City Council Mobility & Infrastructure Committee · Tuesday, July 15, 2025 · City Council Digest

3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES

Minutes of June 17, 2025

packet pp.5–6

▶ Watch from 1:14 Open packet at p.5 ↗

Staff report:

APPROVAL OF MINUTES a) 06-17-25 City Council Mobility & Infrastructure Page (1) Committee Minutes CITY OF ISSAQUAH City Council Mobility & Infrastructure Committee 6:30 PM Council Chambers, 135 E. June 17, 2025 MINUTES Sunset Way, Issaquah WA

4. AGENDA ITEMS

Utility Rate Study - Rate Design COM 0159

45 min · Emily Moon, Director of Public Works Matt Ellis, Utility Engineering Manager Sergey Tarasov, FCS Consulting Group · packet pp.7–45

Open packet at p.7 ↗

Staff report:

Administration recommends:

1256 segments .txt ↗

0:00 ↗ All right, we'll begin the meeting of

0:01 ↗ the mobility and infrastructure

0:03 ↗ committee for July 15th, 2025.

0:08 ↗ And uh appreciate everyone that is

0:11 ↗ watching from home, everyone that's

0:13 ↗ watching the video after, and uh those

0:16 ↗ of you that are present tonight.

0:19 ↗ First thing on the agenda is uh

0:23 ↗ what's the first thing on the agenda?

0:25 ↗ Public comment.

0:26 ↗ >> Public comment.

0:27 ↗ >> Fantastic.

0:28 ↗ First thing on the agenda is public

0:30 ↗ comment. And uh if there's anyone in the

0:32 ↗ room that would like to give public

0:33 ↗ comment, um you're more than welcome to

0:36 ↗ do that. I'll read a little text and a

0:39 ↗ script if there is. Seeing none, I'll

0:42 ↗ pass on to the online area to see if

0:45 ↗ there's anyone online that might have

0:47 ↗ need an opportunity to speak. Do we have

0:49 ↗ anyone online?

0:52 ↗ >> Sure. We have no virtual attendees at

0:54 ↗ this time.

0:54 ↗ >> Okay. Fantastic. Well, again, the city

0:57 ↗ council always appreciates comments from

1:01 ↗ uh the public via email or you can stop

1:03 ↗ us on the street when you see us at the

1:06 ↗ grocery store. We always like to talk to

1:08 ↗ the public about the issues that are on

1:10 ↗ your mind.

1:12 ↗ Next thing on the agenda would be

1:14 ↗ approval of the minutes from the last

1:15 ↗ meeting. Have the minutes been reviewed?

1:20 ↗ >> All right. I'm going to ask for approval

1:22 ↗ of the minutes then.

1:25 ↗ Any objection?

1:26 ↗ >> No.

1:26 ↗ >> No objection. The minutes are approved

1:28 ↗ then.

1:30 ↗ All right. That takes us to the first

1:32 ↗ item on the agenda and uh we're lucky

1:35 ↗ enough to have staff here to talk us

1:38 ↗ about talk to us about the utility rates

1:40 ↗ and uh thank you for being here. Go

1:44 ↗ ahead.

1:45 ↗ >> All right. Thank you. Um Sergey, are you

1:49 ↗ going to share your screen?

1:52 ↗ >> I am. Let me do that right now. Can you

1:54 ↗ hear me? Okay.

1:56 ↗ >> Yes.

1:58 ↗ >> Okay.

2:00 ↗ I should be sharing the main PowerPoint.

2:02 ↗ Can you see it right now?

2:04 ↗ >> Yes.

2:05 ↗ >> Great.

2:06 ↗ >> All right. So, good evening, council.

2:08 ↗ Uh, tonight we're talking about the

2:10 ↗ utility rate study and specifically the

2:12 ↗ rate design analysis portion.

2:16 ↗ Uh, this is our fourth touch with you

2:18 ↗ all tonight on the utility rate study.

2:20 ↗ Uh today we'll be evaluating the rate

2:21 ↗ design analysis for the city's water,

2:23 ↗ sewer, and storm water services, and

2:25 ↗ Sergey will explain all that entails in

2:27 ↗ rate design later in the presentation.

2:30 ↗ Uh you've seen this uh before, but to

2:32 ↗ reiterate, we are evaluating and setting

2:34 ↗ new rates for the city's water wet

2:36 ↗ utilities for the next 5 years. Uh our

2:38 ↗ last rate study was completed 5 years

2:40 ↗ ago and we are looking at uh policy and

2:44 ↗ planning things that uh uh today that

2:47 ↗ will uh impact rate structures for the

2:50 ↗ next 10 years.

2:54 ↗ Uh so here are object primary objectives

2:57 ↗ that we set out at the beginning of the

2:59 ↗ uh project. Um and the one that we will

3:02 ↗ be focusing on tonight which is not in

3:04 ↗ any discernable order is uh the prime uh

3:08 ↗ establish defensible debasis for

3:10 ↗ assigning cost shares and providing

3:13 ↗ equity for rate payers.

3:17 ↗ As I mentioned this is our fourth touch

3:19 ↗ on the rate study. We set the groundwork

3:21 ↗ for the goals of the rate study.

3:22 ↗ Evaluated cost of service for each

3:24 ↗ customer class within each utility

3:26 ↗ division. Determine general facility

3:28 ↗ charges. And tonight we'll be looking at

3:30 ↗ the rate design for each customer class.

3:33 ↗ This is our last policy discussion

3:35 ↗ tonight. Our next stop is a summary

3:37 ↗ where we will lay out all the findings

3:39 ↗ and recommendations we made to the on

3:41 ↗ this rate study because there is no

3:43 ↗ meeting in August. Uh we're going to

3:45 ↗ take a little break uh and we'll be back

3:47 ↗ in September uh to do the final uh

3:50 ↗ findings and recommendations and a

3:51 ↗ summary of all that we've done so far.

3:53 ↗ And then our goal is to adopt the rate

3:56 ↗ uh study in October and uh that gives us

4:00 ↗ a little bit of time to adjust our code

4:02 ↗ where needed and implement rates in the

4:04 ↗ beginning of 2026.

4:08 ↗ So tonight we will be recommending two

4:10 ↗ policy items. Uh we'll be looking at

4:12 ↗ shifting the duplex rates to align with

4:15 ↗ single family residential for both water

4:17 ↗ and sewer utilities and we will

4:19 ↗ recommend shifting the minimum sewer

4:21 ↗ charge for non-s single family

4:22 ↗ residential users uh including mixed use

4:25 ↗ multifamily commercial to align with

4:27 ↗ minimum King County treatment charges

4:29 ↗ for RC rce or residential customer

4:33 ↗ equivalents.

4:35 ↗ All right, I'm going to pass it off to

4:36 ↗ Sergey.

4:38 ↗ Thank you, Matt, and thank you, council,

4:41 ↗ uh, for taking the time to meet uh,

4:44 ↗ today with us and continue our

4:46 ↗ discussion regarding utility rates,

4:48 ↗ specifically as Matt mentioned, focusing

4:50 ↗ on rig design. As always, let's I'd like

4:53 ↗ to quickly go over the presentation

4:55 ↗ overview just to give you a quick

4:56 ↗ preview of our discussion. We're going

4:58 ↗ to start out with a highle discussion of

5:00 ↗ the study process. I know we talk about

5:02 ↗ it every time. This is

5:05 ↗ >> Oh, no.

5:22 ↗ And just to make the record, we've had

5:24 ↗ the power go out and we're trying to fix

5:26 ↗ it right now if we're still

5:28 ↗ broadcasting.

5:35 ↗ I've had a request for a recess until we

5:37 ↗ get things back online and I think

5:38 ↗ that's a fantastic idea. Thank you,

5:41 ↗ Council Member Ray. We'll take a recess

5:43 ↗ for 10 minutes and convene back uh at 7

5:48 ↗ 6:47.

