HomeMy WebLinkAbout01/27/2014
B A K E R S F I E L D
Staff: Committee members:
Steven Teglia, Assistant to the City Manager Willie Rivera, Chair
Ken Weir
Terry Maxwell
SPECIAL MEETING OF THE
BUDGET AND FINANCE COMMITTEE
of the City Council - City of Bakersfield
Monday, January 27, 2014
12:00 p.m.
City Hall North
1600 Truxtun Avenue, Bakersfield, CA 93301
First Floor, Conference Room A
A G E N D A
1. ROLL CALL
2. ADOPT NOVEMBER 25, 2013 AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT
3. PUBLIC STATEMENTS
4. NEW BUSINESS
A. Discussion and Committee Recommendation Regarding FY 2014-15
CDBG, HOME, and ESG Action Plan – McIsaac
B. Discussion and Committee Recommendation Regarding the Sewer Utility
Rate Study - Rojas
C. Discussion and Committee Recommendation Regarding Annual Audit
Reports FY ending 2013 – Smith
D. Discussion and Committee Recommendation Regarding Adoption of the
2014 Committee Meeting Schedule - Teglia
5. COMMITTEE COMMENTS
6. ADJOURNMENT
B A K E R S F I E L D
/s/ Steven Teglia Committee Members:
Staff: Steven Teglia Willie Rivera, Chair
Assistant to the City Manager Ken Weir
Terry Maxwell
AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT
REGULAR MEETING OF THE
BUDGET AND FINANCE COMMITTEE
Friday, November 25, 2013
12:00 p.m.
City Hall North – Conference Room A
1600 Truxtun Avenue
Bakersfield, CA 93301
The meeting was called to order at 12:04 p.m.
1. ROLL CALL
Committee members: Councilmember Willie Rivera, Chair
Vice Mayor Ken Weir
Councilmember Terry Maxwell
City Staff: Alan Tandy, City Manager
Rhonda Smiley, Assistant to the City Manager
Steven Teglia, Assistant to the City Manager
Chris Huot, Assistant to the City Manager
Caleb Blaschke, Management Assistant-City Manager’s Office
Virginia Gennaro, City Attorney
Josh Rudnick, Deputy City Attorney
Nelson Smith, Finance Director
Raul Rojas, Public Works Director
Nick Fidler, Assistant Public Works Director
Kim Berrigan, Purchasing Officer
Others present: Members of the Media
AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT
Budget and Finance Committee Meeting
Monday, November 25, 2013
Page 2
ADOPT AUGUST 30, 2012 AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT
Adopted as submitted.
2. PUBLIC STATEMENTS
None
3. DEFERRED BUSINESS
A. Discussion regarding Local Vendor Preference Ordinance
Assistant to the City Manager Teglia stated that the item was referred to the Budget
and Finance Committee by Councilmember Johnson.
Finance Director Smith produced a report that had been included in the packet for
the Committee meeting. As background, he said that in September of this year, 11
bids were received on an item to purchase pickup trucks. A local vendor was the
third lowest bidder, and the current policy applies when the local vendor is the
second lowest bidder.
City Manager Tandy said that it is Councilmember Johnson’s belief that if the
monetary difference does not change between the second and third lowest bids,
that the local vendor should be afforded the preference.
City Attorney Gennaro indicated that there had originally been some legal concerns
about possible collusion with bidders. To address those concerns, three requirements
were included in the policy: 1) The second lowest bid amount should fall within 3% of
the lowest bid; 2) The monetary preference amount should not exceed $9,000; and 3)
The local vendor should be the second lowest bidder. These conditions were
intended to ensure that the integrity of process would be maintained. It was the
opinion of some that if the local vendor was always given preference, it would
discourage competitive bidding.
Committee member Weir was a member of the Budget and Finance Committee
when the policy was discussed and recommended to the City Council. While the
goal is to contract with local vendors, the members did not want to discourage out-
of-town vendors from bidding. He also said that the policy only applies to goods.
Committee member Maxwell stated his agreement with the current policy, and his
preference to leave it unchanged. He made a motion for no action.
Committee Chair Rivera asked how close the third bid on the specific item being
discussed was to the 3% threshold.
AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT
Budget and Finance Committee Meeting
Monday, November 25, 2013
Page 3
Finance Director Smith said that if the local vendor had been the second lowest
bidder, the bid would have been awarded to them, as the bid amount was within 3%
of the lowest bid amount.
