HomeMy WebLinkAbout25 - Consider a Sewer Rate Adjustment - Written CommentsReceived After Agenda Printed
September 12, 2017
Agenda Item No. 25
September 12, 2017, Council Item 25 Comments
The following comments on items on the Newport Beach City Council agenda are submitted by:
Jim Mosher (jimmosher(c)yahoo.com ), 2210 Private Road, Newport Beach 92660 (949-548-6229)
Item 25. Conduct a Proposition 218 Public Hearing and Consider a
Sewer Rate Adjustment
Summary
The intended takeaways from this rather long note are:
1. I believe it's in the public's interest to keep the water and sewer fees clearly visible in the
Municipal Code, and not relegate them to a table in an obscure resolution that may, for all
the public knows, have been superseded by some other resolution. The setting of the
basic water and sewer rates (burdened as it is by Proposition 218) is so rare that this is
not at all burdensome. Keeping them in the Municipal Code removes doubt as to what the
correct current rates are.
2. Of the presently proposed rates, I believe the final per unit sewer use charge proposed for
January 2022 and beyond is in too high. I believe it was intended to be $0.51 per hundred
cubic feet, not $0.54.
3. 1 believe the new rate structure should be worded in such a way as to make clear it is the
Council's intention to charge "sewer only" customers the same as "water and sewer"
customers, only assuming a stated "average" water use. In that regard, I am uncertain
what the assumed water usages for "sewer only" customers are based on and whether
they are truly typical.
4. Given the infrequency of meter reading, I am also uncertain exactly how the new rate
structure is proposed to be phased in relative to the announced "effective dates."
Comments on Staff Report
1. To memorialize exactly what the public was told about the present hearing, it would have
been helpful to include a copy of the Proposition 218 notice. I would guess the Council is
constrained to enacting rates no greater than those disclosed in the notice.
a. It is not entirely clear from the recommended actions (or the agenda) if the Council
is actually being asked to adopt the new rate structure at the conclusion of this
hearing, or merely to introduce an ordinance which will allow the Council to adopt
the rate structure by resolution at a future meeting.
2. There are problems with the proposed rates shown in Tables 2 and 3 (pages 25-4 and
25-5):
a. The assumption of the rate study (as seems to be confirmed by the chart in Table 1 on
page 25-3) appears to be that through a series of roughly 10% per year increases, by
FY 2020-21 rates will have reached a level where revenue matches expenses, leaving
the wastewater fund balance stable -- requiring only modest increases (primarily to
September 12, 2017, Council Item 25 Comments - Jim Mosher Page 2 of 13
match inflation) in the future. And the tables in the rate study, on staff report pages 25-
20, 25-47, 25-48 and 25-54, all appear to confirm the intention was to raise rates only
2% per year starting 1/1/2022 — even though costs are expected to increase 2.3% per
year. However in Table 2, affecting the many "water and sewer" customers, while the
fixed meter -size -related charge goes up only 2% on 1/1/2022, the per HCF use charge
continues to go up 8% -- from $0.50 to $0.54. Is $0.54 a typo for $0.51 (a 2%
increase, instead of 8%)? [see spreadsheet attached at end of these comments]
b. Table 3, affecting the 506 sewer -only accounts, was presumably derived by applying
the same fixed charges as in Table 2, plus a use charge based on the average water
use by the Table 2 accounts with the same water meter size.
However, it appears that the same assumed water use for each meter size is not
used for every year. In particular, the proposed increases on 1/1/2019 thorough
1/1/2021 appear to be slightly, but consistently less (by about 1%) than the
assumed use employed in arriving at the 1/1/2018 rates, while the 1/1/2022 rates
appear to be consistently based on an HCF about 7% less than that used to
obtain the 1/1/2018 rates. I suspect the latter part of this is related to the possible
typo in Table 2, noted at the end of the previous comment — that is, I would
guess the 1/1/2022 charges may have been computed using the same assumed
monthly HCF as the previous ones, but with a $0.51 per HCF use charge, rather
than the erroneous $0.54. [again, see attached spreadsheet printout]
ii. However that may be, the assumed HCF's that went into Table 3 do not appear
to match the typical usages quoted elsewhere in the report. For example, Table
4 (page 25-5) indicates a typical commercial customer with a 1.5" City meter
uses 29.7 HCF and will be billed $18.49. However, from Table 3, the same
customer using non -City water will be charged $34.87, which appears to be
based on an assumed monthly use of 73.05 HCF — more than twice the City
customer's use. By contrast, a customer with a 2" City meter is similarly
assumed to use 118.9 HCF at a total cost of $55.21, while from Table 3 a sewer -
only customer would pay $35.92, which seems to be based on an assumed use
of 69.00 HCF — much less than the City customer's use. While Table 3 is
generally an improvement over the present system, something is clearly still
wrong with these. Either Table 3 is not based on correct averages, or the
examples shown in Table 4 are not "average."