5:51 ↗ >> Okay, thank you for your patience as we

5:54 ↗ were sorting out some power issues here.

5:56 ↗ Uh we are back in open session for our

6:00 ↗ meeting mobility and infrastructure

6:02 ↗ committee and we were going to hear from

6:04 ↗ our consultant and uh go ahead please.

6:09 ↗ >> All right. Well, thank you and I'll dive

6:11 ↗ right in. So uh where I believe we left

6:13 ↗ off was a quick overview of the

6:15 ↗ presentation. We're going to be talking

6:16 ↗ about the rate setting process itself.

6:18 ↗ just remind yourself what goes into the

6:20 ↗ the overall process. And we'll do a

6:23 ↗ quick refresher of the prior meetings

6:25 ↗ showing you the results that were

6:26 ↗ brought back to the previous community

6:28 ↗ presentations focusing on the revenue

6:30 ↗ requirement, cost of service, and the

6:32 ↗ general facility charges. We'll spend

6:33 ↗ just a little bit of time there and our

6:35 ↗ main focus will be on the rate design

6:37 ↗ discussion which will conclude the that

6:41 ↗ last step of the overall rate setting

6:43 ↗ process. As always, feel free to ask

6:45 ↗ questions as we go along.

6:48 ↗ Now the typical comprehensive study such

6:50 ↗ as this one consists of three key

6:52 ↗ analytical steps. The first step we

6:54 ↗ refer to as revenue requirement which

6:56 ↗ looks at the overall needs of each

6:58 ↗ utility making sure that each utility

7:00 ↗ can be self-sufficient on a stand

7:02 ↗ support itself on a standalone basis and

7:04 ↗ can do so today as well as into the

7:06 ↗ future. At this point in time we're not

7:08 ↗ really focusing where the funds are

7:10 ↗ coming from. We're just making sure that

7:11 ↗ we can meet our needs uh overall. Once

7:15 ↗ we have established our overall target

7:16 ↗ for each utility, we'll move on to step

7:18 ↗ two, which we call the cost of service.

7:20 ↗ And really what this analysis tries to

7:21 ↗ accomplish is answering the question if

7:23 ↗ cost differences exist to provide

7:25 ↗ service to different customer classes.

7:27 ↗ So if you think of step one as

7:28 ↗ identifying the size of the pie of cost

7:30 ↗ that we need to meet. Step two slices

7:32 ↗ the the pie into pieces to see how big

7:34 ↗ the slice needs to be for each class of

7:37 ↗ service. And lastly, redesign. Step

7:40 ↗ three, the focus of today is the

7:42 ↗ development of the actual fixed and

7:44 ↗ variable charges that are paid for by

7:46 ↗ our customers directly. So the first two

7:49 ↗ steps basically identify the dollar

7:50 ↗ targets that we need to collect and the

7:52 ↗ last step establishes the actual unit

7:54 ↗ costs and fees that are assessed to our

7:56 ↗ customers.

7:58 ↗ Now a quick background, the last

8:00 ↗ comprehensive study completed for the

8:02 ↗ city was in 2020. Based on that state, a

8:05 ↗ 4-year implementation plan was developed

8:07 ↗ that took out rates through 2025 which

8:10 ↗ were adopted. The plan also forecasted a

8:13 ↗ need for rate adjustments beyond that

8:15 ↗ time period, but wanted the city wanted

8:17 ↗ to re review and refresh the analysis

8:19 ↗ before any additional rates were

8:21 ↗ incorporated in 2026 and beyond. And

8:24 ↗ that's when the study started to update

8:26 ↗ these charges in 2024. Since that time,

8:29 ↗ we've been working with your staff to

8:31 ↗ update the analysis and started

8:33 ↗ communication of the results and

8:35 ↗ feedback process with the council.

8:37 ↗ First, the council committee with a

8:39 ↗ whole on March 10th presenting that

8:41 ↗ first step revenue requirement findings

8:43 ↗ and receiving feedback from the entire

8:44 ↗ committee. Then again in May of 14th

8:47 ↗ with with the mobility infrastructure

8:49 ↗ committee where we brought back the

8:51 ↗ feedback adjusted results of the revenue

8:53 ↗ requirement and focused our attention on

8:55 ↗ the cost of service. And then last time

8:57 ↗ we met was in June 17th again with the

8:59 ↗ mobility infrastructure committee where

9:01 ↗ we brought back the cost of service

9:03 ↗ adjustment as well as focused on our our

9:05 ↗ discussion on general facility charges.

9:08 ↗ So the quick quick refresher of each of

9:10 ↗ the key steps of the analysis when we

9:13 ↗ met in March we received uh very good

9:15 ↗ guidance from the council that the

9:17 ↗ overall increases that we bring back

9:19 ↗ should be below about 6% for at least

9:22 ↗ the local or city portion of the

9:24 ↗ charges. the charges that the city has

9:26 ↗ control over. This does not include the

9:28 ↗ King County pass through uh charges for

9:30 ↗ treatment and that we should try to

9:33 ↗ limit the borrowing if we can. So, what

9:36 ↗ we brought back from that first step is

9:37 ↗ a scenario that looked at an average

9:39 ↗ impact for the city share of cost to a

9:41 ↗ typical residential customer of about

9:43 ↗ 4.9%.

9:45 ↗ This scenario also deferred any new

9:47 ↗ borrowing until outside of this 5-year

9:50 ↗ window, but did forecast potentially the

9:52 ↗ need for new debt, which would be

9:54 ↗ revisited whenever the next study is is

9:57 ↗ performed.

9:59 ↗ When we brought back the cost of service

10:01 ↗ analysis, we did identify the work cost

10:02 ↗ differences between customer classes and

10:05 ↗ some adjustments were warranted. So, a

10:07 ↗ big policy discussion that we had with

10:09 ↗ the committee was what do we do about

10:10 ↗ it? One option was to continue

10:12 ↗ monitoring the results and revisited the

10:15 ↗ analysis again during the net study.

10:17 ↗ Second option was to make the

10:19 ↗ adjustments all at once and the third

10:21 ↗ option was to make gradual adjustments

10:23 ↗ towards cost of service. Based on the

10:25 ↗ discussion and feedback at that meeting,

10:27 ↗ the the committee wanted to make gradual

10:31 ↗ kind of steps to get to cost of service

10:33 ↗ for both water and sewer. So we brought

10:37 ↗ back the actual phase aligned with

10:40 ↗ moving towards cost of service over a

10:42 ↗ period of time which are summarized on

10:44 ↗ this slide 13. And really what we're

10:46 ↗ looking at here I know there's quite a

10:48 ↗ bit quite a bit of numbers here but

10:50 ↗ we're looking at summary results by

10:51 ↗ class of service for the water utility

10:53 ↗ in the upper table and the sewer utility

10:56 ↗ in the lower table. The big picture here

10:57 ↗ is how does each individual class

11:00 ↗ compare to the total row. For the water

11:02 ↗ utility, we were looking at four and

11:04 ↗ 3/4% annual adjustments. Some classes

11:07 ↗ were slightly below four and three/4ers,

11:09 ↗ which indicated that they were paying

11:10 ↗ more than their allocated share costs

11:12 ↗ and they needed to be reduced slightly

11:14 ↗ or increased less than average. And some

11:17 ↗ classes are increasing more than average

11:20 ↗ slightly which indicated that these

11:22 ↗ customer classes were not quite paying

11:24 ↗ their allocated share and they needed to

11:26 ↗ go up. Similar trends can be found for

11:28 ↗ the sewer utility. And again, this was

11:31 ↗ just in line with the direction that was

11:32 ↗ provided by the committee during prior

11:35 ↗ meetings.