Committee Chair Rivera asked for additional clarification.
Finance Director Smith responded that out of the 11 bids received, the lowest and
second lowest bidders were from out-of-town. The third lowest bidder was local; and
if this local vendor had submitted the second lowest bid, the bid amount was within
3% of the lowest bid, so they would have been awarded the contract. The policy
states that the 3% preference applies when the local bidder is in the second position.
City Attorney Gennaro said that the local vendor had met the first and second
conditions of the policy; but they did not meet the third requirement, which was to be
the second lowest bidder.
Committee Chair Rivera said that he was unsure about the concept that including a
vendor outside of the second position decreases competition.
Committee member Weir responded that if out-of-town bidders are continually
excluded in favor of local vendors, the out-of-town vendors will eventually stop
bidding.
Committee Chair Rivera said that there could be an economic benefit by utilizing
local vendors only, and believes there may be a method to achieve that.
Committee member Weir responded that the Committee had previously discussed
that issue; and in doing so, recommended a change from a 1% difference to the
current 3%.
Committee Chair Rivera asked about the number of local vendors who submitted a
bid on the trucks, and if that was an average response.
Finance Director Smith responded that out of the 11 bids received, 2 were from local
vendors. The amount of bids received for the trucks was unusual, as typically there
are only 2 or 3.
Committee member Maxwell stated that at a subsequent Council meeting, this same
local vendor was awarded a contract for vehicles. It is a demonstration that the
policy does work. The rules are known up front. As a private business owner, the
policy is very reasonable.
Committee member Weir noted that other local vendors chose not to bid on the
product.
City Manager Tandy said that some vendors deem the paperwork to be
cumbersome, and the low profit margin, not worthy of their effort.
AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT
Budget and Finance Committee Meeting
Monday, November 25, 2013
Page 4
Public Works Director Rojas said that the local Dodge dealer has been approached
on many occasions, and they always elect not to submit a bid on vehicles.
Committee Chair Rivera said that he would not want a vendor landing as the third or
fourth lowest bidder to be disqualified by a minimal bid difference. However, since it
was the will of the majority of the Committee to maintain the policy in its current form,
he would entertain a motion for no action.
Committee member Maxwell made the motion, and it was unanimously approved.
4. COMMITTEE COMMENTS
None
5. ADJOURNMENT
The meeting adjourned at 12:26 p.m.
C:\Users\alawrenc\AppData\Local\Microsoft\Windows\Temporary Internet Files\Content.Outlook\U0W8QKOX\Action Plan 14-
15BF Memo w bkp.doc
Community Development Department
M E M O R A N D U M
January 23, 2014
TO: Budget and Finance Committee
FROM: Douglas N. McIsaac, Community Development Director
SUBJECT: CDBG, HOME, and ESG Action Plan FY 2014-15
As an Entitlement City under the U. S. Department of Housing and Urban Development
(HUD), the City receives annual entitlements in order to improve low-income neighborhoods
in our City. The projected HUD Community Development Block Grant (CDBG), Home
Investment Partnership (HOME) and Emergency Solutions Grant (ESG) entitlements for FY 14-
15 total $4,214,531 in Federal entitlement funding. This projection is based on a potential five
percent reduction from FY 13-14 funding levels. Staff anticipates that the actual FY 14-15
funding level will not be released by HUD until later this spring. HUD, however, has advised
that a reduction of up to five percent could occur. If the potential funding reduction is less
than five percent, additional funding can be allocated to eligible projects at a later date.
Staff is projecting $7,000 in program income for CDBG and $30,000 for HOME. Thus, the total
proposed budget for CDBG, HOME, and ESG for FY 14-15 is $4,251,531.
The deadline for the submission of CDBG, HOME, and ESG applications for FY 2014-15
funding was October 31, 2013. This year we received seven proposals for assistance from
non-profit and for-profit organizations totaling $991,620, and eight proposals from City
departments totaling $1,904,095 for projects to improve the quality of lives for low-income
neighborhoods, and improve infrastructure in those low-income neighborhoods. .
After reviewing the requests for funding, staff has prepared a proposed budget for FY 14-15.
Attached is a summary of the proposed budget for consideration by the Budget and
Finance Committee and recommendation to the City Council, as well as memoranda
summarizing the funding requests from non-profits and City departments.