iii. Whatever the correct average water uses for a correct water meter size are, it is
not stated what year or years were used to compute those averages. The Rate
Study, on staff report page 25-29 implies it could have been the high rainfall
fiscal year just ended (FY 2016-17) — but whatever year or years it is, it could put
the sewer -only customers at an advantage or disadvantage compared to the
other customers, being charged on actual use.
3. There is also a lack of clarity as to how the "effective dates" indicated in Tables 2 and 3
are planned to be implemented. I do not believe all customers have the same billing
cycle, and even if they did, I do not believe the City has the daily water use data that
would be necessary to charge one rate for sewer use prior to, say, 1/1/2018, and a
September 12, 2017, Council Item 25 Comments - Jim Mosher Page 3 of 13
different rate on that and subsequent days. Is the intention to apply the new rate structure
retroactively to the entirety of the first bill issued on or after the "effective date"? Or will it
be applied only to the first bill the entirety of which is for usage after the effective date
(leaving a portion after that date charged under the old structure on the previous bill)?
4. The second sentence describing the Proposition 218 process under "Introduction of the
Ordinance Changes" on page 25-6 is most peculiar: "Notwithstanding a majority protest,
City Council can consider verbal testimony from anyone and written protests from non -
property owners and decide to approve the proposed rates." Taken literally, this says
that even if a majority of property owners protest, the City Council, after listening to
complaints from non -owners, can still approve an increase. I do not believe that is
correct.
Comments on Rate Study (staff report pages 25-8 through 25-54)
1. Page 25-15: several of the acronyms listed (EDU, GPD, I&I, OCWD, PAYGo, and SFR)
do not appear to be used in the report, while some that are used (DU) are not listed. Of
the ones not used, the proper allocation of costs associated with "I&I" (the Inflow and
Infiltration of storm and surface water) has been considered in rate studies for other
jurisdictions, and might seem relevant in Newport Beach since some geographic areas
(such as Balboa Island) might be assumed to be much greater contributors than others.
2. Page 25-16: "City Finance Commission" should be "City Finance Committee"
3. Page 25-21: The last sentence -- "Because the City's facilities only collect and convey
wastewater and do not also treat wastewater, there is no need to differentiate flow
charges to account for differences in wastewater strength among customer classes"
(reiterated on page 25-36) — is of questionable validity. Some customers emit wastewater
that is much more stressful on the wastewater disposal system — and generates more
capital and maintenance costs (independent of treatment) — than others. For example,
despite the best efforts to contain fat and grease, it might be reasonable to charge
commercial customers with food service uses more than those without — although I don't
know if their discharges are "stronger" per gallon than those from a typical private
residence.
4. Page 25-22: The last paragraph "In some cases such as hotels, the current bill would
include the $6.25 charge per account plus the $2.00 surcharge per dwelling unit. A hotel
with 100 rooms would be charged $206.25 under the current rates. Under the proposed
rates, the charge would depend on the size of the water service but could be of similar
magnitude ..." leaves hanging how "similar" staff thinks that would be, either for a "sewer"
or "sewer only" hotel. What do we think the meter size and water use for a typical 100
room hotel would be?
5. Page 25-24: In the next to last sentence, "rolf' should be "role."
6. Page 25-26: In Figure 3-1 (Annual Escalation Factors), some of the assumptions seem
questionable.
September 12, 2017, Council Item 25 Comments - Jim Mosher Page 4 of 13
a. Why would we expect "Percent of Bad Debt" (unpaid bills?) to be increasing by 0.4%
each year? I would think it would reach of a state of equilibrium and become a fixed
percent of the total costs.
b. Why wouldn't we expect "Sewer Accounts" and "Water Consumption" to increase as a
result of development?
