = $ 0.467 per pound.
The same calculation was performed using data for each year of the
planning period. Also calculated were the cost for hydraulic flow through
the Treatment Facility and the cost to receive Septage. Results of these
calculations are shown on Table 8-2.
2007 COS
Section 8 Page 4
October 24, 2007
Conclusions:
Public Law 92-500, Section 204 (b) (1) (A) states that the costs of
operation and maintenance of a sewerage system must be recovered
from sewer service charges that are proportional to costs of providing
service.
Section 3 of this report outlines upcoming Capital Projects. Nearly all of
these projects are necessary because of the increasing loading of BOD
and TSS.
The percentage adjustment is caused two factors; 1) increased cost, and
2) The actual and projected loading of each constituent, BOD and TSS,
has decreased from those projected in the 2001 COS.
In the wake of recent annexations, there currently is only one strong
waste customer in this customer class. Their bill is $22 every two
months.
Recommendations:
Staff recommends County retail strong waste rates be decreased to the
average Full Cost of Treatment for the years 2008 - 2010 in one phase:
Implement Phase One . This would decrease rates to the average Full
Cost of Treatment for the period 2008 - 2010.
Existing: BOD = $ 0.537 per pound
TSS = $ 0.522 per pound
Phase One: BOD = $ 0.470 per pound
SS = $ 0.467 per pound
2007 COS
Section 8 Page 5
October 24, 2007
Septage Waste Rates
Staff examined the last retail non -owner customers, the septage waste
customers.
In 1992, the plant received 2.9 million gallons of septage waste.
Representative samples were taken weekly and analyzed for strength
(BOD and TSS). The average of these weekly tests gave a BOD
concentration of 7,500 ppm and TSS concentration of 25,900 ppm.
These concentrations were utilized to calculate rates.
Due to the 1993 and subsequent rate increases, the quantity of septage
delivered to the Wastewater Facility dramatically decreased. The vast
majority of the septage waste is currently being disposed of at the
County Cheyne Landfill. The County anticipates they have capacity for
numerous years of septage waste at this site. Therefore, we anticipate
receiving only a very limited quantity of this waste during the planning
period. This allows the capacity of the plant to be available for the
residents and businesses within the collection system boundaries.
In calculating a rate for what quantity of septage we do receive, staff
utilized the unit costs developed in Section 7 and the concentrations
found by testing. A fixed cost for labor, capital, and equipment was also
included.
Recommendations: Staff recommends septage waste rates be
adjusted to the Full Cost of Treatment for the years 2008 - 2010 in one
phases:
Implement Phase One . This increases rates to that calculated by using
PHASE ONE strong waste unit costs:
Existing: = $ 0.337 per gallon
Phase One: = $ 0.381 per gallon
2007 COS
Section 8 Page 6
October 24, 2007
Table 8-1
Full Cost of Treatment
Proposed Rate Adjustment
County 'Retail Strong Waste/
Septage and Exceptional Waste Charges.
10/23/07
hydraulic
BOD
TSS
Septage
Existing
$0.271
$0.537
$0.522
$0.337
Proposed
Average
$0.368
$0.470
$0.467
$0.381
2008-2010
% increase
35.79%
-12.48%
-10.54%
13.06%
10/23/07
e
10/7
Table 8-2
Unit Cost for Average Septage Waste
All Costs From Table 8-3
1) Dedicated cost for receiving average gallon of septage
= $0.250 / gallon
2) Strong Waste Charge for treatment of average gallon of Septage
BOD = $0.470 / Ib.
= 7,500 / 1,000,000 X
TSS = $0.467 / Ib.
= 25,900 / 1,000,000 X
8.34 X $0.470 = $0.029 / gallon
8.34 X $0.467 = $0.101 / gallon
Flow = $0.368 / UOC
_ $0.368 / 748 = $0.000 / gallon
TOTAL = $0.381 / gallon
Subtotal Receive and Treat = $0.334 / gallon
Utility Tax @ 14% = $0.047 / gallon
See Table 8-3 for unit costs of components
Component concentrations from average of weekly testing program
BOD = 7,500ppm
SS = 25,900ppm
Table 8-3
UTILITY BASIS
Allocation of Treatment Facility Expenses (SU 232)
Unit Cost Flow, BOD, SS, Septage
Service
Description
Projected
Cost Component Factor (%)
•,.
Cost Com.onent $
Unit
Expense
Flow
BOD
TSS
FOG
Flow
BOD
TSS
FOG
2008
20.00%
43.00%
35.00%
2.00%
232
Operations (1)
4,720,797
944,159
2,029,943
1,652,279
94,416
pre-treatment cost share (6)
293,622
58,724
126,257
232
Depreciation (2)
2,746,160
549,232
1,180,849
961,156
54,923
232
R -O -I @ 5.0% (3)
915,940
183,188
393,854
320,579
18,319
232
Utility Tax @14%
1,214,713
242,943
522,326
425,149
24,294
Total
9,891,232
1,978,246
4,253,230
3,461,931
197,825
(1)
See Table 4-6
Hydraulic Flow
Cost
1,978,246
=
$0.367
•er UOC treated
(2)
See Table 8-4
Flow
Total UOC
5,392,610
(4)
(3)
See Table 8-5
(4)
See Table 5-1
(5)
See Table 5-4
Biochemical Oxygen Demand
Cost
4,253,230
=
$0.467
per pound treated
(6)
See Table 6-2
BOD
Total lbs.
9,102,500
(5)
Total Suspended Solids
Cost
3,4611931
=
$0.465
per pound treated
TSS
Total lbs.
7,440,000
(5)
Hydraulic
BOD
TSS
Existing Rate
$0.271
$0.537
$0.522
Calculation for the Year
Hydraulic
increase
BOD
increase
TSS
increase
2008
$0.367
35%
$0.467
-13%
$0.465
-11%
2009
$0.368
36%
$0.470
-12%
$0.467
-11%
2010
$0.370
37%
$0.472
-12%
$0.470
-10%
3 year average
$0.368
36%
$0.470
-13%
$0.467
-10%
10/23/07
Table 8-4
DEPRECIATION
Allocation of TREATMENT FACILITY for Utility Basis Method
Acct. |
No. ! Description
�DatoEst.
!Acquired Acquired
|jfo
Historical:
Cost Existing
Plant
Annual
Depreciation
2808
Sanitary Sewer Treatment Facility
17383 S�uc�r&hnpmv —
1970
40
$2,617
$65
17383.Stnuctur&Improv (Pease)
1889
40
$422,642
$10,566
17383
Storage B..�
1991
20
.
$7,410
*37l
17383
Building Remodel
�
1992
20
$63„548
$3,177
17383 Structur & Improv (Pease)
1989
20
$8777B
$43,888
17383 Lagoon Cleanout
1989
10
$512 319 $0
17383Stnx�& Improv (Mullen)
1981
40
$8,345,191 $2Z6512
17383 �3tmct & Improv (Copenhagen)
1985
40
$249,477 $6 549
17383 'Stuuct & Improv (PKE)--r-
'3truct&Improv (PKS)
1989
1989^
40
20
$6,773,968 $177,81717383
$1,848,685 $129/478
17383Tn�kSmdewml093Pn�l612
'
1995
20
$148,800$7/w0
l7383�8k�oidsStorage wo 1062proj.1556
!
1995
20
$514J055 � $30 703
S��&k�mv
1995
40
.$4,366„722$291,26017383
17383
Stnxct&Improv (Humphrey)
!
1895
20
$2,004,444
$100,222
17383 Struct & Improv (Humphrey)
1395j 15
$6.788.679
.&1 _69J17'
17383 Equipment Prepurchase pndl56S
1997
20
$260.631
$13,032
17383
Struct&Improv (|MCO)pndl638
1999
15
—_$2,7Bl^O78
$18O`362
17383
Struct & Improv (IMCO) proj 1638
1999
20
$2,447,607
$124.409
17383 'Stuct&Improv (IMCO)pndl638
1999
40
$2.141.773 . $64`523
17383
Class AEuouo|ida Proj 1752
1999
10 |
$12,685
$1'269
17383
VYYVTPFacility Rehab Pnoi1804
1993. 10
$188.309
$18.831
subtotal Treatment Facihty
*40,860,193
$1.598190
18273
Sewage Disposal Equip
!1991
40
$G1.487
$1^537
18273
Hot wmrg|poQ/E|mctvw�'1l42pn�#l713
!