Staff anticipates that the FY 2014-15 HUD Action Plan will be considered by the City Council
on April 16, 2014.
C:\Users\alawrenc\AppData\Local\Microsoft\Windows\Temporary Internet Files\Content.Outlook\U0W8QKOX\Action Plan 14-
15BF Memo w bkp.doc
Description Amount Ward
Projected FY14-15 CDBG Entitlement 3,046,631$
Projected Program Income 7,000$
Total Available Resources3,053,631$
Administration (20%)610,726$
Section 108 Loan Payment on $4.1M 341,448$
Section 108 Loan Payment on $800K 65,734$
Total Admin and Debt Payment1,017,908$
Total Resources minus Admin and Debt Payments 2,035,723$
Fair Housing 25,000$ All
Bakersfield Senior Center 85,000$ 1
Police Patrol 230,000$ 1 & 2
Total Public Services340,000$
Home Access Rehabilitation 30,000$ All
Lake Street Curb/Gutter and Reconstruction 651,593$ 2
East California Area Curb/Gutter and Reconstruction500,000$ 1
MLK Communtiy Center Gym Rehabilitation 101,850$ 1
Planz Park Restroom Reconstruction 358,000$ 1
Jefferson Park Picnic Shade Structure 54,280$ 2
Total Public Services1,695,723$
Total Available Resources Remaining -$
RESOURCES
ADMINISTRATION AND DEBT SERVICE
PROPOSED CDBG BUDGET FY 2014-2015
PUBLIC SERVICES (MAX. $456,994)
PROJECTS
C:\Users\alawrenc\AppData\Local\Microsoft\Windows\Temporary Internet Files\Content.Outlook\U0W8QKOX\Action Plan 14-
15BF Memo w bkp.doc
Description Amount Ward
Projected FY14-15 CDBG Entitlement 959,447$
Projected Program Income 30,000$
Total Available Resources989,447$
Administration (10%)98,945$
Total Resources minus Admin 890,502$
CHDO Set Aside (15%)143,917$
New Construction Assistance 446,585$
Downpayment Assistance 250,000$
Home Access Grant Program 50,000$
Projects Total890,502$
TOTAL AVAILABLE RESOURCES REMAINING -$
Projected FY14-15 CDBG Entitlement 208,455$
Administration (7.5%)15,634$
Total Resources minus Admin 192,821$
Flood Ministries - Street Outreach 16,260$
Bakersfield Homeless Center - Shelter 46,276$
Bakersfield Rescue Mission - Shelter 46,276$
Alliance Against Family Violence - Shelter 16,260$
Projects Total125,072$
Bakersfield Homeless Center - ReHousing 67,749$
Projects Total67,749$
TOTAL AVAILABLE RESOURCES REMAINING -$
HOMELESS PREVENTION & REHOUSING PROJECTS
RESOURCES
ADMINISTRATION
PROJECTS
PROPOSED HOME BUDGET FY 2014-2015
PROPOSED ESG BUDGET FY 2014-2015
RESOURCES
ADMINISTRATION
SHELTER & OUTREACH PROJECTS (MAX. $125,072)
C:\Users\alawrenc\AppData\Local\Microsoft\Windows\Temporary Internet Files\Content.Outlook\U0W8QKOX\CDBG
Reprogramming BF Memo final.doc
Community Development Department
M E M O R A N D U M
January 23, 2014
TO: Budget and Finance Committee
FROM: Douglas N. McIsaac, Community Development Director
SUBJECT: Reprogramming of $2.7M Community Development Block Grant (CDBG)
Funds
In October 2012, the State of California Department of Finance (DOF) denied
Redevelopment funding associated with the Park 20th Housing Project, a key requirement of
the Proposition 1C infill infrastructure grant awarded to the City to complete Mill Creek
infrastructure projects. As a result, the City of Bakersfield sued the DOF to reinstate the
Redevelopment funding for the project, and identified alternative financing sources for Park
20th in the event that the City’s lawsuit was denied. Those alternative resources included
$2,732,783 in current-year and prior-year HUD CDBG funds.
In November 2013, the City received a favorable ruling in the DOF lawsuit, reinstating the
Park 20th Redevelopment funding. Consequently, pending the expiration of a 60-day period
for the DOF to appeal the court’s ruling, the $2,732,783 CDBG funds reserved for the project
will be available to be reprogrammed to other CDBG-eligible projects.