7. Page 25-29: The first two paragraphs properly indicate that since the proposed revenue
structure includes a part based on metered water consumption, the revenue projections
are uncertain because the actual consumption may differ from what is assumed.
However, the costs are also claimed to have a variable part that in an ideal rate structure
would presumably rise and fall with water use in such a way as to exactly offset each
other. While the variability of revenue is called out in the report, I am unable to find
anything that clearly delineates the variable costs related to varying flow, or how well
those track the variable revenues expected from the proposed rate structure.
8. Page 25-32: The opening statement that "The City currently has 27,100 active sewer
accounts that pay the sum of two charges every month for Sewer service: a basic service
charge of $4.50 per account plus a sewer consumption charge of $0.35 per HCF based
on metered water use during the billing period." appears to be in error.
a. Figures 4-1 and 4-2, three pages later, appear to set the number of accounts billed
under this structure at 26,641 (the higher number appears to include the sewer -only
accounts, which do not currently pay a per HCF charge).
b. It is likewise unclear to me in all the materials (staff report, rate study and ordinance)
whether there is a one-to-one correspondence between customers (or "accounts"?),
water meters (or "accounts"?) and sewer service connections (or "accounts"?). I can
imagine, for example, a "customer" who has multiple properties with various
combinations of water meters and sewers, or a multi -family complex with multiple
separately -paid water meters sharing a common connection to the City wastewater
system. The assumption, never explicitly called out, appears to be that a sewer
charge will apply to every water meter (whether a City meter or not) on every lot
connected to the City sewer system.
9. Page 25-36: The second paragraph qualifies the previous comment by suggesting
something that is not clear from the proposed ordinance or rate tables: not all water
meters are charged a sewer fee. The intention is apparently (and quite reasonably) to
exempt water meters that are dedicated to unsewered fire and irrigation uses.
10. Page 25-38: 1 am unable to make sense of the paragraph under Figure 4-6: "Under the
current rates, 57% of the revenue comes from fixed charges 41 % from variable charges.
Those proportions are nearly the same with the proposed rates. Those proportions
balance well with the fixed and variable costs of providing sewer service, which are at
least 80% fixed."
a. First, I believe the sewer -only revenues should be added to the fixed ones, making
this "59% of the revenue comes from fixed charges 41% from variable charges"
(adding up to 100%).
September 12, 2017, Council Item 25 Comments - Jim Mosher Page 5 of 13
b. Second, I don't understand how having 41 % of the revenue variable "balances well" if
only 20% of the costs are variable. If the fixed:variable ratio of costs is indeed 80:20,
doesn't this mean we should rethink the proposed rate structure to transform some
more of the variable revenues to fixed?
11. Page 25-41: In the comparison with other agencies, it might be noted that the Costa
Mesa Sanitary District, which has nearly identical infrastructure in terms of miles and
pump stations, and somehow manages to get by at a lower -than -the -proposed rate,
claims to have been consistently investing an average of close to $2 million a year in
capital improvements for the last decade, whereas Newport, with likely some older
plumbing, has been spending only $500,000 and projects raising that only to $1 million
per year. This makes one wonder if the current Master Plan accurately estimates the
costs that will be incurred in the future, and hence if the presently proposed increase is
adequate.
12. Page 25-49: The tables on page A-7 of the Rate Study list "CITY METER"s, which seem
to involve 42 dwelling units, with "No Consumption Charge - Only Fixed Fee." What is this
about? Why would city meters be exempted from the consumption charge?
Comments about the Proposed Ordinance
In years past, the Municipal Code referenced a number of fees which the Code authorized
various departments to set based on costs, leaving the public uncertain what the fees were, or if
they were being billed the "correct" amount. In recent years, the tendency has been to say that to
be charged, the fees have to be reviewed and approved in a Council -adopted Master Fee
Schedule. That gives both staff and the public an authoritative, consolidated and current list to
refer to.
An example would be Ordinance 2011-30 which changed the fee for establishing water service
(and installing a new or enlarged meter) from an uncertain Department -set cost to a number set
by Council resolution (although the code could have been clearer that the "resolution" intended
was the one approving the Master Fee Schedule with the current number in it).