1996 20
$342,503 . $17JZ5
18273
HVAC equip wo#ll42nu8#1713
.
133615
$60.410 ' $4,027
18273 Air Compressor
�
1998i 10
$4/963 | $496
_
subtotal Treatment Facility
$469„364
$23,186
Thnk\ingFilter Mechanism
2001
20
$1 408,110 $70^406
.
TFacility Plan Update nnoi19GO
2004
5
$603J01 ! $120740
subtotal Genera Plant
*2,011^811 � $19l.146
�
.
2006 - 2008 Plant Improvements
!
;
'
Phase 1 Improvements (2055)
'
2008
40
$1,5%O 387 i $38,010
iPhase l \npnovements(2U55)
'
2008
25
$707>431
s28,300
: Phase 1 Improvements (2055)
2008
20
*9,917,407
$495 870
' Phase l Improvements (2055)
2008
15
$1.687.154
$112,477
Phase 1 Improvements (2055)
2008
10
.
$662752 $66,275
--UV
C�ynfYakima (2855)
disinfection (2182)
.
2008
2008
10
15
$474.B42
$16,015
$47,484
$1088
UV disinfection (21 92)'
200820$1,806„547��5�
UV disinfection (2182)
i
2008
40
$1.076.550 $53.828
' subtotal Plant Jmprovements
. '
*17^869.145 $933,639
1
� TOTAL
$61,210,513
$2748.1G0
10/23/07
Table 8-5
RATE BASE / RETURN ON INVESTMENT
Allocation of TREATMENT FACILITY RATE BASE for Utility Basis Method
10/23/07
Historical
Accumulated
Percent
Less
Local
Credited
Rate
Description
Cost Existing
Depreciation
Depreciated
Federal/State
Cash
Depreciation
Base
Plant
2008
(PD)
Grants
(LC)
(CD)
(RB)
(HC)
(AD)
PD = AD/HC
(Gr)
LC = HC -Gr
CD = PD*LC
RB = LC -CD
Sewer Treatment Facility
Sanitary
Land Rights
$11,923
$0
0.00%
$0
$11,923
$0
$11,923
Land and
& Improve (1945-1975/ 50yr)
$245,714
$217,382
88.47%
50
$245,714
$217,382
528,333
Structure
& Improve (Mullen -1982)
$15,000,915
510,470,668
69.80%
514,526,425
$474,490
$331,195
5143,295
Structure
& Improve (Coppenhagen-86)
$738,044
5498,057
67.48%
$0
5738,044
5498,057
$239,988
Structure
Improve (Kiewit-1985)
$10,528,834
$5,743,322
54.55%
$9,397,472
$1,131,362
$617,141
$514,221
Structure &
Office
58,348
$6,261
75.00%
50
58,348
56,261
52,087
Electrician's
Building
$7,410
$3,563
48.09%
$0
$7,410
53,563
53,847
Storage
563,549
528,597
45.00%
$0
$63,549
528,597
$34,952
Building Remodel
5512,319
$512,319
100.00%
50
$512,319
5512,319
(50)
Lagoon Cleanout
& Improve (Pease -1989)
$2,537,728
$1,643,806
64.77%
50
$2,537,728
$1,643,806
5893,921
Structure
& Improve (Humphrey -1993)
513,159,845
$3,367,197
25.59%
55,615,077
$7,544,768
$1,930,473
$5,614,295
Structure
1093 Proj. 1612
$928,109
$512,226
55.19%
$0
$928,109
5512,226
$415,884
Lagoon Cleanout wo
Storage 1062 1556
$683,872
$226,107
33.06%
$0
5683,872
5226,107
$457,765
Biosolids wo proj.
$94,756
556,854
60.00%
50
594,756
556,854
537,903
Biosolids Landscaping wo1096 proj1636
Filter Rehab
$75,721
$45,433
60.00%
50
$75,721
$45,433
$30,289
Trickling wo1113 proj1673
Improve
$7,371,258
5367,294
4.98%
$0
57,371,258
5367,294
$7,003,964
Structure & (IMCO-1999)
Prepurchase Proj 1566
$260,631
$13,032
5.00%
$0
$260,631
513,032
$247,599
Equipment
1752
$12,685
$188,309
$1,269
$18,831
10.00%
10.00%
$0
$0
$12,685
$188,309
$1,269
$18,831
$11,416
$169,478
Class A Biosolids proj
Rehab 1804
WWTP Facility proj
$52,429,970
523,732,216
529,538,974
$22,890,996
$7,029,837
$15,861,159
Equipment
Improve (1945-1975/ 25yr)
$1,021,896
$1,021,896
100.00%
50
$1,021,896
51,021,896
($0)
Structure &
Coating/Secondary Digester
597,567
$51,452
52.73%
50
$97,567
$51,452
546,115
Industrial
56,527
$6,527
100.00%
50
$6,527
56,527
$0
Equipment
585,019
$51,011
60.00%
$0
$85,019
$51,011
$34,007
Blower Rehab wo#1120 prof#1696
Rehab
$59,001
535,401
60.00%
$0
559,001
535,401
523,601
Bird Centrfge wo#1126 prj#1666
1142 1713
5538,878
5173,745
32.24%
50
$538,878
$173,745
$365,133
Mechical Improv wo proj
Air Comp 1716
54,147
$1,659
40.00%
50
54,147
$1,659
$2,488
Service proj
Improv Proj 1637
$330,326
$198,195
60.00%
$0
$330,326
$198,195
$132,130
SCADA
$4,963
$993
20.00%
$0
$4,963
$993
$3,971
Air Compressor
Treatment Facility
52,148,324
$1,540,879
50
$2,148,324
$1,540,879
5607,445
subtotal
General Plant
Equipment
544,575
$38,758
86.95%
$0
$44,575
538,758
55,817
Office Furniture and
Shop Si Garage Equipment
$28,232
$28,232
100.00%
50
$28,232
528,232
$0
Tools,
Equipment
566,801
$60,136
90.02%
50
566,801
$60,136
56,665
Laboratory
Equipment
$7,639
$7,639
100.00%
$0
$7,639
57,639
$0
Power Operated
Equipment
$37,232
$33,302
89.45%
$0
$37,232
533,302
$3,929
Communications
Equipment
$63,066
$50,371
79.87%
50
$63,066
550,371
512,695
Miscellaneous
General Plant
5247,545
$218,439
$0
$247,545
5218,439
529,107
subtotal
Plant Improvements
1999-2002
(2001)
51,408,110
$422,433
30.00%
50
51,408,110
$422,433
5985,677
Trickling Filter Mechanism
Update
$603,701
$362,221
60.00%
$0
180
Facility Plan proj1960
Plant Improvements
$2,011,811
$784,654
$2,011,811$603,701
5784,654
$1$241 7
subtotal
2008 Plant Improvements
est.
