Glendale City Council
June 6, 2023

3. GWP WMP Elements
Guidehouse reviewed the WMP elements and determined whether the activities achieve the objective of WMP “comprehensiveness” of PUC Section 8387. This determination incorporates individual elements as well as underlying data sources that further describe data collection methodologies and implementation procedures to ensure measures are carried out and also tracked.

Guidehouse determined GWP’s WMP meets the requirement of comprehensiveness PUC Section 8387. In this section, we review the WMP’s elements and their purpose relative to the development and successful execution of the WMP. A table comparing each subsection of PUC Section 8387 to the significant sections of the WMP can be found in Appendix A.

3.1 Stakeholders Responsible for Executing the Plan2
The WMP is subject to direct oversight by the City of Glendale City Council. The actions of the WMP are prioritized at the direction of the General Manager, and it is maintained, updated, and implemented by GWP personnel. Glendale’s elected, 5-member City Council approves funding and directs the City Manager to implement the key elements of this Plan. The City Manager delegates oversight and tactical implementation of this Plan to the General Manager of GWP.GWP’s General Manager has overall responsibility for the execution of GWP’s WMP with the approval of the City Council. Section 7 of the WMP, states, “the GWP General Manager maintains responsibility for, and provides management commitment to, the execution of th[e] Plan, including coordination with other department heads, with tactical and day-to-day implementation responsibilities delegated to responsible stakeholders.” Other members of the management team are responsible for executing the various components of the WMP.

Responsibilities such as coordination of engineering, construction, vegetation management and operation departments, periodic reviews and maintenance of the WMP, as well as communication and coordination with local, state and federal stakeholders which includes education, alerting and community outreach fall to the Chief Assistant General Manager, Electrical Services Administrator, Electrical Superintendent, Assistant General Manager – Power Management, and other staff. Section 7 details the accountability, roles, and responsibility for GWP’s WMP.

3.2 Objectives of the Plan3
According to Section 8 of the WMP, “The primary objective of GWP’s WMP is to reduce and eliminate the probability of GWP’s Electric infrastructure as a contributing factor for the ignition of wildfire(s).” GWP, continues that the goal of this WMP includes establishing a framework, is to, “Engineer, construct, maintain, and operate the GWP electric transmission and distribution system in a manner intended to minimize the risk of catastrophic wildfire caused by electrical lines and equipment.”
GWP also set forth secondary objectives for the WMP including:

1. Improving the resiliency of GWP’s energy delivery infrastructure. 2 PUC Section 8387(2)(A)
3 PUC Section 8387(2)(B)
251 of 704
2023 Independent Evaluation of Glendale Water and Power’s 2023 Wildfire Mitigation Plan

2. Replace equipment with overloaded risk due to climate related increase in temperature results in higher peak power consumption.

3. Improving the resiliency of GWP’s energy infrastructure

4. Improve situational awareness

5. Measuring the effectiveness of the mitigating measures

6. Complying with all local, state, and federal regulations related to wildfire mitigation.

3.3 Wildfire Prevention Strategies4
Section 9 “Preventative Strategies and Programs” provides an overview of GWP’s preventative strategies and programs for preventing wildfire. These strategies and programs actions are further elaborated in Sections 21 and 22 which detail the accomplishments and elements of those strategies and programs implemented in the 2021 and 2022 calendar years. GWP also includes budget numbers which helps understand GWP funding of programs for the 2021- 2022, 2022-2023, and 2023-2024 budget cycles.

GWP breaks down its efforts in three categories:

1. Capital investments in system hardening;

2. Operations and maintenance (O&M) expenditures on vegetation management, system inspections, and equipment maintenance; and

3. Operational practices on disabling reclosers, proactive de-energization, and public outreach, as well as leveraging City programs that are consistent with this Plan (e.g., Vegetation Management Program (VMP)).

3.4 Metrics5
GWP describes the metrics it tracks and how metrics are evaluated for effectiveness of mitigation measures in section 10 of the WMP. GWP monitors and tracks verifiable metrics, establishes a baseline through the inspection of transmission and distribution asset conditions, and incorporate lessons learned and institutional knowledge during an annual review as feedback for revising the WMP.

The list of metrics measures GWP performance and intends to measure the effectiveness of GWP’s wildfire mitigation by tracking the following:
• After any relay event, where GWP’s protective relays automatically de-energize a feeder or transmission line:

1. Did the outage ignite a fire? (yes/no)

2. If the outage ignited a fire, were first responders notified? (yes/no)

3. If the outage ignited a fire, how large was the fire? < 1 acre, 1-50 acres, 50-300 acres, or > 300 acres

4. If the outage ignited a fire, how many structures were impacted? 1, 2-10, 10-50, or > 50
• Number of trees trimmed by GWP.
• Number of poles replaced in Tier 2/3.
• Number of transformers replaced in Tier 2/3.
4 PUC Section 8387(2)(C)
5 PUC Section 8387(2)(D) and PUC Section 8387(2)(E)
252 of 704
2023 Independent Evaluation of Glendale Water and Power’s 2023 Wildfire Mitigation Plan

• Feet/miles of transmission/distribution lines moved underground in Tier 2/3. • Feet/miles of tree wire installed in Tier 2/3.
• Number of standard (expulsive) fuses replaced by non-expulsive fuses. • Glendale Fire Department average time to respond to fire incidents.

3.5 Disabling Reclosers6
GWP states, in Section 12 of the WMP, “As part of Operational practices, GWP preemptively deenergizes overhead transmission and distribution lines and to disable automatic reclosers in its Tier 2 and Tier 3 zones during periods of extreme wildfire danger.” To minimize potential wildfire ignition, GWP uses operational consideration of reclosers that identify circuits.

Additionally, the WMP states that GWP will continue to install reclosers as part of their objectives in the wildfire mitigation framework. Finally, GWP maintains a list of reclosers that are disabled in events such as Red Flag Warnings and re-enables them to perform normally as part of system restoration. GWP also patrols any de-energized line tripped off by a recloser during periods of extreme wildfire danger to identify and clear the cause of the fault before reenergization is allowed.

3.6 De-Energizing Protocols7
Glendale proactively de-energizes the 34.5 kV Bel Aire-Montrose transmission line during red flag warnings in accordance with its SOP-021. De-energizing this line does not impact customers due to the networked system. This overhead line traverses high wildfire risk terrain (Tier 3 and Tier 2 HFTDs). GWP has de-energized this line multiple times as described in the table on page 4 of the WMP, with none of the de-energizations resulting in a loss of customer power. The de-energization procedure is addressed in Section 12 of the WMP. GWP power system operators may also de-energize service to customers if conditions warrant such an approach.

Section 13, Customer Outreach, includes a sub section for handling de-energization or public safety shutoff events. GWP details how the use a targeted communications strategy with the goal of providing advanced notice. See Event communication below for more details. GWP uses PSPS protocols as a safety of last resort to reduce impact of PSPS events. The installation of sectionalization devices or reclosers to harden the system mitigates against PSPS impacts by targeting specific circuits near what they state are “designated meteorology shutoff polygons”.

Timing of notifications
When GWP determines a preemptive de-energization is required, either because another entity’s actions suddenly limit GWP’s energy supply (e.g., Southern California Edison initiates a Public Safety Power Shutoff – PSPS – on a transmission line that impacts GWP’s incoming transmission capacity) or due to the PSO’s system assessment, GWP will provide advance notifications in three phases:

1. Advanced notification (when possible)
• 48 hours before electricity is turned off
• 24 hours before electricity is turned off
6 PUC Section 8387(2)(F)
7 PUC Section 8387(2)(F)
253 of 704
2023 Independent Evaluation of Glendale Water and Power’s 2023 Wildfire Mitigation Plan

2. Shutoff notification just before electricity is turned off

3. Notifications during the event

Post event notifications will be provided to notify customers that power has been restored.

3.7 Event Communication8
Section 13 describes how GWP uses communication notify customers that may be impacted by the de-energizing of electrical lines during an emergency via multiple platforms and types of communication methods described below.

GWP describes the tools and procedures it will use to notify customers and first responders impacted by de-energization, including:
• Customer notification through email, phone, text, push notifications, social media platforms, media alerts, work with the City’s Fire and Police PIO offices and websites, and rolling messages on local television (GTV6) and on the City’s and GWP’s websites. • Pre-recorded IVR (Interactive Voice Response) messages with real-time recorded information informing customers that may be impacted.
• Post messages on its website and through its Mobile App and In-Home Digital Display program for targeted push messaging.
• Notifications to first responders’ PIO offices, health care facilities’ communication offices, and the offices of the building engineers, the Chief Executive Officer (CEO), and operators of telecommunications infrastructure.
• Contact Life Support customers through two phone attempts and an email. If no response is received, GWP will dispatch a field crew to contact the Life Support customer.
• An Outage Management system (OMS) that allows notification to customer of impending power outages for events such as PSPS.

3.8 Vegetation Management9
Section 14 of GWP’s WMP details how GWP’s Vegetation Management Program “is consistent with General Order (GO) 95– Rules for Overhead Electric Line Construction, including the clearance requirements described in Section III – Requirements for All Lines, Rule 35 Vegetation Management.”
GWP’s Electrical Superintendent oversees a contracted certified arborist who ensures GWP’s Vegetation Management Program is implemented. GWP Line Clearance Forestry Supervisors work in the field, “overseeing the arborist and monitoring vegetation under” GWP T&D lines. The supervisors are typically certified arborists who directs the contractor to specific trees/vegetation requiring trimming and ensures the trimming is completed within GWP’s standards.

Additionally, GWP leverages the City of Glendale Fire Department’s (GFD) Hazardous Vegetation Management Program (VMP) to assist in ensuring adequate defensible space around buildings in the wildland-urban interface is maintained. Per the GFD VMP, activities include annual inspections and review of landscape and fuel modification plans for properties in 8 PUC Section 8387(2)(G)
9 PUC Section 8387(2)(H)
254 of 704
2023 Independent Evaluation of Glendale Water and Power’s 2023 Wildfire Mitigation Plan

the high wildfire hazard area. This program also requires property owners to maintain a 100-foot radius of defensible space around all property structures, which happens to be where the majority of GWP electrical assets reside. Therefore, GWP prioritizes its resources on mitigating electrical assets outside of the zones covered by the GFD VMP.

GWP maintains a database that tracks vegetation maintenance activities on an inventory of trees. The inventory captures trees that could encroach minimum clearance or impact electrical facilities with a two-year inspection cycle. Additionally, vegetation management is performed by the same line mechanics that install and maintenance the power lines and other equipment.

3.9 Infrastructure Inspections10
GWP describes its annual system-wide inspection of its poles, streetlights, vaults and other equipment and assets connected or contained with these assets in Section 15 of the WMP.

GWP’s states the inspection program is consistent with the requirements and inspection cycles of GO 95 and 165. GWP’s WMP further notes it has staff dedicated to preventative and routine inspections of the construction, installation, and maintenance of T&D assets. During these inspections, problems are identified, prioritized, and corrected.

3.10 Risk Assessment and Drivers11
Section 16 details the City of Glendale’s wildfire risks and associated drivers. GWP’s service territory consists of highly developed urban land and adjacent mountainous open regions with dry vegetation. The diversity in topography and landscapes within GWP’s service territory presents unique risks that GWP claims “requires a surgical approach to mitigation efforts in each area of the city.” GWP risk drivers and subsequent preventative strategies are tailored specifically to mitigate the potential of a wildfire and limit wildfire spread within its service territory.

Additionally, GWP adopted a risk-based approach designed to prioritize capital improvements, Operations and Maintenance (O&M) work, and operating procedures pertaining to asset hardening, situational awareness and forecasting, vegetation management, asset inspections, and risk assessment and mapping initiatives. The prioritization leverages historical data from the state of California Wildfire Redbooks and provides details of statistics from 2012 through 2016 for the 2023 WMP. The data includes vegetation contacts, hardware installed, lines down, animal contacts, and line slap events.

Furthermore, GWP has identified overhead feeder and transmission lines sections as the highest risk for igniting wildfires and analyses these sections on a case-by-case basis for an appropriate mitigation approach.

3.11 Asset Overview and Service Territory12
GWP leverages the CPUC’s and CALFire’s tiered fire maps as well as GFD’s fire maps to identify wildfire risk across the Glendale service territory. The image below is included on page 48 of the WMP displays the presence of the CPUC HFTDs and includes the of GWP equipment 10 PUC Section 8387(2)(I)
11 PUC Section 8387(2)(J)(i); PUC Section 8387(2)(J)(ii); PUC Section 8387(2)(L) 12 PUC Section 8387(2)(K)
255 of 704
2023 Independent Evaluation of Glendale Water and Power’s 2023 Wildfire Mitigation Plan

in those areas. GWP has also identified areas within HFTD Tier 2 and 3 as areas “requiring additional mitigation.” This area excludes the areas maintained by GFD as part of their areas of responsibility and the defensible space program. GWP also identifies the equipment present in these areas of heightened risk and prioritizes mitigation work there.

Figure 3-1 – GWP HFTD Map
As shown in Table 3-1, approximately 21% of GWP’s total 282.4 miles of overhead T&D lines are located within the Tier 2 HFTD area. Approximately 5% of total overhead T&D lines are within the Tier 3 HFTD area. The remaining ~74% of total overhead T&D lines are in the Tier 1 HFTD. Section 17 “Wildfire Zones” included the table below as Figure 3 in the WMP. This table helps GWP catalog its riskiest equipment to plan for future mitigations. 256 of 704
2023 Independent Evaluation of Glendale Water and Power’s 2023 Wildfire Mitigation Plan

Table 3-1 – Breakdown of GWP’s 2022 Service Territory Electrical Assets Total Assets
Tier 1
Tier 2
Tier 3
City Wide
Overhead T+D Lines (miles) 206.2 60.6 15.6 282.4
Poles / Towers 11,303 2,899 703 14,905
Transformers 3,528 673 165 4,366
Pole Switches 523 108 16 647
Pole Disconnects / Fuses 1,098 232 49 1379
Reclosers 28 12 3 43.0
Area Coverage 38% 48% 14% 100%
Electric Meters 77,524 10,889 1,945 90,358
Structures / Buildings 44,469 11,622 2,248 58,339

3.12 Restoration13
Section 19 describes how GWP restores power following a wildfire or pre-emptive deenergization.

GWP’s WMP states that as a proactive reaction to a Red Flag warning, GWP de-energizes, “Glendale’s 34.5 kV “Bel Aire-Montrose” which runs through uninhabited hilly terrain that is covered with brush and has limited access and is considered an area of elevated fire risk. Prior to re-energization, GWP’s lineman patrols confirm that the line is intact, and no debris is lodged across the line.”
Additionally, GWP maintains a list of reclosers which are disabled following the orders of the PSO or in the event of a red flag warning to minimize the likelihood of inadvertently sparking a fire. GWP manually patrols de-energize lines, whether from a tripped recloser or proactive deenergization, prior to re-energization. GWP personnel ensures infrastructure and equipment are not damaged during patrols and notifies system dispatch of restoration readiness.

If equipment or assets are found to be damage or in “suboptimal condition”, GWP coordinates the repair of the equipment and restoration. GWP maintains an inventory of spare equipment including, transformers, conduit, cables, conductors, and other equipment in their warehouse.

Equipment is automatically re-ordered from a predetermined number of units to be ready for future emergencies. GWP also works with neighboring utilities that assist with personnel, equipment, and parts to quickly restore service to customers as needed. 13 PUC Section 8387(2)(M)
257 of 704
2023 Independent Evaluation of Glendale Water and Power’s 2023 Wildfire Mitigation Plan

3.13 Monitoring and Auditing the Plan14
Section 20 describes how the GWP WMP is monitored and audited. Specifically, the WMP states that GWP will review the WMP annually to monitor the effectiveness of the objectives of the WMP. The review includes quarterly assessments, and comparisons of metrics and GWP operational performance and requires City of Glendale management and City Council to review and approve any problems identified for correction and updates to the maintenance and inspection plan. After completion of the annual internal review, the WMP is updated accordingly.

A condition baseline is established after changes to the plan to ensure proper monitoring and inspection continues on system assets on a regular basis.

3.14 Annual Review15
Section 6 includes a “Compliance” sub-section, that states, “the GWP General Manager or his delegate shall support and administer this Plan to include monitoring and auditing the implementation of the Plan. The Plan shall be updated, reviewed, and approved by the General Manager of GWP on an annual basis, or as required by law. This periodic review shall ensure that the Plan is updated to comply with all state regulations and City regulations and requirements.” Additionally, GWP will present the plan annually to the City Council or the GWP Commission for approval.
14 PUC Section 8387(2)(N)(i) and PUC Section 8387(2)(N)(ii) 15 PUC Section 8387(2)(N)(iii)
258 of 704
2023 Independent Evaluation of Glendale Water and Power’s 2023 Wildfire Mitigation Plan

4. Results and Discussion
Guidehouse finalized this assessment on May 17, 2023. Over the course of reviewing GWP’s WMP, discussions with GWP staff, and review of supporting documentation, Guidehouse captured takeaways and findings that align the WMP with state laws and effective wildfire measure demonstration for a utility of GWP’s size and low-risk profile. GWP’s WMP appropriately responds to each of the required elements of PUC Section 8387, which is detailed in Appendix A. The following describes the assessment and resulting findings of the WMP’s proposed and established mitigation measures as it applies to safe, reliable operation of all electric infrastructure and wildfire prevention and response.

Report Conclusions
After internal review of the latest version of the WMP and associated data collection products, Guidehouse concludes this Report with the following:
• GWP’s WMP aligns appropriately with PUC Section 8387 and includes all required elements.16
• GWP’s WMP is comprehensive as described through this Report in accordance with PUC Section 8387.
16 Following acceptance of this Report, GWP will post the Report and results online for public view. The Report is scheduled for presentation to the City Council at a public meeting in June 2023. Accomplishing these follow-up tasks will meet all required statutory provisions up until presenting the final WMP to the City Council. 259 of 704
2023 Independent Evaluation of Glendale Water and Power’s 2023 Wildfire Mitigation Plan
Confidential information for the sole benefit and use of Glendale Water and Power. Page A-1 .