11:39 ↗ Next, we applied the cost of service

11:41 ↗ adjustments to the residential class and

11:44 ↗ taking into account the cost of service

11:45 ↗ adjustments, we were still well below

11:47 ↗ the 6% kind of threshold that uh the

11:50 ↗ committee of the whole provided to us in

11:52 ↗ terms of guidance uh going back to the

11:54 ↗ March meeting.

11:57 ↗ Next, we deviated slightly and focused

12:00 ↗ on slightly different fees which were

12:01 ↗ general facility charges which are

12:03 ↗ one-time fees imposed on new development

12:05 ↗ or certain upsizing redevelopment as a

12:07 ↗ condition of service. So unlike your

12:09 ↗ ongoing fees, general facility charges

12:11 ↗ are only assessed once and they're only

12:13 ↗ applicable to new customers or customers

12:15 ↗ that uh upsize their capacity to their

12:17 ↗ system such as upgrading meter size from

12:20 ↗ a smaller meter to a larger meter. When

12:23 ↗ that we met with the committee to

12:25 ↗ discuss GFCs, the big policy questions

12:27 ↗ centered around what do we do about the

12:29 ↗ findings? Do we increase our charges up

12:32 ↗ to the entire costbased level for all

12:35 ↗ utilities? Do we defer any level of

12:37 ↗ adjustments and keep them the keep them

12:39 ↗ at current levels or do we make gradual

12:42 ↗ adjustments and phase them in over time?

12:45 ↗ Another policy question that we wanted

12:47 ↗ to confirm was adjusting these charges

12:49 ↗ by inflation annually as has been

12:51 ↗ historic practice by the city. The

12:54 ↗ reason we typically adjust these type of

12:56 ↗ charges annually is because they're

12:57 ↗ calculated in today's dollars and to

12:59 ↗ account for inflation occurs on an

13:01 ↗ annual basis. You're allowed to make

13:03 ↗ those inflationary adjustments. The

13:05 ↗ committee gave us guidance and indicated

13:07 ↗ that the sewer and storm charges can be

13:10 ↗ increased up to the costbased levels

13:12 ↗ that were calculated. So those can be

13:14 ↗ found in the upper portion of the table

13:16 ↗ to the right uh which shows the sewer

13:19 ↗ and storm increases per unit of

13:21 ↗ capacity.

13:22 ↗ For the water utility, the committee

13:24 ↗ indicated that a 10-year phase in was

13:27 ↗ preferred. So uh we uh will be showing

13:30 ↗ you that in the next slide or two. And

13:33 ↗ then lastly, the committee confirmed

13:34 ↗ that the practice of adjusting charges

13:36 ↗ by inflation should still continue into

13:38 ↗ the future.

13:41 ↗ So, in order for us to phase in the

13:42 ↗ water charges, we uh created a 10-year

13:46 ↗ forecast that since the charges were

13:49 ↗ split between the portable share of

13:50 ↗ charges and the fire protection share of

13:52 ↗ charges uh and the majority of the

13:55 ↗ increase was coming from the fire

13:56 ↗ component of the charges, our proposal

13:59 ↗ was to set the portable component of the

14:01 ↗ new charges at the costbased levels and

14:04 ↗ then phase in the fire portion starting

14:06 ↗ at about halfway point or 55% gradually

14:09 ↗ by 5% % up to 100% mark over the 10-year

14:12 ↗ period. Now, the information we're going

14:14 ↗ to show in the next slide is presented

14:15 ↗ in today's dollars. Any inflation once

14:18 ↗ it actually occurs will be added on top

14:20 ↗ of the phase in that we're going to show

14:22 ↗ you.

14:25 ↗ So, on this slide, we're breaking down

14:27 ↗ the charges into three uh sections. The

14:29 ↗ first portion of the table summarizes

14:32 ↗ single family and duplex connection

14:34 ↗ charges under uh by meter size. We're

14:38 ↗ showing you the existing and a gradual

14:39 ↗ phase in up to the costbased levels by

14:42 ↗ 2035. Similarly, multif family and

14:44 ↗ non-residential accounts with any new

14:47 ↗ accounts will pay the middle portion of

14:48 ↗ the table again gradually phasing in up

14:51 ↗ to that maximum and calculated level. Uh

14:54 ↗ and lastly, the combined irrigation,

14:56 ↗ portable and rightway irrigation, the

14:58 ↗ private irrigation, any new connections

15:00 ↗ would be tied to the table down below.

15:06 ↗ All right. Well, that's the background.

15:07 ↗ Now, we'll switch gears and we'll focus

15:10 ↗ on rate design this time around. So,

15:13 ↗ again, what is rate design? At the very

15:15 ↗ basic level, it's just the development

15:16 ↗ on fixed and variable charges and

15:17 ↗ collect the appropriate dollars

15:19 ↗ identified in those first two steps.

15:21 ↗ After that, we want to make sure that we

15:23 ↗ can set our rates uh to align with cost

15:25 ↗ causation principles, but also we need

15:27 ↗ to make sure that we can meet the goals

15:29 ↗ and policy objectives of the utility and

15:32 ↗ the community. Those could be related to

15:33 ↗ conservation, low-inccome assistance,

15:36 ↗ revenue stability, and so on. One

15:38 ↗ important item that's always critical to

15:40 ↗ understand when working on rate design

15:42 ↗ and considering alternative rates is

15:44 ↗ that there's not a one-sizefits-all

15:46 ↗ solution. The key item to consider is

15:48 ↗ that what are the goals that we're

15:50 ↗ trying to accomplish as a community, as

15:52 ↗ a utility, and then what rate structure

15:54 ↗ aligns the best with those goals and

15:56 ↗ objectives. So as an example, if our

15:59 ↗ goal is to be uh focus on making sure

16:02 ↗ that our race generates sufficient and

16:04 ↗ stable uh revenues on a native basis to

16:07 ↗ cover our obligations, we may focus on a

16:09 ↗ structure that emphasizes fixed charges

16:11 ↗ more so than variable charges. If we're

16:14 ↗ trying to emphasize conservation type

16:15 ↗ structures and objectives, we may focus

16:18 ↗ on the volume portion of the charges as

16:20 ↗ well as looking at conservation rates

16:22 ↗ like tier rates. Lastly, if we want to

16:24 ↗ make sure that our rate rates are

16:26 ↗ understandable and are easy to

16:29 ↗ implement, we also need to make sure we

16:31 ↗ don't create a very comprehensive and

16:33 ↗ complicated structure that everybody can

16:35 ↗ uh can uh understand.

16:38 ↗ So now we'll start a discussion with the

16:40 ↗ existing rates and with the water

16:42 ↗ utility. So what we're doing on this

16:44 ↗ slide is we're providing a summary of

16:46 ↗ your current rates summarized into three

16:48 ↗ tables. The upper left table provides

16:50 ↗ you the by monthly charges by major

16:53 ↗ class of service. You can see that these

16:55 ↗ charges vary by meter size. They are

16:58 ↗ about $43.76 for single family customers

17:01 ↗ and going down the list uh are about

17:05 ↗ $29.38 for irrigation. There are

17:08 ↗ differences between classes. As an

17:09 ↗ example, irrigation customers do not

17:11 ↗ benefit from fire protection. So

17:13 ↗ typically their fixed charges would be

17:15 ↗ slightly lower than uh all other fixed

17:17 ↗ charges. So again there there's the

17:18 ↗ trending there. The second table right

17:21 ↗ below the fixed charges is related to

17:24 ↗ the volume portion of the charges for

17:26 ↗ the residential class specifically the

17:28 ↗ single family and the duplex classes of

17:31 ↗ service. Currently these classes have a

17:35 ↗ four and a five block rate structure.

17:38 ↗ The blocks are slightly different by

17:41 ↗ category.

17:43 ↗ Single family class block one is 0 to

17:45 ↗ four, 5 to 14 CCF, 15 to 30, 3150, and

17:50 ↗ anything over 50. While the duplex only

17:53 ↗ has four classes with an upper threshold

17:55 ↗ is over 40 CCF. The volume charges are

17:59 ↗ fairly similar. There's a slight

18:00 ↗ difference in block one and there's also

18:03 ↗ a slight difference in the upper tier.