2006 -
(2055)
2007
51,520,387
538,010
2.50%
50
$1,520,387
538,010
$1,482,377
Phase 1 Improvements
Improvements (2055)
2007
$707,491
$283
0.04%
$0
$707,491
5283
5707,208
Phase 1
1 Improvements (2055)
2007
$9,917,407
$495,870
5.00%
$0
59,917,407
5495,870
$9,421,537
Phase
(2055)
2007
$1,687,154
$112,477
6.67%
$0
51,687,154
$112,477
$1,574,677
Phase 1 Improvements
Improvements (2055)
2007
$662,752
$66,275
10.00%
$0
$662,752
566,275
$596,477
Phase 1
Yakima (2055)
2007
$474,842
547,484
10.00%
50
5474,842
547,484
5427,358
City of
disinfection (2182)
2008
516,015
54,804
30.00%
$0
$16,015
$4,804
$11,210
UV
(2182)
2008
$1,806,547
$541,964
30.00%
$0
$1,806,547
5541,964
51,264,583
UV disinfection
(2182)
2008
$1,076,550
$322,965
30.00%
$0
s5
5753,585
UV disinfection
Plant Improvements
$17,869,145
51,630,133
$$1,076,5500
$1$322,65 322,965
$1
subtotal
Working Capital
45 days O&M expenses
54,720,797
X 45 / 365
$582,016
of
Total Treatment Facility
$61,570,370
$26,276,187
529,538,974
527,310,599
59,573,808
$18,318,807
Retum on Investment @ 5.0%
5915,940
10/23/07
SECTION 9
MUNICIPAL WHOLESALE CUSTOMERS
Note: This section is presented as information on the rate structure and
anticipated revenue from a significant user group. Rates and fees paid by
this group are governed by the 1976 Agreement as clarified by the 1997
Settlement Agreement and are automatically adjusted. Therefore, NO
Council action is required by this Section.,
The municipal wholesale users of the City's wastewater system are:
• The City of Union Gap
Union Gap is a wholesale user of the wastewater system
providing service to approximately 1,550 retail customers
located within its service boundary.
• Terrace Heights Sewer District
The Terrace Heights Sewer District (Terrace Heights) is a
wholesale user of the wastewater system that provides service
to approximately 1,800 retail customers located within its
service boundary. Plus, beginning in late 2007, wastewater
effluent from the City of Moxee will be added to the flow
received from Terrace Heights.
With the enactment of the 1997 Settlement Agreement, Municipal
Wholesale rates are developed using a Cash Basis. The cash basis of
accounting determines the revenue requirement of a utility on the basis
of cash receipts and cash outlays as they fall due. The four primary
elements of cash basis accounting are:
• Operating Expense. Operating expenses are the costs of
operating the wastewater system on a day-to-day basis, and
include costs of operating and maintaining the wastewater
treatment plant and collection and disposal facilities of the
wastewater system, administrative costs, and system
replacement costs.
2007 COS
Section 9 Page 1
July 13, 2007
• Debt Service: Debt service consists of payments of principal and
interest on short and long term financing incurred by the
wastewater system to purchase equipment or construct
facilities.
• Capital Outlays: Capital outlays consist of system upgrades or
improvements to the wastewater system, or the purchases of
equipment paid in cash generated from revenues or connection
fees.
• Taxes: Taxes paid to governing agencies, such as property
taxes, gross receipts taxes, franchise or other types of taxes.
Taxes may be characterized under operating expenses.
City Utility Taxes are not assessed to Municipal Wholesale
customers. State Excise Taxes are also not assessed to Municipal
Wholesale customers and are, therefore, excluded from the SU 232
operating expenses (see Table 9-2).
The capacity of the treatment facility has been allocated to the wholesale
customers. The allocations of capacity are:
Percent
City (and County of Yakima) 87.9
City of Union Gap 8.1
Terrace Heights Sewer District 4.Q.
100.0
Each wholesale customer's monthly billing could consist of all or a
combination of the following elements:
1) Allocation of treatment plant operation expenses (SU 232) in
proportion of the amount of flow, BOD, and TSS generated that month.
Each component will be weighted by the amount received from each
customer. It is understood by all three parties that this slight
modification to the previous billing practice enables each customer to pay
a bill that more truly represents their overall impact to the facility.
Both municipalities (Union Gap and Terrace Heights) are concerned about
their wastewater concentrations and realize the financial ramifications of
not taking action to:
2007 COS
Section 9 Page 2
July 13, 2007
A) Limit strong waste discharges into their collection systems.
B) Establish and enforce their own rate schedules that will charge their
responsible accounts for strong waste discharges.
2) Allocation of the treatment plant debt service expenses (SU 232
Debt Service) in proportion to the allocated capacity of the treatment
facility. A comparison with Table 4-5 shows that the City's transfers to
capital accounts are not included when calculating wholesale billings.
3) Local cash contributions to Capital projects: In an effort to stabilize
capital billings, each year, both customers contribute toward their
allocated share of "cash" expended toward capital projects. (This would
be project costs not covered by grants or loans). The amount of this
contribution is monitored and subject to adjustment as project expenses
are realized.
4) Allocation of collection system expenses (SU 21 1) in proportion to
what part of the system customers may use.
5) Allocation of collection system capital expenses (SU 21 1) (Debt
Service and cash reserves) in proportion to the allocated capacity of the
collection system.
Terrace Heights delivers their effluent directly to the Treatment Facility.
Therefore, they have diminimus impact on the City's collection system.
Union Gap's flows do impact our collection system. To date, the City has
not charged anything additional for this use. Consequently, elements 4
and 5 above are set at zero ($0.00) for this report for Wholesale
Municipal customers. We do, however, recommend revisiting the impact
(cost) to our collection system by Union Gap in the near future.
Per Yakima City resolution D-401 1 and D-4310, Union Gap is presently
billed a 50% surcharge on the flows from customers who are connected
directly to the City collection system without going through a meter.
This "unmetered surcharge" was apparently established to compensate
for any unmeasured 1/1.
Additionally, the City owns and operates one major lift station at Buskin
Road. All of the flow from Union Gap and some from both City and
County retail systems pass through this station. Operating and capital
2007 cos
Section 9 Page 3
July 13, 2007
expenses for this facility are maintained separately in service unit (SU
215).
The capacity of this facility has been allocated:
City (and County of Yakima)
City of Union Gap
Rudkin Road Lift Station
Percentage Allocation
42.32%
57..68%
100.00%
Therefore, the monthly billing for the City and Union Gap also contains a
charge for:
5) Allocation of Rudkin Road operation expenses (SU 215) in
proportion of the amount of flow generated. See Table 9-3.
6) Allocation of capital expenses (Debt Service and cash reserves) in
proportion to the allocated capacity of the Rudkin Road facility. See
Table 9-3.
Monthly and Year -End Adjustment Billings; Monthly billings to each
wholesale municipal customer are based upon the estimated total
expense and flow presented in the City's annual budget for that year
multiplied by the pro -rata flow from each customer. Each year, after
actual expenses and total flows are known, an adjustment billing is
prepared to compensate for differences between the actual and budgeted
expense and flow.
Pretreatment Fees (SU 233): Wholesale Municipal customers will be
charged for the testing and monitoring required of their effluent. Terrace
Heights and Union Gap are required to administer their own pretreatment
program.
The above accounting methodology was established by the "1976
Agreement" as clarified by the 1997 Settlement Agreement.
Consequently, there is no consideration in this report for raising or
lowering rates set by this method. Operation billings adjust
automatically with expense and flow, and capital and debt service
expenses are based upon allocated capacity.
2007 COS
Section 9 Page 4
July 13, 2007
By reviewing the data presented in this report, it is possible to estimate
what the wholesale costs to each customer will be during the planning
period. This Section requires no Council action but is presented as
information. The amount of anticipated income from this user group is
used when compiling income required from City retail rates. Table 9-1
shows these estimates.
Capital Funding:
For the past several years, the City, Union Gap, and Terrace Heights have
contributed a total of $150,000 annually to the 472 Fund in proportion
to their plant allocation. This money is used to finance moderate level
replacement, capital repair, or capital improvements to the Wastewater
Treatment Facility.
Major capital projects are funded from the 478 Fund into which Union Gap
and Terrace Heights do not directly contribute. The City attempts to
secure low interest financing whenever possible for these projects.
However, such options are not always available nor do they cover the full
cost involved. Therefore, the City must bill Union Gap and Terrace
Heights separately for their share of any cash amount expended on these
projects. Current practice is to credit the amount paid by each customer
as local cash contributions toward that customer's local cash allocation of
capital projects the following year. The City also bills Union Gap, and
Terrace Heights separately for their share of applicable debt service
payments.
WHOLESALE STRONG WASTE:
With the implementation of the 1997 Settlement Agreement, the cost of
treatment of BOD and TSS was combined with the cost attributed to the
hydraulic flow in each month's billing. Each component is now weighted
by the amount received from each customer. It is understood by all three
parties that this slight modification to the past billing practice will enable
each customer to pay a bill that more truly represents their overall impact
to the facility.
