HomeMy WebLinkAboutCouncil Resolutions 1655 RESOLUTION NO. I(pcS'
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF CENTRAL POINT
SETTING A WATER RATE ADJUSTMENT EFFECTIVE MARCH 1, 2021
Recitals:
A. The City has received information from the Medford Water Commission that on March 1,
2021 the rate for bulk water purchase will increase by 3.6%, an estimated additional cost
of$34,000-$38,000 annually.
B. The City of Central Point conducted an update based on inflationary cost increases and
determined that a 3% increase is needed to handle the increased supply costs.
C. The combined increases equate to a 3% increase which would be split between the base
and tier rates.
The City of Central Point resolves as follows:
Section 1. Effective March 1, 2021, the City of Central Point Water Rates shall be as set forth on
the Attachment A.
Passed by the Council and signed by me in authentication of its passage this lit day of
February 2021.
Mayor Hank Williams
ATTEST:
ZOltefadp,
City Recorder C
Res. No. II.SS ; February 11, 2021 Page 1
CD ,� 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
L u m M M M M M rri m
U N
N
E cu
7
O 0
00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
co t al C O1 O1 O1 O1 O1 O1
s U r-i r-i r-i r-i r-i r-i r-i r-i
U N
a) N
3 Co
O
7 U—
IT y� 00 00 00 00 00 CO 00 00 00 NNNN N N
co `j 01 O1 01 O1 01 01 01 01 to 'r N N N N- N N
U 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 U r-1 r-1 r-i r-i ri ,-i
aa) ... aJ
C N E L
_3 LL = a
O O
N ri O1 N m Ol 0 V' 00 LID szt N 0 00
>' a, u1 Tr ch N 01 0 M t0 2 O 00 N CO V1 .:t N
t40 to N M N: N M to Ol -C Oa N to 00 r-i 4 N:
C CO r I N M Cf 00NM t0 C R N Cr t0 CA r 1 M
O Z ri N M O t r-1 ri
2 U 2 v
+0+ X ate+ X
• jZLi.
'...., O Ln Ln Lr) Ln Li-) O O in O to O 1,n O
vaz O Tr r'I r'1 N 00 O U1 an N to N O N Irl
CU >' Lr-I N 00 r-1 it; M CO Ol > i NiM` f' rLf1 lD r--:2 r-1 N 00 M = L
C NY 0 CC
z 2 006
.1 re IY
vN (.0 ct N 00 rP 0 m LD Cr) N to 00
>L, O u, O1 M r-I t0 N M r-1 O M t0 N 00 Lf1 r-1 n
13 >. .n tD 4 Ol tOl Ol O a ir-1 M 4 tD 00 Ol
.0 RIr-I ri N M to C}' M t S N d' t0 00 0 N
Z C U r1 N C U r1 r1
-C O a) O w
CU
V) o
0 CC
t1A
N
C
O N0 f0 'V1
3 3
NI 0) �' N \ -i N co tD o0 = C t.n - .�-4 CN O N 01
O
.� QJ 'a O to c i L m
'S o o
a N v CC a)a)
c ty t/1 •
u
N
CU
° Z Cu
U N
° Oyof o
VQ N CU C
(X
c
0)
w
CO u
s
V N
N
E ti
3
3 O
O
00
i
CO 't
s u
V N
N N
3 00
O
al— N
N N m CNNNNNNNN i0 N N N N N N N N OD
N N (0 'G r` N N N N N N N CO 't N N N N N N N N m 't
ri e-i v co e-i .-1 .-i c-i ri e•-i c-1 r-i u ta
.-I c I ,-i e1 ,-i e-i ri e-1 .0 co
al ... 01 ..