18:05 ↗ Uh really emphasizing conservation on

18:08 ↗ the single family residential charge.

18:10 ↗ The non-residential rates also have a

18:12 ↗ tier structure. There's a block that

18:15 ↗ does vary by size. So the block does

18:18 ↗ escalate with the size of the meter. And

18:22 ↗ uh it is also a conservation incentive

18:24 ↗ type structure where the second block is

18:26 ↗ higher for all classes except the large

18:28 ↗ user where the large user pays the same

18:30 ↗ rate for all usage. Doesn't matter if

18:32 ↗ it's tier one or tier two usage. It's

18:34 ↗ just simply a uniform rate. Now because

18:37 ↗ we are trying to incorporate overall

18:39 ↗ adjustments through the revenue

18:40 ↗ requirement, we are trying to

18:42 ↗ incorporate cost of service adjustments.

18:44 ↗ We did not want to make too many

18:46 ↗ differences to and changes and

18:48 ↗ modifications to our current rate

18:49 ↗ structures to avoid compounding impacts

18:51 ↗ to our customers. So our main goal with

18:53 ↗ our rate structures this time around is

18:55 ↗ to apply the class specific cost of

18:57 ↗ service increases from the cost of

18:59 ↗ service phase in which you saw a couple

19:01 ↗ slides ago. That's the overall revenue

19:03 ↗ collection target that we have by class.

19:05 ↗ And the second goal that we're trying to

19:07 ↗ accomplish is that when we looked at the

19:09 ↗ design

19:10 ↗ basis from the most recent water system

19:12 ↗ plan uh we saw that the duplexes uh and

19:15 ↗ the single family sizing criteria for

19:17 ↗ fire protection and usage patterns are

19:19 ↗ fairly similar. So in order to

19:21 ↗ consolidate and simplify the rate

19:23 ↗ schedule, we are proposing to align them

19:26 ↗ and move them into one rate schedule. So

19:28 ↗ that is kind of the biggest change that

19:30 ↗ we're proposing this time around for the

19:32 ↗ water utility.

19:34 ↗ Now what does that mean? This slide

19:37 ↗ provides you a summary of the proposed

19:39 ↗ and existing uh water rates for the

19:42 ↗ single family residential class and the

19:44 ↗ duplex class. If you look at the

19:45 ↗ existing upper portion of the table,

19:47 ↗ this shows you again the existing fixed

19:50 ↗ charges. You'll see that duplex charges

19:51 ↗ are slightly higher for the same meter

19:54 ↗ sizes as single family. What we're

19:56 ↗ proposing to do is to align them and

19:59 ↗ make make them identical starting in

20:01 ↗ 2026. So right away they're going to

20:03 ↗ merge into one uh rate going forward

20:07 ↗ which means that there's going to be a

20:08 ↗ slight reduction for the fixed charge

20:12 ↗ on the volume charge down below. We're

20:14 ↗ proposing to consolidate the tiers or

20:17 ↗ blocks into the single family blocks. So

20:19 ↗ now we'll have all all customers will

20:22 ↗ have five blocks instead of some having

20:24 ↗ four, some having five. Everybody will

20:26 ↗ have the same five blocks and they're

20:29 ↗ going to be aligned starting right away

20:31 ↗ in 2026.

20:33 ↗ Again, moving to uh a big change in 2026

20:37 ↗ and then any future changes are simply

20:40 ↗ applied across the board or

20:41 ↗ proportionally. So, there's not going to

20:43 ↗ be any significant modifications after

20:45 ↗ that first change.

20:47 ↗ Now whenever we do such a big

20:49 ↗ restructure as moving a class from a

20:51 ↗ four tier or block structure to a five

20:54 ↗ block structure tweaking their block

20:56 ↗ rate uh fixed charges by reducing them

20:59 ↗ and increasing the volume rates there's

21:01 ↗ going to be slight uh different impacts

21:03 ↗ by different type of customers. So on

21:05 ↗ this slide we wanted to provide you with

21:07 ↗ an example of distribution of bills and

21:09 ↗ potential range of impacts that you may

21:11 ↗ see for some of the duplex customers. We

21:14 ↗ also have an additional actual impact

21:16 ↗ slide on the next slide that that'll

21:17 ↗ provide you a little bit more uh

21:19 ↗ granularity in terms of what kind of

21:21 ↗ impacts you will see for your customers.

21:23 ↗ Now, as background, there's

21:24 ↗ approximately 87 total duplex accounts.

21:27 ↗ There's not a lot of these customers

21:28 ↗ that are going to be impacted by this

21:30 ↗ change. Predominantly, majority of your

21:32 ↗ customers on the system are single

21:33 ↗ family residential.

21:36 ↗ In general, when we're looking at the

21:38 ↗ usage patterns for the duplex flask and

21:40 ↗ looking at the most recent history, you

21:42 ↗ can see that predominantly their usage

21:43 ↗ patterns are from zero to about 16 to 18

21:47 ↗ uh ccf or 1,800 cubic feet on a

21:50 ↗ bimonthly basis. We do have some

21:52 ↗ outliers that get up to about as as high

21:54 ↗ as 4600 cubic feet on a bon basis. But

21:57 ↗ majority uh of our bills land between 0

22:02 ↗ and 1800 cubic feet or 18 ccf

22:06 ↗ once we apply the new rate structure

22:08 ↗ which is

22:10 ↗ >> if we could pause for a moment we do

22:11 ↗ have a question from council member Ray.

22:13 ↗ Go ahead.

22:13 ↗ >> Hi. Uh thank thank you uh uh council

22:16 ↗ member Joe. Uh, Sergey, I'm I you

22:18 ↗ probably said this and I just missed it,

22:20 ↗ but on the duplexes, is that a single

22:21 ↗ meter um or is that uh one meter per

22:25 ↗ side of the duplex?

22:27 ↗ >> I believe it's one meter for the duplex

22:29 ↗ for two units.

22:30 ↗ >> Okay, great. Thanks. That makes sense.

22:33 ↗ >> Okay.

22:35 ↗ So, in addition to the shaded area which

22:37 ↗ shows the build distribution of usage,

22:38 ↗ we're showing a line which summarizes

22:40 ↗ the potential impact to a customer based

22:42 ↗ on their usage level. So if we align

22:45 ↗ this uh this line with the usage on the

22:48 ↗ x-axis, you can see that customers up to

22:50 ↗ 8 ccf will see an actual decrease in

22:53 ↗ their bill. Customers from 8 to about 14

22:57 ↗ or so ccf will see a very minor

22:59 ↗ adjustment uh one or two percentage

23:02 ↗ points and then anything above 14 ccf

23:05 ↗ customers will start seeing increases as

23:07 ↗ high as 10%. And then for the very high

23:10 ↗ usage levels in the 40s which there are

23:13 ↗ very few of these bills you will see an

23:15 ↗ increase as high as 30%. So again

23:18 ↗ anytime you make these type of

23:19 ↗ adjustments uh the there are usages or

23:22 ↗ customers that will see a reduction and

23:24 ↗ there are customers that will see an

23:25 ↗ increase and because we are trying to

23:27 ↗ incentivize conservation those folks

23:29 ↗ that use very high level of consumption

23:31 ↗ will see a disproportionately higher

23:34 ↗ impact to incentivize reduction of the

23:37 ↗ discretionary usage of water. Now what

23:40 ↗ does it actually mean for actual usage?

23:42 ↗ So what we also wanted to do is test our

23:44 ↗ uh actual usage and actual 87 customers

23:48 ↗ from a historical pattern. So we took

23:50 ↗ their 2024 data. We applied the actual

23:53 ↗ rates in place in 2024 and the proposed

23:58 ↗ rate structure then aggregated their

24:00 ↗ annual bills and to take a look at what

24:02 ↗ kind of impacts that they would have.