That was a good and positive change for the many changeable fees that would be too
cumbersome to keep up to date in the Municipal Code, giving certainty to something that was
previously uncertain.
But the same logic does not apply to such things as the basic water and sewer rates, which can
be changed (or at least increased) only after a formal Proposition 218 hearing. Indeed, having
the most recently adopted rates in the Municipal Code is precisely what is needed to give them
clarity. Because the Code is carefully and conscientiously updated with each new ordinance, one
can always have confidence the rates shown in it are the current ones, and nothing to change
them has been subsequently enacted.
That confidence and certainty is lost when the Council makes only a promise in the Code that the
rates will be proclaimed by resolution.
As an example, the rates for purchase of reclaimed water set by a Proposition 218 process in
2014 could very easily have been placed directly in the Municipal Code by the enabling
September 12, 2017, Council Item 25 Comments - Jim Mosher Page 6 of 13
Ordinance 2014-13. Instead, Ordinance 2014-13, much like the present one, promised the actual
rates would be set in a separate resolution. One cannot tell from the Code, but that turns out to
have been, at least initially, Resolution 2014-78, which in turn instructs staff to amend the Master
Fee Schedule, and to keep the Master Fee Schedule up to date with the changing rates of
Resolution 2014-78 in future years.
The problems with this are many. Assuming one can even locate the correct, most recent
Council -approved Master Fee Schedule on the City website (a task that is not as easy as staff
may imagine), the document is reviewed and approved only sporadically by the City Council. The
most recent version appears to date from July or August 2016. The recycled water rates listed in
it are the ones, as it says, implemented "1/1/2016". And although it warns "Rates adjusted every
January, per Resolution 2014-78," one would have to track down that resolution (again, not an
easy task for many), and within that resolution disentangle what "year" we are in (since it lists
rates not by effective date, but by "Year 1", "Year 2" ...).
Even then, there would be no certainty that subsequent to August 2016, or the passage of
Resolution 2014-78, the Council had not passed some other resolution imposing new and
different rates (the confusion over even staff knowing what Council resolution is current is well
illustrated by Item 5 on the present Consent Calendar, in which Finance Department staff is
recommending revising an earlier resolution, not realizing the one they are redlining had already
been revised by a later resolution making changes similar to at least part of what they are
proposing to change — that is, the Resolution 2015-5 being amended, had already been
amended, apparently unknown to staff, by Resolution 2015-10).
In short, what would be eminently simple and certain (looking up the current rates as listed in the
Municipal Code, as we can do now for potable water and sewer fees), becomes unnecessarily
complex and uncertain when the Code merely references the possible adoption of resolution
which may itself order the alteration of something (the Master Fee Schedule) adopted by yet
another resolution.
I would therefore, strongly recommend keeping the water rates in the Municipal Code. I would
also want to make clear that there are meters not charged a sewer fee, and that the sewer -only
accounts are charged exactly the same as customers receiving water from the City, the only
difference being that the City has to make an assumption about how much water the sewer -only
accounts receive.
Recognizing I am no expert on the details of how the City's billing or water and sewer
connections work, I might suggest an ordinance enacting something along these lines:
"Section 1: Newport Beach Municipal Code Section 14.24.065 is hereby amended to
read, in its entirety, as follows:
Section 14.24.065. Sewer Use Charge.
A. Excepting those meters used exclusively for un-sewered purposes, such as
irrigation or fire suppression, a monthly sewer fee is assessed against each water
meter on each property served by the City sewer system.
September 12, 2017, Council Item 25 Comments - Jim Mosher Page 7 of 13
B. The monthly fee consists of a fixed charge based on meter size and a use charge
based on the number of hundred cubic feet (HCF) delivered to the meter, as
follows:
C. For meters to which the water is delivered by the City, the use charge is computed
using the actual HCF delivered during the billing cycle.