2007 COS
Section 9 Page 5
July 13, 2007
Table 9-1
Average Monthly Municipal Wholesale Billings
User Group
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
Test Year
City & County
(Wholesale)
Treatment Plant 0&M
$3,661,675
$3,883,724
$4,126,694
$4,257,179
$4,545,797
$4,650,213
$4,800,608
Rudkin Road O&M
$89,917
$98,136
$95,618
$99,334
$101,025
$104,843
$108,861
Treat. Plant Debt Serv.
$1,732,872
$1,731,795
$1,726,796
$1,719,344
$2,066,483
$1,846,530
$1,937,689
Rudkin Road Debt Serv.
$5,688
$5,484
$5,491
$5,554
$5,550
$0
$0
Approx. Annual Bill
$5,490,152
$5,719,139
$5,954,599
$6,081,411
$6,718,855
$6,601,586
$6,847,158
Av. Monthly Bill
$457,513
$476,595
$496,217
$506,784
$559,905
$550,132
$570,597
% change
4.17%
4.12%
2.13%
10.48%
-1.75%
3.72%
Terrace Heights
Treatment Plant 0&M
$148,114
$199,906
$176,376
$182,400
$279,543
$286,670
$296,676
Treat. Plant Debt Serv.
$69,315
$69,272
$69,072
$68,774
$82,659
$73,861
$77,508
Treat. Plant Cash Contrib
$33,455
$10,483
$40,000
$40,000
$40,000
$40,000
$40,000
Pretreatment Testing
$19,800
$17,196
$23,664
$24,374
$25,105
$25,858
$26,634
Approx. Annual Bill
$270,683
$296,856
$309,112
$315,548
$427,308
$426,389
$440,817
Av. Monthly Bill
$22,557
$24,738
$25,759
$26,296
$35,609
$35,532
$36,735
%change
9.67%
4.13%
2.08%
35.42%
-0.21%
3.38%
Union Gap
Treatment Plant 0&M
$216,710
$260,105
$257,427
$268,850
$290,621
$300,959
$314,531
Rudkin Road O&M
$27,159
$31,742
$29,937
$31,563
$32,577
$34,309
$36,154
Outside Flow @ 50%
$18,040
$20,258
$19,183
$19,760
$20,948
$21,413
$22,069
Treat. Plant Debt Serv.
$140,363
$140,275
$139,870
$139,267
$167,385
$149,569
$156,953
Treat. Plant Cash Contrib
$67,746
$30,498
$40,000
$40,000
$81,000
$81,000
$81,000
Rudkin Road Debt Serv.
$3,281
$3,163
$3,167
$3,204
$0
$0
$0
Rudkin Road Cash Contrib.
$3,132
$1,425
$3,032
$3,204
$0
$0
$0
Pretreatment Testing
$26,676
$24,072
$35,592
$36,660
$37,760
' $38,892
$40,059
Approx. Annual Bill
$503,107
$511,538
$528,209
$542,507
$630,291
$626,143
$650,766
Av. Monthly Bill
$41,926
$42,628
$44,017
$45,209
$52,524
$52,179
$54,230
% change
1.68%
3.26%
2.71%
16.18%
-0.66%
3.93%
Page 1 of 3
9/27x,
Table 9-1
Average Monthly Municipal Wholesale Billings
User Group
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
Test Year
TREATMENT FACILITY
City & County
million gallons (1)
3,625.76
3,207.65
3,521.07
3,561.59
3,527.74
3,568.00
3,608.66
% change
-11.53%
9.77%
1.15%
-0.95%
1.14%
1.14%
% of total
90.04%
88.16%
89.49%
89.40%
87.46%
87.36%
87.27%
Terrace Heights
* includes Moxee
million gallons (1)
162.89
187.29
168.17
170.69
248.05
251.77
255.55
% change
14.98%
-10.21%
1.50%
45.32%
1.50%
1.50%
% of total
4.04%
5.15%
4.27%
4.28%
6.15%
6.16%
6.18%
Union Gap
million gallons (1)
238.33
243.69
245.45
251.59
257.88
264.32
270.93
% change
2.25%
0.72%
2.50%
2.50%
2.50%
2.50%
% of total
5.92%
6.70%
6.24%
6.32%
6.39%
6.47%
6.55%
Total Plant Flow (1)
4,026.98
3,638.63
3,934.69
3,983.87
4,033.67
4,084.09
4,135.14
% change
-9.64%
8.14%
1.25%
1.25%
1.25%
1.25%
EXPENSE
SU 232 Operating (4)
$3,661,675
$3,883,724
$4,126,694
$4,257,179
$4,545,797
$4,650,213
$4,800,608
$ per million gals.
$909
$1,067
$1,049
$1,069
$1,127
$1,139
$1,161
SU 232 Debt Sery (4)
$1,732,872
$1,731,795
$1,726,796
$1,719,344
$2,066,483
$1,846,530
$1,937,689
Union Gap
Outside Flow-@ 50%
35.26
33.83
32.77
33.10
33.43
33.76
34.10
% increase
-4.06%
-3.13%
1.00%
1.00%
1.00%
1.00%
Page 2 of 3
9/27/07
Table 9-1
Average Monthly Municipal Wholesale Billings
User Group
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
Test Year
Rudkin Road
R.R.FIow (1)
789.04
753.40
783.96
791.80
799.72
807.71
815.79
% change
-4.52%
4.06%
1.00%
1.00%
1.00%
1.00%
% Yakima
69.79%
67.65%
68.69%
68.23%
67.75%
67.28%
66.79%
% Union Gap
30.21%
32.35%
31.31%
31.77%
32.25%
32.72%
33.21%
SU 215 Operating (5)
$89,917
$98,136
$95,618
$99,334
$101,025
$104,843
$108,861
$ per million gals.
$114
$130
$122
$125
$126
$130
$133
SU 215 Debt Service (5)
$5,688
$5,484
$5,491
$5,554
$5,550
$0
$0
(1) Table 5-1
(3) See Table 9-5
Debt Service Allocation
Plant
Debt Service Allocation
Rudkin Rd
(4) See Table 9-2
Yakima
87.90%
Yakima
42.32%
(5) See Table 9-3
Union Gap
8.10%
Union Gap
57.68%
Terrace Heights
4.00%
Page 3 of 3
9/27
Table 9-2
TREATMENT FACILITY (Service Unit 232) Expenses
Description
Final
Final
Final
Estimate
Estimate
Estimate
Estimate
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
Budget
Test
TREATMENT FACILITY SERVICE UNIT 232
Year
OPERATIONS EXPENSES
Total Operations
3,823,141
4,036,700
4,314,329
4,427,179
4,720,797
4,830,463
4,986,266
(Table 4-6)
subtotal Operations
3,823,141
4,036,700
4,314,329
4,427,179
4,720,797
4,830,463
4,986,266
Less State taxes
161,466
152,976
187,635
170,000
175,000
180,250
185,658
Total Operations (Wholesale)
3,661,675
3,883,724
4,126,694
4,257,179
4,545,797
4,650,213
4,800,608
CAPITAL EXPENSES
'78/96 Bond Redemption
299,108
296,124
296,488
299,931
298,242
'91 Bond Redemption
504,868
508,722
507,254
500,253
502,051
503,886
498,959
PWTF Proj. 1300
58,080
57,802
57,246
56,691
56,135
PWTF Proj. 1556
186,704
185,851
184,146
182,441
180,736
179,031
177,326
PWTF Proj. 1638
182,162
181,346
179,712
178,078
176,444
174,811
173,177
2003 Series "B" Revenue Bond
501,950
501,950
501,950
501,950
501,950
501,950
501,950
PWTF Proj. 2182 (UV)
125,925
125,925
125,350
Future Revenue Bond (5.5 mill)
225,000
460,927
460,927
Future Revenue Bond (6.0 mill)
Total Capital (Wholesale)
1,732,872
1,731,795
1,726,796
1,719,344
2,066,483
1,946,530
1,937,689
TOTAL SU 232
5,394,547
5,615,519
5,853,490
5,976,523
6,612,280
6,596,743
6,738,297
percent change
4.10%
4.24%
2.10%
10.64%
-0.23%
2.15%
9/27/07
Table 9-3
RUDKIN ROAD (Service Unit 21 5) Expenses
Account
Description
Actual
Actual
Actual
Estimate
Estimate
Estimate
Estimate
Multiplier
No.