Therefore, the availability of this funding was taken into account when identifying projects
for the FY 14-15 HUD budget. City staff identified and assessed projects to which the CDBG
funding could be reallocated based on two primary criteria:
1) the shovel-readiness of the project, to ensure timely expenditure of CDBG funds per
HUD regulations, and
2) the need for the project in the community, and specifically the need to the low- and
moderate-income neighborhood in which it is located.
As a result, the Public Works Department identified five key project areas exhibiting a high
level of need for curb, gutter, sidewalk, drainage and/or street reconstruction, identified in
the following table:
C:\Users\alawrenc\AppData\Local\Microsoft\Windows\Temporary Internet Files\Content.Outlook\U0W8QKOX\CDBG
Reprogramming BF Memo final.doc
Project Amount Ward
Union/Brundage Area Curb, Gutter, Sidewalk and
Reconstruction – generally bounded by Union
Avenue, Brundage Lane, P Street, and 4th Street
$532,783 1
Planz Area Curb, Gutter Sidewalk and
Reconstruction – generally bounded by Planz
Avenue, the San Joaquin Railroad, Wilson Street,
and South H Street
$700,000 1
Oleander Area Curb, Gutter, Sidewalk and
Reconstruction – generally bounded by California
Avenue, South H Street, Palm Avenue, and
Oleander Avenue
$500,000 2
East California Area Curb, Gutter, Sidewalk and
Reconstruction – generally bounded by California
Avenue, Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Boulevard,
Brundage Lane, and Union Avenue
$500,000 1
Beale Area Curb, Gutter, Sidewalk and
Reconstruction – generally bounded by Flower
Street, Beale Avenue, Kentucky Street, and
Virginia Street
$500,000 2
TOTAL REALLOCATION $2,732,783
This information is for discussion purposes, and is separate from the proposed
recommendation regarding the FY 14-15 HUD Action Plan budget also included in this
Budget and Finance packet.
1
Community Development Department
M E M O R A N D U M
January 17, 2014
TO: Alan Tandy, City Manager
FROM: Douglas N. McIsaac, Community Development Director
SUBJECT: Intra City Proposals Received for FY 2014-15 CDBG Assistance
The deadline for submission of proposals for FY 2014-15 was October 31, 2013. We
received 8 proposals totaling $1,904,095. Below are project descriptions, location, cost
estimates, and eligibility/qualification summaries.
Project Description City Department,
Ward, and Priority
HUD
Eligible/Qualified
PUBLIC WORKS TOTAL: $1,206,815
Street Improvements: Lake Street from Union
Avenue to Tulare Street
Improve drainage currently causing street failures.
Install curb, gutter and sidewalk as needed prior to
street reconstruction. Improvements are on Lake
Street between Union Avenue and Tulare Street
CDBG – $604,965
Public Works
Ward 2
Priority 1
Yes
East California Curb, Gutter, Sidewalk, and
Reconstruction
Improve drainage currently causing street failu res.
Install curb, gutter & sidewalk as needed prior to street
reconstruction. East California to Brundage Lane and
Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Boulevard to Union Avenue
CDBG - $500,000
Public Works
Ward 1
Priority 2
Yes
Martin Luther King Jr. Community Center Gym
Rehabilitation
Facilities improvements to rehabilitate the gymnasium at
1000 South Owens Street. CDBG - $101,850
Public Works
Ward 1
Priority 3
Yes
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT TOTAL: $55,000
Fair Housing Program Services
Counseling, outreach, and compliance services
related to housing discrimination issues. Program is
required by HUD for entitlement communities.
CDBG - $25,000
EDCD
City-Wide
Required
Yes
2
Project Description City Department,
Ward, and Priority
HUD
Eligible/Qualified
HOME Access Grant Program
Grants up to $3,500 for accessibility improvements to
private residences – scattered site. CDBG - $30,000
EDCD
City-Wide
Yes
POLICE DEPARTMENT TOTAL: $230,000
*Downtown, Old Town Kern, and Southeast Areas
Police Patrol
Funding of 2 FTE officer positions in the Mill Creek
Linear Park area, Southeast police satellite office
area, Baker Street area, and the Creekview Villas
Condominiums. CDBG – $230,000
Police
Wards 1 & 2
Yes
RECREATION AND PARKS TOTAL: $412,280
Planz Park Improvements
Remove and replace public restroom and abandoned
pool equipment room (southeast corner of Planz Rd.
and H St.).