E i E NE LI
3 LT: 3 tL 3 iL
>— >— >—
Up .O' O1 N Ln CO e-I •4 VD O1 L11 00 N r-I CO CO 00 CO
.--I O A y 01 M tO 01 M LO 01 N ?' OJ 01 N Ln .--I N N Ln O
O M N iD n n t0 in Ln 4 M M 4., s. M 00 V1 C N 4 Ln Ni
LO 00 O CO N M ct Ln t0 N 00 Ol O = .i .-1 N M ill 00 � N O▪ CU
S
H LL I W 6L
i-
Lf) O a1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O Ln O O O O O
I. O to Ln O Ln O In 0 Ln O Op O .-i O e-i .-I r. O O OO
CO O )' L 'a' L.16N Ol O Ni M tf1 >' L e-1 Ni 4 N 4 .-i d' 00 >. L
C U C U C U
O fY O OC O OG
e1 .4 cu 01 N Ln 00 e-i .4 lO 01 cu Ln co N lO M m 00 01 O)
ct O CO 1 0
M e1 CO t0 N pA 01 ,-I V1 01 .-i u1 Ln O
.-i M >. L M ."i Ol t0 TI: (Ni O 00 T L Ni kr; ‘-i 0 M Nite-I 2. L
Lf) N t m N CO CO Cr Ln t0 N N t ei .-i N N Cr t0 e-1 N .0 CO
e-1 r-i a+ t a+ s ,,..i ,-I ++
C U C U C U
O y O y O a1
m m mco
++ -Q
C -o
G1 c
In N C
Ce 0 Y 41 ++ N Ol
m Cr �`in o C m Lf1 t0 I� 00 Olr_i V W N Lr) .--i N m lD 00ttomC
1-1
.E L G G
ra LL cu —
E
= u
Cr Cr Cr Cr Cr Cr Cr Cr
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
m m m m m m m m
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
01 rn 01 01 01 01 01 01
ri ri ri <-i
00 CO CO 00 CO 00 CO 00 N N o 0
01 01 01 01 01 Cr) 01 01 h n O O
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 u1 O
N
O i• -i at eii N OM .r-i u1 O O O
l0 d' m 0 Lf) m N of 01 0 Ln O
• M Lf1 00 N M l0 d N
a-I N M
0 0 0 0 0 0 O
r-I ct 00 4 00 00 01 O O
cI N CO M N
N lD N 00 V 0 Ch <-1 0
In 01 M -1 l0 N M u1 O
01 Lf1 l0 01 01 O 1 co
i--I r-I N M Lf1
1"--
<-4
e-4 N
• .--I • N M lip 00
If1
C o
• U
O asLL
N
U
t
• 0
o.a CO
2 w 2 O
ai
m
LL
x ao
w LI m E
d LL —ca vi y
d
LL r d 0 O > d d
m CC m w a �
Y u V E
to
G1 }, v CO 0 o
N c 6 R o p a o
0
COais C E Y 3 3 on
iz:` .. 0 co o as p to v
E
N ti Com C 0 + c
O 69F -
O r 6 E
N
0 to E ° \°
0 C E o
L
z ° ++
Technical Memorandum
To: Brad Taylor, Medford Water Commission
From: Shawn Koorn, HDR
Kevin Lorentzen, HDR
Date: December 4, 2020
Subject: Partner City Cost of Service Comparative Analysis
1.0 Purpose
HDR has assisted the Medford Water Commission (Commission) with their rate setting process
on an annual basis for several years. A key stakeholder in this process is the Commission
Partner Cities who purchase water from the Commission. This memo is intended to provide
comparison of the Partner City cost of service results from the 2019/20 study and the current
year, 2020/21. The comparison covers several exhibits from the cost of service analysis
including Distribution exhibits for the Base-All and Extra Capacity Day. Also included are cost of
service summaries and a summary of rate base changes that are not directly taken from the
exhibits in the cost of service.
2.0 Distribution Factors
The distribution factors that pertain to Partner Cities are specifically Base-All and Extra Capacity
(Day). Distribution factors are a means for proportionally and equitably distributing the costs of
the utility in a way consistent with the way each of the Commission's customers classes impact
the system. How customers are distributed costs are impacted both directly and indirectly. The
distribution factors are directly linked to the customer's usage (consumption) of water and
indirectly by other customer's usage (consumption) of water. There are several other
distribution factors (e.g., customer, revenue) but none have changed materially from the last
year when compared to this year. One of the factors not shown, or included in this discussion,
is the extra capacity hour factor since partner Cities are not included as a factor in that
calculation.
The base-All distribution factor is the proportion of customer's consumption compared to total
consumption. As a result of the Partner Cities consumption decrease from 2019/20 and
changes in other customer usage the base distribution factor for Partner Cities decreased by
1.15%. Table 1 provides the Base distribution factor comparison between 2019/20 and
2020/21.