Appendix A. Statutory Compliance Matrix
Required Statutory Element
Plan
Section
Reference(s)
GWP Plan Elements
(Summarized)
Meets
Section
Elements
(Determination
)
(a) Each local publicly owned
electric utility and electrical
cooperative shall construct,
maintain, and operate its
electrical lines and equipment in
a manner that will minimize the
risk of wildfire posed by those
electrical lines and equipment.
(b) (1) The local publicly owned
electric utility or electrical
cooperative shall, before January
1, 2020, prepare a wildfire
mitigation plan. After January 1,
2020, a local publicly owned
electric utility or electrical
cooperative shall prepare a
wildfire mitigation plan annually
and shall submit the plan to the
California Wildfire Safety Advisory
Board on or before July 1 of that
calendar year. Each local publicly
owned electric utility and
electrical cooperative shall
update its plan annually and
submit the update to the
California Wildfire Safety Advisory
Board by July 1 of each year. At
least once every three years, the
submission shall be a
comprehensive revision of the
plan.
(2) The wildfire mitigation plan
shall consider as necessary, at
minimum, all of the following:
(A) An accounting of the
responsibilities of persons
responsible for executing the
plan.

Section 7
Pg.12-16
The “Stakeholders” section in GWP’s
plan describes the roles of the
General Manager, Chief Assistant
General Manager, Electrical Services
Administrator, Electrical
Superintendent, Power Management
Assistant General Manager, GWP
Legislative Analyst, the Public
Benefits Charge Marketing Manager,
City Council, and City Manager.

Additional roles and responsibilities
are delegated to GWP staff.

Yes
260 of 704
2023 Independent Evaluation of Glendale Water and Power’s 2023 Wildfire Mitigation Plan
Confidential information for the sole benefit and use of Glendale Water and Power. Page A-2 .
(B) The objectives of the wildfire
mitigation plan.

Section 8; pg.
17-18
GWP states the primary objective of
its plan is to reduce and eliminate the
probability of GWP’s Electric
infrastructure as a contributing factor
for the ignition of wildfire(s). GWP
goes on to state additional secondary
objectives.

Yes
(C) A description of the
preventive strategies and
programs to be adopted by the
local publicly owned electric utility
or electrical cooperative to
minimize the risk of its electrical
lines and equipment causing
catastrophic wildfires, including
consideration of dynamic climate
change risks.

Section 9; pg.
19-23
Section 9 provides detailed
preventative strategies and programs
identified by GWP to reduce wildfire
risk. GWP has elected to break these
strategies and programs down into
four sections (Capital Investments,
Operations and Maintenance, Wildfire
Mitigation Budget Measures, and
Operational Practices). GWP also
acknowledges the impact of dynamic
climate change in California has on
these strategies.

Yes
(D) A description of the metrics
the local publicly owned electric
utility or electrical cooperative
plans to use to evaluate the
wildfire mitigation plan’s
performance and the
assumptions that underlie the use
of those metrics.

Section 10;
pg. 24-26
GWP provides a list of metrics it uses
to demonstrate results and measure
the effectiveness of its wildfire
mitigation. The metrics include, but
are not limited to, trees trimmed, poles
replaced, transformers replaced,
undergrounding, and post event
evaluation.

Yes
(E) A discussion of how the
application of previously identified
metrics to previous wildfire
mitigation plan performances has
informed the wildfire mitigation
plan.

Section 11;
pg. 27
GWP discusses how the application of
previously identified metrics to
previous wildfire mitigation plan
performances has informed the
wildfire mitigation plan. GWP uses
four categories with specific questions
to guide the review and how GWP
should evaluate and respond to the
data in the metric. The categories
include: metric not met, metric
significantly exceeded, new or
obsolete metric, and adjustments
based upon metric.

Yes
(F) Protocols for disabling
reclosers and deenergizing
portions of the electrical
distribution system that consider
the associated impacts on public
safety, as well as protocols
related to mitigating the public
safety impacts of those protocols,
including impacts on critical first
responders and on health and
communication infrastructure.

Section 12;
pg. 28-30
GWP discusses its plan to deenergize certain electrical lines and equipment. This includes GWP’s
practice to de-energize the Bel AireMontrose line during RFW conditions, which does not interrupt service to
any customers. This section
references SOP-021 which provides
more detail to how the process is
handled. GWP also identifies the
considerations (Hospital, Elderly Care,
First Responder Facilities, etc..) prior
to a de-energization. GWP states that
de-energization is a last resort, and
Tier 2 and Tier 3 zones are the
primary focus areas in times of
extreme fire danger.

Yes
261 of 704
2023 Independent Evaluation of Glendale Water and Power’s 2023 Wildfire Mitigation Plan
Confidential information for the sole benefit and use of Glendale Water and Power. Page A-3 .

This section also describes how GWP
will disable reclosers in Tiers 2 and 3
HFTD during periods of extreme
wildfire danger.
(G) Appropriate and feasible
procedures for notifying a
customer who may be impacted
by the deenergizing of electrical
lines. The procedures shall
consider the need to notify, as a
priority, critical first responders,
health care facilities, and
operators of telecommunications
infrastructure.

Section 13;
pg. 32-33
GWP’s customer outreach protocols
during PSPS events are detailed in
the WMP.GWP alerts customers
through social media, GFD and GPD
website notifications, and post rolling
messages on local television
networks.

Yes
(H) Plans for vegetation
management.

Section 14;
pg. 34
GWP details its vegetation
management program in its WMP
including details regarding the
oversite of a contracted arborists that
implements their program. GWP
states it is consistent with GO 95.

GWP also relies upon GFD’s efforts to
maintain defensible spaces around
private residences.

Yes
(I) Plans for inspections of the
local publicly owned electric
utility’s or electrical cooperative’s
electrical infrastructure.

Section 15;
pg. 35
GWP’s WMP states that it consistent
with the inspection cycles and
requirements provided in GO 95 and
165.

Yes
(J) A list that identifies, describes,
and prioritizes all wildfire risks,
and drivers for those risks,
throughout the local publicly
owned electric utility’s or electrical
cooperative’s service territory.

The list shall include, but not be
limited to, both of the following:

Section 16;
pg. 36
GWP’s assessment of risk and risk
drivers include capital improvements,
O&M work, and operating procedures.

Yes
(i) Risks and risk drivers
associated with design,
construction, operation, and
maintenance of the local publicly
owned electric utility’s or electrical
cooperative’s equipment and
facilities.

Section 16;
pg. 36
GWP identified risks and risk drivers
associated with its equipment and,
accordingly, adopted a risk-based
approach to prioritize capital
improvements, O&M work, and
operating procedures within asset
hardening, situational forecasting,
vegetation management, and risk
assessment and mapping initiatives.

Yes
(ii) Particular risks and risk
drivers associated with
topographic and climatological
risk factors throughout the
different parts of the local publicly
owned electric utility’s or electrical
cooperative’s service territory.

Section 16;
pg. 36
GWP discusses the risks and risk
drivers associated with its topographic
and climatological factors within its
service territory.

Yes
262 of 704
2023 Independent Evaluation of Glendale Water and Power’s 2023 Wildfire Mitigation Plan
Confidential information for the sole benefit and use of Glendale Water and Power. Page A-4 .
(K) Identification of any
geographic area in the local
publicly owned electric utility’s or
electrical cooperative’s service
territory that is a higher wildfire
threat than is identified in a
commission fire threat map, and
identification of where the
commission should expand a
high fire-threat district based on
new information or changes to
the environment.

Section 17;
pg. 39
GWP utilizes the CPUC HFTD
methodology for classifying each area
of its service territory as Tier 1 (low
risk), Tier 2, (elevated risk), and Tier 3
(extreme risk). This is further refined
by reviewing the CPUC designations
against those of CALFire’s fire hazard
severity zone’s and the GFD’s own
Fire Threat Map. GWP then further
identified the areas within the Tier 2 &
3 HFTD’s that require additional
mitigation.

GWP did not request an expansion of
any HFTD.

Yes
(L) A methodology for identifying
and presenting enterprise-wide
safety risk and wildfire-related
risk.

Section 18;
pg. 42-44
GWP’s methodology for identifying
and presenting enterprise-wide safety
risk and wildfire-related risk consists
of prioritizing first, second, and third
order impacts within its service
territory
Yes
(M) A statement of how the local
publicly owned electric utility or
electrical cooperative will restore
service after a wildfire.

Section 19;
pg. 46
GWP’s WMP provides a statement of
how it plans to restore service after a
wildfire, including a discussion on
lineman patrols which take place prior
to restoring service.

Yes
(N) A description of the
processes and procedures the
local publicly owned electric utility
or electrical cooperative shall use
to do all of the following:
(i) Monitor and audit the
implementation of the wildfire
mitigation plan.

Section 20;
pg. 47
GWP performs annual WMP reviews
which are circulated through GWP
management and presented to the
City of Glendale's City Council or
GWP’s Commission for approval.

Yes
(ii) Identify any deficiencies in the
wildfire mitigation plan or its
implementation and correct those
deficiencies.

Section 20;
pg. 47
GWP performs annual reviews where
plan deficiencies are identified and
corrected.

Yes
(iii) Monitor and audit the
effectiveness of electrical line and
equipment inspections, including
inspections performed by
contractors, that are carried out
under the plan, other applicable
statutes, or commission rules.

Section 20;
pg. 47
GWP staffs qualified personnel to
monitor and audit asset and
equipment inspections.

Yes
263 of 704
2023 Independent Evaluation of Glendale Water and Power’s 2023 Wildfire Mitigation Plan
Confidential information for the sole benefit and use of Glendale Water and Power. Page A-5 .
(3) The local publicly owned
electric utility or electrical
cooperative shall, on or before
January 1, 2020, and not less
than annually thereafter, present
its wildfire mitigation plan in an
appropriately noticed public
meeting. The local publicly owned
electric utility or electrical
cooperative shall accept
comments on its wildfire
mitigation plan from the public,
other local and state agencies,
and interested parties, and shall
verify that the wildfire mitigation
plan complies with all applicable
rules, regulations, and standards,
as appropriate.

Section 4; pg.
5 GWP presents its WMP to the City
Council at annual public meetings Yes
(c) The local publicly owned
electric utility or electrical
cooperative shall contract with a
qualified independent evaluator
with experience in assessing the
safe operation of electrical
infrastructure to review and
assess the comprehensiveness
of its wildfire mitigation plan. The
independent evaluator shall issue
a report that shall be made
available on the internet website
of the local publicly owned
electric utility or electrical
cooperative, and shall present the
report at a public meeting of the
local publicly owned electric
utility’s or electrical cooperative’s
governing board.

Section 7; pg.
14 GWP contracts with third-party
independent evaluators to perform
independent evaluations of its WMP.

GWP contracted Guidehouse Inc. to
perform an independent evaluation of
their WMP in 2023. Qualifications are
described in Section 1.

Yes
264 of 704
8c

CITY OF GLENDALE, CALIFORNIA

REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL

AGENDA ITEM
Report: Grayson Repowering Project – Balance of Site Engineer, Procure, and Construct Request for Proposals.

1. Resolution dispensing with competitive bidding, and authorizing the City Manager, or his designee, to directly negotiate with ARB, Inc. (ARB) towards a contract for the Balance of Site (BOS) Engineer, Procure, and Construct (EPC) effort specific to the Grayson Repowering Project.

2. Motion authorizing the City Manager, or his designee, to enter into a Professional Services Agreement (PSA) with ARB, Inc. in the not-to-exceed amount of $300,000, for preliminary engineering work relating to the Grayson Repowering Project BOS EPC.

3. Resolution of appropriation.

COUNCIL ACTION
Item Type: Action Item
Approved for June 6, 2023 Calendar

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Grayson Repowering Project, as approved by City Council, consists of three primary phases: Unit 9 Separation which includes the decoupling of Unit 9 from the rest of the power plant that is planned for demolition; Demolition and Site Improvement which includes hazardous material abatement, demolition, disposal/recycling, structural backfill, and site geotechnical improvement; and, Engineering, Procurement, and Construction of new facilities including a three-engine 56-megawatt (MW) Wartsila power plant, a 75-MW/300-megawatt-hour battery energy storage system, and replacing the obsolete control system on Unit 9, and associated facilities.

With the City Council’s authorization per Resolution 22-127 adopted on August 16, 2022, to utilize the alternative delivery method of EPC process, staff requested proposals for the BOS EPC project and agreement. After a concerted effort to engage with as many qualified contractors as possible, including making the initial Request for Proposal (RFP) qualifying criteria less restrictive and reissuing the RFP, staff only received one qualification package from a proposing team. As such, GWP is recommending that the City Council dispense with competitive bidding process and authorize staff to negotiate with the only qualified proposing team: ARB and its team comprised of POWER Engineers, Inc. (POWER Engineers), FlexGen Power Systems, Inc. (FlexGen), and Morrow-Meadows Corporation (Morrow-Meadows). 265 of 704 2 c 8

COUNCIL PRIORITIES
Infrastructure: The Grayson Repowering Project will replace the aging infrastructure at the Grayson Power Plant with state-of-the-art generation and storage technology providing GWP with the ability to quickly start and generate smaller increments of power when needed, the ability to balance and integrate renewable resources, and the ability to store energy that is a major step in transitioning the City toward a 100% renewable power portfolio.

RECOMMENDATION
Dispense with competitive bidding and authorize the City Manager to directly negotiate with ARB as primary contractor to furnish all engineering, procurement, and construction for the Grayson Repowering Project. Staff further recommends that the City Council authorize a PSA with ARB in the not-to-exceed amount of $300,000 for ARB to finalize the project arrangement and electrical design in concert with soil improvement and Wartsila engines design efforts.

BACKGROUND
On January 12, 2023, GWP issued the Grayson Repowering Project BOS EPC RFP, Specification No. 3646. The RFP was posted on the City’s website and on eBidboard.com. GWP sent emails to 21 contractors, including those who participated in the 2017-2018 EPC Contractor Request for Qualification/Proposal process, notifying them of the RFP, directions on how to download a copy of the RFP, and the scheduled mandatory pre-proposal conference. A total of five addenda were issued releasing remaining RFP attachments, clarifying, and modifying certain RFP documents, and providing relevant project information. The City’s network recorded over 1,000 views of the RFP webpage.

On February 23, 2023, a mandatory pre-proposal conference was held at the GWP Utility Operations Center where staff and consultants explained the scope of the project and answered questions from prospective proposers. A total of 16 individuals representing 12 different contractors and vendors attended the conference of which only two were prospective general contractors. The conference was followed by a group tour of the Grayson Power Plant. One of the two general contractors subsequently indicated they would probably not bid the project due to the heavy electrical component but had introduced an electrical firm to another prime to see if they might be interested.

The other prime, to whom GWP had previously e-mailed an invitation, never participated in the RFP process.

Faced with the likelihood of only having one bidder, on March 1, 2023, via Addendum No. 5, GWP cancelled the RFP to revise the minimum required qualifications and encourage broader participation. Doing so was not without consequence as it resulted in a two-month extension of the BOS EPC procurement schedule. This was at a time when Wartsila had already started their engineering effort and coordination with the BOS EPC would have maximized the opportunity for Wartsila and the BOS EPC to coordinate their engineering design, start long-lead procurements, and synchronize their construction planning during the demolition phase of the project. An additional 266 of 704 3 c 8
consideration was that lead times for major electrical equipment such as transformers and switchgear are running well in excess of one year.

On March 7, 2023, GWP issued the revised RFP as Specification No. 3646R, which was again posted on the City’s website and on eBidboard.com. GWP emailed 30 different companies including those who were notified of the original BOS EPC RFP and those who attended the February 23, 2023, pre-proposal conference. In both cases, it was made clear that the qualification criteria had been revised to encourage broader participation.

On April 18, 2023, another mandatory pre-proposal conference was held when GWP staff and consultants explained the revisions that were made to the original BOS EPC RFP and answered any questions from prospective proposers. This time, a total of nine individuals representing six different companies attended the conference of which only one was a prospective general contractor.

On May 2, 2023, in accordance with the RFP instructions, again ARB was the only company that submitted its minimum qualifications in advance of the proposal deadline as further discussed below.

ANALYSIS
Qualification packages were due to the City by 2:00 PM on May 2, 2023. By that time, GWP had received only one qualification package from a team consisting of ARB, FlexGen, POWER Engineers, and Morrow-Meadows. The qualification package was reviewed, and the team met all the requirements.

GWP is faced with two alternatives:
1) Cancel the RFP and try again. Given the efforts made thus far and the results, the history of the Grayson Repowering Project from the perspective of potential bidders, and the schedule impact of another delay, this was not a feasible option. 2) Proceed with the sole proposer/bidder. This is a practicable option as ARB is well known to GWP, having supplied O&M on-call maintenance repair services for Grayson in a very satisfactory manner. In addition, ARB recently successfully completed the Unit 9 Separation work. Lastly, the ARB team have all worked together before on other projects, and ARB and POWER Engineers are currently engaged in another Wartsila project.

As a result, GWP is recommending that the City Council dispense with competitive bidding and proceed with direct negotiations with the ARB team with the goal of developing an agreement that embodies transparency in developing work scope and pricing and performing the bulk of the procurement and construction on a lump sum basis. Additionally, such an approach offers the possibility of recovering lost schedule as some initial engineering work could proceed under a PSA while the contract negotiations are concluded. This initial engineering work, for a not-to-exceed PSA amount of $300,000, entails: development of a final general arrangement and foundation plan so the soil improvement plans can be finalized; development of the electrical design for the battery energy storage system power (BESS) island and the 267 of 704 4 c 8
interfaces with the Wartsila Power Island; updating the noise and battery fire release analyses performed as part of the environmental impact report (EIR) for the FlexGen batteries in place of the Tesla batteries; and, participation in project planning and design review meetings.