24:04 ↗ You can see that at on the outlier side

24:07 ↗ there would be one account that would

24:09 ↗ experience a 16% reduction in their

24:12 ↗ bill. Most likely this customer has

24:14 ↗ almost no usage levels because they

24:16 ↗ would see a predominantly a reduction in

24:18 ↗ their fixed charge and that would be the

24:19 ↗ benefit. We also have one account that

24:21 ↗ would see 30% increase or about 31 32%

24:25 ↗ increase. This is again one account and

24:27 ↗ the level of usage you would have to be

24:28 ↗ in the upper tiers to experience this

24:30 ↗ level of increase. So the predominantly

24:33 ↗ most customers will see an increase a

24:35 ↗ decrease anywhere from 7 to 2% with a

24:40 ↗ majority of the adjustments ranging from

24:42 ↗ -2 to positive 5 or 6%. With a couple of

24:46 ↗ outliers, individual outliers in the 20%

24:49 ↗ range. To give a little bit more

24:51 ↗ context, your average duplex uses about

24:54 ↗ uh 12 ccf annually, 11 ccf in the winter

24:57 ↗ time and 15 ccf in the summertime. So

25:02 ↗ folks who are using in the 40s in the

25:05 ↗ 30s are double the summertime peak

25:07 ↗ average or triple or quadruple the

25:09 ↗ annual average.

25:14 ↗ So that's the single family and duplex

25:16 ↗ customers. Everybody else the

25:18 ↗ adjustments were a little bit more

25:20 ↗ straightforward for the non-residential

25:22 ↗ class of service which includes

25:23 ↗ apartments, commercial, public authority

25:25 ↗ and the large user. Everybody will stay

25:27 ↗ on the same fixed charge. So the the the

25:29 ↗ the linkage of having the same charge

25:32 ↗ for those subcategories of

25:33 ↗ non-residential would remain. They would

25:35 ↗ have the same charge. It would simply

25:37 ↗ adjust across the board. And then the

25:40 ↗ volume charges would just get us to

25:42 ↗ their cost of service based class

25:44 ↗ specific adjustments. So there's no

25:46 ↗ restructuring, there's no remodeling the

25:49 ↗ rates, just collecting the overall cost

25:52 ↗ of service phase in class-based

25:53 ↗ adjustments

25:57 ↗ for the irrigation class. Again, very

25:59 ↗ similar concept here. We're trying to

26:01 ↗ consolidate these classes gradually over

26:03 ↗ extended duration of time. Here we're

26:06 ↗ aligning their differentials between the

26:08 ↗ tiers in the first year. After that

26:11 ↗ they're just simply increasing by their

26:14 ↗ specific uh either parks and rightaway

26:16 ↗ irrigation class rate adjustment or the

26:18 ↗ private irrigation rate adjustment. So

26:20 ↗ minor adjustment to the difference

26:22 ↗ between the tier one and tier 2

26:24 ↗ differentials for both classes. After

26:26 ↗ that just very simple uh across the

26:30 ↗ board level of adjustments based on the

26:32 ↗ cost of service.

26:36 ↗ That concludes the water and we're going

26:38 ↗ to switch gears onto the sewer utility.

26:40 ↗ Any questions for water before I move

26:42 ↗ on?

26:46 ↗ Okay, we can always come back as well.

26:48 ↗ On the sewer utility side here, we

26:50 ↗ wanted to start again with your current

26:52 ↗ rates being in uh in effect right now.

26:55 ↗ There are currently fixed charges and

26:57 ↗ volume charges. And both fixed and

26:59 ↗ volume charges consists of two cost

27:01 ↗ components. The first one is the local

27:03 ↗ share or the city share of charges.

27:05 ↗ Everybody currently has the same local

27:07 ↗ or city share c uh customer fix charge

27:10 ↗ that that's assessed on a bimonthly

27:12 ↗ basis of $20.76.

27:15 ↗ There's also a pass through cost to the

27:18 ↗ single family residential customers from

27:19 ↗ King County. Again, this is strictly a

27:21 ↗ pass through cost of $116.56.

27:26 ↗ On the volume side, everybody has this

27:28 ↗ the same $249

27:30 ↗ charge per CCF assessed either on winter

27:34 ↗ average for the single family class uh

27:36 ↗ charge or actual usage depending on the

27:39 ↗ class.

27:40 ↗ And then for the non-residential class,

27:42 ↗ including currently the duplex class,

27:44 ↗ there's a $7.77

27:48 ↗ charge per CCF assessed to collect the

27:51 ↗ King County treatment share. Now, if you

27:53 ↗ multiply $777 time 15, you'll pretty

27:56 ↗ much get $116.56

27:59 ↗ because again, that's what King County

28:00 ↗ charges us for one residential customer

28:03 ↗ equivalent or one residential equivalent

28:05 ↗ unit. So, they they assess a a unit of

28:09 ↗ for residential usage purposes of 15 CCF

28:12 ↗ by monthly. Now, looking at our current

28:15 ↗ rates, especially for non-s single

28:17 ↗ family residential customers, our

28:19 ↗ minimum assumed usage on a bimonthly

28:21 ↗ basis is currently 12.2. So, slightly

28:24 ↗ below what King County assesses us for

28:27 ↗ one residential unit. So, there's a

28:28 ↗ chance that our customer doesn't quite

28:31 ↗ use 15 ccf by monthly, they may not

28:34 ↗ fully recover the pass through charge to

28:36 ↗ King County. So, that's one item we're

28:38 ↗ trying to rectify. And we're proposing

28:40 ↗ to recalibrate the minimum volumes

28:42 ↗ assumed in your bimonthly bills to align

28:46 ↗ to the King County minimum assumption of

28:50 ↗ 15 bimonthly.

28:52 ↗ In addition to that change, we're also

28:54 ↗ just like for the water utility aligning

28:55 ↗ duplex rates with single family rates

28:58 ↗ for consistency purposes.

29:00 ↗ Now what does that mean? So first taking

29:03 ↗ a look at the local share of charges

29:05 ↗ strictly the local city share

29:07 ↗ components. We currently charge

29:09 ↗ everybody 2076 on the fixed basis. We're

29:12 ↗ going to continue to have the same

29:13 ↗ charge for everybody for the local fixed

29:15 ↗ charge on a bimonthly basis. So simply

29:17 ↗ going up by the overall system average

29:20 ↗ here into the future. The volume charges

29:23 ↗ will collect the class specific

29:24 ↗ increases that were identified in the

29:26 ↗ phasing. So about 3 and a half% or so

29:29 ↗ for the sewer utility going by memory

29:30 ↗ and closer to 5% for multif family and

29:33 ↗ non-residential. So you'll now notice

29:35 ↗ that the single family duplex rates will

29:38 ↗ diverge from the multif family and

29:40 ↗ non-residential volume rates. They're

29:41 ↗ going to be still very close, but the

29:43 ↗ differential will start to grow over

29:45 ↗ time. This is again the simplest

29:47 ↗ adjustment to align with cost of service

29:49 ↗ based uh levels of revenues to be

29:52 ↗ collected by class.