CDBG – $358,000
Recreation & Parks
Ward 1
Priority 1
Yes
Jefferson Park Picnic Shade Structures
Installation of a shade structure over existing picnic
facilities (southwest corner of Beale Ave. and Bernard
St.).
CDBG – $54,280
Recreation & Parks
Ward 2
Priority 2
Yes
*Note: CDBG funded public services cannot exceed 15% of CDBG entitlement.
1
Community Development Department
M E M O R A N D U M
January 17, 2014
TO: Alan Tandy, City Manager
FROM: Douglas N. McIsaac, Community Development Director
SUBJECT: Non-Profit & For-Profit Applications for HUD FY 2014-15 Funding
The deadline for the submission of CDBG, HOME, and ESG applications for FY 2014-15
funding was October 31, 2013. This year 7 applications were submitted from non-profit
and private entities totaling $991,620.
Below are summaries and staff’s comments of the applications received from applicants
requesting assistance from the various HUD programs for FY 14-15.
Community Development Block Grant
Applications – FY 2014-15
Applicant
Proposal Name
Description
Location
Estimated Cost
City Funds Requested
Other Sources
HUD
Eligible/Qualified
Community Action
Partnership of Kern
Food Bank solar
energy improvements
Installation of solar
equipment to increase
energy efficiency at the
CAPK Food Bank at
1807 Feliz Drive
Ward 1
$284,591 Total Project Cost
$132,000* City
*additional funding requested
from County of Kern
Yes
Bakersfield Senior
Center Public
Services
Operations and
Maintenance
Operations and
maintenance to benefit
seniors at Bakersfield
Senior Center at 530 4th
Street
Ward 1
$85,000 Total Project Cost
$85,000* City
Yes
Total Eligible Non-Profit CDBG Request: $217,000
2
HOME Applications – FY 2014-15
Villa San Dimas
Rehabilitation Project
Rehabilitation
Rehabilitation of existing
20-unit low-income multi-
family housing complex
located at 601 36th
Street.
Ward 2
$400,000 Total Project Cost
$400,000 City
Yes
Total Eligible Non-Profit HOME Request: $400,000
Emergency Shelter Grant
Applications – FY 2014-15
Bethany Services,
(BHC)
Bakersfield Homeless
Center Operations
Operational cost of the
Homeless Center
including cost of security
maintenance and utilities
at 1600 E. Truxtun
Avenue.
City Wide
$2.6 million total project
budget (combined with rapid-
rehousing budget)
$99,656 City ESG
$99,656 Match
Yes
Bethany Services,
(BHC)
Rapid Re-Housing
Program Services
Rapid Re-Housing of
individuals and families
recently being displaced
from housing.
City Wide
$2.6 million total project
budget (combined with
homeless operations)
$71,314 City ESG
$71,314 Match
Yes
Alliance Against
Family Violence
(AAFV)
Shelter for Battered
Women and their
Children
Operating cost of the
Battered Women’s
Shelter including utilities,
insurance, maintenance
and wages for a
counselor at 1921 19th
Street
City Wide
$293,326 total project budget
$ 32,000 City ESG
$ 32,000 Match
Yes
Bakersfield Rescue
Mission (BRM)
Homeless
Intervention Services
Operational cost of the
Bakersfield Rescue
Mission including
maintenance, utilities,
and personnel at 816
East 21st Street, 810.812
E. 21st Street, 800 E. 21st
Street, 724 E. 21st Street
City Wide
$2.1 million annual operating
budget
$ 132,650 City ESG
$ 132,650 Match
Yes
Flood Bakersfield
Ministries
Street Outreach and
Engagement
Cost of expansion of the
street outreach and
engagement program
City Wide
$425,836 annual operating
budget
$ 39,000 City ESG
$ 39,000 Match
Yes
Total Eligible Emergency Shelter Grant Request: $374,620
All meetings will be held at City Hall North, First Floor, Conference Room A
Adopted: DRAFT
Budget & Finance City Council Meetings
Committee Meetings 3:30 Closed Session
12:00 p.m.5:15 p.m. Public Session
Holidays - City Hall Closed
MARCH
SMTWTHFSSMTWTHFSSMTWTHFS
123411
56789101123456782345678
1213141516171891011121314159101112131415
192021222324251617181920212216171819202122
26272829303123242526272823242526272829
3031
APRIL MAYJUNE
SMTWTHFSSMTWTHFSSMTWTHFS
123451231234567
678910111245678910891011121314
131415161718191112131415161715161718192021