City of Glendale Charter, Article VI, Section 9, allows City Council to dispense with competitive bidding where the City Council determines that dispensing with competitive bidding is in the best interests of the City. Since this project contains engineering, design and construction components, staff recommends that Council dispense with competitive bidding for the construction component of the project, pursuant to Article VI, Section 9 of the Glendale Charter, and authorize staff to negotiate with the ARB and its team towards an EPC contract.

Upon the completion of negotiations, staff will return to City Council with the results for the Council’s further consideration and award of the EPC contract to ARB.

Project Description: Grayson Repowering Project Balance of Site Engineering, Procurement, and Construction to provide
a 75 MW/300 MWH Battery Energy Storage System,
upgrade the Unit 9 controls, integrate the Wartsila
Power Island into the Utility Operations Center, a
Control Building, Admin/Maintenance Building, and
other associate infrastructure.

RFP Approved: August 16, 2022 (Reso 22-127)
Advertisement Method: City website, eBidBoard.com, e-mails to past bidders, and e-mails to industry contacts.

RFP Issued: March 7, 2023
RFP Due Date: August 8, 2023
Company Name(s) and Proposal
Amount(s):

ARB has provided a qualification package. Priced
proposals were not due until August 8, 2023.

Selection Criteria
(If SS, list applicable Provision):

Evaluation Criteria
The proposals were to be evaluated using the following
criteria and recommended for award on a best value
basis, as determined by the City.
• Minimum Mandatory Qualifications – Pass/Fail
• Battery Energy Storage System - 25% (25
points)
• Base Proposal Price – 25% (25 points)
• Conformance with City Requirements; Proposed
Schedule of Values –10% (10 points)
• Conformance with Technical Requirements –
10% (10 points)
• Proposal Supplement and Presentation – 30%
(30 points) The City will consider value
268 of 704
5 c 8
engineering proposals, if any, made in the
Proposal Supplement and may add up to a total
of 5 additional points to the Proposer's score
based upon the City's evaluation thereof.

Consultant(s): Clean Power Consulting Partners
Stantec Consulting Services Inc.

Black & Veatch Corp.

New / Existing Consultant(s): New
Procurement Method (RFP / SS): RFP
Contract Term: 36-months
Project Begins: Preliminary engineering July 2023
Mobilization at the site September 2024 or earlier if
possible
Project Ends: 3
rd Quarter 2026
Change Orders (When Applicable)
Company name: N/A
Original Approved Contract
Amount:

N/A
Approved Contingency: N/A
Change Order History: N/A
This Change Order (Increase): N/A
New Contract Total (If
Approved):

N/A

STAKEHOLDERS/OUTREACH
Not applicable.

FISCAL IMPACT
The proposed cost of $300,000 for the professional services agreement to be rendered by ARB, Inc. was not included as part of the Fy2022-23 approved budget. Therefore, staff is requesting for an appropriation of $300,000 from the Electric Surplus Fund Balance.

Requesting Appropriation
Amount From (Account
String)
To (Account String) Funding Source
$300,000 GL: 27900-5810-
GWP-0000
GL: 43110-5830-GWP-0020-
P0000-
PL: GWP00171CN
Net Position, Electric
Fund Balance
269 of 704
6 c 8

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
On February 15, 2022, the City certified a Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR), Statement of Overriding Considerations and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the Grayson Repowering Project (“Project”) pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines (14 Cal Code Regs. 15000 et seq. and Public Resources Code Sections 21000 et seq.) The Project includes all aspects of Project implementation, including, demolition and site improvements. The action presented to the City Council here involves the authorization to dispense with further competitive bidding and negotiating with ARB, the sole proposer/bidder. Staff will return to City Council with the results of the negotiations and a recommendation relating to the award of the contract for City Council’s consideration and authorization to award the EPC contract. All actions will be pursuant to the certified FEIR.

CAMPAIGN DISCLOSURE
In accordance with the City Campaign Finance Ordinance No. 5744, the attachment to this Report contains the names and business addresses of the members of the board of directors, the chairperson, CEO, COO, CFO, Subcontractors and any person or entity with more than 10% interest or more in the company proposed for contract in this Agenda Item (see Exhibits 1, 2, 3 and 4).

ALTERNATIVES
Alternative 1: Authorize and approve the actions requested and recommended herein.

Alternative 2: Not authorize and approve the actions described herein. However, doing so would delay the implementation of the Grayson Repowering Project.

Alternative 3: Consider any other alternatives not proposed by staff.

ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION
Prepared by:

Scott Mellon, P.E., Assistant General Manager - Power Management Approved by:

Roubik R. Golanian, P.E., City Manager

EXHIBITS/ATTACHMENTS
Exhibit 1: Campaign Finance Disclosure for ARB, Inc.

Exhibit 2: Campaign Finance Disclosure for FlexGen
Exhibit 3: Campaign Finance Disclosure for POWER Engineers, Inc.

Exhibit 4: Campaign Finance Disclosure for Morrow-Meadows Corporation 270 of 704
1 RESOLUTION NO. ________

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GLENDALE,

CALIFORNIA, DISPENSING WITH COMPETITIVE BIDDING, AND AUTHORIZING

THE GENERAL MANAGER OF GLENDALE WATER & POWER OR HIS DESIGNEE TO DIRECTLY NEGOTIATE WITH ARB, INC. TOWARD A CONTRACT FOR THE

BALANCE OF SITE ENGINEER, PROCURE AND CONSTRUCT (EPC) EFFORT FOR

THE GRAYSON REPOWERING PROJECT
WHEREAS, on August 16, 2022, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 22- 127 authorizing the General Manager of Glendale Water & Power Department (GWP) to utilize an alternative project delivery method pursuant to Glendale Municipal Code, 1995 (GMC) Chapter 4.13, for the engineering, procurement and construction (EPC) of the Balance of Site (BOS), via Resolution No. 18-205, for the Grayson Repowering Project (Project); and
WHEREAS, on January 12, 2023, GWP issued the Grayson Repowering Project BOS EPC Request For Proposals (RFP) – Specification No. 3646; and WHEREAS, the BOS EPC RFP was posted on the City’s website on eBidboard.com, as well as emailed to twenty-one contractors by GWP; and WHEREAS, on February 23, 2023 a mandatory pre-proposal conference was held with a total of twelve different contractors and vendors, and two general contractors attending; and
WHEREAS, GWP, after receiving comments from the general contractors regarding the RFP and their reluctance to submit proposals due to the required minimum qualifications, cancelled the RFP in order to revise the minimum qualifications requirement to encourage broader participation; and
WHEREAS, on March 7, 2023, GWP issued the revised RFP – Specification No. 3646R – which was again posted on the City’s website, eBidboard.com and emailed to thirty companies inclusive of those who were notified of the original BOS EPC RFP and the attendees at the February 23, 2023 meeting; and
WHEREAS, on April 18, 2023 a mandatory pre-proposal conference was held with a total of six different companies and one general contractor attending; and WHEREAS, on May 2, 2023, in accordance with the BOS EPC RFP instructions only one company – ARB, Inc. (ARB) – submitted its minimum qualifications in advance of the proposal deadline; and
WHEREAS, GWP staff has reviewed the qualifications information submitted by ARB and finds ARB qualified to act as the BOS EPC contractor; and WHEREAS, the General Manager of GWP recommends negotiating directly with ARB towards an EPC contract and reporting back to the City Council once negotiations are completed for City Council’s further consideration and direction; and 271 of 704
2 WHEREAS, Glendale City Charter, Article VI, Section 9, provides an exemption to competitive bidding where the Council determines it is in the best interest of the City to dispense with competitive bidding; and
WHEREAS, given the background described above for the BOS EPC RFP, and the need to avoid further delays, it appears that adequate justification exists and it is in the City’s best interest – upon recommendation of the General Manager of GWP in the Report Dated June 6, 2023 – to dispense with competitive bidding, and authorize the General Manager of GWP or his designee to negotiate directly with ARB towards a contract for the Grayson Repowering Project BOS EPC, and return to the City Council with the results of the negotiation for further consideration.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GLENDALE:

Section 1: The foregoing facts are deemed to be true and correct, and are a basis for dispensing with competitive bidding, and authorizing the direct negotiation with ARB, Inc. (ARB).

Section 2: The Council hereby dispenses with competitive bidding and authorizes the General Manager of Glendale Water & Power (GWP), or his designee, to negotiate directly with ARB for a Grayson Repowering Project BOS EPC contract.

Section 3: The Council directs the General Manager of GWP to report back to the City Council upon the conclusion of the negotiations for Council’s further consideration of the negotiated contract and determination relating to the award of an EPC contract.

Adopted by the Council of the City of Glendale on this ___ day of _________, 2023. ________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_____________________________________
City Clerk
272 of 704
3 STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) SS.

COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES )
I, Suzie Abajian PhD, City Clerk of the City of Glendale, hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution No. _______________ was adopted by a majority vote of the Council of the City of Glendale, California, at a regular meeting held on the ______ day of ______________________, 2023, and that the same was adopted by the following vote:

Ayes:

Noes:

Absent:

Abstain:
________________________
City Clerk
273 of 704

M O T I O N
Moved by Council Member ________________________________, seconded by Council Member __________________________________, that the Council of the City of Glendale hereby authorizes the City Manager, or his designee, to enter into a Professional Services Agreement (PSA) with ARB, Inc., in the not to exceed amount of $300,000, for preliminary engineering work relating to the Grayson Repowering Project Balance of Site (BOS) Engineer Procure Construct (EPC) contract.

The City Manager, or his designee, is authorized to execute said PSA subject to approval by the City Attorney.

Vote as follows:

Ayes:

Noes:

Absent:

Abstain:
274 of 704
275 of 704
276 of 704
277 of 704
278 of 704
279 of 704
280 of 704
281 of 704
282 of 704
283 of 704
City of Glendale

DISCLOSURE - CAMPAIGN FINANCE ORDINANCE
The City Council adopted Ordinance No. 5744, “Campaign Finance Ordinance,” which became effective on September 9, 2011, and subsequently amended it with Ordinance No. 5768, which became effective on March 15, 2012 and Ordinance No. 5885, which became effective on November 3, 2016 (“the Ordinance”). The Ordinance prohibits: (1) A contractor* (including a subcontractor**)― who has a contract with the City of Glendale (“City”), the Successor Agency (“SA”), or the Housing Authority of the City of Glendale (“HA”) and that contract is subject to approval by the City Council, SA, or HA― from making a contribution to a City Council member, SA member, HA member, City Clerk, or City Treasurer; and (2) Council members, SA members, and HA members from voting on matters concerning a contract with a person who has provided a campaign contribution.

The Ordinance applies to a contractor whose contract requires the City Council’s, SA’s, or HA’s approval. A contract with the City, SA, or HA is known as a “City Contract.” The Ordinance also applies to a subcontractor who has a subcontract through a City Contract. The Ordinance excludes a competitively bid contract awarded to the lowest responsible bidder.

To assist members of the City Council, SA, and HA before they vote on a matter regarding a City Contract, the Ordinance requires City staff to prepare this report which discloses certain information about: the contractor receiving the City Contract, and the subcontractor(s) working under the City Contract.

A contractor must provide the information listed below when: A subcontractor must provide the information listed below when:
• The City Contract is subject to City Council approval; or • The subcontract through a City Contract has a total anticipated or actual value of $25,000 or more; or
• A combination or series of City Contracts totaling $50,000 or more is subject to Council approval.
• A combination or series of subcontracts, for the same or different projects, have an aggregate value of $25,000 or more.

Information that must be disclosed: ● Name of the person, entity, or organization (i.e., the Contractor or Subcontractor) ● Name of the Chief Executive Officer/President
● Chief Operating Officer
● Chief Financial Officer
● Chairperson
● All members of the Board of Directors
● All persons who own more than 10% of the person, entity, or organization ● Name of any campaign committee owned or controlled by the person, entity, or organization Please complete the following disclosure form:

Contractor(s)*: POWER Engineers, Inc.

Name Address
Full Name Title Business Address City State Zip
Chairperson
Chief Executive Officer / President
Chief Operating Officer
Chief Financial Officer
Board of Directors
More than 10% interest owner
* “Contractor” is the person, entity, or organization that is the party, or prospective party, to the contract with the City, SA, or HA or any member of that person’s, entity’s, or organization’s Board of Directors, its Chairperson, Chief Executive Officer, Chief Financial Officer, Chief Operating Officer, any person with an ownership interest of more than ten percent (10%) in that person, entity, or organization, and any campaign committee that is owned or controlled by that person, entity, or organization. Above please disclose these persons’ name and business address. 83642
EXHIBIT 3
284 of 704
Rev. 11/8/17
Subcontractor(s)**:

Name Address
Full Name Title Business Address City State Zip
Chairperson
Chief Executive Officer / President
Chief Operating Officer
Chief Financial Officer
Board of Directors
More than 10% interest owner
** “Subcontractor” is the person, entity, or organization that has entered into a contract for the performance of all or a portion of the work undertaken under an agreement with an architect, design professional, engineer, or general or prime contract, usually by a general or prime contractor. Subcontractor includes any member of that person’s, entity’s, or organization’s Board of Directors, its Chairperson, Chief Executive Officer, Chief Financial Officer, Chief Operating Officer, any person with an ownership interest of more than ten percent (10%) in that person, entity, or organization, and any campaign committee that is owned or controlled by that person, entity, or organization. Above please disclose these persons’ name and business address.

Campaign Committee owned or controlled by:

Title Business Address City State Zip

CERTIFICATION
On behalf of the above-named Contractor Subcontractor:
• I acknowledge that I have a continuing obligation to update this disclosure form if I substitute― or if I select additional― architects, design professionals, contractors, or subcontractors within ten (10) days of the selection or change; and • I hereby certify that:
 I have identified all persons for which the Ordinance requires disclosure;  The information in this disclosure form (and any attachment to this form) is true, accurate, correct, and complete; and  I have been legally authorized to submit this disclosure form.

In total, this disclosure form (including attachments) is pages.

Executed on: , 20 , at: , California.

Signature: Print Full Name:

Address:

Phone Number: E-mail Address:

Jim Haynes 2041 South Cobalt Point Way
2041 South Cobalt Point Way
2041 South Cobalt Point Way
Boise
Boise
Boise
ID
ID
ID
83642
83642
83642
Holger Peller
Chuck Kemp
X
Gerry Murray May 25 23 (201) 986-4042 [email protected] 2041 South Cobalt Way, Meridian, ID 83642 2041 South Cobalt Way, Meridian, ID 83642 3 285 of 704
EXHIBIT 4
286 of 704
287 of 704
9a

AGENDA ITEM

CITY OF GLENDALE, CALIFORNIA

REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL
Report: Solid Waste Collection Rates
(1) Public Hearing Regarding the Restructuring and Increase of Solid Waste Collection Rates
(2) Resolution for Restructuring and Increase of Solid Waste Collection Rates

COUNCIL ACTION

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Solid waste collection rates in the City were last revised 13 years ago in 2010. In consideration of significant factors driving cost increases, including China’s ban on recyclables, state mandates under SB 1383 and the pending closure of Scholl Canyon Landfill, as well as increases in projected operating and capital expenses, additional revenues from solid waste collection rates are necessary. To fully fund the City’s solid waste operations over the next five years, the City’s collection rates must be increased over a number of years, as detailed in the Analysis section of this report.

Although the City’s solid waste collection rates need to be increased, the same trends that are creating upward pressure on the City’s rates are also impacting all other jurisdictions in California. Even with the proposed initial rate adjustment, Glendale’s rates for residential and multi-family of less than 5 units, will be lower than the average of a large number of comparable cities within Los Angeles County region, for similar solid waste collection services. Furthermore, Glendale’s rates will remain competitive with other cities over subsequent years.

Item Type: Action Item
Approved for June 6, 2023 calendar
288 of 704
2 9a

COUNCIL PRIORITIES
Environmental Stewardship: Establishment of solid waste collection rates commensurate with the cost of operations and regulatory compliance ensures resources are available to sustain optimum integrated waste services to the community and achieve compliance with State regulations and laws. These rates fund programs that divert recyclable and organic materials from the landfill, as well as edible food recovered for the food insecure members of the community.

RECOMMENDATION
That the City Council conduct a public hearing in accordance with Proposition 218 and approve the attached Resolution adopting new solid waste collection rates for singlefamily and small multi-family customers.

BACKGROUND
Since 2010, the Public Works Department has experienced significant increases in general operational costs, including substantial costs associated with the unfunded mandates required with the implementation and ongoing management of recent State laws; most notably the SB 1383 compliance demands.

Over the last twelve years, these additional costs, including overall expenditures for general integrated waste operations, have increased over 46 percent (approximately $8 million/year). Along with the general cost of providing solid waste collection services going up over this twelve-year period, the Scholl landfill tipping fee has increased by 56 percent over this time frame.

Additionally, over the past five years, a volatile recycling market has resulted in the City having to move from the paradigm of being paid for recyclable commodities, which resulted in an approximate annual revenue of $345,600, to one where the City is having to pay for the processing of the recyclable materials that costs an average of $518,400 annually, resulting in a net annual cost impact of approximately $864,000.

Compounding the general increases in expenditures over the past 13 years and the cumulative impact of annual inflation, was the impact of franchising the City’s commercial services while continuing to provide service for the remaining singlefamily-residential customers and multi-family customers with two to four dwelling units.

While franchising of services to commercial customers reduced operational costs, it also reduced revenue. The reduction in the City’s overall solid waste customer base brought about by franchising the business and large multi-family customer sectors has resulted in the City having fewer customers over which it is able to allocate its fixed costs.