29:55 ↗ Now what does that mean here? We wanted

29:58 ↗ to provide you the summary of the fixed

30:00 ↗ charges that are being proposed, the uh

30:02 ↗ the usage charges in the middle and the

30:05 ↗ bimonthly minimum charges. So here,

30:08 ↗ starting at the top, currently the

30:10 ↗ single family rate includes the local

30:12 ↗ charge of the $20 and the and $116 for

30:16 ↗ $137 total. And we're just simply

30:19 ↗ proposing to keep passing through the

30:20 ↗ fixed charge from King County and

30:22 ↗ adjusting the fixed charge. As we saw in

30:24 ↗ the prior slide, the duplex rate

30:26 ↗ currently has the fixed charge just for

30:28 ↗ the local share and it currently

30:30 ↗ recovers the King County portion through

30:33 ↗ the volume rate. We're proposing to

30:35 ↗ convert them to be just like single

30:37 ↗ family and recover that fixed charge

30:40 ↗ portion just like single family through

30:42 ↗ a fixed charge. So now instead of having

30:44 ↗ a lower fixed charge and a minimum based

30:48 ↗ uh king county share, they're going to

30:50 ↗ just transition to be just like single

30:52 ↗ family and have the combined fixed

30:55 ↗ charge for both local and the king

30:57 ↗ county shares. Multif family and

30:59 ↗ non-residential will continue to have

31:00 ↗ just a local uh fixed charge in a

31:03 ↗ bimonthly basis simply adjusting by the

31:05 ↗ overall adjustments as we talked about

31:07 ↗ on the prior slide. the volume rate or

31:11 ↗ multif family non-residential will still

31:13 ↗ continue to be tied to the King County

31:16 ↗ charge divided by 15 units. So that'll

31:18 ↗ be at a minimum that is what they'll be

31:20 ↗ paying and then anything after that

31:22 ↗ they'll be paying for any incremental

31:24 ↗ additional usages. So the combined

31:27 ↗ minimum charge, this is just at a

31:28 ↗ minimum what somebody would pay on a

31:30 ↗ bimonthly basis, includes the local

31:33 ↗ fixed charge and the minimum amounts

31:35 ↗ recalibrated for the fact that King

31:37 ↗ County assesses us for 15 units. And we

31:40 ↗ just want to make sure we at least

31:42 ↗ recover at a minimum what they assess

31:44 ↗ our our charges for.

31:47 ↗ That was probably a whole mouthful of

31:49 ↗ information.

31:51 ↗ I do apologize. It was a little

31:52 ↗ confusing. Sergey, we have another

31:54 ↗ question from Council Member Ray.

31:55 ↗ >> That That was a whole mouthful and I

31:57 ↗ just want to play this back at you so I

31:59 ↗ so I I think I I understand what you're

32:01 ↗ saying. So from a sewer perspective for

32:04 ↗ single family and duplex, we're merging

32:06 ↗ those onto the same scale or same rate

32:09 ↗ scale. Um and the larger number um the

32:13 ↗ fixed amount is driven by the King

32:17 ↗ County um 15 C CCF um assumption. But

32:23 ↗ with the multifamily and the

32:24 ↗ non-residential, we're we're not using

32:28 ↗ that as a fixed part. We're just using

32:31 ↗ um kind of building on a actual

32:34 ↗ um utilization for King County. In which

32:37 ↗ case, if they don't do the 15 CCF,

32:40 ↗ we won't recover all of it. And if they

32:42 ↗ do more than the 15 CCF, we'll recover

32:44 ↗ more than.

32:46 ↗ >> So you you have a minimum use provision.

32:48 ↗ So at a minimum, each customer will have

32:51 ↗ to pay for 15 units. Now, if they use

32:53 ↗ more, they'll pay for more. But because

32:56 ↗ we are putting the King County charge

32:58 ↗ into a volume charge, we want to make

33:01 ↗ sure we at least recover it. So we're

33:03 ↗ adjusting the minimum to 15. So, what's

33:06 ↗ the rationale for putting the King

33:09 ↗ County charge for some class of service

33:11 ↗ into a um

33:14 ↗ a fixed and some into a variable?

33:17 ↗ >> Typically, King County treats each

33:19 ↗ single family home as one connection.

33:22 ↗ >> So, one connection pays for one fixed

33:24 ↗ charge. Even if they use four in some

33:26 ↗ extreme cases, they'll still be charged

33:28 ↗ one charge. On the non-residential side,

33:31 ↗ your build based on consumption. So a

33:33 ↗ cost recovery mechanism that that's tied

33:35 ↗ to consumption is appropriate as well.

33:39 ↗ You can have it as a fixed charge of

33:41 ↗ blocks of 15 units, but this this way

33:43 ↗ you're at least recovering for the base

33:45 ↗ one unit and then if somebody does use

33:47 ↗ more and contributes more sewage to the

33:49 ↗ King County treatment plant, you're just

33:51 ↗ charging them for that incremental

33:53 ↗ additional usage.

33:54 ↗ >> Okay, great. Thank you.

33:59 ↗ >> All right. And then the last utility

34:01 ↗ that we're going to look at is your

34:03 ↗ stormwater utility. It's a pretty

34:04 ↗ straightforward structure. You're

34:06 ↗ assessed a charge per equivalent service

34:08 ↗ unit. Once equivalent service unit is

34:10 ↗ the same no matter what class of service

34:12 ↗ is. It's just tied to impervious service

34:14 ↗ area. Uh there's a slightly adjusted

34:16 ↗ reduced charge for undeveloped parcels.

34:18 ↗ So if it's an undeveloped parcel, it's

34:21 ↗ about half of the typical developed

34:23 ↗ parcel. Everything else is just tied to

34:25 ↗ impervious surface area. because it's so

34:27 ↗ simplified and straightforward. We're

34:29 ↗ just adjusting it across the board or

34:31 ↗ just by the overall percentage from the

34:33 ↗ revenue requirement for this utility.

34:35 ↗ So, it's just a straightforward

34:37 ↗ percentage adjustment.

34:40 ↗ So, with that, that brings me to the end

34:42 ↗ of my portion of the presentation. So,

34:43 ↗ I'm going to hand it over back to Matt.

34:50 ↗ Thanks, Sergey. So, um back to our

34:53 ↗ direction needed. Um, our two policy

34:56 ↗ questions for tonight are shall the city

34:58 ↗ align the bimonthly rates for duplex and

35:00 ↗ single family water and sewer bills and

35:03 ↗ two shall the city recalibrate the

35:05 ↗ minimum volume assumption for sewage

35:08 ↗ sewer charges to align with King County

35:10 ↗ treatment residential customer

35:12 ↗ equivalent rce definitions for non-s

35:15 ↗ single family residential structures.

35:20 ↗ And then next slide.

35:23 ↗ And our recommendation is to follow

35:26 ↗ those policy statements and also to

35:28 ↗ continue the standard rate structure for

35:30 ↗ storm water.

35:32 ↗ And then our next steps uh our rate

35:35 ↗ study summary, findings and

35:37 ↗ recommendation is going to be September

35:38 ↗ 16th to mobility infrastructure

35:41 ↗ committee and then we will do the rate

35:43 ↗ adoption uh on October 20th at regular

35:46 ↗ council.

35:48 ↗ >> Any questions? Thank you, Matt. We'll

35:50 ↗ open up for questions from the

35:52 ↗ committee,

35:57 ↗ >> Deputy Council President Dem Michelle.

36:00 ↗ >> Uh, you know, uh, this is great and a

36:03 ↗ lot of information and so I just have a

36:05 ↗ a general, uh, question. Um, we there's

36:09 ↗ a lot of talk about how we're um

36:11 ↗ creating these rates to incentivize

36:14 ↗ conservation and I can see how that

36:17 ↗ works in single family homes and so

36:19 ↗ forth, but so I live in a condo. I never

36:22 ↗ see a water bill. I pay it through um

36:25 ↗ you know and so what do we do for those

36:28 ↗ customers who um how do we incentivize

36:32 ↗ conservation for those customers? Um, I

36:35 ↗ will say that my HOA is pretty good

36:37 ↗ about sending us reminders every once in

36:39 ↗ a while about here's a, you know, here's

36:41 ↗ a hack for saving uh, water or can you

36:45 ↗ remember to do this or that. Um, but uh,

36:48 ↗ really in terms of um, financial

36:52 ↗ punishment if I'm not con conserving, I

36:55 ↗ don't have that as a as a multifamily

36:58 ↗ uh, resident. So, any thoughts about

37:01 ↗ what we do to incentivize those folks? I

37:04 ↗ think that's more communication and

37:06 ↗ ensuring that there is no major

37:10 ↗ leak or major impact on individual

37:14 ↗ um

37:16 ↗ uh uh apartment complexes. So like you

37:19 ↗ like I said uh or like Sergey presented

37:22 ↗ um it's still under block structure. So

37:25 ↗ if a apartment complex uses more water

37:29 ↗ they have to pay more. It's the same

37:32 ↗ conservation, but it is a bit

37:33 ↗ challenging when it gets to the

37:35 ↗ individual unit and how much you pay to

37:39 ↗ recoup that cost.