Medford Water Commission-Partner City COSA analysis 1
FY
Table 1
1 I 2019/20 2020/21
Base %of Base oho of
Consumption Total-ALL Consumption Total-ALL
Customer Class (MGD) (MGD)
Inside City
Single-Family Residential(Inside-City)-
Schedule 2R 8.76 31.93% 9.12 32.07%
Nonresidential&Multifamily(Inside-City)-
Schedule 2C 7.45 27.15% 6.53 22.97%
Irrigation(Inside-City) 1.40 4.92%
Fire Standby Service(Inside-City)-Schedule 1 0.00 0.00% 0.00 0.00%
Outside City
Single-Family Residential(Outside-City)-
Schedule 4R 1.04 3.79% 1.02 3.60%
Nonresidential&Multifamily(Outside-City)-
Schedule 4C 2.66 9.71% 2.81 9.89%
Irrigation(Outside City) 0.07 0.25%
Fire Standby Service(Outside-City)-Schedule 3 0.00 0.00% 0.00 0.00%
Wholesale
District Customers-Schedule 5 0.79 2.87% 0.83 2.90%
Partner Cities-Schedule 6 6.74 24.55% 6.66 23.40%
Pumping 0.00 0.00% 0.00 0.00%
Total Consumption 27.45 100.00% 28.44 100.00%
The extra capacity (peak day) distribution factor is a measure of each customer class's peak
day demand on the water system. The factor compares each customer class's demand,
calculated as peak use less base use, to total demand. The extra capacity distribution factor for
Partner Cities has decreased as a proportion of total due to reduced base use and peak day
demand on the system compared to the other customer classes of service. Table 2 provides
the comparison of the extra capacity distribution factor from the 2019/20 study and the 2020/21
study.
Medford Water Commission—Partner City COSA Analysis 2
Table 2
2019/20 I I 2019/20
Extra %of Extra % of
Capacity Total-ALL Capacity Total-ALL
Customer Class (MGD) (MGD)
Inside City
Single-Family Residential(Inside-City)-
Schedule 2R 10.17 36.20% 11.03 36.33%
Nonresidential&Multifamily(Inside-City)-
Schedule 2C 6.65 23.68% 4.97 16.37%
Irrigation (Inside-City)
2.94 9.69%
Fire Standby Service(Inside-City)-Schedule 1 0.48 1.71% 0.48 1.58%
Outside City
Single-Family Residential(Outside-City)-
Schedule 4R 1.16 4.13% 1.23 4.05%
Nonresidential&Multifamily (Outside-City)-
Schedule 4C 2.08 7.41% 1.97 6.50%
Irrigation (Outside City)
0.10 0.33%
Fire Standby Service(Outside-City)-Schedule 3 0.18 0.64% 0.18 0.59%
Wholesale
District Customers-Schedule 5 0.78 2.77% 0.80 2.63%
Partner Cities-Schedule 6 6.59 23.46% 6.66 21.93%
Pumping 0.00 0.00% 0.00 0.00%
Total Consumption 28.09 100.00% 30.36 100.00%
3.0 Rate Base
Rate base is the amount of asset value for which the return on investment is determined. This
includes assets that are "used and useful" less contributions. Return on rate base is one of a
several components that when added together determine each customer class' total distributed
revenue requirement. Rate base is determined through an allocation process where system
plant components are determined to serve base, extra capacity (day and hour) and customer.
Table 3 provides a comparison of the 2019/20 rate base compared to the 2020/21 rate base.
As the table shows, the net plant in service, which is the value of the plant before being
distributed to customer classes, decreased by 1.1%. This is due to annual depreciation
expense and timing of when the assets are booked (e.g., used and useful). In addition, the
distributed rate base to partner Cities has also decreased. In this case, by 6.8% as a result of
the change in rate base, as well as the decrease in the Partner Cities average day and peak
day demands as outlined in the prior distribution factor discussion.