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
08-10
Budget
Test
Year
RUDKIN ROAD SERVICE UNIT 215
OPERATIONS EXPENSES
100
Salaries and Wages
18,712
19,695
16,725
17,038
17,776
18,220
18,676
1.025
200
Personnel Benefits
5,535
5,783
4,612
4,964
5,371
5,532
5,698
1.030
300
Supplies
1,731
7,327
1,542
3,193
4,320
4,450
4,583
1.030
400
Other Services
14,717
15,382
16,834
16,771
17,844
18,379
18,931
1.030
500
Intergovernmental Services
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1.030
600
Capital Outlays
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1.030
900
Interfund Rentals/Leases
30,116
29,139
32,824
32,644
29,563
30,450
31,363
1.030
960
Insurance/Bonds
8,438
9,281
10,673
11,740
12,518
13,770
15,147
1.100
991
City Services
10668
11,529
12,408
12,984
13,633
14,042
14,463
1.030
Total Operations
89,917
98,136
95,618
99,334
101,025
104,843
108,861
percent change
9.14%
-2.57%
3.89%
1.70%
3.78%
3.83%
CAPITAL EXPENSES
559
'78/96 Bond Redemption
5,688
5,484
5,491
5,554
5,550
Total Capital
5,688
5,484
5,491
5,554
5,550
0
0
Total SU 215
95,605
103,620
101,109
104,888
106,575
104,843
108,861
percent change
8.38%
-2.42%
3.74%
1.61%
-1.63%
3.83%
9/27'^7
SECTION 10
CITY STRONG WASTE RETAIL CUSTOMERS
Introduction:
The "1976 Four -Party Agreement" defines 'normal' domestic wastewater
as that which contains concentrations of Biochemical Oxygen Demand
(BOD) and Total Suspended Solids (TSS) less than 300 parts per million
(ppm). Discharges, which contain concentrations of these pollutants in
excess of 300 ppm, are considered Strong Waste discharges and are
subject to a surcharge. Although City rates are not bound by this
definition, these concentration levels are currently being used as a
threshold to determine City Retail Strong Waste customers,
Beginning with the 2001 season, Del Monte and possibly other future
food processing industrial wastewater, which historically had been applied
to the sprayfield for treatment, were introduced into the treatment
facility. This change in our operations makes a significant seasonal
increase in the total loading of BOD and TSS.
As presented in Section 2, Public Law 92-500, Section 204 (b) (1) (A)
states that the costs of operation and maintenance of a wastewater
system must be recovered from sewer service charges that are
proportional to costs of providing service. Also, 40 CFR Chapter 35.835-
5 states that no grant may be awarded unless that applicant has an
equitable system of cost recovery. "Such system shall provide for an
equitable assessment of costs whereby such assessments upon
dischargers of industrial wastes correspond to the cost of the waste
treatment, taking into account the volume and strength of the industrial,
domestic, and commercial wastes, and all other waste discharges
treated...." The cost of service study is a part of the development of a
wastewater service charge system, which bases charges for service, and
capital costs, on the flow and strength characteristics of customers.
Strength characteristics should include customer's BOD and TSS levels,
although additional strengths such as FOG may also be included.
In conjunction with implementation of the 1994 COS, the City's
Pretreatment Program (refer to Section 6 of this report) has established
individual strong waste categories that included most concentrations
encountered. Each business was assigned to the most appropriate
category based upon national data or results of the ongoing testing
2007 COS
Section 10 Page 1
September 28, 2007
program of each business group; i.e. fast food, bakeries. A few extra
categories were created which are unique to a specific business. Any
individual customer within any group may request that their effluent
strength be tested and billing rate adjusted. Under this arrangement, this
business will be sampled and tested. The results of these tests, whether
higher or lower than the presumed concentration, will then be used to
calculate their future billings. There is a fee for the individual sampling
and testing as outlined in Section 6. Several businesses have successfully
established that the concentrations of their discharge are lower than the
presumed levels. The rates for these accounts have been adjusted
accordingly.
The. City presently looks only at the concentration of BOD and TSS when
determining strong waste charges. Staff has reviewed the cost impact
that ammonia and FOG have on the system. We found FOG to be a
significant impact to collection maintenance, treatment, and
pretreatment expense. We have repeatedly found that when businesses
utilize a combination of properly maintained mechanical devices and best
management practices (BMPs), the local limit of 100 ppm. can be
maintained. However, several businesses have had difficulty maintaining
the local limit for FOG. We have sent offending businesses Notice of
Violations and in some instances fines. However, a few businesses
continue to exceed the limit. As an added incentive, this study proposes
a surcharge be assessed for FOG discharges for concentrations above the
'local limit' until the FOG concentration meet compliance (100 ppm.).
Enforcement action, including fines, would also continue during such time.
Purpose of Cost of Service Study:
The purposes of this cost of service study for owner (City) Strong Waste
customers of the Retail System are to:
• Allocate operating and capital costs of providing service to
owner (City) retail Strong Waste customers.
• Determine whether owner (City) retail Strong Waste customers
receiving service from the City's wastewater system are paying fair
and appropriate shares of costs of providing service.
• Use the results of the retail cost of service study to establish
rates and charges for owner (City) Strong Waste customers.
2007 COS
Section 10 Page 2
September 28, 2007
Rate Policy Options:
Prior to 1994 COS, City strong waste rates were set at a level that
included only operations cost (capital cost were not included). During
Council deliberations over the 1994 COS, staff was given the directive to
phase out all cost sharing (subsidies) of user groups. Following this
directive, the 1994 COS set City strong waste rates at a level half -way
(50%) between "Operation Only" and "Full Cost to Treat". This rate level
decreased the cost share but still maintained a 19% cost share of this
user class from city retail customers.
Continuing with the Council's directive of 1994, the 1996 COS report
proposed the cost share be further reduced. The rates proposed were
three-quarters (75%) between "Operation Only" and "Full Cost to Treat".
The rates proposed still maintained an 11% cost share. However, Council
chose to leave rates at the 1994 level. This increased the cost share to
the general ratepayer. The 2001 COS established rates at the Full Cost
to Treat in four steps over a four-year period.
This 2007 COS found that while costs had increased as predicted, the
total pounds of strong waste treated were below prediction. This causes
the unit cost to increase. As indicated on TABLE 10-1, current units
costs for treatment of BOD are 42.2% above current rates. For TSS the
difference is 38.6%. Such an increase could be a significant impact on
our few major contributors (mostly fruit processors). Therefore, we
propose a phased increase of 10% each year during this planning period.
At the end of these three increases, the cost share of other retail
customers will be 8.7% for BOD and 5.9% for TSS
Fat, Oil, Grease (FOG) rates have not previously been assessed. TABLE
10-1 establishes a unit cost for each pound of FOG from any customer
tested above the local limit.
Impact of Del Monte:
During the 2000 season, wastewater from the City's only remaining food
processing wastewater customer, Del Monte, was diverted from the
sprayfield into the treatment facility. The, capital cost effect of this
operational change is discussed in the 2000 Facilities Plan and in Section
2007 COS
Section 10 Page 3
September 28, 2007
4 of this report. The impact on this section is that Del Monte has become
the City's largest Strong Waste customer, contributing approximately
one-half of all billed Strong Waste for the year. This action also
significantly increased the total pounds of BOD treated each year, which
effectively lowered the unit cost of treatment for all strong waste
customers from what it would have been without this change. The
impact on TSS volumes and rates is less significant. On the down side,
the impact of the Del Monte load to the treatment process has been
significant. Although we have been able to stay within our permit
discharge limits, the added load has proven too great for our conventional
secondary treatment process. The trickling filters were completely
masked by organic material. We have spent tens, if not hundreds of
thousands of dollars rehabilitating the filters after six years of Del Monte
loading. We have finally decided to bypass this treatment element for
future Del Monte flows, the alternative is a much more expensive process.