Moreover, the City is in the midst of complying with the most sweeping changes to State solid waste regulations in the last 30 years. Among several new laws that have impacted the City’s general operations, administrative duties, and regulatory responsibilities, including AB 341, AB 1826, and AB 1594. The latter of which, for example, became effective January 1, 2020, and mandated that California could no longer consider the use of green material as alternative daily cover for diversion credit. Therefore, the City had to begin hauling these materials to a separate location and paying to recycle them. 289 of 704 3 9a
Most significantly, SB 1383 is bringing about several fundamental changes to municipal solid waste management. Under SB 1383, all local jurisdictions must arrange for the collection of organics, ensure that edible food is recovered, conduct education and outreach, purchase a certain amount of organic content products, secure access to organic processing capacity, and conduct extensive monitoring, compliance, and enforcement activities. As a result, solid waste rates throughout the State are increasing significantly. Glendale is no exception as projected expenditures associated with these unfunded mandates have and will continue to rise.

Historically, State mandates have burdened Glendale’s municipal waste management operations. The requirements to divert green waste, and now organic waste, has resulted in daily service routes that take substantially longer to complete, requiring additional overtime and staff fatigue. Public Works recently embarked upon a program to optimize and right-size routes under a one pass system, where refuse, recycling and organics are serviced separately by drivers specifically assigned to collect and directly haul that solid waste commodity for processing at a respective facility. While this program will solve many operational programs attributable to overly long routes, it will also increase the number of weekly routes and need for additional drivers and side- loading refuse trucks.

Additionally, staff is preparing for the imminent closure of the Scholl Canyon Landfill, which is expected to take place within the next two to three years. Once the landfill is closed, the refuse collected in the City will also have to be diverted to another location within the region for processing and disposal. In anticipation of this, staff has been examining several options and alternative destinations for this displaced waste stream. Preliminary analysis of the costs associated with this transition are anticipated to result in an operational increase of over $1.4 million per year and an initial capital expense of $640,000 (to purchase two new vehicles). Operational costs are expected to include an estimated 68% per ton increase in tipping fees for refuse material, two additional drivers to operate the new daily routes necessary to accommodate the increased distance to the refuse processor, and increased fuel, maintenance and depreciation costs for the aforementioned vehicles.

In April 2022, the City authorized MSW Consultants, to prepare a detailed Cost of Services Study (COSA) to determine a rate structure that accurately reflects the cost of providing these waste management services including collection, diversion programs, outreach and disposal.

On September 13, 2022, the City Council authorized staff to commence the public notification and public hearing process for the January 10, 2023, public hearing date. The City Council opened the public hearing on this date, accepted testimony and continued the matter to January 31, 2023 due to the absence of two Council Members.

At the January 31, 2023, City Council meeting the City Council closed the public hearing and directed staff to revise the presented COSA to eliminate an initial rate adjustment on February 1, 2023 and subsequent rate adjustment on July 1, 2023, and to combine them into a single initial rate adjustment on July 1, 2023.

Once the COSA was revised as detailed in the analysis section of this report, staff started a new Proposition 218 public notification process. On April 17, 2023, the City mailed the 290 of 704 4 9a
subject notice of the public hearing to all parcel owners and current customers in Glendale, notifying them of the June 6, 2023 public hearing date. The notice was sent in three languages, included an introductory paragraph describing the purpose of the notice, the date of the public hearing, a table detailing all of the proposed rates, and an explanation of the protest process for customers opposed to the rate increases. The final COSA is attached as Exhibit 1 and demonstrates the need for the proposed waste adjustments.

ANALYSIS
The City’s refuse collection rates, which were last increased in 2010, do not accurately reflect the City’s current cost of service. Current rates for individual collection activities, such as servicing a 96-gallon container once per week or servicing a two cubic yard bin two times per week, are now completely inconsistent with the actual costs (time, equipment, labor, etc.) for providing that particular service. As a result, the initial rate adjustment on July 1, 2023, will restructure the rate schedule to ensure that they more accurately reflect the City’s actual cost of service for each service type. Not all City customers will receive the same initial rate adjustment. For example, single family residential customers with a 64- gallon container will initially receive a $17.06 increase. However, single-family customers with a 96-gallon container will initially receive a $14.00 increase. After the rates are restructured in July 2023, customer rates will be adjusted across the board by the same percent each year, and thereafter on July 1st.

In addition to updating operation and maintenance costs since the completion of the COSA reviewed by Council in January, the revised COSA also examined the impacts of consolidating the initial rate adjustment that was proposed for February 1, 2023 with the initially proposed July 1, 2023 rate adjustment. All costs and revenues being considered, the compounded initial rate adjustment to a single date would have imposed a rate increase on City customers that would have been well over 100% in the first year. In light of this, and the objective of minimizing the burden on rate payers by spreading adjustment out over multiple years, staff examined ways to balance the impacts of relative expenditures versus dwindling revenues by retaining a bare minimum fund balance over the next three fiscal years, while achieving the objective fund balance by the end of the term examined by the COSA in FY 2027-28. The solid waste industry Best Management Practice is to retain a minimum balance of 25% of operating costs as a target reserve balance. This represents three months’ worth of operating costs. The idea is that if there was some type of significant expense obligation or emergency circumstance, the City would have enough resources to operate for at least three months while recovering from the emergency circumstance. For the City of Glendale, this equates to about $5 million dollars in reserve funding.

The Rate Adjustment Table (Exhibit 2) shows the current and proposed rates for customers with most common levels of service. The proposed rates are the result of an evaluation of the current and future financial performance of the City’s solid waste operations, as reflected in the COSA prepared by MSW consultants.

The same trends that are creating upward pressure on the City’s rates are also impacting all other jurisdictions in California. Even after Glendale’s rates are adjusted, they are expected to be lower than many other jurisdictions within LA County, for similar solid waste collection services. A comparison of the City’s proposed initial single-family rate to 291 of 704 5 9a
those in other jurisdictions in the region is shown below in Chart 1.

Chart 1 – Rate Comparison – Monthly Rate for Single-family Collection Service Proposition 218 requires the City to satisfy various requirements on the use and collection of solid waste rates, and sets procedural requirements that must be met in order to increase said rates. Prop. 218 imposes substantive restrictions on the imposition and use of property-related fees, where the revenues derived from the fee or charge cannot exceed the funds required to provide the property-related service; the revenues derived from the fee or charge cannot be used for any purpose other than that for which the fee or charge was imposed; and the amount of the fee upon any parcel or person cannot exceed the proportionate cost of the services attributable to that parcel. Cal. Const., Art. 130, Sec. 6(b)(1)- (3).

Prop. 218 requires that written notice of the proposed property-related fee or charge (Prop. 218 Notice) be mailed to the record owner (including customers of record) of each identified parcel within the jurisdiction. The Prop 218 Notice must state: that a fee increase is proposed; the amount of the proposed increase; the basis for the calculation of the proposed fee; and the reason for the fee. The Prop. 218 Notice must also provide the date, time and location of the proposed public hearing on the proposed fee or charge (Prop. 218 Hearing).

If written protests to the proposed fee or charge are received by a majority of the parcels prior to the date and time of the Prop. 218 Hearing, the rates at issue will not increase. If written protests are not received by a majority of the parcels, the City Council may adopt the proposed rate changes. If adopted, the proposed rates will go into effect thirty days after the date of adoption. There are 27,118 parcels that are subject to the proposed rate increase.

The Prop. 218 Notice was mailed to all City residential customers and multi-family residences of less than five units on April 17, 2023, which set forth the hearing date of 292 of 704 6 9a
June 6, 2023.

STAKEHOLDERS/OUTREACH
Following City Council determination to close the public hearing and revise the COSA at the January 31, 2023, meeting, staff had the COSA updated and then recommenced the Proposition 218 Notice and Public Hearing Process for the purpose of adopting new solid waste collection rates for single-family and small multi-family customers. The official Prop. 218 Notice was mailed to all City residential customers and multi-family residences of less than five units. The Prop. 218 Notice was sent on April 17, 2023, and included versions of the same information in English, Armenian and Spanish. In addition, all three versions of the letter were made available on the City’s website along with the final COSA Report, the Agenda Report, and FAQs on the rate adjustments and public notice process.

FISCAL IMPACT
Prior to the franchising of commercial waste hauling services, the City built up a fund balance in the Refuse Fund of over $30 million due to savings from positions being held vacant and vehicle replacements delayed in anticipation of the transition to services by private haulers. After commercial franchising was implemented on December 1, 2021, service expenses for single-family and multi-family 2-4 units has been drawn down from this fund because the cost of these services far exceeds current rate revenue. As shown in the COSA, without a rate adjustment this fund balance is projected to be depleted in 2024.

Staff recommends the fee increases presented on the Rate Adjustment Table (Exhibit 2).

The justifications for these increases are demonstrated in the COSA (Exhibit 1). Once implemented, based upon projected revenues relative to O&M and necessary capital expenditures, staff estimates this rate increase will result in the cash balance in the Refuse Fund balancing out with a revenue reserve of $5.7 million projected for FY 2024, and remain balanced at an average of approximately $2 million over the following fiscal years through FY 2028.

This action is necessary to address rising operational costs and to ensure that revenues are keeping pace with required capital expenditures.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
This item is not subject to the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) and, therefore, an environmental review is not required pursuant to Section 21080(b)(8) of the California Public Resources Code and Sections 15272(a) and 15061(b)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines, California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Chapter 3 because CEQA does not apply to the establishment, modification, restructuring, or approval of rates and other charges by public agencies for purposes such as those set forth herein.

CAMPAIGN DISCLOSURE
This item is considered a ministerial activity and therefore, not subject to Campaign Disclosure.

ALTERNATIVES
Alternative 1: Conduct the public hearing and approve the attached Resolution adopting 293 of 704 7 9a
new solid waste collection rates for single-family and small multi-family customers.

Alternative 2: Do not approve the attached Resolution, which will result in depletion of the cash balance in the Refuse Fund by early FY 2024, and Glendale’s solid waste management service will be operating in a deficit.

Alternative 3: Consider any other alternative not proposed by staff.

ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION
Prepared by:

Dan Hardgrove, Assistant Director of Public Works
Approved by:

Roubik R. Golanian, P.E., City Manager

EXHIBITS / ATTACHMENTS

1. Cost of Service Analysis by MSW Consultants for the City of Glendale, April 13, 2023

2. Rate Adjustment Table
294 of 704
1 RESOLUTION NO.

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF GLENDALE, CALIFORNIA, SETTING FORTH

RESIDENTIAL SOLID WASTE COLLECTION RATES FOR THE NEXT FIVE YEARS BEGINNING JULY 1, 2023
WHEREAS, Section 8.44.110 of the Glendale Municipal Code, 1995, provides for establishing or modifying solid waste collection rates by resolution of the Council of the City of Glendale; WHEREAS, the City has not increased residential solid waste collection rates since 2010; and WHEREAS, in April 2022, In April 2022, the City retained the services of MSW Consultants (“MSW”) for the purposes of conducting a detailed Cost of Services Analysis and rate study for residential solid waste collection rates; and
WHEREAS, MSW performed a Solid Waste Cost of Service Study, dated April 13, 2023 (“COSA”) and developed a residential solid waste collection rate structure to meet the revenue requirements for the solid waste enterprise fund; and
WHEREAS, MSW, through the COSA, has concluded that the City’s current rate schedule must be restructured to accurately reflect the City’s current cost of service, resulting in an initial rate adjustment on July 1, 2023 by approximately 90% on average; and WHEREAS, MSW has also concluded that a proposed five-year rate plan is necessary to fully fund the City’s solid waste operations, beginning on July 1, 2023, followed by annual increases of 45% on July 1, 2024, 25% on July 1, 2025, and 10% on
July 1, 2026 and 2027, respectively; and
WHEREAS, the proposed residential solid waste collection rates have been calculated on the basis of the actual and proportionate costs to provide solid waste collections services to the City’s customers; and
WHEREAS, on June 6, 2023, the City of Glendale opened and conducted a noticed public hearing regarding the proposed residential solid waste collection rates and considered the reports and testimony of staff and the comments of the public regarding the same; and WHEREAS, on June 6, 2023, the public hearing was closed and there was deliberation on the proposed residential solid waste collection rates; and
WHEREAS, the proposed residential solid waste collection rate restructuring and increases constitute charges for a property related service (California Constitution, Article XIIID, Section 6), the revenue derived from the residential solid waste collection rate increases will not exceed the funds required to provide the residential solid waste customers with solid waste collection service,(California Constitution, Article XIIID, Section 6(b)(1)), the revenue derived from the residential solid waste collection rates not be used for any other purpose than that for which they are imposed (California Constitution, Article XIIID, Section 6(b)(2)), and the amount of fee or charge imposed upon the parcels or sewer customers do not exceed the proportional cost of the service attributable to the parcels or sewer customers (California Constitution, Article XIIID, Section 6(b)(3)), and for services which are actually used by or immediately available to sewer customers (California Constitution, Article XIIID, Section 6(b)(4)), and the solid waste collection rate increases are not being imposed for general governmental services, where the service is available to the public at large (California Constitution, Article XIIID, Section 6(b)(4)). 295 of 704 2 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GLENDALE:

SECTION 1. Notice of the public meeting at which this Resolution was considered was properly given, and all oral and written presentations made to and heard by the City Council, as well as protests to the proposed residential solid waste collection rates were properly considered.

SECTION 2. There is a reasonable relationship between the residential solid waste collection rates to be charged and the City’s costs in providing residential solid waste collection service.

SECTION 3. Compliance with California Environmental Quality Act. The City Council finds and determines that this Resolution is not subject to the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) and, therefore, an environmental review is not required pursuant to Section 21080(b)(8) of the California Public Resources Code and Sections 15272(a) and 15061(b)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines, California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Chapter 3 because CEQA does not apply to the establishment, modification, restructuring, or approval of rates and other charges by public agencies for purposes such as those set forth herein.

SECTION 4. The residential solid waste collection rates attached hereto as Exhibit “A”:
a) Do not exceed the actual or estimated reasonable costs incurred for providing residential solid waste collection services to its customers; b) Are reasonable and necessary to enable the City to provide benefit or privilege, service or product to which they relate; and
c) Have been allocated in a manner such that the costs to the customer payer are proportional to the payer’s burden on, or benefits received, for residential solid waste collection service.

SECTION 5. The City Council hereby adopts the residential solid waste collection rate schedule as set forth in Exhibit “A”, attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference.

SECTION 6. The residential solid waste collection rate schedule set forth in Exhibit “A” shall take effect on July 1, 2023.

SECTION 7. Severability. If any Section, subsection, clause, phrase, sentence or word of this Resolution or the application thereof to any person or circumstance is for any reason held invalid, the validity of the remainder of the Resolution or the application of such provision to other persons or circumstances shall not be affected thereby and shall not affect any other Section, subsection, clause, phrase, sentence or word of the Resolution that can be given effect without the invalid Section, subsection, clause, phrases, sentence, or word of this Resolution.

The City Council hereby declares that it would have passed this Resolution and each Section, subsection, clause phrase, sentence and word hereof, irrespective of the fact that one or more Sections, subsection, clauses, phrases, sentences or words or the application hereof to any person or circumstance is held invalid.

Adopted by the Council of the City of Glendale on this day of __, 2023.