D. For all other meters, the use charge is computed using an adopted historic
average of HCF delivered to all meters of the same size in the City -serviced area
as follows:
Assumed
Effective Date
Meter
Use
Meter
(HCF)
5/8"
9.05
3/4"
9.05
Size
1/1/2018
1/1/2019
1/1/2020
1/1/2021
1/1/2022
5/8"
$6.46
$7.07
$7.74
$8.39
$8.55
3/4"
$6.46
$7.07
$7.74
$8.39
$8.55
1"
$6.46
$7.07
$7.74
$8.39
$8.55
1.5"
$7.11
$7.78
$8.51
$9.23
$9.41
2"
$9.70
$10.61
$11.61
$12.58
$12.83
3"
$10.99
$12.02
$13.15
$14.26
$14.54
4"
$12.93
$14.14
$15.47
$16.77
$17.11
6"
$14.55
$15.91
$17.41
$18.87
$19.25
8"
$16.16
$17.68
$19.34
$20.97
$21.39
10"
$20.69
$22.63
$24.76
$26.84
$27.37
12"
$25.86
$28.29
$30.95
$33.55
$34.22
per HCF
$0.38
$0.42
$0.46
$0.50
$0.51
C. For meters to which the water is delivered by the City, the use charge is computed
using the actual HCF delivered during the billing cycle.
D. For all other meters, the use charge is computed using an adopted historic
average of HCF delivered to all meters of the same size in the City -serviced area
as follows:
E. The rates change in the first billing cycle in which the use falls entirely after the
effective dates stated in Subdivision B, above."
Assumed
Monthly
Meter
Use
Size
(HCF)
5/8"
9.05
3/4"
9.05
1"
13.50
1.5"
73.05
2"
69.00
3"
213.89
4"
396.00
6"
719.53
8"
719.53
10"
719.53
E. The rates change in the first billing cycle in which the use falls entirely after the
effective dates stated in Subdivision B, above."
September 12, 2017, Council Item 25 Comments - Jim Mosher Page 8 of 13
Noting:
1. 1 have no idea if the above monthly averages of proposed Subdivision D are correct, or
not, but they appear to be the ones used in computing the announced rates for sewer -only
meters.
2. 1 also do not know if Council would want to provide in the ordinance a mechanism for
sewer -only customers who feel the average use figures of Subdivision D do not apply to
them to submit evidence of their actual use and have their fee re -assessed based on that
(like property tax reassessments, one would guess the requests would always be for a
lower fee, not a higher one).
If this idea is rejected, here are some defects I notice in the ordinance as presented for first
reading in Attachment C to the staff report:
1. Before the fourth "Whereas" (mentioning the present, September 12 hearing) I would have
expected it to find something like:
"WHEREAS, at a public meeting held on July 25, 2017, the City Council approved
issuance of Proposition 218 notices announcing the possibility of revised rates,
which City staff mailed on July 28, 2017;"
2. The final "Whereas" contains a minor typo:
"WHEREAS, the City's current sewer charges are codified in Newport Beach Municipal
Code Section 14.24.065. By this ordinance, the City Council intends to amend that
Section to have the sewer charges and any changes thereto be adopted and charged
pursuant to a resolution adopted by the City Council."
3. Section 1 lacks the opening verbiage necessary to make entirely clear whether it is
replacing the existing NBMC Section 14.24.065 in its entirety, or is only amending the
three lettered subsections that are shown.
4. Part A, as written, makes a confusing distinction between a "customer" and an
"individually metered dwelling unit or business structure."
5. Part A, as written, appears to improperly exempt public facilities and other properties that
contain neither dwelling units nor "business structures" (whatever the latter means).
6. On the other hand, it does not provide a clear direction to exempt meters solely intended
for fire (or irrigation) use, or, more generally, how to handle situations in which a
"customer" has more than one meter.
7. Part B, as written, does not indicate the fixed charge for sewer only customers will be
based on water meter size. It seems strange that needs to be said in Part A but not in
Part B. It also fails to say the fixed charge will incorporate a use charge based on the
historic average use by meters of the same size. And it makes it sound like there may be
two separate resolutions that the reader has to track down.
8. Part C, as written, makes it sound like there may be yet a third resolution floating around
somewhere.