Cost of Service Procedure:
The cost of service procedure, which will result in the appropriate
allocations, requires that we formulate the following information about
expenses to the system. For all rate calculations, staff used projected
information for all years of the planning period; however, the included'
tables show detailed information for only the Test Year of 2008.
1) Operation Expenses:
A. Treatment expenses and applicable allocation.
B. Collection expenses and applicable allocation.
C. Pre-treatment cost share
D. Collection System maintenance
E. Dedicated FOG program
2) Debt Service:
A. Treatment Facility expenses and applicable allocation.
B. Collection System expenses and applicable allocation.
There currently is no element of the Strong Waste charge related to
collection expenses. Therefore, 1B and 2B are $0.00.
2007 COS
Section 10 Page 4
September 28, 2007
1-C. Pre -Treatment Cost Share:
In Section 6 of this study, we proposed a nearly 40% cost share in the bi-
monthly Pretreatment rates to Minor Industrial Users (MIUs) and a 25%
cost share to testing cost of Significant Industrial Users (SIUs). A vast
majority of these businesses are the same customers who contribute
Strong Waste and FOG. Therefore, we have added the cost share from
the Pretreatment Program as a cost to be allocated to the unit cost of
BOD, TSS, and FOG.
1-D. Collection System maintenance:
A considerable percentage of the time and expense of Collections
Maintenance (SU 211) and many of our backups and resulting claims are
directly related to excess FOG being discharged to our system.
Therefore, we believe it appropriate to allocate 10% of SU211 operations
and maintenance costs to the FOG unit rate.
1-E. Dedicated FOG Program:
Our Pretreatment program has one individual whose time is dedicated to
meeting with applicable business managers and owners in an effort to
educate them about the importance of removing FOG from their
discharge. This person also performs testing and enforcement when
necessary. This program also involves a Targe allocation of the
Pretreatment Manager's time. Dedicated costs are shown on TABLE 6-6.
Conclusions:
The existing rates charged ,for strong waste is currently approximately
40% below the cost of treatment. This relates to (approximately
$350,000 annually) subsidy from city retail customers. If Strong Waste
Rates are not adjusted per the recommendations, city retail rates would
need to be increased an additional 3.0% to offset the revenue Toss to the
division.
The magnitude of the proposed rate increase is influenced by several
factors: 1) increased operating expenses due to chemicals and
operational changes required by the high Del Monte loading; 2) general
inflation of operating expenses; 3) The projected loading of each
constituent, BOD and TSS, was less than projected in the 2001 COS.
EPA and good business management practices require that rates be set
so that customers pay for their full impact to the system.
2007 COS
Section 10 Page 5
September 28, 2007
Public Law 92-500, Section 204 (b) (1) (A) states that the costs of
operation and maintenance of a wastewater system must be recovered
from sewer service charges that are proportional to costs of providing
service.
Section 3 of this report outlines upcoming Capital Projects. Nearly all of
the 478 Fund projects are necessary because of the increasing loading of
BOD and TSS. Therefore, the continued subsidization of treatment costs
of BOD and TSS seems inappropriate.
Recommendations:
• It is the recommendation of this report that the Wastewater
Division's Pretreatment Program continue to actively assist strong waste
customers in reducing their loading into the system.
• Staff also recommends that, in compliance with past Council
directives, the current "cost share" enjoyed by this user group be
reduced if not eliminated
Implement OPTION A . This increases BOD and TSS rates for the period
2007-2010 in three equal (10%) phases. Set FOG Rates, in 2008, at
cost to of program and treatment. No further increase for FOG during
the planning period.
Existing:
Phase 1 (10%):
(April 2008)
Phase 2 (10%):
(January 2009)
Phase 3 (10%):
(January 2010)
2007 COS
Section 10 Page 6
September 28, 2007
BOD = $ 0.332 per pound
TSS = $ 0.339 per pound
FOG = none
BOD = $ 0.365
TSS = $ 0.373
FOG = $ 0.276
BOD = $ 0.402
TSS = $ 0.410
FOG = $ 0.276
BOD = $ 0.442
TSS =$0.451
FOG = $ 0.276
per pound
per pound
per pound
per pound
per pound
per pound
per pound
per pound
per pound
TABLE 10-1
Full Cost of Treatment
Allocation of Expense
Unit Cost BOD/TSS/FOG
Service
Description
Projected
Cost Component Factor (%)
Cost Component
$
Unit
Expense
Flow
B00 I SS
FOG
Flow
BOD
SS
FOG
2008
(see Table 8-4)
20.00%
43.00%
35.00%
2.00%
232
Operations (1)
4,720,797
944,159
2,029,943
1,652,279
94,416
pre-treatment cost share (3)
293,622
58,724
126,257
102,768
5,872
232
Debt Service (1)
3,744,494
748,899
1,610,132
1,310,573
74,890
232
Utility Tax @ 14%
1,226,248
245,250
527,287
429,187
24,525
Total
9,985,161
~'M'
.....
1,997,032
4,293,619
3,494,806
199,703
(10% maintain collection system Table 4-2B)
281,996
(dedicated annual FOG pro
ram Table 6-6)
111,552
593,251
Biochemical 0 gen Demand
Cost
$4,293,619
=
$0.472
per pound
BOD
Total lbs.
9,102,500
(2)
(1)
See Table 4-2B
(2)
See Table 5-4
(3)
See Table 6-2
Total Suspended Solids
Cost
$3494,806
=
$0.470
per pound
TSS
Total lbs.
7,440,000
(2)
Fat, Oil, Grease
Cost
$593,251
=
$0.269
per pound
FOG
Total lbs.
2,201,905
(2)
BOD
SS
FOG
Existing Rates
$0.332
$0.339
none
Calculation for the Year
BOD
increase
SS
increase
FOG
increase
2008
$0.472
42.2%
$0.470
38.6%
$0.269
n/a
2009
$0.483
45.5%
$0.481
41.9%
$0.275
n/a
2010
$0.486
46.4%
$0.483
42.5%
$0.279
n/a
average (08-10)
$0.480
44.7%
$0.478
41.0%
$0.274
n/a
Recommended Rate Adjustment
Current
$0.332
$0.339
$0.000
2008
$0.365
10.0%
$0.373
10.0%
$0.276
one time
2009
$0.402
10.0%
$0.410
10.0%
$0.276
2010
$0.442
10.0%
$0.451
10.096
$0.276
compound increase
33.196
33.196
cost share
8.796
5.996 _
_
9/27/07
SECTION 11
CITY RETAIL CUSTOMERS
Introduction:
• Section 2 of this report established that a CASH BASIS would be
utilized to set rates for City Retail Customers. The cash basis of
accounting determines requirements of a utility on the basis of cash
receipts and cash outlays as they fall due.
Cost of Service Procedure:
Rates for all other user groups are generally based upon "Cost to Serve".
Rates for City Retail are based upon the remaining revenue required to
meet the system's monetary demands.
Expected revenue from each other user group is calculated based upon
projected flow and proposed rates. The total of this revenue is
subtracted from total system monetary requirements. The remaining
revenue requirement is then allocated to City Retail Customers. The
proposed charges are based on the following elements for each year of
the planning period:
1) Annual Revenue Requirement.
2) Number of Meter Equivalent Accounts.
3) Total Billed Flow.
Projected System Expenses:
Operations and Maintenance Expenses:
• In Section 4 of this report, total operating expenses for all
wastewater activities were projected for the planning period (2008-
2010). The budget presented is necessary to fulfill the requirements
outlined in the Mandated 2004 Wastewater Facility Plan. Table 4-2P
shows that for the Test Year 2008 O&M expenses total $8,763,319.