202122232425261819202122232422232425262728
27282930252627282930312930
JULY AUGUST SEPTEMBER
SMTWTHFSSMTWTHFSSMTWTHFS
12345 12123456
6789101112345678978910111213
131415161718191011121314151614151617181920
202122232425261718192021222321222324252627
2728293031 24252627282930282930
31
OCTOBER NOVEMBER DECEMBER
SMTWTHFSSMTWTHFSSMTWTHFS
1234 1123456
567891011234567878910111213
12131415161718910111213141514151617181920
192021222324251617181920212221222324252627
262728293031 2324252627282928293031
30
League of California Cities Annual Conference - September 3-5, 2014
Budget & Finance Committee Calendar
January 2014 Through December 2014
JANUARY FEBRUARY
The following presentation was made at the
meeting of the:
Budget And Finance Committee
on
Monday, January 27, 2014
Sewer Revenue
Study
January 27, 2014
Background
Wastewater Revenue Program adopted by
Council in 2001
No changes to methodology since then
Review of current program started in 2011
Prop 218
May not exceed proportional cost to provide
service
Goal is to develop improved rate structure
Easier to understand
Equity among users
Implement 1st set of changes for FY 14/15
Wastewater Rate Model
Rates based on each users
cost to treat includes:
Revenue estimates
O&M estimates
CIP
Debt service
Reserve requirements
Number and type of users
Phase in over 5 years
Flow GPD BOD mg/L TSS mg/L
Current 300 225 180
FY 14/15 290 230 194
FY 15/16 280 235 208
FY 16/17 270 240 222
FY 17/18 260 245 236
FY 18/19 250 250 250
Simplify current rate
structure….
Over 4,200 commercial sewer customers –
1,700+ subject to surcharge
Complexity of current surcharge
calculation
Surcharge fee based on water flow – fee
can vary considerably from year to year
Simplify surcharge calc’s for
commercial customers
Continue basing fees on water
consumption
Blend flow, BOD, and TSS into one rate.
Used Wastewater Rate Model to
determine blended rate.
Current Method - Market
Billing Period:July 2013- June 2014 Acct. # :
Business Name:Grocery Store Location :
1 ESTIMATED WASTEWATER FLOW:
Wastewater flow is determined by analyzing water consumption records.
We estimate that 90 % of the water consumed is discharged to the sewer.
Water consumption records:January through December 2012 , in the unit of hundred cubic feet (HCF)
3,588 HCF /yr X 748 gal / HCF =2,683,824 gal = 2.684 MG (million gallons)/yr
Estimated wastewater flow of 90%:2.684 MG x 90%=2.415 MG/yr
This account has additional adjustments of 0.0 SFDE* allowance(s), due to sewer special assesment billing on tax bill.
2.415 MG -0 x 0.1095 MG/yr =2.415 MG
* Flow for 1 SFDE (Single Family Dwelling Equivant) is 300 gal/day, which equals to 0.1095 MG/yr).
2 Per Revenue Program Guidelines by the State Water Resource Control Board, your facility is in the following rate code:Market
The wastewater strength characteristics and unit charges for this rate code are as follows:
Wastewater Characteristics Unit Charge
FLOW (Wastewater Volume) = 2.415 MG/yr.$1,502.49 /MG
BOD (Biochemical Oxygen Demand) =800 150 $104.91 /1000 lbs.
TSS (Total Suspended Solids) =800 mg/L $115.03 /1000 lbs
3 Flat Rate (FR) allowance:1.5 SFDE Flow =0.1643 MG @ 0.1095 MG/SFDE
BOD =308 lbs @ 206 lbs/SFDE
TSS =247 lbs @ 164 lbs/SFDE
4 Calculation of your sewer surcharge for the excess:July 2013- June 2014 Service Period
FLOW : (2.415442 MG -0.1643 MG ) x $1,502.49 /MG =$3,382.39
BOD : (2.415442 MG x 800 mg/L x 8.345 lbs/gal -308 ) x $104.91 /1000 lbs =$1,659.37
TSS : (2.415442 MG x 800 mg/L x 8.345 lbs/gal -247 ) x $115.03 /1000 lbs =$1,826.53
SEWER SURCHARGE (Sum of BOD, TSS and Flow) for 12-month period =$6,868.30
Special assessment paid on property tax 307.50
TOTAL SEWER CHARGES for 12-month period $7,175.80
Proposed Method - Market
Public Works Department
Wastewater Division
SEWER FEE CALCULATION
Billing Period:July 2013- June 2014 Acct. # :
Business Name:Grocery Store Location :
1 ESTIMATED WASTEWATER FLOW:
Wastewater flow is determined by analyzing water consumption records.