37:41 ↗ >> So eventually it would trickle down to

37:44 ↗ renters or condo owners, but there is

37:49 ↗ that challenge and that's also a

37:51 ↗ challenge with with the ADU conversation

37:54 ↗ that we're having as well.

37:55 ↗ >> Great. Thanks.

37:57 ↗ >> Yeah.

37:59 ↗ >> Council Ray, do you have any questions?

38:02 ↗ Matt, uh, in my apartment complex, um,

38:06 ↗ we have three buildings that have eight

38:08 ↗ units each, and those eight units are

38:11 ↗ charged, uh, one water and sewer charge

38:16 ↗ each month. And, um, so

38:20 ↗ my seven neighbors and I kind of need to

38:23 ↗ band together to conserve if we want to

38:27 ↗ lower our bill. And I guess to just add

38:30 ↗ on to Council Member D. Michelle's

38:32 ↗ question, you know, when we have these

38:35 ↗ smaller groups, um, what kind of

38:38 ↗ outreach would you suggest we do to kind

38:41 ↗ of get water conservation on the front

38:45 ↗ forefront of their mind, especially

38:47 ↗ during these summer months when the

38:48 ↗ consumption rises so much?

38:51 ↗ >> That's a good question. Um, yeah,

38:53 ↗ please,

38:56 ↗ >> Director Moon. Welcome.

38:58 ↗ >> Hello. Good evening. I I just wanted to

39:00 ↗ put a plug in for Cascade Water

39:02 ↗ Alliance. We're a member of that

39:04 ↗ association and we participate in all

39:08 ↗ their drought management and

39:10 ↗ conservation efforts and they they are

39:12 ↗ primarily responsible for our

39:14 ↗ programming along those lines and our

39:16 ↗ communication efforts. Of course, we

39:18 ↗ augment those, retweet them, um whatever

39:22 ↗ label you want to apply to that,

39:24 ↗ whatever verb.

39:26 ↗ And the city has a very robust

39:28 ↗ sustainability program and uh so we have

39:32 ↗ a lot of our own programming as well

39:34 ↗ that underscores the need to be good

39:36 ↗ stewards of our aquifer and um not waste

39:41 ↗ this valuable resource.

39:44 ↗ So we're going to continue doing that

39:45 ↗ education effort. I also wanted to share

39:50 ↗ that we have a plan to outreach to those

39:53 ↗ customers that you saw on the far you

39:56 ↗ know end high end of the scale the

39:59 ↗ couple standard deviations out. uh we

40:03 ↗ will reach out to them and let them know

40:06 ↗ what they can anticipate and help them

40:10 ↗ get hooked up with some resources so

40:11 ↗ that they might be able to start

40:13 ↗ planning for especially their their peak

40:16 ↗ summer water use. Um, so I think there's

40:21 ↗ going to be some direct outreach for

40:23 ↗ some and then the city does have on an

40:26 ↗ annual basis very frequent um, public

40:30 ↗ education that gets sent out and all

40:33 ↗ sorts of uh, media trying to incentivize

40:37 ↗ people to be good stewards of our water.

40:42 ↗ >> Great. Thank you very much. um as part

40:45 ↗ of the Cascade Water Alliance board, we

40:47 ↗ do hear about the efforts that are made

40:49 ↗ and and we appreciate that they show up

40:51 ↗ to salmon days and they were at our uh

40:53 ↗ resource fair as well with the table. So

40:56 ↗ that partnership certainly is important.

40:58 ↗ While you're up here, um I didn't have

41:01 ↗ the benefit of going to our most recent

41:04 ↗ meeting, so perhaps this question has

41:05 ↗ been asked, but I'd like to take the

41:06 ↗ focus back perhaps two levels. Um, we

41:10 ↗ had the bomb cyclone and to pay for some

41:14 ↗ of the the expenses there, we had to dip

41:16 ↗ into some of these funds a little bit.

41:19 ↗ Um, and we were hoping to get reimbured

41:22 ↗ from the federal government, but they

41:24 ↗ have not allowed us or they have not

41:26 ↗ designated our bomb our bomb cyclone as

41:29 ↗ a disaster that u qualifies for federal

41:32 ↗ funds. Question number one is it these

41:36 ↗ uh rates that are being adopted um do

41:39 ↗ they take into the fact that we kind of

41:42 ↗ need to replenish those accounts a

41:44 ↗ little bit along the way or did we find

41:46 ↗ other offsets that make it not necessary

41:50 ↗ to put that into the fund calculation

41:53 ↗ along the way?

41:54 ↗ >> Yep, I understand the question. I I

41:57 ↗ think first I would say in response that

42:00 ↗ the utility funds were fortunate and did

42:03 ↗ not have the vast majority of the

42:05 ↗ expenses from the bomb cyclone. We did

42:07 ↗ have uh some expenses. We had some tree

42:10 ↗ removal that we needed to do. We had a

42:13 ↗ um a sewer facility for example that uh

42:17 ↗ needed some repair. and uh we've been

42:21 ↗ able to rep prioritize projects or push

42:25 ↗ p a project out that was perhaps planned

42:28 ↗ to be done this year and we'll do at

42:30 ↗ some point in the future. So I I would

42:32 ↗ say it's not a significant impact at

42:34 ↗ all. Um it plays out over time as and

42:38 ↗ that will continue to happen as we redo

42:42 ↗ our capital plans every couple of years.

42:45 ↗ Um so these these rates per se aren't

42:47 ↗ aren't meant to recuperate any cost but

42:51 ↗ you could say that they are paying for

42:54 ↗ um some portion of uh future projects of

42:58 ↗ course or rep prioritized projects that

43:01 ↗ got bumped out because of the need to do

43:04 ↗ something more immediate uh to address

43:07 ↗ bomb cyclone damage.

43:09 ↗ So, it sounds like the changes we're

43:11 ↗ making are going to be able to uh keep

43:13 ↗ those funds healthy as you've analyzed

43:15 ↗ it um through this process.

43:17 ↗ >> Correct.

43:18 ↗ >> All right, that's great. Um the second

43:20 ↗ question I had was um you indicated that

43:22 ↗ some projects were moved out a little

43:24 ↗ bit and we've talked about it a little

43:26 ↗ bit in our CIP. Um and the reassurance

43:31 ↗ that I would like to hear uh is that

43:33 ↗ sometimes communities are kicking out

43:36 ↗ these projects too far. So they're out

43:37 ↗ of sight, out of mind, but neglecting

43:40 ↗ some of the things that should be done

43:42 ↗ along the way. And um when we're setting

43:46 ↗ these rates, uh do you as the director

43:49 ↗ feel that you're accounting for the

43:52 ↗ projects that need to be done in that

43:54 ↗ time frame and adequately uh accounts

43:56 ↗ for the capital that will be needed? U

43:58 ↗ if you could just u expound on that a

44:01 ↗ little bit. Yes. In one word, I feel

44:03 ↗ that we are uh like I said, uh things

44:08 ↗ can happen, right? Matt and I before the

44:10 ↗ meeting were just talking about a

44:12 ↗ sinkhole that we have on a road in town

44:14 ↗ and we're going to need to move water

44:16 ↗ line. Things like that happen. But we

44:19 ↗ have annual programs for uh those kind

44:24 ↗ of rehab projects. And so on an annual

44:28 ↗ basis, we're just looking at which roads

44:30 ↗ have risen to the top and need most

44:33 ↗ immediate attention. We always have a a

44:35 ↗ bucket of funds to deal with those rehab

44:39 ↗ um and replacement needs. So those are

44:42 ↗ the funds that we we kind of move around

44:44 ↗ and adjust from year to year and decide

44:47 ↗ exactly where they need to go. And then

44:50 ↗ we have spot projects. Best example for

44:52 ↗ that would be a water treatment

44:54 ↗ facility. We don't build those every

44:56 ↗ year. Uh, and I do think we do a good

44:58 ↗ job of looking at the priorities down

45:02 ↗ the road and trying to make sure that

45:04 ↗ we're building in uh, the resources that

45:07 ↗ we need in order to fulfill those

45:09 ↗ projects.