Transfers, Capital Expenses;
• In Section 3, mandated future Treatment Facility Capital Projects
(Fund 478) were examined. This section explained that due to increasing
mandates of our NPDES Permit, increasing plant Toads, and facility
2007 COS
Section 11 Page 1
October 21, 2007
rehabilitation, major Capital Projects are required within the planning
period. To assist financing these projects, a total of one million dollars
($1,000,000) is proposed to be transferred from Fund 473 into Fund
478 each year throughout the planning period. This revenue would come
from a combination of retail rates, connection fees, and allocations of
cash contribution from our wholesale customers, Union Gap, and Terrace
Heights. The 478 budget is also scheduled to benefit from a $5.5 million
revenue bond in 2008. The sale of this bond is coordinated with the
retirement of the 1978 bond such that our total annual debt service will
not be appreciably affected.
• Section 3 also identifies the ongoing need to bring sewer service
within our existing neighborhoods. This investment will enhance the
health and livability of our entire City and enhance economic
development. Also listed are a select few mandated Collection System
Capital Projects (Fund 476). To assist financingthese projects,
approximately $1.5-$2.0 million is budgeted to be transferred each year
from Fund 473 throughout the remainder of the planning period.
• Section 3 also listed minor capital projects or major repairs (Fund
472). To assist financing these projects, a $131,850 transfer from Fund
473 is budgeted throughout the remainder of the planning period.
Debt Service and Debt Service Coverage;
• Capital transfers were established to be equal to or slightly greater
than the Debt Service Coverage Factor of 2.0 on outstanding Revenue
Bonds when added to the existing Debt Service obligations; the resultant
total Capital expense projected for 2008 is shown of Table 4-2P as
$5,909,695.
Utility Tax:
• This Tax is revenue neutral for the Wastewater Division. , Each
month, funds are transferred to the City's general fund based upon
amounts billed. Wastewater is not refunded if any bills are not paid. This
tax has been included in calculating rates for all customer groups in
previous sections.
The City utility tax is currently set at 14% on Wastewater gross income
with the exception that presently wholesale municipal and revenues
collected for Debt Service Coverage are not subject to this tax. Table 1-
2A shows this amount for 2008 as $1,918,150.
2007 COS
Section 11 Page 2
October 21, 2007
Table 11-3 shows the 2008 projected Total Revenue
Requirements of the Wastewater Division as $17,012,836.
Projected Revenue from ALL User Groups except City Retail:
In prior sections of this report, projected revenue from each user group
(with the exception of City Retail) was calculated using projected flows
and proposed rates.
Those user groups included:
1) Pretreatment customers (testing and permit fees)
2) Non -owner Retail Customers
A) County Retail Customers
B) County Retail Strong Waste Customers
C) Septage Customers
3) Wholesale Municipal Customers
A) The City of Union Gap
B) Union Gap Share of Local Cash (debt coverage)
D Terrace Heights Sewer District
E) Terrace Heights Share of Local Cash (debt coverage)
4) City Strong Waste Customers
Two of these groups (Pretreatment Customers and City Strong Waste
Customers) are currently receiving a subsidy from City Retail Customers.
The general City Council policy direction during adoption of the 1994 COS
was to phase out these subsidies. This report continues toward that
goal.
In addition to the above customers, the Wastewater Division also receives
income from the following sources:
interest Income. The Wastewater Division earns interest on the cash
balance that it maintains in each of its four Funds. The projected interest
income for 2008 is listed on Tables 3-1 through 3-3 and 4-1 P. This
income is credited to the Fund upon which it is earned.
2007 COS
Section 11 Page 3
October 21, 2007
Wastewater Connection Charge (WCC), This fee is assessed against new
customers connecting to the wastewater system and helps offset the
investment made by others to provide the system to which they connect.
Revenue from this source is budgeted at $950,000 for 2008. This
revenue is split between the 476 and 478 Funds.
Del Monte Contribution. Per an agreement concerning connection fees
and capital improvements, Del Monte will contribute $78,200 into the
Wastewater fund each year for 20 years.
All projected revenue from the above-mentioned sources is detailed on
Table 11-3
For 2008, the Total Revenue projected from other sources at
proposed rates equals $3,816,707.
Required Revenue City Retail:
Under a CASH BASIS, the City Retail Customers must generate the
additional revenue required to insure the facility maintains an adequate
cash flow. City Retail Customers consist of "normal" strength customers.
(less than 300 ppm. BOD and TSS).
Table 1 1-3 show the revenue required for each year of the planning
period from this user group to balance expenses.
For 2008, the Total annual revenue _reiuirement from . City
Retail Customers is $12,921,797.
Table 11-1 and 1 1-2 show that, at current rates, these customers will
generate only $12,362,400, a shortfall of $412,057.
Rate Study
City "Normal" Strength Retail Customers:
This report now establishes rates using a CASH BASIS for "normal"
strength City Retail Customers.
2007 COS
Section 11 Page 4
October 21, 2007
This report looks at the following projections for the test year 2008 for
this user group:
1) Remaining Revenue Requirements
2) Total Billed Flow
3) Number of Meter Equivalent Accounts
1) The Remaining Annual Revenue Requirements for City retail
customers are shown of Table 11-3.
2) Total Billed Flow: Table 5-1 of this report lists projected flows for
the various user groups. The 2008 projected billed flow for City Retail
was shown as 3,909,797 Units of Consumption (UOC).
3) Number of Meter Equivalent Accounts. The 2008 projected meter
equivalents for City Retail are shown on Table 5-7 to be 25,558.
Revenues from Existing Rates:
Table 1 1-2 calculated revenues for each year of the planning period using
projected flows, number of meter equivalents, and EXISTING RATES. The
results are summarized on Table 11-1 and compared with the revenue
requirements brought forward from Tables 1 1-3.
Table 1 1-1 indicates that in 2007 revenue from existing rates will fall
short of requirements by $550,436 (4.54%). In 2008, there would be an
additional shortfall of $412,057 (3.33%).
Table 1 1-1 also displays that for each year of the remainder of the
planning period revenues from existing rates will fall substantially behind
revenue requirements.
Rate Options:
Staff prepared for your review a proposal to adjust rates to meet the
revenue requirements of the division. Remember that nearly 50% of
those projects identified in the mandated 2004 Facility Plan documents
for the period 2004-2010 are yet to be funded. In addition, the 2004
2007 COS
Section 11 Page 5
October 21, 2007
Facility Plan identified an additional capital program of $39.5 million
during the period 2011-2016.
Proposed Option: (Three Even Steps) Three successive annual
increases of 3.5% (first year annualized at 2.63%) applied to both the
Ready -to -Serve charge and the Volume Charge (See 1 1-1).
Recommendation:
It is the recommendation of this report that the Proposed Option. be
adopted and that rates are adjusted to the level required to provide
adequate system revenue:
• Implementation of the Required Rate Increase in Three Phases
(See Table 11-1)
Existing Rate: Ready -to -Serve = $ 13.34 per meter equivalent
Volume = $ 2.34 per UOC
• Phase 1 2008 (April) . Increases rates 3.5%
Phase One: Ready -to -Serve = $13.81 /equiv.
Volume = $2.42/000
• Phase 2 2009 (January) Increases rates 3.5%
Phase Two: Ready -to -Serve = $14.29/equiv.
Volume = $2.51 /UOC
• Phase 3 2010 (January) Increases rates 3.5%
Phase Three: Ready -to -Serve = $14.79/equiv.
Volume = $2.59/000
2007 COS
Section 11 Page 6
October 21, 2007
The above rate increases will only bring rates current with the 2010
revenue requirements. Projections indicate that continuing annual
increases of 2-3% will be required. Adoption of this OPTION will provide
some reserves as we go onto the $50+ million capital program of the
next 6 -year period.