Medford Water Commission—Partner City COSA Analysis 3
Table 3
Calculation of Rate Base
FY 19/20 FY 20/21 %Change
Rate Base
Source of Supply $6,714,740 $6,565,452 -2.2%
Pumping 7,112,943 7,072,912 -0.6%
Treatment Facilities 36,870,043 35,717,135 -3.1%
Transmission Distribution 68,028,144 72,616,931 6.7%
Reservoirs 8,568,490 8,445,999 -1.4%
General Plant 3,770,835 3,527,893 -6.4%
Plant Before General $131,065,196 $133,946,321 2.2%
Less Developer and SDC Funded ($55,471,937) ($59,109,481)
Plus Inventory, Work in Progress and 45 Days O&M 2,929,760 2,824,664
Net Plant in Service $78,523,019 $77,661,504 -1.1%
Allocated Rate Base
(Only Base and Extra Capacity all)
Base All $30,032,215 $29,121,252 -3.0%
Extra Capacity-All 22,207,876 22,420,655 1.0%
Total Allocated Rate Base $52,240,091 $51,541,906
(Base All&Extra Cap All) -1.3%
Distribution to Partner Cities
Base All 24.60% 23.4%
Extra Capacity-All 23.50% 21.9%
Partner City Distributed Rate Base
Base All $7,374,036 $6,815,335 -7.6%
Extra Capacity-All 5,210,778 4,917,501 -5.6%
Distributed Rate Base $12,584,814 $11,732,836 -6.8%
4.0 Cost of Service Analysis
Another component that makes up a customer's total distributed revenue requirement is the
distribution of operating and maintenance (O&M) expenses. Table 4 provides a breakdown of
Partner Cities distributed O&M expenses by Base-All, Extra-Capacity Peak Day, Actual
Customer, and Direct Assignment. In total the amount of expenses distributed to Partner Cities
increased by 0.9% which is a result of several factor. Overall O&M expenditures increased
system wide from $11.1 million to $12.5 million a 12.6% increase, however the proportionate
share for the Partner Cities, based on the reduction in the average day and peak day
distribution factors, increased by only 0.9% for O&M expenses.
Medford Water Commission—Partner City COSA Analysis 4
Table 4
Partner Cities
FY 19/20 FY 20/21 %Change
Base Allocation
Base-All $807,782 $677,672 -16.1%
Extra-Capacity-Peak-Day ALL 119,633 260,242 117.5%
Actual Customer-All 543 646 18.9%
Direct Assignment 137,558 137,073 -0.4%
Net Revenue Requirement $1,065,516 $1,075,633 0.9%
5.0 Summary
The previous tables show the result of reduced water annual consumption and peak day
contributions by the partner Cities. Simply put the Partner Cities share of the overall costs is
less than in previous years. As a result, the cost distributed to the Partner Cities is not
increasing at the same level as the system as a whole. In fact, costs have declined compared
to previous period with the exception of O&M which has only increased a small amount to the
Partner Cities.
Table 5 below provides the side by side comparison of the cost of service summary. Much of
what was shown in the previous tables is summarized on this table including O&M expenses
and distributed rate base. The Partner Cities rate increase can be explained by comparing the
proposed rate revenue to the current rate revenue.
Medford Water Commission—Partner City COSA Analysis 5
Table 5
Partner Cities
FY 19/20 FY 20/21 % Change
Revenues at Present Rates $2,016,361 $1,956,166 -3.0%
Less:Allocated O&M Expenses $1,065,516 $1,075,633 0.9%
Less: Allocated Ann. Depr. Expense[1] 394,189 370,297 -6.1%
Total Allocated O&M&Ann. Depr. Exp. $1,459,705 $1,445,930 -0.9%
Net Income/(Loss) $556,656 $510,236 -8.3%
Distributed Rate Base $12,584,814 $11,732,836 -6.8%
Present Return on Rate Base 4.40% 4.30%
Proposed Return Component $648,118 $574,909 -11.3%
Proposed Rate of Return 5.15% 4.90%
Proposed Revenue $2,107,823 $2,020,839 -4.1%
Required$Change in Rates $91,462 $64,673
Required%Change in Rates 4.5% 3.3%
I [1]Annual Depreciation is Allocated and Distributed same as Rate Base
As a point of reference, the distribution of costs to the Partner Cities will vary annually based on
a variety of factors. These can include the Partner Cities consumption characteristics (average
day and peak day use), overall O&M costs by category (e.g., treatment, distribution) which can
vary from year to year, as well as the assets (infrastructure)that is booked on an annual basis.
However, as noted in this year's review, a key driver is the Partner Cities impact on the system
from an average day and peak day perspective in relationship to the system as a whole.
Medford Water Commission—Partner City COSA Analysis 6