September 12, 2017, Council Item 25 Comments - Jim Mosher Page 9 of 13
9. Moreover, by basing the use charge on the total HCF delivered to the customer, Part C
lacks the flexibility to accommodate the future rate structure anticipated in the staff report,
in which the City may be able to segregate out from the total HCF the portion that goes to
non-sewered irrigation and the portion that likely goes into the sewer. Thus it would
appear that if a change related to that is made at the next Proposition 218 hearing,
Section 14.24.065 will have to be rewritten by ordinance anyway -- pretty much obviating
any reason to put the rate structure in a separate resolution at this time.
10. Given these numerous problems, many of which arise from trying to graft still more
language onto already obscure code, I would suggest that if the Council wants the rates in
a separate resolution, rather than trying to correct the above, go whole hog and simply
repeal NBMC Section 14.24.065 in its entirety and replace it with a simple statement that
sewer rates are set elsewhere, by a resolution in which all the details are given.
If the Council insists on relegating the actual rates establish by the Proposition 218 process to a
separate resolution (which I think is a bad idea), I would suggest following, for consistency, the
model established for recycled water by Ordinance 2014-13 in NBMC Section 14.13. However in
this case, the rationale behind the division of the fees into fixed versus variable costs is not so
clear, so I might simplify it to read something like this:
"Section 1: Newport Beach Municipal Code Section 14.24.065 is hereby amended to
read, in its entirety, as follows:
Section 14.24.065. Sewer Use Charge.
Based on a Council -approved and properly -noticed rate study, the City Council shall
establish by resolution a schedule of fees for use of the City sewer system, to be
incorporated into the Master Fee Schedule on the effective dates specified in the
resolution, including for each water meter supplying water flowing into the City sewer
system:
A. A fixed monthly charge based on water meter size.
B. An additional charge based on the volume of water use, which for meters for which the
water is supplied by the City will be based on the actual use, and for all other meters
based on the average use for meters of the same size unless the user can provide
evidence of a different volume of use.
The fee schedule is intended to equitably provide revenues equal to the costs of
maintaining the sewer system."
But again, I much prefer putting the Proposition 218 adopted rates directly in the Municipal Code
as shown on an earlier page.
September 12, 2017, Council Item 25 Comments - Jim Mosher Page 10 of 13
Appendix: Reverse Engineering the Proposed Rate Structure
The following is a printout of a spreadsheet addressing the question of how the proposed rate
structure is charging sewer only customers (for whom water meter size but not water use is
known) in comparison to water and sewer customers (for whom both water meter size and water
use are known)
One assumes the proposed structure is based on assessing the "sewer only" customers the
same capacity charge as the "water and sewer" customers plus a use charge calculated for the
typical use for that water meter size.
Tables 1 and 2 show the rates announced in the staff report for the two types of customers
Table 3 shows, highlighted in blue, the monthly HCF that must have been assumed to
account for the Table 2 charges if they are based on the Table 1 rate structure -- as well as
the assumed usages mentioned in the revenue projections of the rate study