2007 COS
Section 11 Page 7
October 21, 2007
Table 1 1-1
City Wastewater Retail Customer
Projected Revenue/Requirement
Projected
Projected
Revenue
%
%
Compound
x
Annualized
Projected
Additional
Revenue
Requirement
Shortfall
Shortfall
Increase
Increase
Increase
Revenue
Revenue
(Table 11-2)
(Table 11-3)
(Existing Rates)
(Existing Rates)
(Proposed)
(Proposed)
(Proposed)
(Proposed)
OPTION A THREE EQUAL (3.5%) INCREASES
$12,120,000
$12,670,436
($550,436)
-4.54%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
12,120,000
0
$12,362,400
$12,774,457
($412,057)
-3.33%
3.50%
3.50%
2.63%
12,686,913
324,513
$12,538,148
$12,921,797
($383,649)
-3.06%
3.50%
7.12%
3.50%
13,431,178
893,030
$12,716,412
$13,708,843
($992,431)
-7.80%
3.50%
10.87%
3.50%
14,098,913
1,382,501
$37,616,960
$39,405,097
($1,788,137)
$40,217,004
$2,600,044
Compound Increase
10.87%
Monthly
increase
Ready -to -Serve
Volume
10 UOC
Existing Rate
$13.34
$2.34
$36.74
Phase 1 (April 2008)
3.5%
$13.81
$2.42
$38.01
Phase 2 (Jan 2009)
3.5%
$14.29
$2.51
$39.39
Phase 3 (Jan 20109)
3.5%
$14.79
$2.59
$40.69
$3.95
cumulative
10.87%
10.68%
10.75%
10/21 /^7
Table 11-2
EXISTING RATES
Owner (City) Retail Customers
Projected Annual Revenue
Existing Rates
10/23/07
#
TOTAL
Equivalent
Total Billed
Actual
Projected
Accounts
Flow (UOC)
Revenue
Revenue
(see Table
(see Table
5-7)
5-1)
EXISTING RATE
Ready -to -Serve Charge
$13.34
per Meter Equivalent
Volume Charge
$2.34
per Unit of Consumption (748 gallons)
2005
23,713
3,698,957
$11,749,761
2006
24,722
3,771,697
$12,408,270
% increase
4.26%
1.97%
5.60%
2007
25,579
3,848,272
$12,120,000
% increase
3.47%
2.03%
-2.32%
2008
25,899
3,909,797
$12,362,400
% increase
1.25%
1.60%
2.00%
2009
26,223
3,968,443
$12,538,148
% increase
1.25%
1.50%
1.42%
2010
26,550
4,027,970
$12,716,412
% increase
1.25%
1.5096
1.42%
10/23/07
Table 1 1-3
Required Additional Revenue
City Retail Customers
10/2' "(7
Object
Report
Code
Section
2007
2008
2009
2010
Projected EXPENSE
Projected Wastewater Expense
Table 4-2P
$14,122,521
$14,673,014
$14,910,170
$15,801,240
Utility Tax
Table 1-2A
$1,870,275
$1,918,150
$2,102,666
$2,207,906
Total Expense
$15,992,796
$16,591,164
$17,012,836
$18,009,146
% increase
3.74%
2.54%
5.86%
(**) Utility Tax not assessed against revenue collected from Wholesale Municipal Customers or for Debt Coverage.
Projected REVENUE
(includes Utility Tax where applicable)
Pretreatment Fees
SPT
Table 6-2
$617,000
$610,000
$628,311
$656,061
County Retail
OOP
Table 7-1
$60,000
$36,444
$38,956
$41,098
County Retail Strong Waste
SWR
Sect. 8 Text
$0
$0
$0
$0
FOG
SWD
Sect. 8 Text
' $0
$41,400
$41,918
$42,441
Union Gap
UG 1-7
Table 9-1
$542,507
$630,291
$626,143
$650,766
Terrace Heights
TH 1-3
Table 9-1
$315,548
$427,308
$426,389
$440,817
Del Monte Settle/Contribute
CNT
$75,200
$75,200
$75,200
$75,200
Wastewater Connection Fees
WWC
$925,000
$950,000
$978,500
$1,007,855
Reimbursement from Stormwater
$0
$250,000
$250,000
City Strong Waste
SWR
Section 10
$750,000
$866,773
$975,623
$1,086,064
(includes Del Monte)
Misc.
$37,105
$179,292
$50,000
$50,000
Total Other Revenue
$3,322,360
$3,816,707
$4,091,039
$4,300,302
% increase
14.88%
7.19%
5.12%
Required Additional Revenue
10P
$12,670,436
$12,774,457
$12,921,797
$13,708,843
From City Retail Customers
% increase
0.82%
1.15%
6.09%
10/2' "(7
Table 11-4
TOTAL REVENUE
(EXISTING RATES)
10/19/07
Object
Report
Code
Section
2007
2008
2009
2010
Projected EXPENSE
Projected Wastewater Expense
Table 4-2P
$14,122,521
$14,673,014
$13,960,170
$14,201,240
Utility Tax
Table 1-2A
$1,870,275
$1,918,150
$1,935,223
$1,962,475
Total Expense
$15,992,796
$16,591,164
$15,895,393
$16,163,715
% increase
3.74%
-4.19%
1.69%
(**) Utility Tax not assessed against revenue collected from Wholesale Municipal Customers or for Debt Coverage.
Projected REVENUE
(includes Utility Tax where applicable)
Pretreatment Fees
SPT
Table 6-2
$617,000
$612,500
$610,000
$610,000
County Retail
OOP
Table 7-1
$60,000
$35,000
$35,000
$35,000
County Retail Strong Waste
SWR
Sect. 8 Text
$0
$0
$0
$0
FOG
SWD
Sect. 8 Text
$0
$0
$0
$0
Union Gap
UG 1-7
Table 9-1
$542,507
$630,291
$626,143
$650,766
Terrace Heights
TH 1-3
Table 9-1
$315,548
$427,308
$426,389
$440,817
Del Monte Settle/Contribute
CNT
$75,200
$75,200
$75,200
$75,200
Wastewater Connection Fees
WWC
$925,000
$950,000
$950,000
$950,000
City Strong Waste
SWR
Section 10
$750,000
$806,300
$815,976
$825,767
(includes Del Monte)
Stormwater reimbursement
$0
$0
$0
City Retail
10P
$12,120,000
$12,362,400
$12,538,148
$12,716,412
Misc.
$37,105
$179,292
$50,000
$50,000
Total Revenue
$15,442,360
$16,078,291
$16,126,856
$16,353,962
% increase
4.1 2%
0.30%
1.41%
Revenue Gain (Shortfall)
IOP
($550,436)
($512,873)
$231,463
$190,247
10/19/07
rrEM TI7LE.
BUSINESS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
YAKIMA, WASHINGTON
AGENDA STATEMENT
Item No 2 -
For
For Meeting Of December 11, 2007
Request for Council Action on:
A) the 2007 Wastewater Cost of Service and Rate Study; and
B) the 2007 Wastewater Connection Charge Study
SUBMITTED BY Dick Zais, City Manger
Dave Zabell; Assistant City Manger
Rita Anson, Finance Director
Doug Mayo, Wastewater Manager
CONTACT PERSON/TELEPHONE: Doug Mayo 575-6077
SUMMARY EXPLANATION: The 2007 Wastewater Cost of Service and Rate Study and the 2007
Wastewater Connection Charge Study were the subject of a Council Study Session held October 30, 2007
Both items were presented as Policy Issues in the 2008 budget. An Open Record Public Hearing on budget
Policy Issues was held November 20, 2007 City Council again discussed these policies as part of the
Wastewater Division's budget review on November 27, 2007 On December 4th, 2007, Council adopted the
policies as amended from public comments and directed the preparation of adopting legislation
The proposed ordinances also include some minor language adjustments for clarification and compatibility
with other City ordinances.
Please refer to the following transmittals and memo
Resolution 2 Ordinance 2 Other (Specify)
Contract Mail to (name and address)
Funding Source All wastewater customerclasses and new customers
Phone
APPROVED FOR SUBMITTAL. C�
C' Mane • er
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff respectfully requests City Council to
A=1) adopt, by resolution, the'2007 Wastewater Cost of Service and Rate Study; and
A-2) enact, by ordinance (YMC 7 60), the 2007 Wastewater Cost of Service recommendations as approved
by Council; and
B-3) adopt, by resolution, the 2007 Wastewater Connection Charge Study; and
B-4) enact, by ordinance (YMC 7 58), the 2007 Wastewater Connection Charge Study recommendations as
approved by Council.
BOARD/COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION:
COUNCIL ACTION:
2001 COS agenda
19 r7