Mayor
ATTEST:
296 of 704
3 City Clerk

STATE OF CALIFORNIA )

COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES )

CITY OF GLENDALE )
I, Suzie Abajian, Ph.D, Clerk of the City of Glendale, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution No. was adopted by the City Council of the City of Glendale, California, at a regular meeting held on the day of
, 2023, and that the same was adopted by the following vote:

Ayes:

Noes:

Absent:

Abstain:

City Clerk
297 of 704
4 Exhibit A

RATE ADJUSTMENT TABLE
Description Current
Rate
Proposed
Rate Effective
July 1, 2023
Proposed
Rate Effective
July 1, 2024
Proposed
Rate Effective
July 1, 2025
Proposed Rate
Effective
July 1, 2026
Proposed Rate
Effective
July 1, 2027
Automated Cart Service - Single Family
Monthly Rate Standard 64 gallon cart $11.72 $28.78 $41.73 $52.16 $57.38 $63.12 Adjustment Amount $17.06 $12.95 $10.43 $5.22 $5.74
Adjustment Percent 146% 45% 25% 10% 10%
Monthly Rate - Standard 96-gallon cart $18.34 $32.34 $46.90 $58.63 $64.49 $70.94 Adjustment Amount $14.00 $14.56 $11.73 $5.86 $6.45
Adjustment Percent 76% 45% 25% 10% 10%
Automated Cart Service – Multi-family
residential (MFR) 2-4 units
Monthly Rate - Standard 64-gallon cart $14.82 $28.78 $41.73 $52.16 $57.38 $63.12 Adjustment Amount $13.96 $12.95 $10.43 $5.22 $5.74
Adjustment Percent 94% 45% 25% 10% 10%
Monthly Rate - Standard 96-gallon cart $18.34 $32.34 $46.90 $58.63 $64.49 $70.94 Adjustment Amount $14.00 $14.56 $11.73 $5.86 $6.45
Adjustment Percent 76% 45% 25% 10% 10%
Monthly Rate - Additional 64-gallon cart $11.72 $28.78 $41.73 $52.16 $57.38 $63.12 Adjustment Amount $17.06 $12.95 $10.43 $5.22 $5.74
Adjustment Percent 146% 45% 25% 10% 10%
Front Loading Bin Service –
MFR 2-4 units
Monthly Rate - One cubic yard bin 1/week $33.00 $87.45 $126.80 $158.50 $174.35 $191.79 Adjustment Amount $54.45 $39.35 $31.70 $15.85 $17.44
Adjustment Percent 165% 45% 25% 10% 10%
Monthly Rate - Two cubic yard bin 1/week $45.35 $109.95 $159.42 $199.28 $219.21 $241.13 Adjustment Amount $64.60 $49.47 $39.86 $19.93 $21.92
Adjustment Percent 142% 45% 25% 10% 10%
Monthly Rate - Three cubic yard bin
1/week $58.15 $132.44 $192.04 $240.05 $264.06 $290.47
Adjustment Amount $74.29 $59.60 $48.01 $24.01 $26.41
Adjustment Percent 128% 45% 25% 10% 10%
Front Loading Bin Service –
MFR 2-4 units - Additional Pickups
Monthly Rate - One cubic yard bin 1/week $22.63 $87.45 $126.80 $158.50 $174.35 $191.79 Adjustment Amount $64.82 $39.35 $31.70 $15.85 $17.44
Adjustment Percent 286% 45% 25% 10% 10%
Monthly Rate - Two cubic yard bin 1/week $22.63 $109.95 $159.42 $199.28 $219.21 $241.13 Adjustment Amount $87.32 $49.47 $39.86 $19.93 $21.92
Adjustment Percent 386% 45% 25% 10% 10%
Monthly Rate - Three cubic yard bin
1/week $22.63 $132.44 $192.04 $240.05 $264.06 $290.47
Adjustment Amount $109.81 $59.60 $48.01 $24.01 $26.41
Adjustment Percent 485% 45% 25% 10% 10%
298 of 704

SOLID WASTE COST OF SERVICE STUDY
APRIL 13, 2023

PREPARED BY

SOLID WASTE CONSULTANTS

TO LOCAL GOVERNMENT
Exhibit 1
299 of 704

PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
300 of 704
Solid Waste Rate Study
Table of Contents

1. Executive Summary 1

2. Approach and Limitations 6

2.1 Study Approach 6

2.2 Limitations 6

3. Financial Plan 7

3.1 Comparison of Projected Revenues with Revenue Requirement 7

3.2 Projected Operating Results if Rates are Not Adjusted 7

3.3 Projected Operating Results with Proposed Rate Adjustments 9

3.4 Projected Long-term Operating Results with Proposed Rate Adjustments 10

4. Rate Design 12

4.1 Revenue Requirement 12

4.2 Rate Design Method 12

4.3 Rate Design Calculations 13

4.4 Projected Rate Revenue based on Proposed Rate Adjustments 17

5. Percent of Customers Affected 21
Appendix A- Revenue and Expense Detail
301 of 704
Table of Tables
Table 1 – Proposed Monthly Rates....................................................................................................4 Table 2 – Projected Operating Results – Without Rate Adjustments..............................................7 Table 3 – Projected Capital Expenditures..........................................................................................8 Table 4 – Analysis of Cash Without Rate Adjustments.....................................................................8 Table 5 – Projected Operating Results – With Rate Adjustments..................................................10 Table 6 – Analysis of Cash With Proposed Rate Adjustment .........................................................10 Table 7 – Projected Revenue Requirements...................................................................................12 Table 8 – Allocated Rate Revenue Target........................................................................................13 Table 9 –Operating Cost Statistics...................................................................................................15 Table 10 – Direct Cost for Each Level of Service .............................................................................16 Table 11 – Indirect Cost and Sum of Total Cost for Each Level of Service.....................................17 Table 12 – Summary of Automated Cart Rate Revenue.................................................................18 Table 13 – Summary of Frontload Bin Rate Revenue.....................................................................19 Table 14 – Summary of Rate Revenue and Reconciliation to Revenue Requirement..................20 Table 15 – Percent of Customers Affected......................................................................................21 Table of Charts
Chart 1 – Rate Comparison – Monthly Rate for Single-family Collection Service...........................5 Chart 2 – Projected Operating Results Without Rate Adjustments.................................................9 Chart 3 – Projected Operating Results With Rate Adjustments ....................................................11 302 of 704
1 of 21

1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The City generates revenue to pay for its solid waste collection service costs through rates charged to its residential customers. The City separately records its revenues and expenses for its solid waste operations in the solid waste enterprise fund. The solid waste enterprise fund maintains a cash balance to fund its ongoing operations. The revenues of the solid waste enterprise fund are intended to fully cover the City’s current and future solid waste operating and capital costs, and maintain its cash balance. Although the City’s operating costs have increased due to inflation, and other significant factors, the City has not increased the solid waste rates it chargesto its customers since 2010.

Significant Factors Driving Cost Increases
China Ban on Recyclables
At the beginning of 2018, China reduced the level of acceptable contamination in the recyclable material it received, and limited the type of recyclable materials it would accept. As a result, the worldwide market value of recyclables decreased significantly, reducing the revenue that solid waste service providers (including the City) previously used to offset their operating costs. This market disruption continues to create upward pressure on the City’s operating costs.

Commercial Franchising
The City recently implemented significant changes to the solid waste collection services it provides in the City. In December 2021, the City implemented a franchise system for businesses, and for large multi-family complexes with five (5) or more units. Under the franchise system, four (4) private haulers now provide exclusive collection service in four (4) separate geographic areas of the City. The City is now only responsible to collect waste and recyclables from single-family customers, and from small multi-family customers with two (2) to four (4) dwelling units.

In previous years, rates for residential collection services have not been set at a rate to fully recover costs associated with those services. Furthermore, the rates for residential and multi-family customers with 2-4 units have not changed since 2010. The reduction in the City’s overall solid waste customer base brought about by franchising the business and large multi-family customer sectors has resulted in the City having fewer customers over which it is able to allocate its fixed costs. This has resulted in additional upward pressure on the cost per unit for the remaining residential customers.
303 of 704
2 of 21
SB 1383
In addition to the significant change brought about by the franchising of the commercial waste sector, the City is in the midst of complying with the most sweeping changes to State solid waste regulations in the last thirty years. SB 1383 establishes statewide methane reduction targets, and is bringing about several fundamental changes to municipal solid waste management.

Under SB 1383, all local jurisdictions must arrange for the collection of organics, ensure that edible food is recovered, conduct education and outreach, purchase a certain amount of organic content products, secure access to organic processing capacity, and conduct extensive monitoring, compliance and enforcement activities. As a result, solid waste rates throughout the State are increasing significantly.

Closure of Scholl Canyon Landfill
The Scholl Canyon Landfill is expected to permanently close around December 2025. After the landfill closes, the City’s trucks will be required to travel farther to empty their loads, and may be required to use a disposal facility with a higher tipping fee. As a result, the City expects it will be required to purchase two additional route vehicles, and incur additional operating coststo use a more distant landfill. These expected additional operating costs will create additional upward pressure on the City’s solid waste rates.

Industry Trends
Additionally, there are several current trends in the solid waste industry that are creating extraordinary cost increases. These trends include shortages of refuse truck drivers, supply chain delays in the purchase of trucks, and increased costs for raw materials such as steel used to manufacture trucks and containers.

Required Rate Adjustments
Operating Cash
As a result of the impact of these industry trends, the China Ban, the cost of complying with SB 1383, and the divestiture of its business and large multi-family operations, the revenue and cost structure of the City’s solid waste enterprise fund has changed significantly. To meet the current and future financial obligations of the solid waste enterprise fund, the City must increase the rates it charges to its single family and small multi-family residential customers. If the City does not increase current collection rates, and rates remain at their current levels, the cash balance in the enterprise fund will be completely depleted in fiscal 2024. 304 of 704
3 of 21
Collection Rates
To fully fund the City’s solid waste operations over the next five years, the City’s collection rates must be increased on average by approximately 90% on July 1, 2023, followed by annual increases of 45% in July 2024, and 25% on July 2025. In July 2026 and 2027, collection rates will need to be increased by 10% each year.

In addition, the City’s rates, which have not increased since 2010, do not accurately reflect the City’s current cost of service. As a result, the initial rate adjustment on July 1, 2023, will restructure the rate schedule to ensure that the rates more accurately reflect the City’s actual cost of service. As a result, not all customers will receive the same initial rate adjustment. For example, as shown in Table 1 on page 4, single-family residential customers with a 64-gallon container will initially receive a 146% increase. However, single-family customers with a 96- gallon container will initially receive a 76% increase. After the rates are restructured in July 2023, customer rates will be adjusted across the board by the same percent each year on July 1st. Table 1 on page 4 shows the current and proposed rates for customers with most common levels of service. The City is seeking approval of these rates for the next five years.

Although the City’s rates need to be significantly increased, the same trends that are creating upward pressure on the City’s rates are also impacting all other jurisdictions in California. Even after the City’s rates are adjusted, they are expected to be reasonable in relation to rates for similar solid waste collection service in other jurisdictions. A comparison of the City’s singlefamily rate to those in other jurisdictions isshown in Chart 1 on page 5.

Proposition 218
The City’s collection rates are subject to Article XIII D, Section 6 of the California Constitution (Proposition 218). When setting property-related user fees (such as solid waste collection rates), local jurisdictions must satisfy the following requirements:
• Revenues derived from the fee or charge must not exceed the funds required to provide the property-related service;
• Revenues derived from the fee or charge must not be used for any purpose other than that for which the fee is imposed;
• The amount of a fee or charge imposed upon any parcel or person as an incident of property ownership must not exceed the proportional cost of the service attributable to the parcel.
305 of 704
4 of 21
The City is required to set a public ‘majority protest’ hearing, and provide all record owners of each identified parcel no less than 45 days prior notice of the proposed rates. Unless a majority of customers object to the proposed rates, the City Council may adopt the proposed rates at the public hearing upon a majority vote.

Table 1 – Proposed Monthly Rates
Description Current Rate
Proposed
Rate Effective
July 1, 2023
Proposed
Rate Effective
July 1, 2024
Proposed
Rate Effective
July 1, 2025
Proposed
Rate Effective
July 1, 2026
Proposed
Rate Effective
July 1, 2027
Automated Cart Service - Single Family
Monthly Rate Standard 64 gallon cart $11.72 $11.72 $28.78 $41.73 $52.16 $57.38 $63.12 Adjustment Amount $17.06 $12.95 $10.43 $5.22 $5.74
Adjustment Percent 146% 45% 25% 10% 10%
Monthly Rate - Standard 96 gallon cart $18.34 $18.34 $32.34 $46.90 $58.63 $64.49 $70.94 Adjustment Amount $14.00 $14.56 $11.73 $5.86 $6.45
Adjustment Percent 76% 45% 25% 10% 10%
Automated Cart Service - Multi-family 2-4 unts
Monthly Rate - Standard 64 gallon cart $14.82 $14.82 $28.78 $41.73 $52.16 $57.38 $63.12 Adjustment Amount $13.96 $12.95 $10.43 $5.22 $5.74
Adjustment Percent 94% 45% 25% 10% 10%
Monthly Rate - Standard 96 gallon cart $18.34 $18.34 $32.34 $46.90 $58.63 $64.49 $70.94 Adjustment Amount $14.00 $14.56 $11.73 $5.86 $6.45
Adjustment Percent 76% 45% 25% 10% 10%
Monthly Rate - Additional 64 gallon cart $11.72 $11.72 $28.78 $41.73 $52.16 $57.38 $63.12 Adjustment Amount $17.06 $12.95 $10.43 $5.22 $5.74
Adjustment Percent 146% 45% 25% 10% 10%
Front Loading Bin Service - MFR 2-4 units
Monthly Rate - One cubic yard bin 1/week $33.00 $33.00 $87.45 $126.80 $158.50 $174.35 $191.79 Adjustment Amount $54.45 $39.35 $31.70 $15.85 $17.44
Adjustment Percent 165% 45% 25% 10% 10%
Monthly Rate - Two cubic yard bin 1/week $45.35 $45.35 $109.95 $159.42 $199.28 $219.21 $241.13 Adjustment Amount $64.60 $49.47 $39.86 $19.93 $21.92
Adjustment Percent 142% 45% 25% 10% 10%
Monthly Rate - Three cubic yard bin 1/week $58.15 $58.15 $132.44 $192.04 $240.05 $264.06 $290.47 Adjustment Amount $74.29 $59.60 $48.01 $24.01 $26.41
Adjustment Percent 128% 45% 25% 10% 10%
Front Loading Bin Service - MFR 2-4 units - Additional Pickups Monthly Rate - One cubic yard bin 1/week $22.63 $22.63 $87.45 $126.80 $158.50 $174.35 $191.79 Adjustment Amount $64.82 $39.35 $31.70 $15.85 $17.44
Adjustment Percent 286% 45% 25% 10% 10%
Monthly Rate - Two cubic yard bin 1/week $22.63 $22.63 $109.95 $159.42 $199.28 $219.21 $241.13 Adjustment Amount $87.32 $49.47 $39.86 $19.93 $21.92
Adjustment Percent 386% 45% 25% 10% 10%
Monthly Rate - Three cubic yard bin 1/week $22.63 $22.63 $132.44 $192.04 $240.05 $264.06 $290.47 Adjustment Amount $109.81 $59.60 $48.01 $24.01 $26.41
Adjustment Percent 485% 45% 25% 10% 10%
306 of 704
5 of 21
Chart 1 – Rate Comparison – Monthly Rate for Single-family Collection Service 307 of 704
6 of 21

2. APPROACHAND LIMITATIONS

2.1 Study Approach
This cost of service study consists of a financial plan analysis, and a rate design analysis. • Financial Plan Analysis – The ‘big picture.’ This analysis considers the total amount of current and projected operating and capital expenditures, available cash, any planned debt financing, and required debt service coverage requirements. The result of this analysis is the projected revenue requirement, which is matched with the projected rate revenues from the proposed rates. This ensures that the City will generate sufficient revenues to meet its financial obligations. • Rate Design Analysis – This analysis identifies the cause-and-effect relationship between the activities undertaken and resources used to provide various levels of service. Rates are designed to reflect the cost of service and proportionality requirements of Proposition 218.

2.2 Limitations
The financial plan analysis is subject to certain limitations. The pro-forma projections in the financial plan are based on assumptions regarding future inflation, and planned capital expenditures, etc. There will usually be differences between projected and actual results, because events and circumstances frequently do not occur as expected, and those differences may be material. Moreover, these projections were prepared for the sole use of the City for the purpose of analyzing the City’s solid waste rates. They are not intended to be used for any other purpose.
308 of 704
7 of 21

3. FINANCIAL PLAN

3.1 Comparison of Projected Revenues with Revenue Requirement The financial plan for the solid waste enterprise fund comparesthe projected rate revenues with the projected revenue requirement (the enterprise fund’s projected operating expenses net of any use of cash balance). The enterprise fund’s projected operating results were projected over a five-year period under two scenarios. Section 3.2 below shows the projected operating results assuming that rates are not adjusted and remain at current levels. Section 3.3 further below shows the projected operating results assuming that rates are adjusted to generate revenue that will meet the enterprise fund’s financial obligations over a five-year period.

3.2 Projected Operating Results if Rates are Not Adjusted Table 2 below shows the operating results for the solid waste enterprise fund if rates are not adjusted. Table 2 shows that the enterprise fund is currently experiencing an annual shortfall, which is expected to grow significantly over the next five years, if rates are not adjusted.

Table 2 – Projected Operating Results – Without Rate Adjustments Table 3 on the following page shows a breakdown by asset type of the projected capital expenditures included in the projected operating results.

Description Actual
FY 2020
Actual
FY 2021
Pre-audited
Actual
FY 2022
Projected
FY 2023
Projected
FY 2024
Projected
FY 2025
Projected
FY 2026
Projected
FY 2027
Projected
FY 2028
Revenues:

Rate Revenue $17,397 $17,347 $11,404 $6,769 $6,589 $6,654 $6,721 $6,788 $6,855 Other Revenue 7,808 6,409 5,837 4,940 5,022 5,151 4,848 4,444 4,722 Total $25,204 $23,756 $17,241 $11,708 $11,611 $11,805 $11,569 $11,231 $11,577 Expenditures:

Labor $9,955 $8,649 $6,107 $9,147 $8,297 $8,437 $8,578 $8,723 $8,869 Vehicles 4,100 3,635 3,584 3,723 4,142 3,612 3,684 3,758 3,833 Disposal/Processing 4,729 6,577 5,138 7,168 7,168 8,724 9,231 9,416 9,604 Overhead 5,547 6,820 5,268 3,364 4,442 4,561 4,640 4,673 5,004 Total Operating Expenses $24,330 $25,681 $20,098 $23,403 $24,050 $25,333 $26,133 $26,570 $27,311 Operating Surplus/(Shortfall) 874 (1,925) (2,857) (11,694) (12,439) (13,528) (14,564) (15,339) (15,734) Capital Expenditures (111) 0 4,735 1,220 4,315 3,165 466 4,387 3,320 Total Expenditures $24,219 $25,681 $24,832 $24,623 $28,365 $28,498 $26,600 $30,957 $30,631 Total Surplus/(Shortfall) $985 ($1,925) ($7,591) ($12,914) ($16,754) ($16,693) ($15,031) ($19,725) ($19,054) (in 000s)
309 of 704
8 of 21
Table 3 – Projected Capital Expenditures
Table 4 below analyzes the annual change in cash resulting from the projected annual shortfalls in the enterprise fund. Table 4 shows how the beginning cash balance is reduced by the annual shortfall. Table 4 shows that without adjusting its current rates, the enterprise fund is expected to deplete its cash balance sometime in fiscal 2024.

Table 4 – Analysis of Cash Without Rate Adjustments
Chart 2 on the following page shows how the annual operating results are projected to change the balance in the enterprise fund’s operating cash over the next five years if rates are not adjusted.