Table 4 shows how the assumed usage for each size of "sewer -only" water meter decreases
with time, especially on 1/1/2022
Table 5 shows the annual increases in rates for the "water and sewer" customers. Note that
in the last year the fixed charges increase only 2% (as explained in the rate study) but the
variable use charge erroneously(?) continues to increase at 10% per year
Analysis of Proposed Newport Beach Sewer Rates
agenda & staff report
(September 12, 2017, Council meeting, Agenda Item 25) link
Table 1: Newport Beach Water and Sewer Customers -- proposed rates
Meter Size 1/1/2018 1/1/2019 1/1/2020 1/1/2021 1/1/2022
5/8"
$6.46
$7.07
$7.74
$8.39
$8.55
3/4"
$6.46
$7.07
$7.74
$8.39
$8.55
1"
$6.46
$7.07
$7.74
$8.39
$8.55
1.5"
$7.11
$7.78
$8.51
$9.23
$9.41
2"
$9.70
$10.61
$11.61
$12.58
$12.83
3"
$10.99
$12.02
$13.15
$14.26
$14.54
4"
$12.93
$14.14
$15.47
$16.77
$17.11
6"
$14.55
$15.91
$17.41
$18.87
$19.25
8"
$16.16
$17.68
$19.34
$20.97
$21.39
10"
$20.69
$22.63
$24.76
$26.84
$27.37
12"
$25.86
$28.29
$30.95
$33.55
$34.22
per HCF
$0.38
$0.42
$0.46
$0.50
$0.54
Table 2: Newport Beach Sewer Customers Only -- proposed rates
Meter Size 1/1/2018 1/1/2019 1/1/2020 1/1/2021 1/1/2022
5/8"
$9.90
$10.83
$11.85
$12.84
$13.10
3/4"
$9.90
$10.83
$11.85
$12.84
$13.10
1"
$11.59
$12.68
$13.87
$15.04
$15.34
1.5"
$34.87
$38.15
$41.73
$45.24
$46.14
2"
$35.92
$39.30
$42.99
$46.60
$47.54
3"
$92.27
$100.94
$110.43
$119.70
$122.10
4"
$163.41
$178.78
$195.58
$212.01
$216.25
6"
$287.97
$315.04
$344.65
$373.60
$381.07
8"
$289.58
$316.80
$346.58
$375.70
$383.21
10"
$294.11
$321.75
$352.00
$381.57
$389.20
September 12, 2017, Council Item 25 Comments - Jim Mosher
Table 3: Newport Beach Sewer Customers Only -- ASSUMED USE (HCF)
Meter Size 1/1/2018 1/1/2019 1/1/2020 1/1/2021 1/1/2022
5/8"
9.05
8.95
8.93
8.90
8.43
3/4"
9.05
8.95
8.93
8.90
8.43
1"
13.50
13.36
13.33
13.30
12.57
1.5"
73.05
72.31
72.22
72.02
68.02
2"
69.00
68.31
68.22
68.04
64.28
3"
213.89
211.71
211.48
210.88
199.19
4"
396.00
392.00
391.54
390.48
368.78
6"
719.53
712.21
711.39
709.46
670.04
8"
719.53
712.19
711.39
709.46
670.04
10"
719.53
712.19
711.39
709.46
670.06
Table 4: Newport Beach Sewer Customers Only -- ASSUMED HCF vs 2018
Meter Size 1/1/2018 1/1/2019 1/1/2020 1/1/2021 1/1/2022
5/8"
1.00
0.99
0.99
0.98
0.93
3/4"
1.00
0.99
0.99
0.98
0.93
1"
1.00
0.99
0.99
0.99
0.93
1.5"
1.00
0.99
0.99
0.99
0.93
2"
1.00
0.99
0.99
0.99
0.93
3"
1.00
0.99
0.99
0.99
0.93
4"
1.00
0.99
0.99
0.99
0.93
6"
1.00
0.99
0.99
0.99
0.93
8"
1.00
0.99
0.99
0.99
0.93
10"
1.00
0.99
0.99
0.99
0.93
Page 12 of 13
this Table 3
Rate Study Figure 4-4
Average Assumed
Sewer Only Use Component
Monthly HCF
Avg HCF Per Meter Per Month
(2018-2022)
(FY2017-18)
8.85
8.97
8.85
8.97
13.21
13.39
71.52
72.49
67.57
68.49
209.43
212.27
387.76
393.01
704.53
714.08
704.52
714.08
704.52
714.08
<-- note step in assumed use in 1/1/2022 column
September 12, 2017, Council Item 25 Comments - Jim Mosher Page 13 of 13
Table 5: Newport Beach Water and Sewer Customers -- increases in proposed rates vs 2018
Meter Size 1/1/2018 1/1/2019 1/1/2020 1/1/2021 1/1/2022
5/8"
1.00
1.09
1.20
1.30
1.32
3/4"
1.00
1.09
1.20
1.30
1.32
1"
1.00
1.09
1.20
1.30
1.32
1.5"
1.00
1.09
1.20
1.30
1.32
2"
1.00
1.09
1.20
1.30
1.32
3"
1.00
1.09
1.20
1.30
1.32
4"
1.00
1.09
1.20
1.30
1.32
6"
1.00
1.09
1.20
1.30
1.32
8"
1.00
1.09
1.20
1.30
1.32
10"
1.00
1.09
1.20
1.30
1.32
12"
1.00
1.09
1.20
1.30
1.32
per HCF
1.00
1.11
1.21
1.32
1.42 <-- note anomalous increase in variable charge relative to fixed charge
Prepared by: Jim Mosher iimmosher@yahoo.com
Last revised: September 11, 2017