We estimate that 90 % of the water consumed is discharged to the sewer.
Water consumption records:January through December 2012 , in the unit of hundred cubic feet (HCF)
Water consumption:3,588 HCF
Estimated wastewater flow: 3,588 x 90%3,229 HCF
2 Per Revenue Program Guidelines by the State Water Resource Control Board, your facility is in the following rate code:Market
The unit charge for this rate code is:$2.26 / HCF
3 Sewer charge calculation is as follows:
Total Sewer Charge
3,229 HCF X $2.26 /HCF =$7,297.99
TOTAL SEWER CHARGES for 12-month period $7,297.99
Less special assessment paid on property tax $307.50
Sewer surcharge for 12-month period $6,990.49
PROPOSED METHOD
H2O Flow Rate
12/13 - 13/14 Comparisons
2012-2013 2013-2014 Change % Change
$12,945.84 $17,730.12 $4,784.28 36.96%
$423.12 $400.68 -$22.44 -5.30%
$608.76 $1,556.64 $947.88 155.71%
$1,106.64 $1,039.56 -$67.08 -6.06%
$4,470.36 $6,809.28 $2,338.92 52.32%
$11,752.56 $5,920.20 -$5,832.36 -49.63%
$4,580.04 $5,613.60 $1,033.56 22.57%
$222.24 $123.48 -$98.76 -44.44%
$3,836.28 $7,012.20 $3,175.92 82.79%
$3,770.64 $3,293.40 -$477.24 -12.66%
$5,624.64 $6,954.72 $1,330.08 23.65%
$5,055.60 $3,689.40 -$1,366.20 -27.02%
** Average % change for all customers excluding businesses that did not have a charge both years: 48%
Food or Beverage Example 2
Food or Beverage Example 1
Shopping Center with Dining Example
2
Shopping Center with Dining Example
1
Service Shop Example 2
Service Shop Example 1
Combination Store & Office Example
2
Combination Store & Office Example
1
Churches Example 2
Churches Example 1
Car Wash Example 2
Car Wash Example 1
Class / Example
Examples of New Rates over 5-Year Period
Customer Type RC 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 5 Year
Total
Car Wash 21 $1.19 $1.23 $1.27 $1.32 $1.38
% Increase 3.27%3.61%3.98%4.08%13.64%
$ Change $0.04 $0.04 $0.05 $0.05 $0.19
Office & Financial Bldg 16 $1.24 $1.28 $1.33 $1.38 $1.43
% Increase 3.41%3.69%3.99%4.09%13.84%
$ Change $0.04 $0.05 $0.05 $0.06 $0.20
Churches 6 $1.30 $1.34 $1.39 $1.44 $1.50
% Increase 3.28%3.52%3.79%3.91%13.27%
$ Change $0.04 $0.05 $0.05 $0.06 $0.20
Service Shop 22 $1.41 $1.45 $1.50 $1.55 $1.61
% Increase 3.06%3.24%3.46%3.63%12.34%
$ Change $0.04 $0.05 $0.05 $0.06 $0.20
Shopping Center with Dining 15 $1.84 $1.89 $1.95 $2.01 $2.07
% Increase 2.97%2.94%2.92%3.15%11.13%
$ Change $0.05 $0.06 $0.06 $0.06 $0.23
Food or Beverage 18 $2.30 $2.37 $2.43 $2.49 $2.56
% Increase 2.83%2.67%2.50%2.78%10.10%
$ Change $0.07 $0.06 $0.06 $0.07 $0.26
BELL CURVE
-30%-26%-22%-18%-14%-10%-6%-3%-2%0%3%7%11%15%19%23%27%31%35%39%
Majority of customers fall inside a bell
curve. Some do not. . .