Description
Pre-audited
Actual
FY 2022
Projected
FY 2023
Projected
FY 2024
Projected
FY 2025
Projected
FY 2026
Projected
FY 2027
Projected
FY 2028
Sweepers $834 $911
Route Vehicles 1,655 830 1,790 640 434 3,476 3,198
Medium Duty Vehicles 50 40 32 123
Containers 1,546 350 2,525 2,525 0 0 0
Land Improvements 650 0 0 0 0 0 0
Total Capital Expenditures $4,735 $1,220 $4,315 $3,165 $466 $4,387 $3,320 (in 000s)
Description Actual
FY 2020
Actual
FY 2021
Pre-audited
Actual
FY 2022
Projected
FY 2023
Projected
FY 2024
Projected
FY 2025
Projected
FY 2026
Projected
FY 2027
Projected
FY 2028
Cash Reserve:

Beginning Cash $38,763 $35,621 $31,258 $26,199 $16,577 ($177) ($16,870) ($31,901) ($51,626) Operating Surplus/(Shortfall) 874 (1,925) (2,857) (11,694) (12,439) (13,528) (14,564) (15,339) (15,734) Capital Expenditures 111 0 (4,735) (1,220) (4,315) (3,165) (466) (4,387) (3,320) Other Changes to Cash (4,127) (2,438) 2,533 3,293 0 0 0 0 0 Ending Cash $35,621 $31,258 $26,199 $16,577 ($177) ($16,870) ($31,901) ($51,626) ($70,680) (in 000s)
310 of 704
9 of 21
Chart 2 – Projected Operating Results Without Rate Adjustments The red and blue bars in Chart 2 represent the relationship between operating expenses and current revenues, respectively. These show how the annual shortfall reduces the operating cash (green line) over time. Chart 2 graphically shows how, if rates are not adjusted, the cash balance in the solid waste enterprise fund will be completely depleted sometime during fiscal 2024.

3.3 Projected Operating Results with Proposed Rate Adjustments Table 5 on the following page shows the operating results for the solid waste enterprise fund if rates are adjusted. (Table 5 is comparable to Table 2, which shows the projected operating results without the rate adjustments). The detailed amounts for the revenue and expenditures shown in Table 5 are shown in Appendix A. Table 5 shows that, if rates are adjusted, the enterprise fund will continue to generate significant shortfalls in fiscal 2024 and fiscal 2025, however, these shortfalls will be progressively less severe as rates continue to be adjusted each year. The enterprise fund is projected to generate a modest surplus in fiscal 2026, followed by a modest shortfall in fiscal 2027. The shortfall in fiscal 2027 is mainly due to an increase in capital expenditures in that year. In fiscal 2028, the enterprise fund is projected to generate a surplus of approximately $2.7 million.
311 of 704
10 of 21
Table 5 – Projected Operating Results – With Rate Adjustments Table 6 below analyzes the annual change in operating cash resulting from the projected annual shortfalls and surpluses in the enterprise fund assuming that rates are adjusted. Table 6 is comparable to the analysis of cash balances in Table 4, which shows the impact on cash balances if rates were not adjusted. Table 6 shows that, if rates are adjusted, the cash balance in the enterprise fund is expected to decrease significantly in fiscal years 2023, 2024 and 2025, and range between approximately $2 million to $4 million over the following fiscal years.

Table 6 – Analysis of Cash With Proposed Rate Adjustment

3.4 Projected Long-term Operating Results with Proposed Rate Adjustments Chart 3 on the following page shows how the annual operating results are projected to change the balance in the enterprise fund’s operating cash over the next five yearsif rates are adjusted.

Description Actual
FY 2020
Actual
FY 2021
Pre-audited
Actual
FY 2022
Projected
FY 2023
Projected
FY 2024
Projected
FY 2025
Projected
FY 2026
Projected
FY 2027
Projected
FY 2028
Revenues:

Rate Revenue $17,397 $17,347 $11,404 $6,769 $12,519 $18,333 $23,145 $25,713 $28,567 Other Revenue 7,808 6,409 5,837 4,940 5,022 5,151 4,848 4,444 4,722 Total $25,204 $23,756 $17,241 $11,708 $17,541 $23,484 $27,994 $30,157 $33,289 Expenditures:

Labor $9,955 $8,649 $6,107 $9,147 $8,297 $8,437 $8,578 $8,723 $8,869 Vehicles 4,100 3,635 3,584 3,723 4,142 3,612 3,684 3,758 3,833 Disposal/Processing 4,729 6,577 5,138 7,168 7,168 8,724 9,231 9,416 9,604 Overhead 5,547 6,820 5,268 3,364 4,442 4,561 4,640 4,673 5,004 Total Operating Expenses $24,330 $25,681 $20,098 $23,403 $24,050 $25,333 $26,133 $26,570 $27,311 Operating Surplus/(Shortfall) 874 (1,925) (2,857) (11,694) (6,509) (1,849) 1,860 3,587 5,978 Capital Expenditures (111) 0 4,735 1,220 4,315 3,165 466 4,387 3,320 Total Expenditures $24,219 $25,681 $24,832 $24,623 $28,365 $28,498 $26,600 $30,957 $30,631 Total Surplus/(Shortfall) $985 ($1,925) ($7,591) ($12,914) ($10,824) ($5,014) $1,394 ($800) $2,658 (in 000s)
Description Actual
FY 2020
Actual
FY 2021
Pre-audited
Actual
FY 2022
Projected
FY 2023
Projected
FY 2024
Projected
FY 2025
Projected
FY 2026
Projected
FY 2027
Projected
FY 2028
Cash Reserve:

Beginning Cash $38,763 $35,621 $31,258 $26,199 $16,577 $5,753 $738 $2,132 $1,332 Operating Surplus/(Shortfall) 874 (1,925) (2,857) (11,694) (6,509) (1,849) 1,860 3,587 5,978 Capital Expenditures 111 0 (4,735) (1,220) (4,315) (3,165) (466) (4,387) (3,320) Other Changes to Cash (4,127) (2,438) 2,533 3,293 0 0 0 0 0 Ending Cash $35,621 $31,258 $26,199 $16,577 $5,753 $738 $2,132 $1,332 $3,990 (in 000s)
312 of 704
11 of 21
(Chart 3 is comparable to Chart 2, which showed the projected operating results if rates are not adjusted). Chart 3 shows how, if rates are adjusted, the cash balance in the solid waste enterprise fund will decrease significantly but remain positive over the next five years. Chart 3 shows that, assuming rates are adjusted, the enterprise fund will be able to meet its current and future financial obligations.

Chart 3 – Projected Operating Results With Rate Adjustments 313 of 704
12 of 21

4. RATE DESIGN
In this analysis, cost-based collection rates were designed for each level of service to achieve the revenue requirement. Rates were designed by identifying the ‘cause-and-effect’ relationship between the activities or use of resources (cost drivers), and the resulting costs incurred. As a result, the individual customer rates reflect the cost of service and proportionality requirements of Proposition 218.

4.1 Revenue Requirement
The revenue requirement is the total rate revenue that the enterprise fund must generate to meet its annual financial obligations. These obligations include covering its operating and capital expenditures, and maintaining its cash balance. The revenue requirement is comprised of operating and maintenance costs, and rate-funded capital expenditures, net of any other or nonrate revenues. Non-rate revenues include items such as grants, interest income, and AB 939 Fees, etc. The revenue requirement is decreased in years when the City uses its cash balance to help fund its operations; the revenue requirement is increased in years when the City increases its cash balance. Table 7 below shows the enterprise fund’s projected revenue requirements over the next five years. The annual revenue requirements in Table 7 are derived using the total annual expenditures and other revenue in Table 5, and the annual change in cash in Table 6.

Table 7 – Projected Revenue Requirements

4.2 Rate Design Method
Cost-based collection rates were designed by identifying the cost types associated with each of these cost ‘drivers’:
• Route Operating Cost - the time it takes to travel from stop to stop in the service area.

This cost was allocated among customers based on the number of pickups. For example, a multi-family customer with three bin pickups per week is allocated three times as much of this cost as a customer with one pickup per week.

Description Actual
FY 2020
Actual
FY 2021
Pre-audited
Actual
FY 2022
Projected
FY 2023
Projected
FY 2024
Projected
FY 2025
Projected
FY 2026
Projected
FY 2027
Projected
FY 2028
Revenue Requirement
Total Expenditures $24,219 $25,681 $24,832 $24,623 $28,365 $28,498 $26,600 $30,957 $30,631 Total Surplus/(Shortfall) ($12,914) ($10,824) ($5,014) $1,394 ($800) $2,658 Other Revenue (5,022) (5,022) (5,151) (4,848) (4,444) (4,722) Total Rate Revenue Requirement $6,686 $12,519 $18,333 $23,145 $25,713 $28,567 (in 000s)
314 of 704
13 of 21
• Disposal/Processing Tip Fee Cost – the cost of fees per ton incurred at disposal and processing sites. This cost was allocated among customers based on the amount of container capacity serviced per week. This is because the amount of container capacity serviced per week is a reasonable measure of the relative weight of waste collected and delivered to the landfill.
• Overhead – Indirect costs such as buildings, utilities, general and administrative costs were allocated proportionately based on the amount of direct cost allocated to each level of service.

4.3 Rate Design Calculations
Table 8 below, and Table 9, Table 10, Table 11 on the following pages show the 10 steps used to calculate the proposed cost-based rates according to the rate design method.

Table 8 – Allocated Rate Revenue Target
Column A B
Description Projected
FY 2024
Percent of
Total
Expenditures
Total Expenditures:
1 Labor $8,297,388
2 Vehicles 8,456,843
3 Subtotal - Route Operating Cost 16,754,230 59.07%
4 Disposal/Processing 7,168,400 25.27%
5 Overhead 4,442,467 15.66%
6 Total Expenditures $28,365,098 100.00%
7 Total Expenditures $28,365,098
8 Deduct Other Income (5,022,113)
9 Total Surplus/(Shortfall) (10,824,359)
10 Total Annual Rate Revenue Requirement $12,518,625
Allocated Revenue Requirement:
11 Route Operating Cost $7,394,296 59.07%
12 Disposal/Processing 3,163,695 25.27%
13 Indirect 1,960,634 15.66%
14 Total Allocated Rate Revenue Requirement $12,518,625 100.00% Step 3 - Allocate Total Revenue Target to Cost Pools based on Percent of Total Expenditures
Row
Step 1 - Organize Total Cost into Cost Pools (Route Operating; Disposal/Processing; and Overhead)
Step 2 - Determine Total Annual Revenue Requirement
315 of 704
14 of 21
Table 8 shows how the rate revenue requirement for the initial rates is calculated. The revenue requirement is the total amount of rate revenue needed for the enterprise fund to meet its financial obligations. For fiscal 2024, the revenue requirement is the $12,518,625 shown on Row 10 in Table 8.

Step 1 in Table 8 organizes the enterprise fund’s total expendituresfor the base year (fiscal 2024) into three pools of cost: 1) Route Operating Cost, 2) Disposal/Processing Cost, and 3) Indirect Costs.

Step 2 in Table 8 showsthe total amount of annualrate revenue thatthe initial rates are designed to generate. The total rate revenue requirement is equal to: 1) the enterprise fund’s total expenditures; less, 2) other income (non-rate revenues such as AB 939 Fees); less, 3) the projected shortfall (which is the amount of cash reserves used to fund the revenue requirement).

These amounts are shown on lines 7, 8, and 9 in Table 8. The total annual rate revenue requirement of $12,518,625 is shown on Row 10 and on Row 14 in Table 8.

Step 3 in Table 8 shows how the annual rate revenue target is allocated among the three cost pools based on their proportionate share of total expenditures. Table 8 also shows that Indirect Costs are 15.66% of total cost. This percentage will be used further below to assign indirect costs to the rates in Step 9 in Table 11.

Table 9 on the following page shows the operating cost statistics used to calculate the rates. Step 4 in Table 9 shows the calculation of the total number of gallons (on which Disposal/Processing Cost is assigned to the rates), and the total number of stops (on which Route Operating Cost is assigned to the rates). An equivalent stop factor was used to increase the weight of the stops for front loading bin service to reflect the fact that front loader routes take more time per stop than automated side loader routes.

Step 5 in Table 9 shows the calculation of the average Disposal/Processing Cost per Gallon, and the average Route Operating Cost per stop. The average Disposal/Processing Cost per Gallon is derived by dividing the Annual Disposal/Processing Cost Revenue Target (from line 12 of Table 8) by the total number of gallons per year. The average Route Operating Cost per stop is derived by dividing the Annual Route Operating Cost (from line 11 of Table 8) by the total number of stops per year.
316 of 704
15 of 21
Table 9 –Operating Cost Statistics
Table 10 on the following page shows the calculation of the Disposal/Processing Cost, and the Route Operating Cost, for each level of service. Step 6 in Table 10 calculates the monthly Disposal/Processing Cost per unit for each level of service by multiplying the average Disposal/Processing Cost per gallon by the gallons per month.

Step 7 in Table 10 calculates the monthly Route Operating Cost per unit for each level of service by multiplying the average Route Operating Cost per Stop by the stops per month. Step 8 in Table 10 calculates the direct cost per unit by combining the Disposal/Processing Cost per unit and the Route Operating Cost per unit.

Column A B C D E F G
Description Gallons
per Unit
Number
of Units
Gallons per
Month
Gallons per
Year
Number
of Stops
per Month
Stop
Adjustment
Factor
Stops per
Year
Automated Cart Service - Single Family
1 Standard 64 gallon cart 64 5,333 1,479,019 17,748,224 23,110 1 277,316 2 Standard 96 gallon cart 96 18,691 7,775,456 93,305,472 80,994 1 971,932 Automated Cart Service - Multi-family 2-4 unts
3 Standard 64 gallon cart 64 8,594 2,383,403 28,600,832 37,241 1 446,888 4 Standard 96 gallon cart 96 266 110,656 1,327,872 1,153 1 13,832 5 Additional 64 gallon cart 64 194 53,803 645,632 841 1 10,088 Front Loading Bin Service - MFR 2-4 units
6 One cubic yard bin 1/week 202 56 49,019 588,224 243 3 8,736 7 Two cubic yard bin 1/week 404 123 215,332 2,583,984 533 3 19,188 8 Three cubic yard bin 1/week 606 24 63,024 756,288 104 3 3,744 Front Loading Bin Service - Additional Pickups
9 One cubic yard bin 1/week 202 6 5,252 63,024 26 3 936 10 Two cubic yard bin 1/week 404 6 10,504 126,048 26 3 936 11 Three cubic yard bin 1/week 606 7 18,382 220,584 30 3 1,092 12 Total 33,300 12,163,849 145,966,184 144,300 1,754,688 Step 5 - Use Allocated Revenue Requirement to Calculate Average Disposal Cost per Gallon; Average Route Operating Cost per Stop Average Disposal Cost per Gallon
13 Annual Disposal/Processing Revenue Requirement $3,163,695 (from Row 12 in Step 3)
14 Gallons per Year 145,966,184
15 Disposal/Processing Revenue Requirement per Gallon $0.0217 Average Route Operating Cost per Stop
16 Annual Route Operating Revenue Requirement $7,394,296 (from Row 11 in Step 3)
17 Stops per Year 1,754,688
18 Annual Route Operating Revenue Requirement per Stop $4.21 Step 4 - Calculate Total Number of Annual Gallons and Stops Row 317 of 704
16 of 21
Table 10 – Direct Cost for Each Level of Service
Table 11 on the following page calculates the indirect cost per unit, and summarizes the cost per unit of all three types of cost to arrive at the cost-based rate for each level of service. Step 9 calculates the indirect cost per unit based on indirect cost as a proportionate share of total cost from Row 13 of Table 8. Step 10, the final step, combines the cost per unit of the Disposal/Processing Cost, Route Operating Cost, and the Indirect Cost to arrive at the cost per unit for each level of service. These cost per unit amounts are found in the proposed monthly rates in Table 1, and are used to recalculate the annual rate revenue in Table 12 and Table 13.

Column A B C D E F G H I
Description Gallons
per Unit
Gallons
per Month
per Unit
Cost per
Gallon
Disposal
Processing
Cost per
Month
Equivalent
Stops per
Unit
Stops per
Unit per
Month
Cost per
Stop
Route
Operating
Cost per
Month
Total Direct
Costs
Step 8 - Sum
of Disposal
and Route
Operating
Cost per
month
Automated Cart - Single Family
1 Standard 64 gallon cart 64 277 $0.0217 $6.01 1 4.33 $4.21 $18.26 $24.27 2 Standard 96 gallon cart 96 416 0.0217 9.02 1 4.33 4.21 18.26 27.28 Automated Cart - Multi-family 2-4 units
3 Standard 64 gallon cart 64 277 0.0217 6.01 1 4.33 4.21 18.26 24.27 4 Standard 96 gallon cart 96 416 0.0217 9.02 1 4.33 4.21 18.26 27.28 5 Additional 64 gallon cart 64 277 0.0217 6.01 1 4.33 4.21 18.26 24.27 Front Loading Bin - MFR 2-4 units
6 One cubic yard bin 1/week 202 875 0.0217 18.97 3 13.00 4.21 54.78 73.75 7 Two cubic yard bin 1/week 404 1,751 0.0217 37.94 3 13.00 4.21 54.78 92.73 8 Three cubic yard bin 1/week 606 2,626 0.0217 56.92 3 13.00 4.21 54.78 111.70 Front Loading Bin - Additional Pickups
9 One cubic yard bin 1/week 202 875 0.0217 18.97 3 13.00 4.21 54.78 73.75 10 Two cubic yard bin 1/week 404 1,751 0.0217 37.94 3 13.00 4.21 54.78 92.73 11 Three cubic yard bin 1/week 606 2,626 $0.0217 $56.92 3 13.00 $4.21 $54.78 $111.70 Row
Step 6 - Calculate Disposal/Processing cost per
month for each level of service
Step 7 - Calculate Route Operating Cost per
Month for each level of service
318 of 704
17 of 21
Table 11 – Indirect Cost and Sum of Total Cost for Each Level of Service

4.4 Projected Rate Revenue based on Proposed Rate Adjustments Table 12 on the following page, Table 13 on page 19, and Table 14 on page 20 show how the proposed rates, when extended by the number of customers at each level of service, meet the City’s annual projected revenue requirements in Table 7. Table 12 shows the recalculation of the revenue requirement for automated cart rates, Table 13 shows the recalculation of the revenue requirement for frontload bin rates, and Table 14 summarizes the total revenue requirement from each of these tables.