45:10 ↗ >> Great.

45:12 ↗ >> I anticipated the answer would be yes.

45:14 ↗ So, thank you for that. Um, just one

45:17 ↗ final comment u before we open it up to

45:19 ↗ public comment. Uh just want to

45:21 ↗ compliment public works for um quickly

45:24 ↗ addressing the water line that was

45:26 ↗ broken south of town and how the

45:29 ↗ department um responded with um

45:32 ↗ appropriate personnel, appropriate

45:34 ↗ warnings. The communication was really

45:36 ↗ solid from um the the communications uh

45:40 ↗ people in in on staff and I think there

45:43 ↗ was good coordination between all the

45:45 ↗ different departments to get that done.

45:46 ↗ So, I just wanted to pass that

45:48 ↗ compliment on to you and and all of your

45:50 ↗ staff for getting that done in a great

45:52 ↗ uh you know, timely way. Thank you.

45:54 ↗ >> Thank you. I'd be happy to share that

45:56 ↗ praise.

45:58 ↗ >> Any other questions before we open it up

46:00 ↗ for public comment?

46:03 ↗ >> Okay. Um we have an opportunity for the

46:06 ↗ public to comment on the uh topic

46:10 ↗ tonight of the utility rate study. Um,

46:13 ↗ if anyone is present in the chamber that

46:15 ↗ would like to comment. I don't see

46:17 ↗ anybody. Do we have anyone online

46:20 ↗ that might be wanting to comment

46:22 ↗ tonight?

46:25 ↗ >> Chair, we do have somebody on online on

46:27 ↗ their phone, but I don't see a raised

46:29 ↗ hand.

46:29 ↗ >> Okay, let's give them a moment. If you

46:32 ↗ do want to comment on tonight's utility

46:34 ↗ rate uh conversation, please uh raise

46:38 ↗ your hand um on your phone.

46:45 ↗ any reaction there?

46:49 ↗ And if you are on a phone, typically

46:51 ↗ that's using star three on most systems.

46:57 ↗ Okay. Doesn't look like they would like

46:59 ↗ to comment on that. So, I'll open up to

47:01 ↗ discussion for uh this particular topic

47:04 ↗ from my fellow council members.

47:11 ↗ Deputy Council President D. Michelle.

47:14 ↗ >> Uh well, I'll be very quick. There's two

47:16 ↗ questions here and the answer is yes and

47:19 ↗ yes from me. So, uh that will uh that

47:22 ↗ will take care of that. I want to I want

47:24 ↗ to add to uh the chair's comments

47:27 ↗ because it was my multifamily residence

47:30 ↗ where the water break took uh took place

47:34 ↗ and I I couldn't have said it any better

47:36 ↗ than council member Joe. It was a

47:38 ↗ fantastic response. Um, uh, everyone was

47:42 ↗ so well organized and we felt listened

47:45 ↗ to and the communications was fabulous.

47:48 ↗ So, thank you for that too. So, so, uh,

47:51 ↗ uh, other than that, I have nothing else

47:53 ↗ to say about the topic in front of us

47:55 ↗ tonight.

47:55 ↗ >> There actually is a third question to

47:57 ↗ continue standard rate structure for

47:59 ↗ storm water bimonthly rates.

48:01 ↗ >> Yes.

48:01 ↗ >> Okay. Thank you very much for weighing

48:03 ↗ in on that.

48:04 ↗ >> And yes,

48:06 ↗ >> council member Ray Um, thanks. I I um

48:10 ↗ this is really weird, but I wish I was

48:12 ↗ going to be here five years from now so

48:13 ↗ we could do go through this again. I I

48:15 ↗ truly I don't know why, but I love the

48:17 ↗ RA study setting. I think it is a f

48:19 ↗ fantastic insight into how our utilities

48:22 ↗ work and how we fund them. And um and I

48:25 ↗ got to you know shout out to our

48:27 ↗ consultants to surge team for for really

48:29 ↗ walking us through this process in a

48:32 ↗ very uh systematic and um understandable

48:36 ↗ generally way. Um you know and I think

48:40 ↗ that we got to the point that we want to

48:42 ↗ which is we've got rates that are um

48:45 ↗ increases that are in bounds of what we

48:47 ↗ set as parameters when we started. Um, I

48:50 ↗ think the the steps we've taken along

48:52 ↗ the way have reflected the conversations

48:54 ↗ we've had here at this committee

48:55 ↗ meeting. And I think that um, you know,

48:57 ↗ simplifying the rates by merging single

48:59 ↗ family and duplex makes tons of sense to

49:02 ↗ me. Um, and so and then, you know, the

49:07 ↗ recalibrating to align with the

49:10 ↗ residential the RCA is um, you know,

49:13 ↗ makes sense. And so I'm I'm supportive

49:15 ↗ of all of the the recommendations

49:17 ↗ including the storm water bimonthly

49:19 ↗ rate. So uh thanks for um taking us on

49:22 ↗ this journey.

49:23 ↗ >> Thank you Councilman Ray. U the answer

49:25 ↗ to all three questions would be yes for

49:27 ↗ me. Um I appreciate the thought that was

49:30 ↗ put into trying to structure the rates

49:33 ↗ in a in a manner that would uh encourage

49:35 ↗ conservation as as deputy president

49:37 ↗ pointed out. Um I I also thought it was

49:40 ↗ interesting that the uh rate for our

49:43 ↗ irrigation uh for parks uh was was

49:47 ↗ fairly high. And I think that also says

49:51 ↗ volumes about how we as a city are going

49:53 ↗ to be approaching conservation and the

49:56 ↗ way that we are um you know paying our

50:00 ↗ way but also paying at a rate that makes

50:02 ↗ us conscious of the water we're using

50:05 ↗ and and how and when we are watering. uh

50:08 ↗ as the climate changes. So, I really

50:10 ↗ appreciate that structure being put in

50:12 ↗ there as well. So, um any other

50:15 ↗ comments.

50:17 ↗ Okay, hearing nothing else, I want to

50:20 ↗ thank Matt and Director Moon for the

50:23 ↗ presentation and Sergey tonight for your

50:25 ↗ presentation. And uh we'll look forward

50:27 ↗ to uh the next installment of of the uh

50:31 ↗ rate study in September. But if there's

50:33 ↗ no other business before the committee

50:35 ↗ tonight, we are adjourned.

50:37 ↗ >> 7:31

Approved minutes

Extracted from the next meeting's packet, where this meeting's minutes were approved as a consent-calendar attachment.

Open PDF

Attendance

Council / Members (3)

Russell Joe

Barbara de Michele

Chris Reh

Staff (2)

Andrea Snyder, Deputy City Administrator

T. Cassidy Mueller, Deputy City Clerk

Recommendations & actions (1)

Sentences extracted from the narrative containing words like recommended, requested, directed, moved, or approved. Best-effort — verify against the full minutes for context.

There being no changes, the minutes were unanimously approved as presented.