89% Bell Curve
Class / Examples 2014
(current)
2015
290-230-194 Change %
Change
2016
280-235-208 Change 2017
270-240-222 Change 2018
260-245-236 Change 2019
250-250-250 Change % 5 year
Churches Ex. 1 $1,852.60 $1,808.62 -$43.98 -2.37%$1,867.87 $15.27 $1,933.57 $80.97 $2,006.80 $154.20 $2,085.31 $232.71 12.56%
Churches Ex. 2 $4,645.96 $4,535.56 -$110.40 -2.38%$4,684.16 $38.20 $4,848.91 $202.95 $5,032.57 $386.61 $5,229.44 $583.48 12.56%
Office & Financial
Bldg Ex. 1 $702.06 $765.56 $59.50 8.47%$787.53 $85.47 $816.56 $114.50 $849.17 $147.11 $883.89 $181.83 25.90%
Office & Financial
Bldg Ex. 2 $3,501.30 $3,418.10 -$83.20 -2.38%$3,534.69 $33.39 $3,664.98 $163.68 $3,811.34 $310.04 $3,967.17 $465.87 13.31%
Food or Beverage
Ex. 1 $14,667.66 $15,294.16 $626.50 4.27%$15,727.44 $1,059.78 $16,147.64 $1,479.98 $16,551.18 $1,883.52 $17,012.12 $2,344.46 15.98%
Food or Beverage
Ex. 2 $12,309.18 $12,834.98 $525.80 4.27%$13,198.60 $889.42 $13,551.24 $1,242.06 $13,889.89 $1,580.71 $14,276.71 $1,967.53 15.98%
Markets Ex. 1 $4,471.74 $4,556.12 $84.38 1.89%$4,674.91 $203.17 $4,791.03 $319.29 $4,903.63 $431.89 $5,033.82 $562.08 12.57%
Markets Ex. 2 $10,023.66 $10,212.55 $188.89 1.88%$10,478.82 $455.16 $10,739.10 $715.44 $10,991.51 $967.85 $11,283.31 $1,259.65 12.57%
11% Bell Curve
Class / Examples 2014
(current)
2015
290-230-194 Change %
Change
2016
280-235-208 Change 2017
270-240-222 Change 2018
260-245-236 Change 2019
250-250-250 Change % 5 year
Food or Beverage
Ex. 1 $4,112.34 $4,764.45 $652.11 15.86%$4,899.43 $787.09 $5,030.33 $917.99 $5,156.04 $1,043.70 $5,299.63 $1,187.29 28.87%
Food or Beverage
Ex. 2 $1,710.06 $1,981.35 $271.29 15.86%$2,037.48 $327.42 $2,091.92 $381.86 $2,144.19 $434.13 $2,203.91 $493.85 28.88%
Markets Ex. 1 $4,851.78 $5,492.52 $640.74 13.21%$5,635.72 $783.94 $5,775.71 $923.93 $5,911.46 $1,059.68 $6,068.39 $1,216.61 25.08%
Markets Ex. 2 $7,853.70 $8,890.81 $1,037.11 13.21%$9,122.62 $1,268.92 $9,349.22 $1,495.52 $9,568.96 $1,715.26 $9,822.99 $1,969.29 25.07%
Shopping Center
(/w Dining) Ex. 1 $4,343.86 $3,712.39 -$631.47 -14.54%$3,822.53 -$521.33 $3,934.89 -$408.97 $4,049.62 -$294.24 $4,177.28 -$166.58 -3.83%
Shopping Center
(/w Dining) Ex. 2 $8,712.26 $10,106.51 $1,394.25 16.00%$10,406.35 $1,694.09 $10,712.22 $1,999.96 $11,024.55 $2,312.29 $11,372.10 $2,659.84 30.53%
Hotel-Motel with
Dining Ex. 1 $9,422.82 $11,419.69 $1,996.87 21.19%$11,729.82 $2,307.00 $12,046.74 $2,623.92 $12,370.94 $2,948.12 $12,736.69 $3,313.87 35.17%
Hotel-Motel with
Dining Ex. 2 $845.10 $720.08 -$125.02 -14.79%$739.64 -$105.46 $759.62 -$85.48 $780.07 -$65.03 $803.13 -$41.97 -4.97%
Summary of recommendations
Phase in revised SFDE
characteristics over 5 years – 1st
year FY14/15
Simplify sewer surcharge
calculation using water
consumption multiplied by
blended rate
Timeline
Notices to property owners go out early
April to meet Prop 218 deadlines
Update current Wastewater Revenue
Program