Table 12, Table 13, and Table 14 show that the rates implemented on July 1, 2023 will generate approximately $12,518,625 in annual revenue. This amount corresponds with the 2024 revenue requirement in Table 7. Table 14 shows the average increase in revenue in each year. In fiscal 2024, the proposed rates are projected to increase annual revenue an average of 90%. In each of the fiscal years after fiscal 2024, the average annual growth in revenue includes an additional 1% to reflect the volume growth in the number of customers.

A B C D E F G
Total Direct
Costs
Indirect
cost as
percent of
total cost
Indirect
Cost per
month
Disposal
Processing
Cost per
Month
Route
Operating
Cost per
Month
Indirect
Cost per
month
Total Cost
of Service
per month

24.27 15.66% $4.51 $6.01 $18.26 $4.51 $28.78

27.28 15.66% 5.07 9.02 18.26 5.07 32.34

24.27 15.66% 4.51 6.01 18.26 4.51 28.78

27.28 15.66% 5.07 9.02 18.26 5.07 32.34

24.27 15.66% 4.51 6.01 18.26 4.51 28.78

73.75 15.66% 13.70 18.97 54.78 13.70 87.45

92.73 15.66% 17.22 37.94 54.78 17.22 109.95
111.70 15.66% 20.74 56.92 54.78 20.74 132.44

73.75 15.66% 13.70 18.97 54.78 13.70 87.45

92.73 15.66% 17.22 37.94 54.78 17.22 109.95
111.70 15.66% $20.74 $56.92 $54.78 $20.74 $132.44
Step 9 - Calculate Indirect cost per
month for each level of service
Step 10 - Summarize Dispoal/Processing,
Route Operatng and Indirect Cost per month
319 of 704
18 of 21
Table 12 – Summary of Automated Cart Rate Revenue
Proposed
Rates
Effective
July 1, 2023
Proposed
Rates
Effective
July 1, 2023
Proposed
Rates
Effective
July 1, 2024
Proposed
Rates
Effective
July 1, 2025
Proposed
Rates
Effective
July 1, 2026
FY 2022 FY 2023 FY 2024 FY 2025 FY 2026 FY 2027 FY 2028 Customer Count
Automated Cart Service - Single Family
Standard 64 gallon cart 5,333 5,333 5,333 5,386 5,440 5,494 5,549 Standard 96 gallon cart 18,691 18,691 18,691 18,878 19,067 19,258 19,451 Automated Cart Service - Multi-family 2-4 unts
Standard 64 gallon cart 8,594 8,594 8,594 8,680 8,767 8,855 8,944 Standard 96 gallon cart 266 266 266 268 270 272 274
Additional 64 gallon cart 194 194 194 196 198 200 202
Monthly Rates
Automated Cart Service - Single Family
Standard 64 gallon cart $11.72 $11.72 $28.78 $41.73 $52.16 $57.38 $63.12 Standard 96 gallon cart 18.34 18.34 32.34 46.90 58.63 64.49 70.94 Automated Cart Service - Multi-family 2-4 unts
Standard 64 gallon cart 14.82 14.82 28.78 41.73 52.16 57.38 63.12 Standard 96 gallon cart 18.34 18.34 32.34 46.90 58.63 64.49 70.94 Additional 64 gallon cart $11.72 $11.72 $28.78 $41.73 $52.16 $57.38 $63.12 Annual Rate Revenue
Automated Cart Service - Single Family
Standard 64 gallon cart $750,033 $750,033 $1,841,743 $2,697,093 $3,405,005 $3,782,949 $4,203,035 Standard 96 gallon cart 4,113,515 4,113,515 7,254,195 10,624,538 13,414,779 14,903,381 16,558,247 Automated Cart Service - Multi-family 2-4 unts
Standard 64 gallon cart 1,528,357 1,528,357 2,967,924 4,346,597 5,487,441 6,097,199 6,774,543 Standard 96 gallon cart 58,541 58,541 103,238 150,830 189,961 210,495 233,251 Additional 64 gallon cart 27,284 27,284 66,998 98,149 123,932 137,712 153,003 Total Annual Automated Cart Rate Revenue $6,477,731 $6,477,731 $12,234,098 $17,917,208 $22,621,117 $25,131,736 $27,922,079 Description
Current Rates 320 of 704
19 of 21
Table 13 – Summary of Frontload Bin Rate Revenue
Proposed
Rates
Effective
July 1, 2023
Proposed
Rates
Effective
July 1, 2023
Proposed
Rates
Effective
July 1, 2024
Proposed
Rates
Effective
July 1, 2025
Proposed
Rates
Effective
July 1, 2026
FY 2022 FY 2023 FY 2024 FY 2025 FY 2026 FY 2027 FY 2028 Customer Count
Front Loading Bin Service - MFR 2-4 units
One cubic yard bin 1/week 56 56 56 57 58 59 60
Two cubic yard bin 1/week 123 123 123 124 125 126 127
Three cubic yard bin 1/week 24 24 24 24 24 24 24
Front Loading Bin Service - Additional Pickups
One cubic yard bin 1/week 6 6 6 6 6 6 6
Two cubic yard bin 1/week 6 6 6 6 6 6 6
Three cubic yard bin 1/week 7 7 7 7 7 7 7
Total Customers 222 222 222 224 226 228 230
Monthly Rates
Front Loading Bin Service - MFR 2-4 units
One cubic yard bin 1/week $33.00 $33.00 $87.45 $126.80 $158.50 $174.35 $191.79 Two cubic yard bin 1/week 45.35 45.35 109.95 159.42 199.28 219.21 241.13 Three cubic yard bin 1/week 58.15 58.15 132.44 192.04 240.05 264.06 290.47 Front Loading Bin Service - Additional Pickups
One cubic yard bin 1/week 22.63 22.63 87.45 126.80 158.50 174.35 191.79 Two cubic yard bin 1/week 22.63 22.63 109.95 159.42 199.28 219.21 241.13 Three cubic yard bin 1/week $22.63 $22.63 $132.44 $192.04 $240.05 $264.06 $290.47 Annual Rate Revenue
Front Loading Bin Service - MFR 2-4 units
One cubic yard bin 1/week 22,176 22,176 58,767 86,731 110,316 123,440 138,089 Two cubic yard bin 1/week 66,937 66,937 162,280 237,217 298,920 331,446 367,482 Three cubic yard bin 1/week 16,747 16,747 38,143 55,308 69,134 76,049 83,655 Front Loading Bin Service - Additional Pickups
One cubic yard bin 1/week 1,629 1,629 6,296 9,130 11,412 12,553 13,809 Two cubic yard bin 1/week 1,629 1,629 7,916 11,478 14,348 15,783 17,361 Three cubic yard bin 1/week $1,901 $1,901 $11,125 $16,131 $20,164 $22,181 $24,399 Total Annual Frontload Bin Rate Revenue $111,019 $111,019 $284,528 $415,995 $524,295 $581,452 $644,796 Description
Current Rates 321 of 704
20 of 21
Table 14 – Summary of Rate Revenue and Reconciliation to Revenue Requirement

Description Projected
FY 2022
Projected
FY 2023
Projected
FY 2024
Projected
FY 2025
Projected
FY 2026
Projected
FY 2027
Projected
FY 2028
Annual Automated Cart Rate Revenue $6,477,731 $6,477,731 $12,234,098 $17,917,208 $22,621,117 $25,131,736 $27,922,079 Annual Frontload Bin Rate Revenue 111,019 111,019 284,528 415,995 524,295 581,452 644,796 Total Annual Rate Revenue $6,588,750 $6,588,750 $12,518,625 $18,333,203 $23,145,412 $25,713,188 $28,566,875 Average Percent Increase in Rate Revenue
(includes 1% for customer growth after FY 2023 90% 46% 26% 11% 11% Reconcile to Revenue Requirement:

Annual Rate Revenue Target $12,518,625 $18,333,203 $23,145,412 $25,713,188 $28,566,875 322 of 704
21 of 21

5. PERCENT OF CUSTOMERS AFFECTED
Table 15 below shows the current rate, and the rate proposed to become effective July 1, 2023 along with the amount of the increase and percent change. The right-hand column shows the portion of total customers that will be affected by each percent change of rate adjustment.

Table 15 – Percent of Customers Affected
Description Current Rate
Proposed Rate
Effective July 1,
2023
Adjustment
Amount per
Month
Percent
Adjustment
Number of
Customers
Affected
Percent of Total
Customers
Affected
Automated Cart Service - Single Family
Standard 64 gallon cart $11.72 $28.78 $17.06 146% 5,333 16.0% Standard 96 gallon cart $18.34 $32.34 $14.00 76% 18,691 56.1% Automated Cart Service - Multi-family 2-4 unts
Standard 64 gallon cart $14.82 $28.78 $13.96 94% 8,594 25.8% Standard 96 gallon cart $18.34 $32.34 $14.00 76% 266 0.8% Additional 64 gallon cart $11.72 $28.78 $17.06 146% 194 0.6% Front Loading Bin Service - MFR 2-4 units
One cubic yard bin 1/week $33.00 $87.45 $54.45 165% 56 0.2% Two cubic yard bin 1/week $45.35 $109.95 $64.60 142% 123 0.4% Three cubic yard bin 1/week $58.15 $132.44 $74.29 128% 24 0.1% Front Loading Bin Service - Additional Pickups
One cubic yard bin 1/week $22.63 $87.45 $64.82 286% 6 0.0% Two cubic yard bin 1/week $22.63 $109.95 $87.32 386% 6 0.0% Three cubic yard bin 1/week $22.63 $132.44 $109.81 485% 7 0.0% Total 33,300 100.0%
323 of 704
Appendix A – Revenue and Expenditure Detail
A-1
Actual Actual Pre-audited
Actual Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected FY 19-20 FY 20-21 FY 21-22 FY 22-23 FY 23-24 FY 24-25 FY 25-26 FY 26-27 FY 27-28 Rate Revenue
Residential refuse fees $12,986,604 $12,989,259 $9,437,437 $6,588,750 $12,518,625 $18,333,141 $23,145,334 $25,713,102 $28,566,781 Commercial bin srv multi units 3,472,044 3,500,923 1,577,316 180,000 - - - - - Commercial bin srv business 902,808 831,148 358,048 - - - - - - Refuse bin drop off fees 35,430 25,273 31,278 - - - - - - Subtotal - Rate Revenue 17,396,886 17,346,603 11,404,079 6,768,750 12,518,625 18,333,141 23,145,334 25,713,102 28,566,781 Other Revenue
Disaster relief reimb federal - - - - - - - - -
Recyclables state grant 108,024 (50,104) 5,053 - 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 State grants 88,214 100,623 389,357 - - - - - -
Collectible jobs overhead - - - - - - - - -
Merchant fee charges (5,805) (10,904) (8,396) (5,000) - - - - - Commercial refuse fees 2,787,201 2,772,163 1,215,336 - - - - - - Bin Rental Fee (324) - - - - - - - -
Sale of recyclables 367,379 370,024 72,461 - - - - - -
AB 939 fees 2,836,900 2,317,607 3,080,449 3,402,831 3,800,000 3,952,000 4,110,080 4,274,483 4,445,463 Private hauler permit fees 33,144 37,152 41,304 10,000 44,000 44,880 45,778 46,693 47,627 Vehicle charges - - - - - - - - -
Equipment usage charges - - - - - - - - -
Rebate revenue - - - - - - - - -
Unclaimed money and property 11 338,456 603,549 - - - - - - Miscellaneous revenue 51,264 578,707 6,000 362,800 3,000 3,060 3,121 3,184 3,247 Misc. revenue - Host Fees - - - 800,000 880,000 1,056,000 538,560 - - Citywide collection revenue - - - - - - - - -
Interest income 762,098 454,002 369,662 369,000 230,113 29,535 85,293 53,298 159,606 Interest GASB31 686,921 (514,303) (1,595,208) - - - - - - Sales of property 92,550 16,000 1,657,135 - 15,000 15,300 15,606 15,918 16,236 Subtotal - Other Revenue $7,807,577 $6,409,423 $5,836,702 $4,939,631 $5,022,113 $5,150,775 $4,848,438 $4,443,576 $4,722,179 Total Revenue $25,204,463 $23,756,026 $17,240,781 $11,708,381 $17,540,738 $23,483,916 $27,993,772 $30,156,678 $33,288,960 Expenses
Labor
Salaries 4,012,860 3,993,128 3,684,504 4,723,117 4,459,188 4,526,076 4,593,967 4,662,876 4,732,820 Unfilled positions
Additional pay persable 16,357 19,621 11,142 7,362 8,423 8,549 8,678 8,808 8,940 Additional pay non-pers 88,341 85,741 78,119 78,011 70,509 71,567 72,640 73,730 74,836 Overtime 1,119,485 1,063,669 1,067,264 586,470 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 Hourly wages 119,480 98,538 132,152 219,062 172,123 174,705 177,325 179,985 182,685 Vacation and compensatory time 105,052 46,247 42,105 89,005 139,580 141,674 143,799 145,956 148,145 Sick leave 50,425 30,751 20,512 33,722 31,814 32,291 32,776 33,267 33,766 OPEB Funding Exp 29,267 16,456 21,166 26,482 27,407 27,818 28,235 28,659 29,089 Other benefits 38,289 40,547 36,990 14,375 13,410 13,611 13,815 14,022 14,232 Life insurance 6,400 7,575 6,313 8,090 6,633 6,766 6,901 7,039 7,180 Disability insurance 17,025 16,970 14,992 19,516 18,801 19,177 19,560 19,952 20,351 Vision insurance 14,376 14,135 11,710 13,111 11,698 11,932 12,170 12,414 12,662 Medical insurance 594,000 627,269 639,145 955,912 952,657 971,710 991,145 1,010,967 1,031,187 Dental insurance 31,465 30,682 26,388 29,368 26,605 27,137 27,679 28,233 28,798 Unemployment insurance 1,605 2,620 9,891 11,242 2,268 2,314 2,360 2,407 2,455 Workers compensation insurance 747,543 616,594 410,349 417,249 510,611 520,823 531,240 541,865 552,702 Medicare 71,946 70,123 67,392 76,422 71,263 72,689 74,142 75,625 77,138 Social security and PARS 3 18 - - - - - - -
PERS retirement 1,442,152 1,553,697 1,585,685 1,979,881 1,775,030 1,810,531 1,846,742 1,883,676 1,921,350 PERS cost sharing (172,693) (171,430) (140,571) (148,533) (106,447) (108,576) (110,747) (112,962) (115,221) PERS funding reversal (1,251,351) (1,372,518) (1,731,653) - - - - - - PERS GASB 68 expense 2,628,901 1,614,173 (198,168) - - - - - - PERS vacant positions 238,572 239,369 305,846 - 6,406 6,535 6,665 6,799 6,934 Auto allowance 5,113 5,418 5,957 6,791 (592) (604) (616) (628) (640) Subtotal - Labor $ 9,954,613 $ 8,649,393 $ 6,107,230 $ 9,146,655 $ 8,297,387 $ 8,436,725 $ 8,578,476 $ 8,722,690 $ 8,869,409 Description
324 of 704
Appendix A – Revenue and Expenditure Detail
A-2
Actual Actual Pre-audited
Actual Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected FY 19-20 FY 20-21 FY 21-22 FY 22-23 FY 23-24 FY 24-25 FY 25-26 FY 26-27 FY 27-28 Vehicles
Repairs to equipment 58,339 113,157 440 77,500 77,500 79,050 80,631 82,244 83,888 Vehicle maintenance - - - - - - - - -
Fuel natural gas - - - - - - - - -
Fuel gasoline - - - - - - - - -
Fuel diesel - - - - - - - - -
Fleet equipment rental 3,814,650 3,337,149 3,337,149 3,337,148 3,604,050 3,063,443 3,124,711 3,187,206 3,250,950 Liability Insurance 226,749 184,767 246,751 308,821 460,293 469,498 478,888 488,466 498,235 Subtotal - Vehicles $ 4,099,738 $ 3,635,073 $ 3,584,340 $ 3,723,469 $ 4,141,843 $ 3,611,991 $ 3,684,230 $ 3,757,916 $ 3,833,073 Disposal/Processing
Disposal/Processing 4,729,014 6,576,683 5,137,696 7,168,400 7,168,400 8,723,761 9,231,239 9,415,863 9,604,180 Landfill Sinking fund - - - - - - - - -
Subtotal - Disposal/Processing $ 4,729,014 $ 6,576,683 $ 5,137,696 $ 7,168,400 $ 7,168,400 $ 8,723,761 $ 9,231,239 $ 9,415,863 $ 9,604,180 Overhead
Repairs to buildings and grounds - - 15,443 - - - - - - Contract Services:

Billing Services 16,821 50,848 12,443 20,000 - 15,000 15,000 15,000 15,000 Landfill Maintenance 158,306 172,842 169,710 375,000 375,000 400,000 400,000 400,000 400,000 Outreach 144,233 556,062 135,797 394,491 602,000 614,000 626,000 639,000 652,000 Recycling Center Operations 55,804 33,829 17,358 185,000 385,000 185,000 205,000 215,000 230,000 Regulatory Compliance 113,690 246,481 203,620 556,548 556,548 572,500 572,500 597,500 612,500 Right--of-Way Cleaning 221,829 302,193 113,291 360,000 110,000 400,000 405,000 420,000 425,000 Temporary Labor 1,083,703 1,644,013 1,351,635 360,000 360,000 400,000 400,000 400,000 400,000 Waste Reduction Programs 80,174 137,416 230,997 405,000 405,000 325,000 350,000 375,000 545,000 Other Contract Services 151,913 48,144 32,082 38,350 73,350 75,000 77,000 79,000 81,000 Subtotal - Contract Services 2,026,473 3,191,828 2,266,933 2,694,389 2,866,898 2,986,500 3,050,500 3,140,500 3,360,500 Advertising - - 25,000 - - - - - -
Janitorial Services 981 2,689 1,979 - - - - - -
Postage 946 1,143 6,310 4,700 4,700 4,794 4,890 4,988 5,087 Travel 916 - - 2,000 2,000 2,040 2,081 2,122 2,165
Laundry and towel service 1,493 12,240 14,308 18,500 18,500 18,870 19,247 19,632 20,025 Training 8,547 7,229 10,056 76,500 76,500 78,030 79,591 81,182 82,806 Computer software 685 4,735 3,319 - - - - - -
Regulatory 33,356 28,061 35,421 132,200 157,200 160,344 163,551 166,822 170,158 Membership and dues 5,873 937 1,623 6,000 6,000 6,120 6,242 6,367 6,495 Periodicals and newspapers - 445 450 - - - - - -
Books - - - - - - - - -
Furniture and equipment 2,101 858 12,418 10,000 10,000 10,200 10,404 10,612 10,824 Computer hardware 36,316 - - - - - - - -
Office supplies 7,442 5,282 8,111 10,000 10,000 10,200 10,404 10,612 10,824 Small tools - 869 - 1,000 1,000 1,020 1,040 1,061 1,082 General supplies 292,042 372,216 89,901 330,000 330,000 336,600 343,332 350,199 357,203 Printing and graphics - 1,139 2,593 6,000 6,000 6,120 6,242 6,367 6,495 Uncollectable accounts 55,864 84,957 243,345 60,000 60,000 61,200 62,424 63,672 64,946 Business meetings 2,364 555 1,240 1,200 1,200 1,224 1,248 1,273 1,299 Miscellaneous 827 12,408 9,747 3,100 3,100 3,162 3,225 3,290 3,356 Discount earned and lost - - - - - - - - -
Utilities 49,921 47,669 58,012 65,618 72,180 73,624 75,096 76,598 78,130 Rent - - 8,114 - - - - - -
Cost allocation charge 789,494 803,711 829,498 896,279 852,924 724,985 739,485 754,275 769,360 ITD service charge 521,078 540,933 581,687 708,445 722,614 614,222 626,506 639,036 651,817 Building maint service charge 78,699 74,029 82,049 78,175 80,316 81,922 83,561 85,232 86,937 GWP municipal billing 481,553 481,553 481,553 481,553 481,553 491,184 501,008 511,028 521,248 Contractual cost reduction - (5,926) - - - - - - -
Electrice Vehicles and Infrastructure - - - - - -
Street sweeping offset (221,317) (474,490) (230,258) (234,863) (330,612) (244,351) Transfer to general fund 1,150,000 1,150,000 479,167 - - - - - - Projected Underexpenditures - - - (2,000,000) (845,727) (881,216) (915,704) (930,915) (962,036) Subtotal - Overhead $5,546,971 $6,819,560 $5,268,277 $3,364,342 $4,442,468 $4,560,887 $4,639,510 $4,673,341 $5,004,370 Total Operating Expenses $24,330,336 $25,680,709 $20,097,543 $23,402,866 $24,050,098 $25,333,364 $26,133,455 $26,569,810 $27,311,032 Description
325 of 704
Appendix A – Revenue and Expenditure Detail
A-3
Actual Actual Pre-audited
Actual Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected FY 19-20 FY 20-21 FY 21-22 FY 22-23 FY 23-24 FY 24-25 FY 25-26 FY 26-27 FY 27-28 Capital Expenditures
Asset Capitalization Adjustment (111,169)
Subtotal - FY 2022
Street Sweeper 445,000
Street Sweeper 388,571
Automated Sideloader 325,000
Automated Sideloader 365,000
Automated Sideloader 365,000
Automated Sideloader 365,000
Automated Sideloader 365,000
Automated Sideloader 365,000
Automated Sideloader 365,000
Automated Sideloader 365,000
Automated Sideloader 365,000
Automated Sideloader 365,000
Automated Sideloader 365,000
Automated Sideloader 365,000
Automated Sideloader 365,000
2011 Ford F350 Stake Bed with Liftgate 50,000
Asset Capitialization (1,503,848)
Underground Tank Removal 500,000
Temporary CNG Station 150,000
Subtotal - FY 2022 4,734,723
Pickup Truck 40,000
Mini rear loader 225,000
Mini rear loader 225,000
Mini Automated Sideloader 380,000
Containers 350,000
Subtotal - FY 2023 1,220,000
Rearloader 235,000
Rearloader 235,000
Automated Sideloader 450,000
Automated Sideloader 450,000
Automated Sideloader 420,000
Containers 2,525,000
Subtotal - FY 2024 4,315,000
Description
326 of 704
Appendix A – Revenue and Expenditure Detail
A-4
Actual Actual Pre-audited
Actual Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected FY 19-20 FY 20-21 FY 21-22 FY 22-23 FY 23-24 FY 24-25 FY 25-26 FY 26-27 FY 27-28 Automated Sideloader 320,000
Automated Sideloader 320,000
Containers 2,525,000
Subtotal - FY 2025 3,165,000
Automated Sideloader 434,157
Refuse-Bin Truck 32,200
Containers 0
Subtotal - FY 2026 466,357
Street Sweeper 455,258
Street Sweeper 455,258
Rearloader 390,460
Rearloader 398,230
Automated Sideloader 447,182
Automated Sideloader 447,182
Automated Sideloader 447,182
Automated Sideloader 448,289
Automated Sideloader 449,396
Automated Sideloader 448,289
Containers 0
Subtotal - FY 2027 4,386,726
Automated Sideloader 468,578
Automated Sideloader 468,578
Rolloff Truck 404,349
Automated Sideloader 464,018
Automated Sideloader 464,018
Automated Sideloader 464,018
Automated Sideloader 464,018
Flatbed Trucks, Single-Axle 87,992
Compact Pickup 34,672
Containers 0
Subtotal - FY 2028 3,320,241
Total Capital Expenditures (111,169) 0 4,734,723 1,220,000 4,315,000 3,165,000 466,357 4,386,726 3,320,241 Total Expenditures 24,219,167 25,680,709 24,832,266 24,622,866 28,365,098 28,498,364 26,599,812 30,956,536 30,631,273 Total Surplus/(Shortfall) 985,296 (1,924,683) (7,591,485) (12,914,485) (10,824,360) (5,014,448) 1,393,960 (799,858) 2,657,687 Description
327 of 704
Exhibit 2

RATE ADJUSTMENT TABLE
Description Current
Rate
Proposed
Rate Effective
July 1, 2023
Proposed
Rate Effective
July 1, 2024
Proposed
Rate Effective
July 1, 2025
Proposed Rate
Effective
July 1, 2026
Proposed Rate
Effective
July 1, 2027
Automated Cart Service - Single Family
Monthly Rate Standard 64 gallon cart $11.72 $28.78 $41.73 $52.16 $57.38 $63.12 Adjustment Amount $17.06 $12.95 $10.43 $5.22 $5.74
Adjustment Percent 146% 45% 25% 10% 10%
Monthly Rate - Standard 96-gallon cart $18.34 $32.34 $46.90 $58.63 $64.49 $70.94 Adjustment Amount $14.00 $14.56 $11.73 $5.86 $6.45
Adjustment Percent 76% 45% 25% 10% 10%
Automated Cart Service – Multi-family
residential (MFR) 2-4 units
Monthly Rate - Standard 64-gallon cart $14.82 $28.78 $41.73 $52.16 $57.38 $63.12 Adjustment Amount $13.96 $12.95 $10.43 $5.22 $5.74
Adjustment Percent 94% 45% 25% 10% 10%
Monthly Rate - Standard 96-gallon cart $18.34 $32.34 $46.90 $58.63 $64.49 $70.94 Adjustment Amount $14.00 $14.56 $11.73 $5.86 $6.45
Adjustment Percent 76% 45% 25% 10% 10%
Monthly Rate - Additional 64-gallon cart $11.72 $28.78 $41.73 $52.16 $57.38 $63.12 Adjustment Amount $17.06 $12.95 $10.43 $5.22 $5.74
Adjustment Percent 146% 45% 25% 10% 10%
Front Loading Bin Service –
MFR 2-4 units
Monthly Rate - One cubic yard bin 1/week $33.00 $87.45 $126.80 $158.50 $174.35 $191.79 Adjustment Amount $54.45 $39.35 $31.70 $15.85 $17.44
Adjustment Percent 165% 45% 25% 10% 10%
Monthly Rate - Two cubic yard bin 1/week $45.35 $109.95 $159.42 $199.28 $219.21 $241.13 Adjustment Amount $64.60 $49.47 $39.86 $19.93 $21.92
Adjustment Percent 142% 45% 25% 10% 10%
Monthly Rate - Three cubic yard bin
1/week $58.15 $132.44 $192.04 $240.05 $264.06 $290.47
Adjustment Amount $74.29 $59.60 $48.01 $24.01 $26.41
Adjustment Percent 128% 45% 25% 10% 10%
Front Loading Bin Service –
MFR 2-4 units - Additional Pickups
Monthly Rate - One cubic yard bin 1/week $22.63 $87.45 $126.80 $158.50 $174.35 $191.79 Adjustment Amount $64.82 $39.35 $31.70 $15.85 $17.44
Adjustment Percent 286% 45% 25% 10% 10%
Monthly Rate - Two cubic yard bin 1/week $22.63 $109.95 $159.42 $199.28 $219.21 $241.13 Adjustment Amount $87.32 $49.47 $39.86 $19.93 $21.92
Adjustment Percent 386% 45% 25% 10% 10%
Monthly Rate - Three cubic yard bin
1/week $22.63 $132.44 $192.04 $240.05 $264.06 $290.47
Adjustment Amount $109.81 $59.60 $48.01 $24.01 $26.41
Adjustment Percent 485% 45% 25% 10% 10%
328 of 704
329 of 704
330 of 704
331 of 704
332 of 704
333 of 704
334 of 704
335 of 704
336 of 704
337 of 704
338 of 704
339 of 704
340 of 704
341 of 704
342 of 704
343 of 704
344 of 704
345 of 704
346 of 704
347 of 704
348 of 704
349 of 704
350 of 704
351 of 704
352 of 704
353 of 704
354 of 704
355 of 704
356 of 704
357 of 704
358 of 704
359 of 704
360 of 704
361 of 704
362 of 704
363 of 704
364 of 704
365 of 704
366 of 704
367 of 704
368 of 704
369 of 704
370 of 704
371 of 704
372 of 704
373 of 704
374 of 704
375 of 704
376 of 704
377 of 704
378 of 704
379 of 704
380 of 704
381 of 704
382 of 704
& 247
Apr.212023 CHY ꢀLꢁꢂK
Parcel Owners: Seong V. Cho & Chu Youn Kim
2755 Montrose Ave. Montrose, ꢀA 91020
Ref. APN 5610-021-110
2023 HAY - I AH ll: 33
Parcel Owner: Diana Vicks
2757 Montrose Ave. Montrose, ꢀA 91020
Ref. APN 5610-021-111
Dear Glendale ꢀiꢁ Offꢃcials,
We are writing to express our strong opposition to the proposed solid waste rate increase in Glendale.

As resꢃdents of this city, we are deeply concerned about the negative impact that this increase will have on our community.

It is evident that the proposed solid waste rate increase will not only impose a financial burden on us but also on the entire Glendale community, particularly on those who are already struggling to make ends meet. Wꢃth the cost of lꢃving increasing rapidly, any additional financꢃal burden will only exacerbate the financial dꢃfficulties that many famꢃlies are facing. As such, we urge you to reconsider this rate ꢃncrease and explore alternatꢃve solutions that do not put such a heavy financial burden on residents.

Based on these concerns, we strongly oppose the proposed solid waste rate increase on us and urge you to priorꢃtize finding solutions that improve the quality and efficiency of waste managementseꢂꢃces in our city, while mꢃnimizing the fꢃnancꢃal burden on residents.

Thank you for your attention to this matter.

Sincerely,
SeongY. ꢀ
ꢀhu Youn Kim ꢀ
Diana Vides >�ꢀ
J
383 of 704
384 of 704
385 of 704
386 of 704
387 of 704
388 of 704
389 of 704
390 of 704
391 of 704
392 of 704
393 of 704
394 of 704
395 of 704
396 of 704
397 of 704
398 of 704
399 of 704
400 of 704
401 of 704
402 of 704
403 of 704
404 of 704
405 of 704
406 of 704
407 of 704
408 of 704
409 of 704
410 of 704
411 of 704
412 of 704
413 of 704
414 of 704
415 of 704
416 of 704
417 of 704
418 of 704
419 of 704
420 of 704
421 of 704
422 of 704
423 of 704
424 of 704
425 of 704
426 of 704
427 of 704
428 of 704
429 of 704
& 248
430 of 704
431 of 704
432 of 704
433 of 704
434 of 704
435 of 704
436 of 704
437 of 704
438 of 704
439 of 704
440 of 704
441 of 704
442 of 704
443 of 704
444 of 704
445 of 704
446 of 704
447 of 704
448 of 704
449 of 704
450 of 704
451 of 704
452 of 704
453 of 704
454 of 704
455 of 704
456 of 704
457 of 704
458 of 704
459 of 704
460 of 704
461 of 704
462 of 704
463 of 704
464 of 704
465 of 704
466 of 704
467 of 704
468 of 704
469 of 704
470 of 704
471 of 704
472 of 704
473 of 704
474 of 704
475 of 704
476 of 704
477 of 704
478 of 704
479 of 704
480 of 704
481 of 704
482 of 704
483 of 704
484 of 704
485 of 704
486 of 704
487 of 704
488 of 704
489 of 704
490 of 704
491 of 704
492 of 704
493 of 704
494 of 704
495 of 704
496 of 704
497 of 704
498 of 704
499 of 704
500 of 704
501 of 704
502 of 704
503 of 704
504 of 704
505 of 704
506 of 704
507 of 704
508 of 704
509 of 704
510 of 704
511 of 704
512 of 704
513 of 704
514 of 704
515 of 704
516 of 704
517 of 704
518 of 704
519 of 704
520 of 704
521 of 704
522 of 704
523 of 704
524 of 704
525 of 704
526 of 704
527 of 704
528 of 704
529 of 704
530 of 704
531 of 704
532 of 704
533 of 704
534 of 704
535 of 704
536 of 704
537 of 704
538 of 704
539 of 704
540 of 704
541 of 704
542 of 704
543 of 704
544 of 704
545 of 704
546 of 704
547 of 704
548 of 704
549 of 704
550 of 704
551 of 704
552 of 704
553 of 704
554 of 704
555 of 704
556 of 704
557 of 704
558 of 704
559 of 704
560 of 704
561 of 704
562 of 704
563 of 704
564 of 704
53 &
53 247
247
565 of 704
94 &
248
94 248
566 of 704
567 of 704
568 of 704
569 of 704
570 of 704
571 of 704
572 of 704
573 of 704
574 of 704
575 of 704
576 of 704
577 of 704
578 of 704
579 of 704
580 of 704
263
581 of 704
582 of 704
583 of 704
584 of 704
585 of 704
586 of 704
587 of 704
588 of 704
589 of 704
590 of 704
591 of 704
592 of 704
593 of 704
594 of 704
595 of 704
596 of 704
597 of 704
598 of 704
599 of 704
600 of 704
601 of 704
602 of 704
603 of 704
604 of 704
605 of 704
606 of 704
607 of 704
608 of 704
609 of 704
610 of 704
611 of 704
612 of 704
613 of 704
614 of 704
615 of 704
616 of 704
617 of 704
618 of 704
619 of 704
620 of 704
621 of 704
622 of 704
623 of 704
624 of 704
625 of 704
626 of 704
627 of 704
628 of 704
629 of 704
630 of 704
631 of 704
632 of 704
633 of 704
634 of 704
635 of 704
636 of 704
637 of 704
638 of 704
639 of 704
640 of 704
641 of 704
324
ꢀ----_ꢁꢂV GLꢃꢄꢅꢆ
- - -
ꢄ-ZꢅꢆjJ '
-
�Iꢀf_@l/ꢁꢂꢃ7 1013 N-5 ANI0=41
-- (J?J ꢀk,ꢁꢀ Uj -- �1- C/1 ꢀ!U(
- - - - - - ꢀ,e ��/
ꢀꢁ fro��ꢂ-ꢃ� ��-
-
-.
_
-
--�1� ꢀꢁ
�-ꢀ

w,
-
-0-- rJ _ · · -k-
-_-_--- =( -
/
-- 1 I f
- -- -l - -
__- -ꢁꢂꢃꢄ - - -------- =:-: _
- - - - - -
-
-
ꢀ � - -
- ,
<
- - - -- - �
ꢀ ꢀ 642 of 704
325
643 of 704
644 of 704
645 of 704
646 of 704
647 of 704
648 of 704
649 of 704
650 of 704
651 of 704
652 of 704
653 of 704
654 of 704
655 of 704
656 of 704
657 of 704
658 of 704
659 of 704
660 of 704
661 of 704
662 of 704
663 of 704
664 of 704
665 of 704
666 of 704
667 of 704
668 of 704
669 of 704
670 of 704
671 of 704
672 of 704
673 of 704
674 of 704
675 of 704
676 of 704
677 of 704
678 of 704
679 of 704
680 of 704
681 of 704
682 of 704
683 of 704
684 of 704
685 of 704
686 of 704
687 of 704
688 of 704
689 of 704
690 of 704
691 of 704
692 of 704
693 of 704
694 of 704
695 of 704
696 of 704
697 of 704
698 of 704
699 of 704
700 of 704
701 of 704
702 of 704
703 of 704
704 of 704